BCC Minutes 10/14-15/2008 R
October 14-15, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 14-15, 2008
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: Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
Fred Coy Ie
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
October 14,2008
9:00 AM
Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Vice- Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-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
October 14,2008
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 VERBA TIM 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) 252-8380; 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
A. Minister Paul Jarrett, Naples Church of Christ
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. September 4, 2008 - BCC/Budget Hearing
C. September 7, 2008 - BCClHurricane Ike Emergency Meeting
D. September 9-10, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. September 18, 2008 - BCC/Budget Hearing
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards:
Page 2
October 14,2008
5- Year Recipients:
1) Sydney Blum - County Government Productivity Committee
2) Clay Brooker - Development Services Advisory Committee
3) Reginald Buxton - Collier County Citizens Corps
4) Robert Murray - Collier County Planning Commission
5) Irene Williams - Black Affairs Advisory Board
10-Year Recipients:
6) Wilfred Jaeger - Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating October, 2008 as Breast Cancer Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Miriam Ross, Executive Director, Susan G.
Komen for the Cure Southwest Florida.
B. Proclamation designating the month of October, 2008 as National Code
Compliance Month. To be accepted by Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement
Director.
C. Proclamation designating October 21 st through October 31, 2008 as Red
Ribbon Week. To be accepted by Chief Scott Salley, Collier County
Sheriffs Office.
D. Proclamation designating October 14,2008 as Murray Hendel Day. To be
accepted by Murray Hendel.
E. Proclamation designating Friday, October 24,2008 as The Day of the Red
Walk In Collier County. To be accepted by JoAnne Grieco, Lely Elementary
Vice Principal.
F. Proclamation designating October 18, 2008 as NAACP Freedom Fund Day.
To be accepted by Cheryl Seals Gonzalez, Harold Weeks and Anthony
Page 3
October 14,2008
Denson.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation to Lindy Adelstein for his seven years of service to the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and to the citizens of Collier
County while serving as a Planning Commissioner, Collier County Planning
Commission from September 25,2001 to August 7, 2008. Presented by
Commissioner Donna Fiala.
B. Recommendation to recognize Alicia Abbott, Project Manager, Public
Utilities Engineering Department, as Employee of the Month for September
2008.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by John Barlow to discuss single family foreclosures
- problem or opportunity?
B. Public petition request by Brad Cornell to discuss an energy efficiency
proposal.
C. This item was continued from the September 23,2008 BCC meeting. Public
petition request by Clay Brooker to discuss delayed improvements at Pine
Ridge Road/Whippoorwill Lane intersection and associated fines.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on October 15, 2008. This item
requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members.
Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all participants are required to be
sworn in. ADA-2008-AR-13529 Theodore J. Raia, Jr., requesting an
administrative appeal of the previously approved SDPA-AR-12644. The
applicant believes the approval of SDP A-AR-12644 violates the Pelican Bay
Planned Unit Development Ordinance (Ordinance No. 04-59) and the
Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41) as they
existed on the dates the plan was submitted and approved. The subject
property is located in Waterpark Place, Phases III and IV in the Pelican Bay
Page 4
October 14, 2008
PUD, in Section 4, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida. The
back up information for this item is located at the Board of County
Commissioners Office, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m., after Item 12B. This item requires
that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission Members. Should a
hearinl! be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn
in. Petition CPSP-2007 -7, School Concurrency Growth Management Plan
amendments Capital Improvement Element (CIE); Intergovernmental
Coordination Element (ICE); Future Land Use Element and Map Series;
Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Element; Immokalee Area Master
Plan (lAMP) Element; and new Public School Facilities Element and
support document and Public School Facility Planning and School
Concurrency Interlocal Agreement (Adoption Hearing).
B. Public Hearing for the 2006 Cycle of Growth Management Plan
Amendments. (Adoption Hearing)
C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914, Germain Properties of
Columbus, Inc., represented by Dominick 1. Amico. P.E., of Agnoli, Barber
and Brundage, Inc. and Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, ofRW A, requesting a
rezone from Planned Unit Development Ordinance No. 90-50 to
Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as Germain
Toyota CPUD. The purpose of the request is to increase the maximum
building area from the current maximum of 60,000 square feet to a
maximum of 130,000 square feet. The 13.05+ acre subject property is
located at 13329 Tamiami Trail North; lying in the southwest quadrant of
the intersection of Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Wiggins Pass Road
(CR-888), Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. (CTS)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Historical! Archaeological Preservation
Board.
Page 5
October 14,2008
B. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
D. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
E. To discuss continuation of the annual performance appraisal for the
Executive Manager to the Board of County Commissioners.
F. Recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement with Lee County
regarding the administration of each Countys Local Vendor Preference
Policy.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Review the Port of the Islands Marina and boat launch facility purchase
options and obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners on
how to proceed. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
B. That the Board of County Commissioners (Board) provide staff guidance as
to how to proceed regarding the direction from the Board to amend the Land
Development Code (LDC) in order to address changes to the Land
Development Code regarding the parking of boats on trailers and
recreational vehicles in a front yard for more than six (6) hours. (Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, CDES)
C. Recommendation to consider the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory
Committees recommendation to reduce the membership of the Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee from 13 members to 9 members and
to extend the Committees term 3 years. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
CDES)
D. Recommendation to approve award of Bid 08-5078 in the Amount of
$1,887,800 to Douglas N. Higgins for Master Pump Station 302
Improvements and Purchase order to ITT FL YGT to purchase pumps in the
amount of$471,588 for a total amount of$2,359,388, Project 72548 and
72549. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
Page 6
October 14, 2008
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement with the Agency for Health
Care Administration in the amount of $2,789,131 to participate in the
Medicaid Low Income Pool Program for services provided on behalf of the
Housing and Human Services Department in order to generate an additional
$485,309 in Federal matching funds. (Marcy Krumbine, Housing and
Human Services Director)
F. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides
guidance to staff on whether to pursue a policy for reimbursement of
mileage expenses to Advisory Board Members and, if so, provides further
direction as to the parameters and conditions for said reimbursement. (Len
Price, Administrative Services Administrator)
G. Request for the Board of County Commissioners to consider access
alternatives at the intersection of Whippoorwill Lane and Dudley Road.
(Nick Casalanguida, TransportationIPlanning Director)
H. Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
approves and authorizes the Chairman to sign a joint letter from Collier
County and Broward County to the Florida Department of Transportation
expressing unified opposition to the leasing of Alligator Alley to private
entities. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from
the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2008, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the
Commission conference room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building,
Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples,
Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager James Mudd,
County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and Litigation Section Chief
Jacqueline Williams Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive
session will discuss: Settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation
expenditures in the pending litigation case of Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and
Mary P. Hussey and Winchester Lakes Corporation v. Collier County, The
Page 7
October 14,2008
Honorable Charlie Crist, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs,
Case No. 08-6933-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida.
B. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. For the Board of County
Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney regarding
settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the
pending litigation case of Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and Mary P. Hussey and
Winchester Lakes Corporation v. Collier County, The Honorable Charlie
Crist, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 08-6933-
CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enters into a
Developer Agreement with DAD Development Corp., the Developer of
Pebblebrooke, which Agreement would buffer and otherwise mitigate the
impact of the two-story building on the adjoining residential neighborhood,
in exchange for resolving any dispute the County may presently have with
respect to this building.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to 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,
Page 8
October 14, 2008
Section 2-11
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes,
recommending that the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and
Economic Development approve Milano Series International
Products, Ltd. as a qualified target industry business, confirming that
the commitments of local financing necessary to support this target
industry are in place, and appropriating a total of $16,000 as local
participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program
(QTI) for Fiscal Years 2012-2017.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the application by Milano Series International Products Ltd., for the
Job Creation Investment Program and the Property Tax Stimulus
Program.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearine: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Ave Maria Phase Four,
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution prohibiting the operation of
trucks and other commercial vehicles having a rated load-carrying
capacity in excess of one (1) ton from through-movements on Oaks
Boulevard at a cost of $200.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
the Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (and other signatories) and authorize the Chairman to sign the
document.
3) Recommendation to award a Construction Contract to Bonness, Inc.
for Radio Road (C.R. 858) median improvements from Kings Way to
Tina Lane in the amount of $516,505.46, Bid #08-5116, Project
Page 9
October 14,2008
#66065.
4) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing a speed limit
increase from 35 mph to 45 mph on Goodlette Frank Road for the
northbound section from one-half mile south of Pine Ridge Road to
Pine Ridge Road.
5) Recommendation to approve the agreement between the State of
Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County to accept
bicycles and a demonstration trailer, which shall solely be used within
Collier County consistent with the Safe Routes To School program
goals and guidelines.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement (McDonalds, Immokalee
Road aka CR846 from US 41 TO 1-75) with two (2) roadway
recognition signs at a total cost of $150.00.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement (Chrome Diva's
Motorcycle Club, Weber Boulevard North) with two (2) roadway
recognition signs at a total cost of$150.00.
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement and accept a Drainage
Access and Maintenance Easement required for the Bayshore Drive &
Thomasson Drive Stormwater Improvement Project. Project #511341
- Estimated fiscal impact $54,030.00.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement (Hamilton Harbor Yacht
Club, Fern, Bay and Danford Streets) with no fiscal impact for
roadway recognition signage involved.
10) Recommendation to approve two I-year traffic reservation extensions
associated with the approval of the Traffic Impact Statement
submitted with the Cirrus Point SDP AR # 1 0427.
11) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize revenue recieved from the FY2007
5309 Federal Transit Administration (FT A) grant in the amount of
Page 10
October 14,2008
$238,000.
12) To gain approval from the Board of County Commissioners of an
exception to the current hiring freeze policy to authorize the
Stormwater Management Section of the Road Maintenance
Department (Transportation Division) to advertise for and replace a
vacated essential Project Manager position
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reject all
bids received for Bid #08-5040 for the construction of the Old US 41
Stormwater Improvements.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 08-5098 for the furnishing
and delivery of Membrane Scale Inhibitor to American Water
Chemicals in the estimated amount of $150,000.
2) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to appropriate
funds in the amount of $86,434 to reimburse the Collier County
Transportation Department for the installation of casing crossings
associated with the Reliability Wells Project, 71062.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, as Ex-Officio Board of the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, to adopt a Resolution approving a Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) Standard form Utility Work Agreement and
a FDOT Standard form Utility Work by Highway Contractor
Agreement regarding Collier County relocating its utility facilities
necessitated by FDOT replacing the Vanderbilt Drive (CR 901)
Bridge over the Cocohatchee River, Projects 70045 and 73045 and
authorizing the Chairman to execute those Agreements. ($34,500)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
MetLIfe Foundation/Smithsonian Institution Community Grant
agreement for the development and implementation of a public
program related to Beyond Baseball: The Life of Roberto Clemente in
the amount of$2,200.00 and approve the necessary budget
Page 11
October 14,2008
amendments.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 181, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc.(Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 182, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 183, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 184, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 185, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 186, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Page 12
October 14, 2008
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 187, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 188, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 189, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 190, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 191, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 192, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 1000/0 of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 193, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
Page 13
October 14,2008
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 194, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $400,000.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to The Empowerment Alliance Corporation of S W Florida for
installation of infrastructure on a 14 acre site (Esperanza Place) in
Immokalee, FL.
17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement with the Agency for
Health Care Administration in the amount of $78,050 to be used as
the local government match for State and Federal funding to operate
the Horizons Primary Care Center.
18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $30,000.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to Immokalee Non-Profit, Inc. for a Facility Manager for
Immokalee Non-Profit Housing, Inc.
19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $33,217.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
operating grant to The Collier County Housing Development
Corporation (CCHDC) to assist a Community Housing Development
Organization (CHDO)with their operations of affordable housing
opportunities for low to moderate income families throughout Collier
County.
20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $99,653.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to The Empowerment Alliance Corporation of SW Florida for
Acquisition of a six acre parcel in Immokalee, FL for the development
of twenty-eight (28) single-family homes (Esperanza Place) that will
Page 14
October 14, 2008
be sold to families earning 80% or less of median family income
(approximately 235 persons will benefit).
21) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $92,817.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) to St. Matthews House, Inc. to
provide emergency sheltering, temporary housing and direct services
for the homeless of Collier County and to assist with the employee
salaries, operations and maintenance of the St. Matthews House
facility.
22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $900,000.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. for
infrastructure.
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $246,000.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to LaneMark Investments, Inc. who will undertake the
construction and development of thirty-six (36) affordable workforce
housing units known as The Townhomes at Esperanza which will be
located on Myrtle Lane, Naples, FL.
24) Recommendation for the BCC to approve an amendment to a
previously executed sub-lease agreement with the City of Marco
Island for boat dock improvements and usage of the Caxambas boat
dock marina.
25) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to sign contract amendments between Collier County
Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of
Southwest Florida, Inc., and approve budget amendments to reflect
funding for the FY08-09 program year in the amount of $827,715.
26) To enter into an agreement with Financial Marketing Concepts, Inc.
for the production and distribution of a discount pharmacy card for
Page 15
October 14, 2008
residents of Collier County.
27) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $100,000.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to Youth Haven, Inc. to provide comprehensive and intervention
services for at-risk families with young children who are recently
homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.
28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $25,000.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to Fun Time Early Childhood Academy, Inc. for the demolition
of its current building, and the return of the present site to its original
condition.
29) Present to the Board of County Commissioners a summary of the
Impact Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY09,
including the total number of Agreements approved, the total dollar
amount deferred and the balance remaining for additional deferrals in
FY09.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the agreement with
Johns Eastern Company for property and casualty claims adjusting
services in the amount of$77,000.
2) Recommendation to authorize and consent to the re-assignment of
Contract No. 06-3959, Annual Contract for Analytical Laboratory
Services for Collier County from ELAB Inc. to Pace Analytical
Services Inc. and to release ELAB, Inc. from liability after the
effective date of the Boards consent.
3) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
Page 16
October 14,2008
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Cooperative Agreement 40 1818G563 and Application for Federal
Assistance from the United States Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service in the amount of $11 ,460 for the purchase of
equipment and protective clothing for the Ochopee Fire Control
District, authorize the Chairman to sign, and approve all necessary
budget amendments.
2) Approve Budget Amendments.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
4) Authorization of a budget amendment reducing the budgeted transfer
to the Clerk to the Board by $60,000 in the Fiscal Year 2008-09
Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
payment from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Fund 187 in the
amount of $75,000 plus cost and expenses to complete the sale of
subject property. Site address: 3258 Lunar St. ($75,000).
2) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant
Agreement(s)between the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency and a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway
Triangle Community Redevelopment area. (2737 Shoreview Drive)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning request Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Henning
attended Sheriff Don Hunter's retirement party on October 4,2008.
Page 17
October 14, 2008
$45.00 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coyle requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended Sheriff Don Hunter's Retirement Party on October 4, 2008 at
the Hilton Hotel in Naples, Florida. $45.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coyle's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended Sheriff Don Hunters Retirement Party on October 4th, 2008
at the Hilton Hotel in Naples, FL. $45.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida Advisory
Board Reception on October 30, 2008 at the Holocaust Museum.
$20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 13, 2008 through September 19, 2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 20, 2008 through September 26, 2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 27,2008 through October 03, 2008 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Page 18
October 14, 2008
1) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Release in
the lawsuit styled Casimir Bator v. Collier County, Case No. 07-0065-
CA. (Fiscal Impact $20,491.00)
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
the First Amendment to the Collier County Emergency Services
Medical Consultant Contract, which amends the agreement by having
Dr. Tober report directly to the Board of County Commissioners, and
to authorize the Chairman to execute same and authorize use of new
letterhead.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
a representative of the County Attorneys Office to bid on behalf of the
County at code enforcement lien foreclosure sales scheduled by the
Clerk in BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. JEAN
CLAUDE MARTEL, Circuit Court Case No. 06-1902-CA, in an
amount not to exceed the value of the Countys foreclosed lien interest
(approximately $180,000).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION 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 ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. Should a hearine: be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition A VPLA T-
2008-AR-13356, Pelican Bay Community Center, to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the Countys and the Publics interest in the dedication of the upland
conservation area designated as Tract 1 to Pelican Foundation of Naples,
Inc., according to the plat thereof of Pelican Bay Unit Sixteen Parcel B,
Page 19
October 14, 2008
Replat, recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 22 of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, situated in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, and specifically depicted and described in Exhibit
A.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2008-AR-
13063, Silver Lakes Property Owners Association of Collier County, Inc.,
represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A Consulting, Inc. request a PUD
Amendment to the Silver Lakes PUD (Ordinance No. 05-14) to provide
additional living space for specific accessory structures. The 146-acre
subject property is located approximately one and a half miles south of the
Tamiami Trail (US 41) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection in
Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida.
(CTS)
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget. ($8,510,012.77)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 20
October 14, 2008
October 14-15,2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Welcome to the
Board of Commissioners' Regular Meeting October 14th, 2008.
Today's invocation will be given by Minister Paul Jarrett from
the Naples Christian -- Naples Church of Christ, and following that
we're going to have the Pledge of Allegiance. So would you all rise.
MR. JARRETT: Heavenly Father, we thank you for the beauties
of your creation that surround us and we thank you for the privilege of
living in such a beautiful part of your world.
We also give you thanks at this time for all those people who
help to make this place not only attractive to the eye but also to the
spirit, we thank you for those who minister to those who are battling
with illnesses such as cancer, we thank you for those who intercede on
behalf of the poor, we thank you for those who give attention to
addressing those problems that we do struggle with, both
economically and in other areas, and we thank you for those who are
willing to give of their time and positions of leadership and service to
you and to this community.
We ask that you would bless these proceedings today, that
everything would be carried out in a spirit of good will and that the
greater cause of what is best for this community will always be served,
that our concerns will be for every citizen from those in positions of
influence to those who are maybe numbered among the weakest in our
number. I pray that our compassion might show forth to them.
We ask that you would bless these proceedings in all things in
accordance with your will, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, you walk us
through the change list --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 2
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for today's meeting?
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioner's Meeting, October 14th, 2008.
Item lOA. Options 3A and 3B have been provided as additional
backup material for the review of the Port of the Islands marina and
boat launch facility purchase. The additional backup material has
been distributed and made available for review. Now, that's at staffs
request.
The next item is 16A3. Page 2 under considerations of the
executive summary, the approximate salaries should be as follows:
Management, $59,052 rather than $63,972; research and development,
$52,342 rather than $53,341; and distribution center, $62,034 rather
than 46,000 -- let's say it again. Distribution center, $62,034 rather
than $46,525. That clarification's at staffs request.
The next is to move Item 16B2 to 101. It's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners approves the memorandum
of agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
signatories and authorizes the chairman to sign the document. This
item is being asked to be moved by Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Halas.
The next item is 16B5. The title of the resolution should read:
Resolution number, to be determined after today, 2008 rather than
2007. That clarification's at staffs request.
The next item is Item 16D21. The dollar amount as shown in the
agenda index should be $94,007 rather than $92,817. All backup
material is correct. Again, clarification's at the staffs request.
Page 3
October 14-15, 2008
The next item is to move Item 16D22 to 1 OJ. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the chairman to sign a sub-recipient agreement
providing for a $900,000 Housing and Urban Development grant to
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., for infrastructure. This
item is being moved at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is Item 16D23. For clarification, the townhomes at
Esperanza located on Myrtle Lane in East Naples, Florida.
Clarification's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is Item 16D28. The last sentence in the second
paragraph under considerations should read: The new facility is
located at 102 12th Street North in the City of Naples and will be
completed by December 31 st, 2008, rather than December 31 st, 2009.
That clarification is at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next item is Item 16K2. The recommendation in the executive
summary should read that the Board of County Commissioners
approves the first amendment to the Collier County Emergency
Services Medical Consultant contract dated September 11, 2001, and
authorizes the chairman -- excuse me -- authorizes the board chairman
to execute same and authorizes use of the new letterhead, and that
clarification and update is at staffs request.
Commissioners, you have a number of time certain items over
the next two days on this agenda. First item is Item 7 A, to be heard at
nine a.m. on Wednesday, October 15th, 2008. This item requires that
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn
.
In.
It's ADA-2008-AR-13529, Theodore J. Raia, Jr., requesting an
administrative appeal of the previously approved SDPA-AR-12644.
The applicant believes the approval of the SDP-12644 violates the
Pelican Bay planned unit development ordinance. Again, that item,
7 A, will be heard at nine a.m. on Wednesday, tomorrow morning,
Page 4
October 14-15, 2008
October 15th.
The next time item (sic) that you have today is Item 12A to be
heard at noon. This is -- notice is hereby given that pursuant to
section 186.011(8) of the Florida Statutes, the County Attorney desires
advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed
attorney-client session on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008, at a time
certain of 12 noon in the commission conference room, third floor, W.
Harmon Turner building, Collier County Government Center, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
In addition to the board members, County Manager Jim Mudd,
County Attorney JeffKlatzkow, and Litigation Section Chief
Jacqueline Williams Hubbard will be in attendance.
The board, in executive session, will discuss the settlement
negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the
pending litigation case of Francis D. Hussey, Jr., and Mary P. Hussey
and Winchester Lakes Corporation versus Collier County, the
Honorable Charlie Crist, and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, case number 08-6933-CA now pending in the 20th Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
After the 12 noon shade session, the board will come out at 1
p.m. in the sunshine and will discuss their directions to the staff on the
case that I just described, which is the litigation case of Francis D.
Hussey, Jr., and Mary P. Hussey and Winchester Lakes Corporation
versus Collier County, the Honorable Charlie Crist, and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, case number 08-6933-CA.
The next time certain item you have, right after you're finished
with 12B, which I just described above, you'll go into your paragraph
8 items, your zoning items, and this is -- this is the one that has to do
with school concurrency. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. Should a hearing be held on this
item, all participants are required to be sworn in. It's petition
CPSP-2007-7, school concurrency Growth Management Plan
Page 5
October 14-15, 2008
amendments, Capital Improvement Element, Intergovernmental
Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element and Map Series,
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Immokalee Area Master Plan
Element, and new Public Schools Facilities Element and support
document and the Public School Facilities Planning and School
Concurrency Interlocal Agreement, and that is the adoption hearing.
Again, that will be heard after 12B, and school concurrency is Item
8A.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have any further comments or changes
to today's agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to ex parte
communications and further changes to the agenda by the
commissioners, Commissioner Coyle has a Canvassing Board meeting
at 9:45. So my question to Commissioner Coyle, is there any items
that you would like us to defer until you come back from that
meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
asking. Actually, I'm told that that will only be for about an hour, and
then they're going to call me back this afternoon at some point in time.
It's going to be a strange schedule today. But let's handle it one
segment at a time. Let's just deal with the morning segment.
I'll be gone for supposedly an hour. I would only ask that Item
9E be scheduled at a time when I'm here. I would like to participate in
that discussion, but I don't necessarily request that it be a time certain,
just if we can do it whenever I'm here will be fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so -- it gives you more
flexibility. And then when the afternoon session comes up, I'll know
more clearly when I'm going to be away for the Canvassing Board
Page 6
October 14-15,2008
then; then we can make a decision about how we deal with that
schedule then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, good. Do you have any ex
parte communication or further changes to today's agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do not have any further changes
to the agenda.
With respect to ex parte communication, I have none to reveal on
the consent agenda, but on Item 17B, I have had meetings,
correspondence, emails and calls with reference to the Silver Lakes
Property Owner Association PUD amendment for Silver Lakes.
And that is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Chairman.
I have no corrections in regards to the consent agenda or the
summary agenda. Also, on the consent agenda, I have no ex parte to
disclose nor do I have on the summary agenda, so we're clear to go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no further changes -- or no
changes to today's agenda. I have no ex parte under consent or
summary agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no further changes to
the agenda. I have nothing to declare on the consent agenda.
But on the summary agenda, on item number 17B, which is the
Silver Lakes Property Owners Association, on February 25th I met
with Anthony Pires, Dwight Nadeau, and Jim Bach, and on February
28th, I met with Anthony Pires and Dwight Nadeau.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta, happy birthday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we ought to sing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have no changes to the
regular agenda. On the consent agenda, no changes. On the summary
Page 7
October 14-15, 2008
agenda, Item 17B, the Silver Lakes Property Association, so on, I've
had meetings, correspondence, and emails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With that, I entertain a motion
to approve today's regular, consent, and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 14. 2008
Item 10A: Options 3A and 3B have been provided as additional backup material for the review of
the Port of the Islands Marina and boat launch facility purchase. The additional backup material
has been distributed and made available for review. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A3: Page 2 under Considerations ofthe executive summary, the approximate salaries
should be as follows: Management $59,052 (rather than $63,972); Research and Development
$52,342 (rather than $53,341); Distribution Center $62,034 (rather than $46,525). (Staff's request.)
Move 16B2 to 101: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves the
Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (and other signatories) and
authorizes the Chairman to sign the document. (Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas'
request.)
Item 16B5: The title of the Resolution should read "Resolution No.
"2007." (Staff's request.)
2008" rather than
Item 16021: The dollar amount as shown in the agenda index should be $94,007.00 rather than
$92,817.00. All backup material is correct. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16022 to 10J: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement providing for a $900,000 Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) grant to Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., for
infrastructure. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 16023: For clarification, the Townhomes at Esperanza is located on Myrtle Lane in East
Naples, Florida. (Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Item 16028: The last sentence in the second paragraph under Considerations should read, "The
new facility is located at 102 12th Street North in the City of Naples and will be completed by
December 31, 2008" (rather than 2009). (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 16K2: The Recommendation in the executive summary should read: "That the Board of
County Commissioners approves the First Amendment to Collier County Emergency Services
Medical Consultant Contract, dated September 11, 2001, and authorizes the Board Chairman to
execute same and authorizes use of new letterhead." (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 7A to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday. October 15.2008: This item requires that ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. ADA-2008-AR-13529 Theodore J. Raia, Jr., requesting an
administrative appeal ofthe previously approved SDPA-AR-12644. The applicant believes the
approval of SDPA-AR-12644 violates the Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 04-59) and the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41) as
they existed on the dates the plan was submitted and approved. The subject property is located
in Waterpark Place, Phases III and IV in the Pelican Bay PUD, in Section 4, Township 49S, Range
25E, Collier County, Florida. The backup information for this item is located at the Board of
County Commissioners Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112.
10/14/2008 9:01 AM
Item 12A to be heard at 12:00 Noon: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 286.011(8)
Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed
attorney-client session on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14,2008, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the
Commission conference room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government
Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager
James Mudd, County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and Litigation Section Chief Jacqueline
Williams Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement
negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of
Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and Mary P. Hussey and Winchester Lakes Corporation v. Collier County,
The Honorable Charlie Crist, and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 08-6933-
CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
Item 12B to be heard at 1 :00 p.m.: For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction
to the County Attorney regarding settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation
expenditures in the pending litigation case of Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and Mary P. Hussey and
Winchester Lakes Corporation v. Collier County, The Honorable Charlie Crist, and the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 08-6933-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. followina Item 12B: This item requires that ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Petition CPSP-2007-7, School Concurrency Growth Management Plan
amendments Capital Improvement Element (CIE); Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE);
Future Land Use Element and Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Element;
Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) Element; and new Public School Facilities Element and
support document and Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency Interlocal
Agreement (Adoption Hearing).
10/14/2008 9:01 AM
October 14-15, 2008
Item #2B, #2C, #2D and #2E
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 BCC/BUDGET
HEARING; SEPTEMBER 7, 2008 BCC/HURRICANE IKE
EMERGENCY MEETING; SEPTEMBER 9-10,2008 BCC
REGULAR MEETING AND THE SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
BCC/BUDGET HEARING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Entertain a motion to approve the September 4th, 2008, BCC
budget hearing; and September 7th, 2008, BCC/Hurricane Ike
emergency meeting; September 9th and 10th, 2008, BCC regular
meeting; September 18th, 2008, BCC and budget hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve those minutes, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
And this next one, service awards for advisory boards, I prefer to
go down in front of the dais to welcome our long-term advisory board
members for their dedicated service. Anybody have a problem with
that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not at all.
Item #3A
Page 9
October 14-15, 2008
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE AWARDS: 5-YEAR
RECIPIENTS: SYDNEY BLUM, CLAY BROOKER, REGINALD
BUXTON, ROBERT MURRAY AND IRENE WILLIAMS -
PRESENTED; 10 -YEAR RECIPIENT: WILFRED JAEGER -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is Paragraph 3, service awards,
and we are -- we are -- indeed, a privilege today to recognize some of
our advisory committee service awards for the Board of County
Commissioners.
The first awardee is Sydney Blum. He's done five years, spent
five productive years, on the county government Productivity
Committee. Mr. Blum, if you could come forward, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Start with this guy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. BLUM: Thank you, Jim.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice to see you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pleasure. We want to get a picture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Syd, let me give you a pin.
PHOTOGRAPHER: I'm going to take a couple here; three, two,
one. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next five-year recipient is Clay Brooker, and
he's spent five years working on your Development Services Advisory
Committee.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right. Everybody smile. Three, two,
one. Thank you.
Page 10
October 14-15, 2008
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Your next five-year recipient is Reg Buxton, and
he's spent five years on the Collier County Citizens' Corps Committee.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We really appreciate you
spending your time here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for your service.
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right. Everybody smile.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is very nice.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next five-year recipient is Robert Murray.
He's spent five years on the Collier County Planning Commission.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here, let me put this in this hand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five years.
MR. MURRAY: Yeah, it goes fast. Another hug. Thank you
very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next advisory committee services award
recipient is Irene Williams, and she's spent five years on your Black
Affairs Advisory Board. Ms. Williams?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your time. I
appreciate it.
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right. Here we go. Three, two, one.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next advisory committee service award
recipient is for 10 years, and it's our only 10-year recipient today, and
that's Wilfred Jaeger, and he's spent 10 years working on your Radio
Road Beautification Advisory Committee.
Page 11
October 14-15, 2008
(Applause.)
MR. JAEGER: We'll be done one of these days. I remember
when Tom cut the ribbon 10 years ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my heavens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's looking much better.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ten-year pin.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Here we go. Three, two, one. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER, 2008 AS BREAST
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED BY MIRIAM
ROSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SUSAN G. KOMEN FOR THE
CURE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations,
and the first proclamation today is designating October, 2008, as
Breast Cancer Awareness Month, to be accepted by Miriam Ross,
Executive Director of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Southwest
Florida Association. Come on forward, ladies. Yeah, right up here.
You'll get to the podium later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You get to come way up front.
Good morning.
MS. ROSS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation: Whereas, October is
Breast Cancer Awareness Month across the nation; and,
Whereas, it is the goal and mission of the Southwest Florida
affiliate of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure to save lives and end
breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality care for
all, and energizing science to find the cure; and,
Whereas, to date, the Southwest Florida affiliate of the Susan G.
Page 12
October 14-15, 2008
Komen for the Cure has awarded $3 million for local medical research
grants, community-based education, and breast health screening as
well as treatment projects for the medically underserved; and,
Whereas, every woman 40 years or older should have a
mammogram every year; and,
Whereas, one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast
cancer in their life.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October, 2008, be
designated Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and call upon all citizens
to do their part to eradicate this disease through donations,
volunteering, and awareness.
Done and ordered this 14th day of October, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you're doing for
all of us, but we're making progress.
Page 13
October 14-15, 2008
MS. ROSS: We are. We're making progress.
MR. MUDD: Picture.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we want a picture.
MR. MUDD: We need to get a picture.
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right. Everybody look here. I'm going
to take a few. Three, two, one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's going to make sure those take.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make sure they do.
MS. ROSS: Can I say a couple words?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MS. ROSS: Okay, thank you.
Thank you very much for being here today, and I hope you'll
wear your pin in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Twenty-six years ago, Susan G. Komen was diagnosed with
breast cancer, and at the age of 36 she lost her fight. Her sister Nancy
began her battle to eradicate this disease. And it's amazing what one
person can do.
So I'm going to ask you today, the men in the audience, call your
mothers, call your sisters, nag your wives. Make sure they schedule a
mammogram. And those women in the audience over 40, please make
sure you have a mammogram. It can make a difference. One person
can change your life. And if you make that call, it can make a
difference. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER,
2008 AS NATIONAL CODE COMPLIANCE MONTH,
ACCEPTED BY DIANE FLAGG, CODE ENFORCEMENT
DIRECTOR - ADOPTED
Page 14
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, your next proclamation today is
designating the month of October, 2008, as National Code
Compliance Month, to be accepted by Diane Flagg, Code
Enforcement Director.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Flagg also has several
employees. I think it's appropriate to have them all up at this time.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. Oh, we'll make
room.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to tell you how dedicated and
devoted I am to this code enforcement group. They really have helped
us to clean up a lot of terribly blighted-looking properties in East
Naples as well as some of the really crime-ridden areas.
And from my -- from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank
them for all they do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they've got some challenges
ahead of them because of the fact of what's happening with the
economic climate here and throughout the whole United States, in
fact, the world.
It gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation.
Whereas, code enforcement officers provide for the safety,
health, and welfare of citizens living in communities throughout the
United States through the enforcement of building, zoning and use,
property maintenance, animal control, fire safety, environmental and
other codes and ordinances; and,
Whereas, code enforcement officers who are members of the
Association of Code Enforcement are dedicated, well-trained, and
highly responsibly individuals who take their job seriously, are proud
of their departments and local government within which they serve
and are committed to saving lives and improving neighborhoods in the
course of their daily jobs; and,
Whereas, the American Association of Code Enforcement, acting
Page 15
October 14-15, 2008
on behalf of its more than 1,200 members requests that October be set
aside as National Code Compliance Month to honor and recognize our
code enforcement officers and to highlight the contributions these
individuals have made to the quality of our communities; to celebrate
America's accomplishment in making collective decisions concerning
our cities and counties that bring quality and meaning to our lives; to
recognize the participation and dedication of code compliance officers
who have contributed their time and expertise to the improvement of
communities throughout the United States; and to thank community
members for their efforts and voluntary compliance with city/county
codes.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October be designated
as National Code Compliance Month.
Done and ordered this 14th day of October, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, signed by the
chairman, Tom Henning.
And Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Would somebody
Page 16
October 14-15, 2008
like to accept this and hold it up so we can take a large picture, a
family picture here.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Everybody make sure I can see your face.
All right. Three, two, one. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners;
Diane Flagg, Director of Code Enforcement.
I just want to thank you for your support and consideration and
the commitment of Mr. Lefebvre, who's the chair of the Code
Enforcement Board and the Code Enforcement Board members, and
also Special Magistrate, Brenda Garretson.
Code enforcement plays a critical role, as you mentioned,
Commissioner Halas, in maintaining the integrity of our community
by enforcement through education, cooperation, and compliance. And
in the spirit of corporation, code has developed a community resource
task team that seeks to assist our community members when they can't
physically or financially afford to resolve code enforcement
violations.
I'd like to introduce you to Ms. Mary Edwards. She faced code
violations and a pending lien on her property. Through the
cooperation and assistance of Lisa Owen and Tammy Hammer with
the Housing Human Services Department, the code's community
resource task team assisted Ms. Edwards in receiving a new home, and
the new home is there on the overhead for you to see.
She was unable to access the majority of her home due to her
confinement to the wheelchair. So these folks worked together, and
they're going to demolish the home that she has, take a picture of for
her, and then she will be receiving that home.
This is our -- hopefully our first of many successes in achieving
compliance through a relationship and partnership with our
community members, and I'd like to introduce you to Ms. Mary
Edwards.
Page 1 7
October 14-15,2008
(Applause.)
MS. EDWARDS: Good morning. I'd like to thank everyone
who has been involved in this. I really would like to thank the Lord,
and God bless all of you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Diane, why don't you bring the lady
up here and also your staff that was intimately involved in this great
endeavor so we can get a picture of that.
MS. FLAGG: Be happy to.
Okay. Community resource task team, please come forward.
(Applause.)
MS. EDWARDS: I'd stand up and thank you all, but I don't think
that's possible.
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right, everybody. And three, two, one.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I shake your hand? Thank you.
Hopefully we can hear that story again.
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir. Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's great you guys can work
together like that. It's wonderful having a team, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Our own home edition here in Collier
County .
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 21 ST THROUGH
OCTOBER 31,2008 AS RED RIBBON WEEK, ACCEPTED BY
CHIEF SCOTT SALLEY, COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE - ADOPTED
Page 18
October 14-15,2008
The next proclamation today is designating October 21 st through
October 31 st, 2008, as Red Ribbon Week, to be accepted by Chief
Scott Salley of the Collier County Sheriffs Office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Chief?
MR. MUDD: And there's got to be more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yes. There certainly is.
Hello, Dr. Colfer.
Whereas, Drug Free Collier recognizes that underage drinking,
abuse of prescription drugs, and marijuana use have increased in our
community over the last decade; and,
Whereas, it is imperative that visible unified prevention
education efforts by community members be launched to eliminate the
demand for drugs; and,
Whereas, families face unprecedented pressure and stress
imposed upon them by the overwhelming nature of to day's society;
and,
Whereas, Collier County residents must recommit to
strengthening families, neighborhoods, and communities and to
educating our citizens to counter the problems of abuse; and,
Whereas, research and data reflect unquestionably that
prevention works and that our commitment to education prevention
and positive lifestyle is imperative; and,
Whereas, the Red Ribbon represents the nation's united effort to
support prevention and build healthy and safe communities; and,
Whereas, the 2008 Red Ribbon celebration asks that the citizens
of Collier County come together to help keep our children, families,
and communities safe, healthy, and drug free.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of October
21st through October 31st, 2008, be designated as Red Ribbon Week,
and during this week every one person is encouraged to wear and
display a Red Ribbon to symbolize our commitment to establishing
Page 19
October 14-15,2008
healthy and safe communities for our citizens, especially our children,
and to participate in events throughout the week that support positive
li fe sty les.
Done and ordered this, the 14th day of October, 2008. Signed by
Chairman Tom Henning.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
PHOTOGRAPHER: Here we go. And three, two, one. Thank
you.
CHIEF SALLEY: Chairman, Vice-Chair, Commissioners, again,
we want to thank you again for recognizing Drug Fee Collier on what
we're doing in our effort to reduce the substance abuse in our county.
Going back in history, Red Ribbon Week was really to establish
the death ofKeke Camarena, who was a DEA agent who was
stationed in Mexico and was brutally murdered. And from that, we
have grown into the Red Ribbon Week across our country.
And a lot of people think that it's a futile effort, but ladies and
gentlemen, it is not. We see it every day, and we're very proud of the
efforts that we're making with training and making aware and having
the resources for the people that have substance abuse issues, but we
Page 20
October 14-15, 2008
cannot do that without your help and your leadership for our county
. .
commISSIon.
So I just want to thank you very much. We will not give in. We
will not quit as long as you support us. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 14,2008 AS
MURRAY HENDEL DAY, ACCEPTED BY MURRAY HENDEL -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation, which is designating October 14, 2008, as Murray
Hendel Day. To be accepted by Murray Hendel.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Murray, thank you very much for
being here. Murray is a long-time friend and a person who has
dedicated most of his life to helping others.
When we were preparing this proclamation, I asked the question,
well, how long has he really been the president of the Gulf Shore
Association of Condominiums? And we couldn't find anyone who
was that old. But Murray is that old because he just had a birthday.
We couldn't ask him because he was out of the country celebrating his
birthday. So I would like to read this proclamation.
Whereas, long-time Naples resident, Murray Hendel, is president
of the Gulf Shore Association of Condominiums and vice-chairman of
the Collier County President's Council; and,
Whereas, Mr. Hendel also serves as vice-chairman of the Tourist
Development Council working diligently to ensure the vitality of the
tourism industry for Collier County; and,
Page 21
October 14-15, 2008
Whereas, Mr. Hendel also served as past president of the
Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida where he continues to be
instrumental in the educational program involving the World War II
boxcar; and,
Whereas, Mr. Hendel celebrated his 80th birthday on September
the 25th, 2008; and,
Whereas, his continuous involvement in the civic community
speaks volume for his thoughtfulness and selfless dedication to the
residents and visitors of Collier County; and,
Whereas, we would like to thank him for the time and effort he
has contributed to our community; and,
Whereas, we would also like to extend our gratitude to his wife,
Pauline, for the sacrifices she has made in allowing Murray to make
such a contribution to our community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 14th, 2008, be
designated as Murray Hendel Day.
Done and ordered this 14th day of October, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 22
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't look that old to me.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Look here and smile. Three, two, one.
Thank you.
(Applause. )
MR. HENDEL: I want to thank the Board of County
Commissioners for this high honor. I also want to thank my wife
Pauline for putting up with me all these years. My dear friend Mike
Regan, thank you for showing up. And hopefully I'll be here on my
90th birthday. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll have another proclamation
for you.
MR. HENDEL: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FRIDAY, OCTOBER 24,2008
AS THE DAY OF THE RED WALK IN COLLIER COUNTY,
ACCEPTED BY JOANNE GRIECO, LEL Y ELEMENTARY VICE-
PRlNCIP AL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next proclamation is designating
Friday, October 24th, 2008, as the Day of the Red Walk in Collier
County. To be accepted by Joanne Grieco.
MS. GRIECO: Grieco.
MR. MUDD: Grieco, thank you, Lely Elementary
vice-principal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whereas, the Red Walk is an
established provider of the one-on-one youth involvement addressing
the importance of drug awareness for the past nine years; and,
Page 23
October 14-15, 2008
Whereas, the Red Walk provides adult mentors to thousands of
children in Collier County's public and private schools; and,
Whereas, the Red Walk was developed as part of the Red Ribbon
activities established by the Substance Abuse Coalition of Collier
County as well as the Collier County public school system in
association with the National Drug Awareness Campaign presented
between October 23rd to 31st of2008; and,
Whereas, national research has shown that the positive message
supported by drug-free activities help form strong bonds between
youth and their communities leading to a direct, measurable and
lasting impact on children's lives and that these children are more
likely to improve their grades and the relationship with family and
peers while being less likely to skip school, use illegal drugs or
alcohol, or become involved in criminal activities; and,
Whereas, locally the Red Walk has been bringing caring adults
and community organizations into the lives of children for nine years
and is the only drug awareness walking program in Southwest Florida;
and,
Whereas, supporting the Red Walk's message of total community
involvement and using local student organizations, volunteer groups,
and professional institutions as positive models for a healthy and
drug-free lifestyle in Florida's ongoing effort to recruit and match
caring adult mentors with children in our community, is an investment
that will pay immediate dividends as well as dividends in the future;
and,
Whereas, on Friday, October 24th, 2008, the Red Walk will host
its ninth annual trek on the campus of Lely Elementary School from
8:30 to 12:30 p.m. emphasizing the importance of science and health
in our lives in celebrating the positive message of good character
building.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that October 24th, 2008, be
Page 24
October 14-15, 2008
designated as the day of the Red Walk in Collier County.
Done and ordered this, the 14th day of October, 2008, and signed
by our chair, Tom Henning.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Congratulations.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Look here and smile. And three, two, one.
Thank you.
MS. GRIECO: Thank you, again.
(Applause.)
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 18,2008 AS
NAACP FREEDOM FUND DAY, ACCEPTED BY CHERYL
SEALS GONZALEZ, HAROLD WEEKS AND ANTHONY
DENSON - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next proclamation is
designating October 18, 2008, as NAACP Freedom Fund Day, to be
Page 25
October 14-15,2008
accepted by Chery I Seals Gonzalez, Harold Weeks, and Anthony
Denson, and whoever else you would like to come up.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whereas, the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, will hold its 26th
freedom fund dinner and awards ceremony on Saturday, October 18th,
2008, at the Naples Hilton and Tower; and,
Whereas, proceeds of the event will be used to ensure that
economic, political, educational, and social equality remains strong
within the community; and,
Whereas, the anniversary event theme crossroads of the dream
serves -- acknowledges (sic) of the strides of the NAACP, Collier
County branch, and recognize the achievement over the years.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that October 18th, 2008, be designated as
NAACP Freedom Fund Day and invite the public to attend the awards
ceremony on Saturday October 18, 2008, at the Naples Hilton and
Towers to share this celebration of freedom for all.
Done in this order, this day, 14th day of October, 2008.
I'll make a motion to move the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
Page 26
October 14-15, 2008
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right. In three, two, one.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. WEEKS: I guess she doesn't want to speak with me. All I
can say is we have to keep meeting this way.
I'd just like to thank Collier County and its commissioners for
their past support, present support, and continued support in our
endeavor to make Collier County a beautiful and wonderful place to
live, not that it isn't already, but we still have some more work to get --
to do, and hopefully we can all work together to achieve to this end
that everybody is comfortable here with the rest of us. I'm very
comfortable. I just want to see that everybody else is, too. But I
appreciate it -- appreciate your effort.
This proclamation I hold is more than just words and a piece of
paper to me. It really means something. And I really appreciate that
you've gone -- I feel you've gone an extra measure to consider us
every year and our work and your work. And hopefully we'll always
be together in this thing. I'm going to -- next year I'll be visiting all of
you. I just want to sit down and chat. And hopefully I'll be received,
not that I have that much to say, but I'd like to hear your story.
Thanks again. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION TO LINDY ADELSTEIN FOR HIS SEVEN
YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND TO THE CITIZENS OF
COLLIER COUNTY WHILE SERVING AS A PLANNING
COMMISSIONER ON THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION FROM SEPTEMBER 25,2001 TO AUGUST 7,
Page 27
October 14-15,2008
2008 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the presentation
portion of your agenda, and the first presentation is to Lindy Adelstein
for his seven years of service to the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and to the citizens of Collier County while serving as
the Planning Commissioner for Collier County Planning Commission
from September 25th, 2001, to August 7, 2008.
And this particular presentation will be presented by
Commissioner Donna Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all your dedicated
service. I want to just say that this man just threw his heart and soul
into that Planning Commission. He was living, breathing, and eating
Planning Commission, and Harriet was right there along his -- by his
side, and I want to say I'm very -- I'm very honored to give you this
award.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When I grow up, I want to be
just like you. Oh, let's get a picture.
MR. OCHS: Picture time.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Look here and smile. In three, two, one.
Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Hold on Lindy, there's some folks that you--
MS. FABACHER: We want our picture made with him.
MR. MUDD: No hard feelings with all the staff you beat up.
They want to come up and get a picture with you. Hang on, Lindy.
They want to take a picture with you.
MR. ADELSTEIN: This is the group that kept me going.
Page 28
October 14-15, 2008
MS. ZONE: Congratulations. We're going to miss you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, it wouldn't be
complete without Joe.
MS. F ABACHER: That's why we're here.
PHOTOGRAPHER: Three, two, one. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. F ABACHER: We have a special committee for you now.
Congratulations. You did a great job.
MR. MUDD: Again, Lindy, thank you.
MR. ADELSTEIN: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Lindy, thanks so much, appreciate it.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING ALICIA ABBOTT, PROJECT MANAGER,
PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER, 2008 -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next presentation today is a
recommendation to recognize Alicia Abbott, the project manager for
public utilities engineering department as Employee of the Month for
September, 2008. Ms. Abbott, if you'd come forward.
Alicia Abbott, project manager--
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: -- has been nominated as the Employee of the
Month for September, 2008. As an employee of the county for 12
years, Alicia goes out of her way to exceed the expectations of her
customers and team members each day.
In her position, Alicia is responsible for overseeing many major
projects in the public utilities division. Recently these projects
included the northeast regional facility and the irrigation quality water
Page 29
October 14-15, 2008
aquifer storage and recovery well project.
During projects like these, Alicia's concern for her customers and
her determination to adhere to the division's good neighbor policy is
evident.
She works diligently to keep the residents of the communities
that surround project sites informed of both normal and unusual
construction events. She believes an informed public is a satisfied
public, and her effort to inform the neighbors is -- in advance of
things, like intense truck traffic, often result in a reduction in
complaints.
Outside of the office, Alicia continues to be dedicated to her
community. She actively participates as a member of the Big Cypress
Basin board of directors and volunteers numerous hours at the Lely
High School.
She was recently recognized with the 2008 Galaxy of Stars
Award for contributing over 3,000 hours of volunteer time. She
should be considered as a role model for employees and civilians
alike. Her dedication to job and the community make her truly
deserving of this award.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Alicia Abbott,
the Employee of the Month for September, 2008.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three thousand hours.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Alicia, we'd like to give you a plaque
for your office or your home on your wonderful endeavors as an
employee of Collier County, a small token of our appreciation, and on
behalf of the Board of Commissioners, a letter from the Chairman,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Alicia, thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well-deserved recognition.
Thank you.
MR.OCHS: Get your picture now.
Page 30
October 14-15, 2008
PHOTOGRAPHER: All right. Look here and smile. In three,
two, one. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOHN BARLOW TO
DISCUSS SINGLE F AMIL Y FORECLOSURES: PROBLEM OR
OPPORTUNITY? - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A
LEGAL OPINION REGARDING SHIP AND CHECK WITH
OTHER COUNTIES ON HOW THEY ARE HANDLING THIS
ISSUE - TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO A FUTURE BCC
MEETING
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the public
petitions portion of your agenda, and the first public petition is a
request by John Barlow to discuss single-family foreclosures, problem
or opportunity.
Sir, if you'd just state your name for the record.
MR. BARLOW: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
John Barlow, for the record. And I would, first of all, like to
recognize our Board of Housing opportunities. Nel Lingle is our
president; Huley Schmelze (phonetic) is our chief financial officer;
Mike Pettit, secretary; and Carol V olitely (phonetic) is our treasurer.
So I do appreciate it, and thank you.
How I do get this up on the screen?
MR. MUDD: Tell me to hit the right thing. There you go.
MR. BARLOW: Magic. I'll talk to you today a little bit about
affordable housing. We all will agree that there's a need here in
Collier County. The federal government has recognized that and
provided some $3.9 billion for affordable housing across the nation.
The State of Florida received $541 million in the last few weeks, of
Page 31
October 14-15,2008
which I'll mention to you that $91 million yet has not been allocated
specifically to an enterprise unit.
Collier County's share was 7.3 million. The state can and should
be a part of this solution by providing increased funding from the
Sadowski fund. And we've been talking about the SHIP fund and the
lack of funds here for a few weeks, but right now this is no time for
the State of Florida to be sitting on the sidelines.
It's going to take both business individuals and elected leaders to
lobby our state to do the right thing.
At every single level of government words have been turned into
action. More money is needed, but we have a start. The time is
perfect to provide affordable housing opportunities here in Collier. It's
time that we put pen to paper and make it happen.
Rehabbing foreclosed properties offers a win-win for everyone.
A blighted property is renovated, the home improvement industry gets
a boost, and for -- goodness knows, we need to boost up that segment
of our industry.
Money spent to rehab one property is compounded by the
thousands of properties ripe for rehabbing. The potential puts millions
of dollars to work creating jobs in our depressed construction
industries.
The inventory of foreclosed homes is reduced. A family moves
into the number of vacant properties preventing the spread of crime
and vandalism, and also property taxes are no longer in the arrears.
The new homeowners are charged no impact fees to purchase an
existing rehab and affordable home.
Unfortunately, at the end of September, Collier County has 5,872
foreclosed properties in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many?
MR. BARLOW: Five thousand, eight hundred and seventy-two.
The month of September was our largest single month with 751;
almost 40 a day. About 150 of those properties could be rehabbed and
Page 32
__.,'~_._'I_'_;;o._'_',""""",'_'_""""""___ -,
October 14-15, 2008
sold as affordable houses. Now, all of them don't qualify for the level
of income and mortgages necessary.
But looking at it year to date, there's approximately a thousand
affordable housing properties that could be rehabbed in this county.
The particular property that I'm involved with and our board is
involved with has spent $60,000.
I always like to bring a few little props with me. These 1,000
houses, $60,000 apiece, could add $60 million to our industry in the
construction, which is basically, right now, flat, not very vibrant.
Purchasing, rehabbing, and bringing one of these foreclosed
properties to market is a challenge. The SHIP process makes it even
more of a challenge. Under the best circumstances, the process is
lengthy and cumbersome.
I won't run you through each one of the steps. Obviously, you
probably know many of them. As you can see for yourself, from the
pre-inspection when you -- before you purchase the house all the way
to paying the subcontractor involves a lot of steps.
Unfortunately, obstructions to moving this process forward are
being created here in Collier County. I don't know if these
impediments are being imposed due to an attempt to keep the pool of
affordable housing providers low, battles between the constitutional
officers and the county commissioners, a rogue employee
overstepping their scope of duties or, perhaps, a combination or
something else is at work.
Instead of streamlining the process and encouraging the
expansion in the affordable housing arena, the finance director for the
Clerk of Courts is introducing an additional impediment, a
sub-recipient agreement.
Crystal Kinzel, along with the Clerk of Court, says this
agreement is commonly used. Marcy Krumbine, Director of Housing
and Human Services for the county, said it's not common or it's never
been used for SHIP rehabilitation.
Page 33
October 14-15, 2008
When I checked the legal records I found none, zero, sub
recipient agreements for SHIP rehabilitation. The additional
seven-page sub-recipient agreement is suddenly being thrown into the
mix at the 11 th hour.
One has to wonder if there's even a legal basis for this sudden
addition. Collier County cannot afford these delays. Whatever the
root cause is of these impediments, we all lose. The time to may
progress is now. I can't tell you how long this window will be open or
closed or what the issue is, but now is the time that we should be
focused like a laser beam making this progress.
And I'm objecting to this latest hurdle, not only for the
organization that I represent but for others who make accept the
challenge to help bring affordable housing to the citizens of this
county.
This is the time to encourage actions to solve our affordable
housing problems. Quite frankly, we should be establishing staff
protocols to solve problems getting foreclosed houses rehabbed in a
timely manner. Help them, don't hinder them. Facilitate the process
right now. We have a serious problem here. Our construction
industry needs a spark. This can do it. We need creative, constructive
ideas from leaders. No more hoops to jump through. Given our--
give our business leaders a chance to make a difference and watch
what we can do.
Instead of the usual tightening of restrictions upon the counties,
the state has expressly stated, local governments are to have maximum
flexibility in determining the use of SHIP funds. This is one state
statute that doesn't constrain us or send down to us unfunded
mandates, but one that challenges us to solve the problems right here
in Collier County.
Instead of allowing measures which discourage rehabbing, now's
the time to keep the process simple without the arbitrary addition of a
sub-recipient agreement.
Page 34
October 14-15,2008
In the past nine months, there have been 35 contracts
successfully undertaken for affordable housing rehab projects right
here in Collier County. The original process is working, and it's
within all the legal framework and constraint.
The original process, complicated and time-consuming as it is,
successfully puts foreclosed homes into the affordable housing
market. There has never been a sub-recipient agreement for SHIP
rehabilitation. There has never been litigation reported since the
inception of the SHIP program. There is no reason to obscure the
original process. The old adage is, if it's not broke, don't fix it.
We have a new Collier County nonprofit group devoted to
providing affordable houses by rehabbing foreclosed homes. Quite
frankly, we need a lot more groups doing the same thing. We need to
make it easy for them to come in and encourage them to do the same
thing. We're willing to weather the storm and get these homes
rehabbed and on the market using private as well as public funds. We
are walking the walk.
Affordable housing can be made available right now, and I'm
asking you, our county leaders, to make that happen. Stop the
expansion of bureaucratic red tape. It serves no one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
MR. BARLOW: I have one more -- can I have one more slide?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait for that, sir.
MR. BARLOW: Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, please continue. I'll ask it
after that.
MR. BARLOW: We've jumped through hurdles to get this far.
This is the hurdle. We've complied with all of the requirements and
current laws and ordinances just like the previous 35.
Please do your part. Help us. Don't allow this wonderful
opportunity we haven't had in -- since I've lived in Naples, over 20
years now -- to get bogged down in this quagmire. I'm asking you to
Page 35
",..,..,__....".,,"'~,_"'-M" .,'". _'''_~._'..._'o,
October 14-15, 2008
help me make it happen. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. BARLOW: That's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Barlow, I really need
to address this to Mr. Mudd. I understand what Mr. Barlow's saying,
you know. There's a great good to be served by this. And I realize that
there's always a certain amount of necessary paperwork that has to be
done to be able to satisfy all entities in government; however, with
that said, I think what we're being required to come up with is way
over and above what is realistic and reasonable. No other community
is required to do what we're required to do by our Clerk of Courts.
I would like to have this come back to us as an agenda item in the
near future and have the Clerk of Courts here to be able to personally
explain why it is that we have these impediments in the program that's
slowing it down to see what could be realized to be able to take this
thing and be able to bring it forward in a meaningful way.
With that also, too, I'd like to invite the public to join Mr. Barlow
and myself in the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association this
Wednesday evening at 7 o'clock where it's going to be taking place at
the fire station on 13th Street right off of Golden Gate Boulevard.
Mr. Barlow is going to be making a presentation along with
members of the EDC regarding the economy in the immediate area.
And anyone that would like to attend to be able to receive more
information would be more than welcome.
Mr. Barlow, thank you very much for your participation in this
community and making such a difference.
MR. BARLOW: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure you have the support of
this commission.
MR. BARLOW: I appreciate it, and I appreciate living in Naples
and Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Page 36
October 14-15, 2008
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, I'd like to echo
everything that Commissioner Coletta has just said. I do believe we
need to streamline this project or process for any projects that come
along our way.
And one of the things we commissioners have stated just recently
is that we are flooded on this market with all of these foreclosed
homes, abandoned homes and so forth, and we -- in fact, I've brought
it up for later on in this meeting. We said, we shouldn't be building
anything more as far as low-income housing. We need to take these
homes and rehab them and -- so that they don't become crime havens
and places for homeless to hang out.
Having said that, I just wanted to -- so I'm emphasizing what you
just said, this is -- this is our mission now, is to take these things off
the -- off the market and rehab them.
I don't even know -- I've never heard of a sub-recipient
agreement before. Do you -- what is that? I don't even know what
that is. Does anybody know? Could anybody answer that for me?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well then, when we bring it back
before us, could our staff tell us what a sub-recipient agreement is?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, do you have any
guidance for us as the Board of County Commissioners as to how to
circumvent this particular hurdle?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think what I will do is I will have my
office contact other counties and see how well the clerks are handling
this issue, whether they're requiring these types of agreements or if
they're requiring other sorts of documentation on this process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When you get that
information, could you email that to each of us --
Page 37
October 14-15, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- on the board and also to Mr.
Barlow so that we can figure out the best means in regards to
approaching this concern at the present time?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. But I will tell you that what Mr.
Barlow is doing is relatively unique and nontraditional, and that may
be part of the problem here. So I'm not entirely sure how many other
counties are doing this.
Mr. Barlow's a pioneer on this one, and unfortunately pioneers
tend to get the arrows. There was no process in place, what Mr.
Barlow was trying to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, try to solve this issue, I
think, is a noble thing. This is, I believe, a legal issue. And, you
know, I looked at the statute that you referred to in your presentation. I
don't think you could take just one excerpt out of a statute and say,
this only applies, because it has other references within 420.9072.
And I think the most appropriate thing to do to have resolution is
ask the County Attorney to have an opinion on there. And I don't
believe the Clerk or the Finance Director would have a problem as
long as there's an opinion from the County Attorney that this is what
Mr. Barlow is asking, is lawful.
You know, the legislatures write laws for certain reasons, and so
let's get that opinion instead of having to have the County Manager
research it. It's a legal issue. It's not a, you can do this or you can't do
that. We need a legal opinion. That's what I would rather see.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know the Finance Director
would welcome the legal opinion. I think that she would like that
direction as well, because they don't -- they don't want to be in a--
they want to encourage the same process. They live in our community
just like we do.
Page 38
October 14-15, 2008
And it isn't only Mr. Barlow that's heading out in this direction.
Habitat for Humanity is also doing this. They're rehabbing -- they're
buying up homes in Naples Manor and rehabbing those.
And I'm sure that there are other developers as well buying up
these things to rehab them. So we do need to solve this problem. And
I think the only way to do that is have the County Attorney -- and then
bring it back, as Commissioner Coletta said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, why even bring it back? Why
not direct the County Attorney to give us his legal opinion if it's
legally lawful to make these payments per Mr. Barlow's suggestion?
Fine, let's do it. And if it's not, then it's not?
Commissioner Coletta?
And that way, you can get it done a lot quicker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm all for getting it done
quick, but by the County Attorney moving forward on it and doing his
research, I'm sure we're going to bring it to some sort of resolution;
however, with that said, it has to come back in a public forum. There's
going to be people out there that have been incurring some
unbelievable agony -- going through unbelievable agony with the
Clerk of Courts for some years now over the affordable housing issue.
And I think that some of these agencies might like the -- might
weigh in on this particular thing. But I'd like it to come to us in a
public forum, not just an opinion from the County Attorney that's an
email that comes to us personally. I'd still like to see an item on the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, we'll bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great. Wait another couple
weeks.
MR. BARLOW: Yes, sir, I can. One comment. The -- it does
require a contract in the statute, which we have complied with the
county's contract from the housing department. It does not specify a
Page 39
October 14-15, 2008
specific type of contract. And we want to -- we will comply with
every state statute and every ordinance that you put in place without
question.
This is one that's currently not there, and I question whether we
need it there. That's all I'm asking you to do, and I appreciate your
direction on that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just add one thing. I was
fortunate enough to go out and see the first house that Mr. Barlow has
rehabbed. Oh, my goodness, is it darling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Isn't it something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He has taken a house that none of us
would want to live in and he's made it something that all of us would
want to live in or have our kids live in, and I really appreciate what
you're doing. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one last question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To the County Attorney.
Mr. Klatzkow, would you please tell me, is the Clerk of Courts
able to exceed Florida Statutes in their determination in how contracts
would be, or are they bound by Florida Statutes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, they are bound by Florida Statutes.
And our office and the Clerk's Office have put together a contract for
this -- what Mr. Barlow wants to do. I think Mr. Barlow's complaint is
that it's a seven-page contract and he's looking for something that's a
lot less than that, and that's what we'll be looking into, whether or not
we can do this more on an expedited basis than it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you're not going to be
looking at the statute referenced?
MR. KLATZKOW: We always look at the statutes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And give us your opinion on that
statute?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
Page 40
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. You're still going to
research it and then give us each an email in regards to this before it
even comes before the Board of County Commissioners; is that
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding was your direction is,
you want this back, and it will come as a regular item. And my legal
opinion will be part of the agenda package.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd like to see it before if
gets on the agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: I will do that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'd also like to say, Mr.
Barlow, the invite that you gave me before in regards to going out to
this particular home that you had, I couldn't make it because of a
schedule conflict, but if you have something available, maybe we can
work through that and take a look at the finished product.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, your suggestion about
checking with other counties that may have similar programs would
be a great asset to see how their Clerk of Courts is handling it.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm hoping is he can fill out an
application. As part of that application, just sign off the certification
and we're done with the process. I'll see if we can do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next public comment?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY BRAD CORNELL TO
DISCUSS AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROPOSAL -
DISCUSSED; AUDUBON SOCIETY AND CONSERVANCY ARE
Page 41
October 14-15, 2008
PAYING TO HAVE AN ENERGY AUDIT DONE FOR COLLIER
COUNTY
MR. MUDD: The next public petition, sir, is a request by Brad
Cornell to discuss an energy efficiency proposal.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society,
and Allen Keller, the President of Collier County Audubon Society, is
in the audience, and also on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, Nick Penniman, the Chair of the Conservancy was here but
had to leave for another appointment.
Almost daily we are bombarded with information on the
importance of sources and costs of energy on the problems associated
with the dependence on foreign sources and on excessive energy use,
the emission of greenhouse gases and their impact on global warming
and sea level rise.
Furthermore, we assume that as commissioners you must be
under constant pressure to look for ways to make government more
cost efficient and effective, especially in these economic troubling
times.
As you may be aware, the City of Naples has recently completed
an energy use audit covering governmental, commercial, and
industrial operations as well as residential energy use. That exercise
provides the information necessary for development of a plan for
reducing energy use and a baseline against which future progress can
be gauged.
I am happy to note that the City of Naples has been sufficiently
motivated by the report to provide funding for the planning efforts and
for implementing aspects of the plan once it is developed; no small
task and an important component. We just don't want to find out what
the energy baseline is, energy use, and then do nothing about it. This
is to identify opportunities.
Page 42
October 14-15, 2008
In a nutshell, my colleagues and I are here to request that the
commission approve a similar audit which would provide a
countywide snapshot of where we stand today in terms of energy use
and could constitute the basis for development of a county plan aimed
at reducing energy use and for judging future progress.
Collier County Audubon Society and the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida are so convinced of the value of such an exercise
that we are prepared, as we did in the case of the City of Naples, to
cover the associated financial costs which are attributable largely to
constituency services, purchase of the necessary software for the
exercise and membership for the county in a network of over 350
cities and counties which have already embarked on reducing energy
usage.
I'd like to share with you just a couple of facets of the Naples
energy audit I think that the commission would be interested in as well
as the public.
Wow, this is loud. This circle basically shows you the process
which we're suggesting that you enter into by commitment to first do
an energy audit right here at the beginning -- I should probably use the
cursor -- the energy audit at the beginning. You move to establishing
a local action plan with the input of business, government, staff, and
the citizens of the community to come up with what are the strategies
we're going to take advantage, what opportunities do we have to
reduce our energy use and reduce water use?
You implement that plan. I'm happy to say that Collier County
has already been very proactive, especially with Skip Camp, your
facilities manager, has been looking at how we can make facilities
here more green.
Now, sometimes it's retrofit, and that's tough, but when you have
new buildings, it's even better of an opportunity, and with reducing
fuel use and your fleets, et cetera.
Once you've implemented your plan, you want to gauge, how are
Page 43
October 14-15, 2008
we doing? Are we making progress? Are we reducing our energy
use? Are we saving taxpayer dollars? Are we getting ourselves
weaned off foreign oil, et cetera? Those sorts of milestones need to be
taken assessment of and see if we are actually doing what we need to
do, is there more we can do, and adjust that, and then start again. Let's
revise our plan. Let's do even better.
Just to point out something that I think will be very interesting.
The City of Naples -- and this is probably very -- going to be similar
for Collier County. The largest energy use is in the transportation
sector. Nationwide it's less than a third, but in Collier County, or in
the City of Naples, rather, it's over half of the energy use in the city,
and that's because our communities are relatively spread out and we're
very dependent on our cars and vehicles.
The components of the audit look at a whole variety of facets of
the community, including transportation, commercial, and
government.
In government itself, if you just separate that out, you see that the
largest use is water, irrigation, and wastewater treatment. All the
pumps, the electricity used to move water all around the county -- or
the city, in this case, takes a tremendous amount of energy, and that's
what you see reflected in that.
There are plenty of opportunities to address those high usages of
energy. And I would add to the list you see in front of you, for
community and government, that good planning, smart growth
community, smart growth projects, are good ways to capture trips to
have less travel vehicle trips on your roads, have less impact on your
roads. You know, public transit, like the CAT system, those sorts of
initiatives are absolutely vital.
And as we move in development toward the east, in Golden Gate
Estates, and out in the rural land stewardship area, these are the kinds
of strategies we want to be looking at in the county.
And the last point I want to make is that the next step you want to
Page 44
October 14-15, 2008
consider, after doing the audit, is to appoint or to gather the experts in
the county, your staff, the business community. And I will point out
that the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce has been very
proactive on this. They have gathered the business community and a
chamber alliance committee that's working on energy efficiency and
climate change and sea level reduction.
You saw a couple weeks ago Todd Gates had written an op. ed.
piece in the Naples Daily News about this very initiative, and it's also
attended by citizens of the county and environmental groups, and it's a
very important, highly -- there's a huge amount of consensus in the
community for doing this.
In summary, I just want to point out that Collier County Audubon
Society and the Conservancy of Southwest Florida are proposing to
hire a consultant to do a comprehensive energy audit for the county.
We believe that, as I said, there's an abundant support in the
community for this initiative to immediately start this work.
And I would like to ask, if there is consensus on this, if you need
a subsequent meeting to give staff direction, then we would encourage
you to do that as quickly as possible. And if you believe the
consensus you have now is sufficient to get us to start working with
your staff to move this energy audit forward, then we ask that that
direction be given now, too.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments, from the Board
of County Commissioners? Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Halas, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to see this move forward
right now. It's not -- it's not a taxpayer obligation whatsoever, but it
will benefit all of us in the end, and I don't see why we need to bring it
back for discussion until -- until the Audubon and Conservancy have
worked with our staff and come up with a proposal, and then they can
bring it back to us.
Page 45
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is one of the few times that
the environmental community said that we're going to help fund this.
Normally it's the other way around. They want government to fund
some kind of a study. So I go along with Commissioner Fiala in
regards to this, that since you're going to pay for the study, I
encourage my fellow commissioners to also approve this and move it
on as rapidly as possible -- obviously with the cost of energy and
finding new ways of making it more efficient to move people from
one area of this county to the other area, since transportation is one of
the high energy users.
And it's going to be interesting to find out, as we move through
this study, to determine how the utilities department is working in
regards to looking for more efficient ways, especially with the
mandates that are put on us by South Florida Water Management in
regards to using brackish water, which does cost a lot more and has a
larger carbon footprint.
So I think that this is a great study, and maybe that we then can
have some work forward with some initiatives to address the issue of
additional wells that are not just brackish water but are freshwater.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Brad, I appreciate you
bringing this forward. I did take the time to read the summary from
the City of Naples. Very impressive.
My concern is, how much is the cost of this you're spending, you
and the Conservancy, right?
MR. BRADLEY: Collier County Audubon and the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida would share in funding the consultant, which is
the primary cost for that. It's -- for the City of Naples, it was about
$7,000; for the county, which is obviously a much larger operation,
we're talking about probably around $20,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I support this. I really do,
Page 46
October 14-15, 2008
Brad. But here's my biggest concern is that this money, be it tax
money or be it money from the Conservancy and the Audubon
Society, it's still the people's money. It's money that people have
invested hoping to get a favorable return.
My big concern is that when this study is completed, that there'll
be one delay after the other and it will end up on the shelf and it will
be money that was spent for little reason. I just hope the
commitment's there to be able to take it to the next step when the
study's completed.
MR. BRADLEY: I think that there -- from what I have seen in
attending the Chamber of Commerce's chamber alliance meetings on
this and looking at the involvement, there's tremendous involvement
from the community already. There's recognition that this is a high
priority, especially in economically troubling times.
We cannot afford to be wasters on any account in any regard. So
I think that Collier County Government, as an example to the
community at large -- and I should point out, which I did not, Collier
County Government is probably less than 5 percent of the energy use
in Collier County. It's mostly business and residential, and we need to
provide the facilitation and the example as leaders in that effort. I
think that's the value in this, and I think there's a demand for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you. But I think
out most positive direction will be coming from the private sector out
there, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the EDC.
Thank you very much for this presentation today. You have my
support.
MR. CORNELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think we're going to have
unanimous support, but I just need clarifications.
When you say the county energy audit, are you saying county
government or the county?
MR. CORNELL: Both. It will be a comprehensive audit of
Page 47
October 14-15,2008
energy use by both Collier County Government as a component of the
broader community of Collier County, and that's the way it was done
for the City of Naples.
If you look at the report, the City of Naples accounted -- was --
the audit accounted for all the energy use that was -- could possibly be
documented from many, many different sources, from FDOT, from
Florida Power & Light, from Tico, to, you know, fuel suppliers for the
airport, for marine trades association, for all these different facets.
That was all accounted for in comprehensive energy usage, and then
it's broken down by sector.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One of your pieces of papers you said
to help reduce the dependencies on foreign oil. How do you
differentiate between foreign oil and domestic oil used by the county
and citizens and Collier County Government?
MR. CORNELL: That differentiation is not made. It's the
assumed -- any oil reduction -- any reduction in the use of oil,
gasoline, fuels, fossil fuels, is going to affect our overall demand as a
community, because we're part of the entire nation's demand for fuel
and energy, and whatever reduction we can make, whatever
efficiencies we can invoke is going to help reduce our demand on
foreign oil. And I think a testament to that is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would it be fair to say, it would also
reduce the demands on domestic oil?
MR. BRADLEY: Yeah, all oil, correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: And the idea is to save money and also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, to move towards renewable sources of
energy like FGCU's doing with their solar -- their two-megawatt solar
field.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, when you do this -- I mean, I --
the backup material in our agenda is different than your presentation.
Are you saying this energy audit -- efficiency audit would be there for
Page 48
October 14-15, 2008
the tool -- for a tool for county government and residents to use if they
choose to, or is there any further demands after the energy audit is
done?
MR. BRADLEY: Once the energy audit is done, it becomes a
tool. It's a baseline from which to measure progress should you
choose to commit yourselves to reduce energy uses. There's no
obligation obviously, but we would obviously hope that the county
would take the next steps, as Commissioner Coletta was just pointing
out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But we don't know what it's
going to say, so how can we make a commitment today?
MR. CORNELL: No. There's no commitment at this point.
What we're doing right now is suggesting that you at look your energy
usage and identify opportunities to reduce that usage in the interest of
economy and efficiency and global greenhouse gas emissions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, County Manager, I see
unanimous support for this energy audit study. It doesn't need to come
back to the Board of Commissioners, so I would assume your staff is
going to work with Mr. Cornell?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The only question -- can I just have one--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, please, yeah.
MR. MUDD: Are you going to include -- when you say Collier
County, are you going to include the municipalities in the study or are
you going to exclude the municipalities in the study? You've got
Marco, Everglades City and Naples? You've already done Naples, so
MR. BRADLEY: That's a question of scope of services when we
hire the consultant, and I think we're going to have to answer that one.
I can't answer that right now. That's a good question though.
MR. MUDD: We need to know that one.
Page 49
October 14-15, 2008
And then the last one, when -- just as an estimate so that the
board can be prepared and I can start working on an agenda item for
you because you're going to come back to the board present the study.
How long does the study take?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I believe it's about six months.
MR. KELLER: That's negotiable. It could be six to nine
months, I think.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. CORNELL: Six to nine months. Thank you very much for
your support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, we're not going to -- I can't
envision including the other municipalities in this, since they're their
own governing body governing over those citizens. So if it is
something different, then I guess we need to bring it back.
MR. MUDD: No, no. I guess what I'm saying to you is, if
they're going to say all of Collier County --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- okay, and they're going to include the
municipalities, then the municipalities are going to have something to
say about that. And so if you're going to do it, my recommendation is
-- and you want to include them, have them off as a section, and then
put them in the aggregate, and this way you know what the subtotals
are as far as effects are concerned so everybody can play their part in
making this a better county and a greener county.
MR. CORNELL: My guess that this is going to be only Collier
County . We'll exclude legal municipalities like City of Marco Island
and the City of Naples. We intend to take this also to the School
Board and we also intend to take it to those other municipalities, as
well as places in Lee County and surrounding counties.
This is something, obviously, that we all -- we're all in the same
boat. But the specific audit will be Collier County Government and
unincorporated Collier County.
Page 50
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Terri, let's take a 10-minute
break. Be back at -- actually, a nine-minute break, 9:40.
(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 HENNING: Last public petition?
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY CLAY BROOKER TO
DISCUSS DELAYED IMPROVEMENTS AT PINE RIDGE
ROAD/WHIPPOORWILL LANE INTERSECTION AND
ASSOCIATED FINES - MOTION FOR TRANSPORTATION
STAFF TO ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT FINES AND
ALSO RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT $7,000 FROM PETITIONER
FOR FUTURE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes. It's public petition number C, 6C. This item
was continued from the September 23, 2008, BCC Meeting. It's a
public petition request by Clay Brooker to discuss delayed
improvements on Pine Ridge Road/Whippoorwill Lane intersection,
and associated fines.
State your name, sir.
MR. BROOKER: Clay Brooker, for the record, with Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson, & Johnson. I'm here on behalf of Naples Nissan.
And with me, as well, as representative of Naples Nissan, Steve Terry,
about midway back.
Back on May 13th, if you recall, we appeared before you to
request a temporary Certificate of Occupancy while we worked on the
PUD commitment of improving the intersection of Whippoorwill and
Pine Ridge.
Page 51
October 14-15, 2008
You agreed to grant that TCO with three conditions. The first,
that a construction contract be executed, it was at the time; that we
post a bond for the work, we did; and that there will be a thousand per
day liquidated damages fine if the work wasn't completed by July
15th.
July 15th was the date we provided to you. It was a realistic date
that was not padded for any contingencies. It was a best-case scenario
with no provisions for possible delays, not even a rain delay.
The good news is that the intersection work is complete and the
PUD commitment is fully honored and satisfied. Unfortunately, and
the reason why we're here today, the work was not compete until
September 15th.
Today we respectfully request that no fine or penalty be imposed,
that the delays we faced were unforeseen. Back on May 13th when
we appeared before you, Commissioner Coy Ie demonstrated his
clairvoyance, maybe unknowingly so, but he stated, and I quote,
there's only one thing I would ask you, the BCC, to take into
consideration, and that is that the county itself on many occasions has
told us that something will be done as of a certain date and it doesn't
happen as of a certain date or a road construction proj ect or an
intersection improvement, and the reason it doesn't happen is because
of an unforeseen circumstance. And then Commissioner Coyle then
gives an example of weather delays.
The unforeseen circumstances that have been detailed -- that we
faced have been detailed on the documents I submitted to each of you
a few days ago. By way of summary, we've experienced plan
changes, the cost for which Naples Nissan absorbed. We experienced
rain delays, Tropical Storm Fay . We experienced utility companies,
that even though they were paid in full in advance to show up on a
particular day and do the work timely, failed to do so.
The bottom line is that Naples Nissan performed diligently.
When it encountered an unforeseen delay, it dealt with it head on, and
Page 52
October 14-15,2008
several times absorbed additional costs rather than delaying the project
further.
The PUD commitment has been fulfilled and it was fulfilled all
during the off season. I should note that we empathize with your
transportation department because they deal with the difficulties -- the
type of difficulties we faced in road construction, and they face those
on a daily basis.
No one's been harmed by this delay. The job is done, and under
these circumstances, a fine would serve no purpose. We, therefore,
request that you accept the improved intersection and impose no fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments? Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to have the -- our side of the
story from the transportation group, then I do have some questions that
I'll ask --
MR. BROOKER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the petitioner.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation Services.
We've met with the representatives of Naples Nissan several
times. We reviewed their delays and the request for additional days.
We don't find it to be inconsistent with what they've had to deal with.
They have pursued this project diligently.
The additional costs they've incurred has almost been a
self-penalty to them, in our opinion. When you're splitting delay days
down to a limited amount, you're looking at minimal LDs and it's,
quite frankly, Commissioners, in our opinion, I don't think it serves a
purpose to pursue this, but it's at your direction that we -- you know,
we take.
So that's our position is that they've done a fairly good job,
they've attacked the issues as quick as they can, and they've
encountered some issues that they didn't control.
Page 53
October 14-15, 2008
In fairness to them, they're dealing with what we would deal
with. And utility delays and rain delays happen.
So that's our position, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Now I'd like to ask the
-- Commissioner, if I could --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- when was this -- this dealership,
when did it start? When did you start building this dealership? This is
MR. BROOKER: I would -- I would guess in January of this
past year.
MR. TERRY: It predates us. I don't know.
MR. BROOKER: He's asking for when the dealership started to
be constructed on site.
MR. TERRY : No, I understand. I said the construction actually
precedes us buying the store from Ben Freeland. So I don't know off
the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Anyway, there was two
owners in this, and I believe -- did you represent the other owner also?
MR. BROOKER: I represented the other owner in attempting to
get -- or dealing with Site Development Plan issues, and I think that's
what Steve is mentioning, when there were things going on before
Steve's group purchased.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the question is that you did
represent both owners, right, at one point?
MR. BROOKER: Yes, yes. And if I can foresee where you're
going there. Ben Freeland sold Naples Nissan without me even
knowing. I was told to deliver copies of documents to Steve Terry's
group, and I asked why, and that was days before closing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I guess maybe --
maybe you do have clairvoyance on regards to where I'm going with
thi s.
Page 54
October 14-15,2008
The deal is that whoever was the owner realized that there were
commitments in this PUD as far as making intersection improvements.
It's my understanding, staff informed me, that even 60 days before the
opening of this dealership, there was no activity in regards to
addressing the intersection improvements and then, of course, you
came before us asking that you get your temporary.
MR. BROOKER: CO.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Your temporary CO, excuse --
thank you very much -- your temporary CO and that you were going
to do the utmost to try to get the intersection improvements done. I
understand about that. But I don't understand why there was nothing
done prior to you coming before the Board of County Commissioners
saying, hey, we need a -- we need a reprieve here so that we can open
up the dealership. So can you explain that?
MR. BROOKER: Yeah. And to borrow back to the May
meeting, I believe, Commissioner Halas, you asked about -- you asked
Nick Casalanguida about an email he had sent to me directly, and that
was at a time when I still represented Ben Freeland. I, of course,
forwarded -- and Nick was asking about the intersection
improvements, reminding everyone, again -- this is no fault of Nick's
-- reminding everyone again that these intersection improvements had
to be completed before COs were to be issued.
I immediately forwarded that on -- you have my word -- to Ben
Freeland, and said, Ben, what's going on? This was at a time when
Ben had already decided to sell the dealership unbeknownst to me. I
was not brought on to represent the subsequent owner until after the
closing later.
So what I did was I forwarded on Nick's email -- and it wasn't the
only one. You hit on one -- telling Ben, reminding him again, you're
playing with fire. You need to get this intersection improvements --
these intersection improvements finished.
Ben's in Tennessee now. Steve Terry and a new owner of Naples
Page 55
October 14-15, 2008
Nissan inherited this problem. Did they jump on it right away? Plans
were submitted. The process started in the fall to get the construction
documents for the intersection improvements approved. Started in the
fall. Things occurred. They didn't get done as quickly as anyone
would have liked.
But in the end, we're standing here today with an improved
intersection and construction that was done in the off season rather
than the winter on season, high season.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand, but I have some -- I
have some reservation in just letting you say that we're just going to
forget this and there's nothing involved as far as addressing other
issues or addressing traffic around this particular dealership.
As you know, there was also some other business owners that
came in last board meeting stating that they had some issues with
trying to ingress and egress out of their property, and I think it's right
next door to yours.
So maybe it would be nice if you could work with those other
owners and see what you can do to assist in regards to getting them to
be able to ingress and egress out of their property, and it might even
be beneficial for you in the long run.
MR. BROOKER: In that regard -- and one of the meetings with
Nick Casalanguida, we did offer to pay $7,000 towards the cost of the
changes, whatever those may be, to the intersection to assist the
property owners on the east side of Whippoorwill Lane. Steve made
that offer at the meeting with Nick, and he's willing to honor it if
requested today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments by other
commissioners?
I drive by that intersection every day, and -- well, just about
every day. Not every day, but particularly on the weekends I notice
that crews are out there working on Saturday and Sundays. It's kind of
the same experience that we notice on Immokalee Road where you're
Page 56
October 14-15,2008
waiting for the power company to move the poles.
You know, to me it's about getting it done, and it's done. I don't
see -- personally I don't see any need to fine Naples Nissan for the
complete -- the completion of the intersections, and staff agrees with
that position.
So I don't know if you need a motion -- you need a motion?
Yeah, we do need a motion because we gave direction with specificity
last time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to make a motion that -- ask
transportation staff to accept the intersection improvements with no
fine.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but I wanted -- yes, for
discussion. Did you -- Steve, Is that your name --
MR. TERRY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- said he would donate $7,000 to
completing that cut-through.
MR. BROOKER: The changes to the Dudley Road area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right. Is that in your motion
as well to accept that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can include that, but that's a separate
-- separate issue, and I think that we're going to hear that under 10.
But Naples Nissan didn't ask for that barrier in there. They were
required it by us, the county. And, in fact, that barrier along the
two-lane roadway was extended even further down and which they
had to tear up. So I mean, I'll include that in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the motion now
Page 57
October 14-15, 2008
stands that we forgive all but $7,000 to be applied towards the median
improvements that have to be done; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. For those further median
improvements.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In other words, if it doesn't take place,
then there's no payment. If it does take place, up to $7,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I think that's only
fair, because we did have a commitment and we're supposed to be
taking charge of the public's trust when we make these commitments,
and I think that would be a fair tradeoff.
Our County Attorney seems a little perplexed. Maybe he might
want to add something.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. Just for clarity on the motion. One,
these aren't fines or penalties. These are liquidated damages. The
public has been inconvenienced for some time there, which is why we
do this sort of thing.
My understanding is we are waiving all of the liquidated
damages that are presently owed by the owner here, but we want to
,reserve 7,000 of it towards intersection improvements; Is that the
idea?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, if there are further intersection
improvements done on -- what is the name of -- Dudley and
Whippoorwill.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And Mr. Feder will address that when
you get to 10G today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I think we're mixing up
two things here. We're mixing up liquidated damages with a
commitment that was previously made by the petitioner, and I don't
think it's appropriate to collect liquidated damages to fulfill a
commitment that the petitioner has made separately, so I wouldn't
Page 58
October 14-15, 2008
want to confuse those. And I think the County Attorney would agree
with that.
So why don't we recognize and accept the petitioner's willingness
to meet his earlier commitment of providing up to $7,000 for the
improvements of that intersection if -- if it is required, if we make a
decision under Item 10 --
MR. MUDD: G.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- G today, and just stick with the
liquidated damages here and waive the liquidated damages.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I'll put that -- part of my
motion, okay.
Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng --
MR. MUDD: Can I -- let me just make sure I got clarification.
Commissioner, you put it into your motion but I didn't hear the second
agree to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thanks for the clarification, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0 (sic).
Page 59
October 14-15, 2008
Commissioner Halas dissenting in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean 4-1.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 4-1, yes. Thank you very much.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you.
Item #9A
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE HISTORICAL &
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD - MOTION TO
RE-ADVERTISE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to 9A. It's
appointment of members to the Historical and Archaeological
Preservation Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to re-advertise both of these
positions per the committee's request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to re-
advertise the positions on the Historical/ Archaeologic Preservation
Board.
Let me just say I'm not going to support the motion. We had two
people apply for it. They're definitely qualified for this board. And if
others wanted to apply for it, they had more than ample time.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1. Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Page 60
October 14-15, 2008
Item #9B
APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE - MOTION TO RE-
ADVERTISE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B, appointment
of a member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Again, I make a motion that the --
we re-advertise for this position per the committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala and
second by Commissioner Coy Ie to re-advertise for the position of the
Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2008-305: APPOINTING RANDY ANDERSON TO
THE BOARD OF BUILDING ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9C, appointment of a
Page 61
October 14-15, 2008
member to the Board of Building Adjustments and Appeals.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion for Pamela
Brown.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On 9C?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. 9C, forgive me. I
lost that page.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion for Randy
Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to appoint Randy Anderson, a
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2008-306: APPOINTING PAMELA J. BROWN TO
THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9D, appointment of member to the
Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me try again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 62
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion for
Pamela Brown.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
appoint Pamela Brown to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9E
CONTINUATION OF THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL FOR THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MOTION TO HAVE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, COUNTY ATTORNEY AND BCC
EXECUTIVE MANAGER DISCUSS ALL ISSUES AND BRING
BACK A PROPOSAL AT A FUTURE MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9E, to discuss
continuation of the annual performance appraisal for the Executive
Manager to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, we were all provided
with much material that was in the HR file. I only found one exit
reviewed as requested by the board. Am I wrong in that statement?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
Page 63
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I didn't have anything to say
about that, although I would consider some of the letters written by the
individuals who left to be an exit -- have the same weight as an exit
interview. While there might not have been an actual interview, some
of them did write letters concerning their reasons for leaving.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I didn't get those letters, but--
well, I did get those letters, but I don't have them with me.
But I can say that the exit interview in 2006 was the same and
similar concerns that I wrote on my evaluation. It just so happens that
my comments were two years later. So that's my comments on that
one.
The second -- the second thing is, I don't know why the county
commissioners need to manage a contract for six employees. The
County Manager had it before. I don't understand why we did that.
The County Manager was going to do some research on that item for
me. I didn't think it was really necessary. I still question why we
need a manager under the Board of Commissioners when, clearly,
through the process of the County Manager and HR, can do the same
thing as the board, so that's my only comment on that one.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I understand your
comments, you know, and it's a little different than what we have
down in front of us now for the agenda item, 9E. It's a discussion. I
guess what you're looking for is to bring something like this back? Is
that what you're asking, Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know the process, we can
discuss that under this or not.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. You can discuss this if you want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything further, Commissioner?
Page 64
October 14-15,2008
Oh, Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This was something that came up
in the discussion two years ago that I felt that it should fall under the
purview of the County Manager, and at the time there wasn't any
support for it.
So I think that it's good that we're opening up that discussion
again. And it's going to be interesting to see where this -- where this
trail I eads us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I was just a little confused
about what it was we were supposed to be talking about, but now I
think I've got it. We're talking about opening up the discussion about
whether or not we have a contract directly with the manager or
whether it should be under the County Manager.
Let me tell you why we did it before, why we have it the way it
is right now. And the -- it's going to require some plain talk here.
There are enough instances in my opinion where the staff has their
own positions and their own agendas. I do not want my staff, my aide,
reporting to someone whom I will be questioning, in some cases
cross-examining, about differences in perception and policy.
I cannot depend upon having any level of confidentiality with my
aide unless my aide is managed by someone who is responsible to this
Board of County Commissioners.
I do not want the County Manager or anybody else influencing
my aide about what she should do or he should do. I want that aide to
be as independent as possibly can make it. There are inevitably
conflicts between a Board of County Commissioners and the county
staff with respect to policies and what should happen, and most us
have, in fact, expressed our concerns about that, and there's nothing
wrong with that. It happens in every governmental agency, so it is a
natural process, but I don't want to exacerbate it by having my aide
reporting to the county staff.
Page 65
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I share those concerns, and I
think that we can work through those to have our aide responsible to
the county commission -- county commissioner. That's really their job
description, and there needs to be tweaking in the -- in the County
Manager's ordinance to reflect that.
Their job is to help us serve the constituents and getting answers,
replying to constituents. You know, again, I don't -- I'm not going to
ask for Ms. Filson's dismissal at this time, but I don't know why we
need a contract.
And, you know, there's so much conflict in the office. Let the
County Manager and HR deal with it. That's what they deal with all
the time with other agencies within the county commission. That's the
only change that I would like to see.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning,
I understand where you're going. We have less than a perfect situation
as it's set up now, and we tried to correct it several different times now
by turning some of the issues back to the County Manager's Office
through HR where before we were trying to handle everything
internally.
The idea being was to make our original thought -- this was back
a number of years ago for very good reason -- because we had cases
where the County Manager's staff was telling our employees that we
could or couldn't do this or that, and that was totally unacceptable.
And that's one of the reasons that brought us to the point we're at
today.
Now, maybe we overshot the goal and we need to readdress the
situation. I don't know if we're going to be able to get there in one big
jump. I think there's a lot of things to be considered.
I do think that we could do a much better job than we're doing
now. I'm not really happy with the way that the present situation's
coming down. And I don't know if I can blame anyone person or any
Page 66
October 14-15,2008
part or just the way the whole system's set up, but I'm willing to look
at alternatives that will take us back to something in the way of
normalcy so that we can come in here and do our job and function
without having to worry about office politics.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I feel that this organization should
be under the County Manager. I don't foresee that there will be direct
contact with my aide with the County Manager. I believe that the
chain of command will still flow as it normally would where the
County Manager would have contact with the manager of that group,
and I feel that that's the best way to have this organization.
This is not a CIA organization. I don't believe that there's going
to be any undue pressure, but I believe that the -- where we're at at this
point in the -- with the office, that we need to make sure that all
parties, whether it's the supervisor or whether it's the employees, have
the same benefit as other employees that are hired under the guidance
of the County Manager. So that's my two cents worth.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, you can't get there
that way. Who's going to decide on the salary increase for our aides?
Is it going to be the County Manager or are we, as commissioners,
going to do it? If we, as commissioners, are going to do it, how do we
ensure parity between all of the employees? There's no one who's
making those kinds of judgments.
How are we going to make sure that they're all evaluated using
the same criteria if there's no single manager who is responsible to us
to do that? You can't do -- you can't just turn over management to the
County Manager and then say, well, they're going to work for me
exclusively and I'm going to tell them what they can do, I'm going to
tell them what their salary is, I'm going to tell them how they should
conduct themselves, and I'm going to decide whether I fire them.
I can't tell you how many times I have seen situations in the
Page 67
October 14-15, 2008
county staff where people who are not performing adequately on their
jobs are given excellent performance reviews and then transferred to
another department rather than being terminated. That happens all the
time. At least some of the people that we have gotten into our office
have come that route, which probably explains why they left or why
they were fired.
Now, we don't have, in my opinion, consistently high standards
with respect to evaluating people and taking appropriate action for
employees who are failing to meet standards in the County Manager's
Office. That's why I don't think that you judge the efficiency of this
office based upon how many people have been terminated or have left
the office. There's nothing wrong with terminating people who are not
performing well.
Now, I have made my contribution to getting this problem
resolved. I gave up the best aide I have ever had to another
commissioner in the hopes that we would stop this argument. That
probably leaves that employee thinking that I wanted to get rid of her,
and I didn't. She probably doesn't feel good about that. I'm not
talking about whether she feels good about working with the other
commissioner or not, but she probably doesn't feel very good about
me just agreeing that, sure, you take her if it will make you feel better.
Now, we need to put a stop to this, and the commissioners on this
board have to understand that they are part of the problem, if not the
major part of the problem, and we simply have to put a stop to it, and
if it means a public investigation for someone outside Collier County
to come in here and conduct a public evaluation of what's going on
here, then I'm ready to support it. But I am not going to continue
having our offices disrupted over claims of inefficiency which do not
exist.
And so we will argue about this, I'm sure, until hell freezes over
because I'm not going to convince any commissioner who's already
made up his mind on this issue. But we need to bring this to closure
Page 68
October 14-15,2008
because it is not in anybody's best interest to continue this kind of
debate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you brought out some very
good points, so let's try to get some answers --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to your questions. Employee's
evaluation before the contract, who did that? County Manager, did --
do you know? The office aides? Sue, do you know.
MS. FILSON: I did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did it.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir, with input from the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who does it now?
MS. FILSON: I do, with input from the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it's the same. Does it -- does it
really need to change? No. And I agree that the evaluations, the
categories, they need to be per their job. That is my problem that I
have with the evaluations that I see. They were graded on things that
had nothing to do with their performance that year.
The concerns I have under the existing contract, there are certain
things that are not being done and nobody is managing it. That's what
we hire a County Manager to do is manage the employees.
The only difference is, we need to narrow down on the aides of,
they are responsible for assisting the commissioners to do their job.
And the county commission can interfere with their day-to-day job,
because under the County Manager's ordinance, we can't do that.
That's the only thing.
And if I remember right, since I've been a commissioner since
2000, we always had that ability, but the County Manager's ordinance
was still there.
So, again, I don't know why we need to go through this
embarrassing process each year, keep the management we have under
Page 69
October 14-15, 2008
the office. It's just who that person reports to. That's all.
And I'm going to make a motion to that fact. I'm going to make a
motion that we terminate the contract -- and let me make this clear --
and direct the County Manager to manage the Office of the County
Commissioner through the Executive Manager of the Board of
Commissioners.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I can't
support the motion for one reason. I'd like to have some more details.
I'd like to hear from the County Manager. I'd like to be able to study
several different options. I'd like to be able to hear from Sue Filson,
the administrator of our office, as to what might be able to be done to
be able to alleviate some of the problems.
I think one of the problems we've got -- and I think
Commissioner Coyle has alluded to it -- is ourselves. In some cases, I
guess the person that yells the loudest gets the results. It's become a
little bit of a power struggle to be able to get something done, and
that's one of the reasons now I'm thinking it might be a good idea to be
under the County Manager in some form to be able to avoid that
power struggle to be able to assure outcomes for anyone particular
individual because that person might be a little more outspoken.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you want to continue this
item and get some more information?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I want to come back with
much more detail and with suggestions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: More information.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to hear from Sue
Filson, too, on some suggestions.
Page 70
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I can -- I can support that, but
let me -- let's hear from the rest of the colleagues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would be interested in
seeing how you avoid a conflict with the County Manager's ordinance
by doing that. The minute that Ms. Filson works for the County
Manager, Ms. Filson and her employees are County Manager
employees.
Now, how are you going to influence an evaluation, how are you
going to institute disciplinary proceedings against someone who is
your aide, and how are you going to be able to direct that aide to take
specific action that you want them to take rather than going through
the County Manager? You can't do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's why it should come back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's why it shouldn't come
back. That's why what we should do is vote the motion down and put
an end to it. We're going to be having this debate every time we get up
here on this dais.
We ought to say, it is what it is now, it should stay that way, and
we should not place it under the County Manager for administration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It can't go on the way it's
been going. There's -- there is -- there's too much dissension in our
office. It must be resolved. Do you think that by status quo it will be
resolved or do you think we need to take another step? Maybe our
aides need another avenue in this equation in order to not ever
deteriorate to where we have just come from?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I mean, is -- may I answer
that question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
Page 71
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't -- I don't know the solution.
I thought I had done something that would help solve this problem by
giving up my aide. I really thought that what we were looking for is to
make sure every commissioner got an aide that they were happy with.
And as I see it, that really isn't the case.
And it isn't a case of not being able to get the proper service. We
all get really good service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know that at least three of the
members of this board have no complaints whatsoever about our aides
or about the way our aides are managed. And prior to this summer, I
don't believe that more than one member of this board had any
dissatisfaction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. Commissioner Coyle, this is
not just this summer. This has been going on, and we've -- this has
been going on for years. Each time it boils up to the top, and then we
put that fire out, try and solve the problem, go back again. I expect
this to be the very last time we're ever dealing with this.
We, as county commissioners, each are indebted to our aides.
They're our lifeline. They're our right arm. And I don't think anybody
on this board would have anything negative to say about anyone of
our aides, and each one of them, we all like them.
The problem is inside there, and we don't want to see them
unhappy. We don't want to see them in tears. And we -- we don't
know what to do to solve the problem, but we really can't control that.
Something's got to be done to eliminate it. Now, maybe all of this
very embarrassing public discussion will finally end it, but I have to
say, I don't ever want to see it coming back again because then things
have to -- drastic measures have to be changed -- or taken to change
the situation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
Page 72
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in order to say that,
Commissioner Fiala, you've got to hold somebody responsible for
changing it. And what I am saying to you is that the tears I have seen
in the office are the result of actions by commissioners, not by the
manager, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't agree with you, but let me
say this. I don't agree with you at all, by the way. But let me say this:
I had made a suggestion the last time we discussed this, and that is that
each one of our aides, very confidentially and very privately, talk to
somebody in HR, let HR eval -- and let them say it without ever being
disclosed as to what they have to say. Let HR take each of these
comments, evaluate them on a sheet of paper, and then give direction
to our office manager what needs to be changed to ensure that our
office never goes in this direction again, and maybe that's the only
way to do it.
Somebody's got to give some direction. I don't think we can
because we're not -- each one of us is only involved with our own
aide.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I agree with a lot of
statements that are being made here today, but to sweep this under the
rug and pretend that there is no problem, that it's going to fix itself, is
not going to happen.
I have it on good authority that at least three of the aides in our
office have already retained attorneys and some have had them for
some time to try to protect their interests, and with a condition like
that in place, I'm very concerned. I mean, if someone has retained an
attorney, they obviously feel threatened in some way, and this is a
concern.
I don't think it's going to be resolved in a five-minute discussion
here. I think what we need to do is to address the -- is to have the
County Attorney and the County Manager bring back some
Page 73
October 14-15,2008
suggestions along with Sue Filson to what can be done to resolve these
problems.
I would like to see everybody in my office happy. I got an aide
that goes way out of her way to make things work. She's well loved
by the people I represent, and she still seems to be quite traumatized
by conditions around her. Now, I don't know if this is a normal thing
for her or not, but I've seen this in other cases too in the past.
I think possibly a -- modify the structure that we have now -- I
don't even know what that would be -- might be able to alleviate this
problem.
I would feel a lot better if I knew that my aide and the other aides
in the office felt like they were looking forward to coming to work
every day.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, can we either vote this motion
up or down and see if there's an alternative?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Say the motion one more
time, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the motion is to not have a
contract with Sue Filson. Let her be under the County Manager's
management. That's basically what it is.
Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I do want to continue
the discussion a little bit. I'd like to hear from the County Manager
how he interprets this motion to be as far as direction for him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. First of all, you have a -- you have an
active contract with an employee, and that contract has stipulations in
it. And I haven't read the contract. I think I read it before it was
issued the first time, and I haven't looked at it since.
But I believe it has a clause in it that basically says, if the board
cancels the contract, there is a certain amount of months that you have
to pay as a board to that employee as a -- and this golden parachute
Page 74
October 14-15, 2008
thing has been used too much in the public, okay, for CEO's on Wall
Street, and this is nowhere near close to this, and maybe Ms. Filson
can tell me in her contract, or, Jeff, if you know what it is as far as if
the board decides to terminate the agreement, the contract, then there
is there a -- there's a shepherd's provision, so to speak, severance
provision, excuse me, that's in there, and the board would have to pay
that particular money unless Ms. Filson decides to say that she doesn't
want it and/or that contract wouldn't be upheld in her opinion.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is an awkward forum to be having this
conversation. I'd rather sit down with the County Manager and Sue
Filson outside the public forum. We're not terminating, Sue, okay.
From my understanding, she will be working for the County Manager,
so then we're really not talking about severance of employment here.
But this is something that, if you're looking towards this thing, I
would prefer if you direct the County Manager and myself to sit down
with Sue and see if we can come up with a proposal to you rather than
hashing this out in a public forum.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I think probably my
motion will fail. Commissioner Halas's second to the motion will fail,
but let's go at it since we're here.
All in favor of the motion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I just want to be
absolutely certain. Your motion is not to bring this back for
discussion but take action right now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I can't support that
motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because there's too much I don't
know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. I understood that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just curious if the second is
Page 75
October 14-15, 2008
still there with the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll pull my second for--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there an alternate motion?
Is there a -- somebody make a motion to continue this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be happy to make that
motion at this time, that we continue it and have the County Manager,
the County Attorney, and Sue Filson sit down and go over all the
particulars and weigh in the facts of what the commission said here
today and come back with some suggestions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and seconded by Commissioner Halas to continue this item,
give direction to the County Manager, County Attorney, and office
manager, to bring something back to the Board of Commissioners for
consideration at a further meeting.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1.
Next item?
Item #9F
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY
REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION OF EACH COUNTY'S
LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE POLICY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Is 9F, and it's a recommendation to approve an
Page 76
October 14-15, 2008
interlocal agreement with Lee County regarding the administration of
each county's local vendor preference policies. And this item -- and
this item is the chairman's item, and he's been working with Steve
Carnell, our purchasing agent, and my staff, so to speak, as we try to
coordinate with the Lee County staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. The -- speaking to some of--
the majority of the commissioners in Lee County, they -- the
indications that I get, they would love to do an interlocal agreement on
reciprocity with their local businesses.
Steve Carnell did send up this agreement to Lee County. Their
staff is supportive of it. And the only changes that I passed out is
different from your agenda packet is they interject, the notices would
be Lee County Government purchasing department and their address
and phone number and contact persons, and they also put in the
signatory on the last page, 3 of 3.
And this will be on the Lee County Commission agenda in the
future. It provides equal preference of what the neighboring counties
have from their local preference ordinance. And if anybody has any
questions, Steve Carnell will definitely want to assist.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. At first blush this sounds
pretty decent, but I wouldn't want to pass this -- as you say, sometime
in the future it will be on their agenda. And so we are then accepting
and they're not accepting our people. I would like it to be
simultaneous with their approval so that both counties are accepting
people at the same time.
I -- our vendors have long been without being able to be accepted
in Lee County . We only put this in place a short time ago, just months
ago, and so our vendors have had to suffer all this time with not being
able to accept any -- or be able to be accepted by the Lee County
people. So I don't want this to be into effect unless they are.
MR. CARNELL: And it won't. The -- if you look at section
Page 77
October 14-15, 2008
5.02, it addresses that point directly.
The agreement does not take effect until both parties approve it.
We're being asked today, our commission, to approve it, start the
process, but it will not be binding on either county until both have
approved it, and we won't implement it either until then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your name for the record?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, Steve Carnell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still have some reservations about
voting for this in regards to, as a commissioner, I should be looking at
making sure that the taxpayers get value received. And I have a
problem with -- whereby we come up with a joint agreement with Lee
and Collier County. There might be someone else that can do the job
at a lot cheaper rate in Broward or Hendry County or Sarasota, and we
end up discriminating against them and they can do the same job but
they can't compete because of the personal preference that we have
with people that are here in Collier County.
So I have a problem with this, and I'm just going to be right up
front that I can't vote for this. As -- I voted for it originally, and the
more I think about this, the more I feel that it's discriminatory for not
only the people, but for the citizens here in Collier County for getting
the biggest bang for their buck. They pay taxes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I understand what you're
saying, Commissioner Halas. We always have to be concerned about
the final dollar and our responsibility to the taxpayers. The driving
factor behind this was to be able to help local businesses.
The one thing that gives me the comfort level is that we have the
right to be able to override this at any point in time that we see it's
necessary, and we have on several occasions.
It doesn't necessarily have to be the dollar factor. It may be the
Page 78
October 14-15,2008
factor that someone from outside of this immediate area actually has
more people working for them and they just never took the time to
register as a local agent.
So I can support the motion as it's put together, and I commend
Commissioner Henning for putting it together and working so closely
with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner
Halas in principal. I think it's detrimental to the overall competitive
environment when we start doing this, and we've expressed those
concerns in the past.
In this particular case, however, this tends to relax the effects of
our prior policy, and I would vote for it only for that reason because
it's better than not having a reciprocal agreement at all. It actually
does broaden the competitive base a bit.
But on principal, I still don't like this concept, because having
been on the bidding side of large government contracts for many
years, I can tell you it takes time and money to bid on these things.
And if you know going in that somebody else is likely to get special
preference, you're not likely to put that much time and effort into
preparing a bid. And as a result we're not -- we're not going to get
people interested in doing business.
One of the ways you can get people into Collier County and
create jobs in Collier County is to award them contracts here. Then
you might find that those companies will come here and hire people,
and we'll have a bigger tax base as a result and we'll have more
successful businesses. But that's an argument for another time
whenever the problem occurs, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. A question for Steve.
Maybe you can help clear this up for me. I thought -- I seem to
remember, but I don't know for sure. I seem to remember that if a
Page 79
October 14-15, 2008
qual -- if a bidder came in, say, from Broward County and voted on
building a road, for instance, and a local bidder built -- bid on it, the
bidder from Broward County was 25 percent lower than our guy, he
would get the bid. If it's only -- it's only 10 percent, isn't it? There's
the 10 percent rule there.
MR. CARNELL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If it's within 10 percent, then our
local bidder has an option to meet that bid. If it's more than 10
percent, the other guy from the other county gets it, right?
MR. CARNELL: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to clarify that for
everybody's understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just -- I'll try to be brief.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. But you see, that's not the
point. The point is, if a bidder knows that his competitors are going to
get a chance to meet his bid, then why would he bid in the first place?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then he'd bid 12 percent --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But he's -- you know, he's got to
prepare the bid, he's got to take the time and effort to do that. That's
costly.
So the ultimate effect is, you keep people from getting interested
in doing business with you, and ultimately the number of bidders will
dwindle away. If you're going to do it that way, why don't you just --
just throw the thing open and say okay, you guys just have an auction,
and we'll-- or we'll have an auction, and then we'll decide who has the
lowest bid and we'll take you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But our people can't go over to
Broward County and bid either because they have a local preference
option there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'll pay higher prices.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if we are the only ones that do
Page 80
October 14-15,2008
not have one in place, then ours are the only business people who
suffer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure they're suffering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, if we can stay on topic about
the agreement.
Sue, do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a motion to
approve the agreement, send it up to Lee County for their
consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the item.
Discussion on it -- motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1. Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
Okay. We're moving right along.
Item #10A
REVIEW THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS MARINA AND BOAT
LAUNCH FACILITY PURCHASE OPTIONS AND OBTAIN
DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 81
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONERS ON HOW TO PROCEED - CONTINUED TO
LATER IN THE MEETING (TABLED)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to IDA. This is a --
to review the Port of the Islands Marina and boat launch facility
purchase options and obtain direction from the Board of County
Commissioners on how to proceed.
This item -- and Mr. Gary McAlpin will present, who's your
Coastal Zoning Management Director.
This item was brought to the board based on a letter that was
received from the owner of the Port of the Isles Marina, and I will tell
you that the options have changed from the original letter that we
received, okay -- and this is still a moving target. As you did see a --
on the change sheet that there were -- there were now alternatives 3A
and 3B that we received late last week.
Mr. McAlpin?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. -- County Commissioner--
County Manager. For the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone
Management.
The Shucart family is desirous of selling all or a portion of the
Port of the Isles Marina to the county. They've worked with county
staff to develop a number of proposals.
As Mr. Mudd has said, we have a late proposal that is coming in.
We're here to get your direction on how to proceed on these.
We have -- the proposals that you have are based on pricing that
real property management has obtained two independent appraisals
on, and it is the average of both of those.
Some key points on the Port of the Islands Marina. It is a
recently renovated, 175-wet-slip marina. It includes 140 wet slips that
are available for short- and long-term rental. It has a fueling facility, a
boat launch ramp.
It has boat and trailer and car parking and some long-term boat
Page 82
October 14-15, 2008
storage on 2.4 acres. It has a marina building, 7,400 square foot, that
houses a ship store, bathrooms, offices, and that's on 1.4 acres of
commercially zoned property.
It has -- included in the -- in one of the options, is approximately
1.46 acres of upland property that could be used for the Ochopee fire
station. And lastly -- and it has 10 acres of submerged lands that are
owned outright by the Shucarts.
So we have looked at a number of options. And the first option
that we have looked at is only to purchase a portion of the property,
and that would be the boat ramp, the associated trailer and boat
parking for that, and the fire station parcel. And the price that we
have -- have appraisals to supporting (sic) is $4,045,000.
There are two pieces of that. The Shucarts have agreed to owner
finance the property, and if they owner finance the property, it would
be for 10 years at 5 percent interest. They -- the terms of that would
be no interest payments for the first three years. The interest would
accrue against the principal. We would pay principal/interest
payments only for the next seven years, and there would be a balloon
payment at the end.
The second option under just the portion of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gary?
MR. McALPIN: -- purchasing the boat ramp--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Ms. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I interrupt? We read all this in
our executive summary. We already have.
MR. McALPIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't need to read it to us
again. If I could just get to the bottom line here. You've presented us
one, two, three, four, five --
MR. McALPIN: Seven.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- seven options, and you're asking
Page 83
October 14-15, 2008
us to tell you what you are to do.
MR. McALPIN: We're asking for your input--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not what we do, okay. If
you've got options where we can make a decision, that's fine, but none
of these options are complete enough for us to make a decision, in my
opinion, and your final statement, that the funds don't exist anyway.
There's -- a shortfall of $2.8 million can be expected.
There are too many unanswered questions in this case. If you
buy the ship store, how much are you going to make on it? Who's
going to operate it? Are we going to have a vendor? The profit
margin on it right now is relatively small. How are you going to make
sure it doesn't turn into a liability to taxpayers if we buy that portion?
My feeling is that the only guidance we can give you is, get those
answers to those questions and come back to us with some concrete
recommendations that you can fund. Because if you come back with a
recommendation that says we're $2.8 million short, what do you
expect to tell -- us to tell you? Do it anyway?
MR. McALPIN : Well, Commissioner Coy Ie, this came up, and
regardless of the options, we don't have the funds at this point to fund
any of this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: We can't fund it from a -- if we just buy the
boat ramp and the associated parking or the entire marina. The option
is, is that the -- why this was looked at is because properties like this,
marinas only come on the market at a -- not on every day and we
thought that this was an exceptional opportunity, and bring it to the
commissioners to decide how to proceed accordingly. In any event,
we would look for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But let me interrupt, if I may, if I
may. I know you were just going to go there.
What I'd love to do is move this along rather quickly so that we
can get to discussing this. We have five speakers, and we go to lunch
Page 84
October 14-15, 2008
in 15 minutes.
How about if we first hear from our speakers, then we get that
out of the way, and then we'll finish -- finish up -- I'll let you finish
now -- but we'll finish up. First Commissioner Coletta was waiting
online, and then Commissioner Halas was waiting online, and we'll
move forward that way.
MR. McALPIN: I just will ask, if there's any questions on any of
the options that we have, to state to the point, we -- the ship store's a
break-even proposition at this point in time.
We've looked at it based on preliminary numbers. The numbers
are prorated numbers, and there really is not enough history with the
ship store to be able to determine long-term whether it will be a
break-even proposition for the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Obviously this needs to be
negotiated.
Would you -- would you call the speakers, please, and --
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- then we'll move into the
commissioner questions.
MS. FILSON: James Shucart. He'll be followed by Ray Russell.
MR. SHUCART: Good morning. My name's James Shucart.
My son Christopher and I are residents of Collier County and partners
in the Islands Marina, LLC, which owns Port of the Islands Marina.
Last December my son and I met with Commissioner Coletta in
order to discuss the possibility of the county purchasing the marina in
order to provide water access to the 10,000 Islands for the residents of
Collier County and also to build a much-needed and long-overdue fire
station in the Ochopee Fire District.
In the meeting Commissioner Coletta was very supportive of the
idea, but because of the difficult economic conditions, he said that we
must come up with a proposal that not only met the needs of the
county, but also made economic sense.
Page 85
October 14-15, 2008
We feel that after nine months of closely working with county
staff led by Marla Ramsey, Gary McAlpin, and Barry Williams, we
have before you a set of options that meet those challenges proposed
by Commissioner Coletta in that meeting.
We have -- as was mentioned earlier, we have offered to accept
as part of the purchase price approximately $2 million worth of
surplus county properties. In addition to that, we've offered financing
options which would not necessitate the county for spending any
additional funds on the purchase for at least three years. There would
be no interest due for the first three years, and the balance wouldn't be
due for 10 years.
We feel -- excuse me. After the -- in the June 10th board
meeting, there was a brief discussion about the introduction of the idea
of purchasing the marina for the county. Then on the June 24th
meeting, the board unanimously approved the funds necessary to
conduct two outside independent appraisals. Those appraisals were
conducted in August of this year, and we have agreed to accept their
values.
We feel that the options presented to the commissioners represent
-- all represent excellent opportunities, but the -- two of them in
particular we feel have special benefits to the county. Those are
options 3A and 3B. These options would allow for a fire station, a
permanent fire station, to be built within the marina building itself.
This would -- could save the county between 800,000 and $1 million
in the fact that they wouldn't have to purchase additional land and
build a new building.
Also what it would mean is the residents of Port of the Islands
and the Ochopee Fire District would be able to have a fire station in a
matter of months instead of a matter of years, something they've been
wanting for many, many years now.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 86
October 14-15,2008
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ray Russell. He'll be
followed by Jean Kungle.
MR. RUSSELL: Good morning. My name is Ray Russell, and I
live in the district represented by Commissioner Henning.
I'm here today representing the Naples Fishing Club. The Naples
Fishing Club is a nonprofit organization that provides a forum for
people interested in saltwater fishing in Southwest Florida to learn
from each other, develop friendship. We also support efforts to
preserve the aquatic environment of Southwest Florida.
The reason we have decided to address you today is to encourage
you to develop a long-range objective to increasing the access to the
waters of Southwest Florida for fishermen and boaters.
The key words are long range. An area of greatest interest and
need for public access is the waters south of Marco Island. There is
no public access to the great fishing areas of 10,000 Islands,
particularly out of Everglades City, Chokoloskee, and Port of the
Islands.
Our county has a very large number of boaters and fishermen that
would benefit from increased access. We are aware that in the current
economic situation the county has lost significant funding, but setting
an objective costs nothing; however, it is, if it is included in your
planning document, a way to alert county employees to be on the
lookout for good opportunities.
We understand that there currently is an opportunity at Port of
the Islands. We have not undertaken any kind of analysis of the
options related to this opportunity so we cannot make a specific
recommendation; however, we suspect that there will be, over time,
very few chances to purchase property on the water south of Marco
Island.
Therefore, we recommend you give this opportunity a full
evaluation. In economic times such as ones we are currently
experiencing, you should be able to find good deals.
Page 87
October 14-15, 2008
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jean Kungle. She'll be
followed by Will Dempsey.
MS. KUNGLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Jean
Kungle. Business owner at Port of the Islands and a 10-year resident.
Purchasing the marina would be an invaluable asset to Collier
County's residents and visitors. This is a waterway park, the 10,000
Islands, one of Collier's greatest assets.
Thousands of people visit this special, unique community every
year. They come to launch and dock their boats and kayaks, take
shelter, see the manatees, fish some of the best Florida has to offer, go
waterway camping, cruise the mangroves, bird watch, get a glimpse of
a gator. There are so many pretty, special outdoor Southwest Florida
activities to enjoy.
The county purchase would guarantee everyone access forever.
And from another standpoint and note, Port of the Islands taxpayers
desperately need and have struggled very hard since the mid '90s to
have a fire station. The existing building at the marina, without
interrupting any occupied area, would accommodate this need with
minimal capital outlay which would be available from the Ochopee
Fire District budget.
Our community contributes half of the budget monies to the
Ochopee fire budget, yet we have the least fire and EMS services in
the district. With these services more than five miles away,
homeowners are faced with either high premiums or no insurance at
all, besides the fact of safety.
With the increased population over the years and the
unintentional loss of recreational assets throughout the county, this is a
very important purchase for you to consider, especially in the hard
times. But it is an opportunity to acquire such an invaluable waterway
asset that may never present itself again.
Port of the Islands has been a historical spot on the map of
Page 88
October 14-15,2008
Collier County for many, many years. Let's preserve its beauty and
access to all, and I thank you for your consideration.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, Will Dempsey has indicated that
he's not going to speak unless you have a legal question, and
Christopher Shucart has waived.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is he a new member of our staff, our
legal staff?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I didn't get a chance to
finish the last time, Gary. I think this is a wonderful opportunity. It is
really rare that we have a chance to acquire property like this.
My only concern is that we don't have all the answers, and we
can't get the answers today even through our debate. I think the only
thing I would feel comfortable telling you is, by all means, let's pursue
this opportunity, but try to fill in some of the gaps. See if there are
ways to make up the differences in cost here of -- get imaginative and
come back to us with some specific proposals.
The business of trading some of the surplus property, I have no
way of determining whether or not the values are appropriate. I
haven't seen any appraisals on the property that would be
contemplated to be traded for certain parts of the -- or certain portions
of the marina price.
So I would enthusiastically encourage the staff to continue to talk
with the owners, to fill in the gaps, and then come back to us with a
recommendation as to what you think you can do. Maybe it's a
purchase of the whole thing, maybe it's a purchase of part of the thing.
But come back and tell us what you've got the money to do.
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, I think we have been very creative
in terms of looking at all the different options and ways to reduce the
price and looking at surplus property.
The recommendation from the staff would be that we -- we can't
Page 89
October 14-15, 2008
do anything. We don't have the funds to do anything, although this is
a strategic purchase. We don't have the funds. We don't have the
funds in traditional parks and rec feeder programs.
If you look at it just to meet our obligations for the committed
projects that we have and the debt service that we have without
anything from Port of the Isles or Manatee Park, we're looking at, we
would look -- need to do $2.8 million.
So we don't see that changing. The question is, is how do we --
how does the board want us to proceed where the -- just looking at--
looking at nothing, looking at the -- just the boat ramp or the entire
marina. But we don't have the funds, and the funds would have to
come from a different source.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has there been an evaluation of
setting up a special taxing district there to fund certain of the amenities
that might be a benefit to the residential community and/or the hotel?
Has there been any partnership explored with either the City of Marco
or Everglades City about what they might be able to contribute? Have
we looked at the impact fee contributions from the fire department? If
they're going to have a building there for the fire department, do they
have to build a new building or can they use part of the existing
building?
You know, those are the kind of things that need to be fleshed out
here, and I think -- and County Manager is -- has offered some of
those insights.
And so what we need to do is to go back and be more creative
and come back to us with a proposal about what you can do.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me --let me understand
the direction of the majority of the Board of Commissioners. Was it
my understanding that we're going to end this at noon and then
continue the conversation in the afternoon?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, because I think there's too
Page 90
October 14-15,2008
many questions here. And we've got a closed session.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have quite a bit I need to talk
about, and I know that we're going to run well past noon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think this needs to come back
later on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have one more public speaker?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or was that the final one?
MS. FILSON: No. The last one waived.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, yeah. And I have some
questions, too, and maybe they could be answered in this process.
The fire department -- or the fire station location is C4. I
remember a petition by East Naples for locating a fire station on C4
property. They had to go through the conditional use.
So does that have to happen with this piece of property? Does
the fire department have the monies to purchase the property? And
what do they anticipate when to put a fire station there? Those are
some of my questions.
With that, we are going into shade session, and I think the
County Attorney needs to read something.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Just for the record, we will be going
to a closed-attorney client session dealing with the Hussey/Bert Harris
matter. Attending the meeting will be Manager Mudd and myself,
Jacqueline Hubbard with the board. I'm estimating that the meeting
should take about 15 minutes.
We will then come back here at 1 o'clock, and you can then give
us direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just so you know, your tabling this
particular item to this afternoon?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Does anybody have a
Page 91
October 14-15, 2008
concern about tabling and continuing this item till this afternoon
discussion? No.
Item #12A - Closed Session
THE BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSED:
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED
TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING
LITIGATION CASE OF FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. AND MARY
P. HUSSEY AND WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION V.
COLLIER COUNTY, THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST, AND
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
CASE NO. 08-6933-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Okay . We're in closed session.
(The closed attorney-client session was held, followed by a
luncheon recess.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, down in the front. Coming
back from -- we're continuing on 12 what?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're continuing on lOA. You've
tabled it till a later discussion.
This brings us out of the shade into the sunshine, and this is Item
12B.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: B, yes.
Item #12B
Page 92
October 14-15, 2008
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED
TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING
LITIGATION CASE OF FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. AND MARY
P. HUSSEY AND WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION V.
COLLIER COUNTY, THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST AND
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
CASE NO. 08-6933-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME
AND TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO
CONTINUE TO ARGUE THE COUNTY'S CASE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: And this is for the Board of County
Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney regarding
settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures
in the pending litigation case of Frances D. Hussey, Jr., and Mary P.
Hussey and Winchester Lakes Corporation versus Collier County, the
Honorable Charlie Crist, and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. Case number 08-6933-CA, now pending in the 20th Judicial
Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida.
And this is a County Attorney item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there direction to the County
Attorney on settlement negotiations in this case? I'm going to make a
motion that we not settle this case at this time and direct the County
Attorney to vigorously defend the board's position on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
Page 93
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2008-55: PETITION CPSP-2007-7, SCHOOL
CONCURRENCY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT (CIE);
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT (ICE);
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES; GOLDEN
GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) ELEMENT;
IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN (lAMP) ELEMENT; NEW
PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT AND SUPPORT
DOCUMENT AND PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITY PLANNING
AND SCHOOL CONCURRENCY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
(ADOPTION HEARING) - ADOPT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS (PAGE 4 #1-5) AND RECOMMENDED
CHANGES (NEWLY PROPOSED TEXT AND GRAMMATICAL
CORRECTIONS) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this would bring us now to one
p.m., and it brings us into items 7, 8, and the one item, 7 A, the Board
of Zoning Appeals that's on your agenda, and it's got a time certain of
9 a.m. tomorrow, and then the next item is 8A, and this follows 12B.
Page 94
October 14-15,2008
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Petition CPSP-2007 -7,
School Concurrency Growth Plan Amendments, Capital Improvement
Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, Future Land Use
Element and Map Series, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, the
Immokalee Area Master Plan Element, and a new public schools
facility element and support document, and the Public School
Facilities Planning and School Concurrency Interlocal Agreement.
This is an adoption hearing.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And we don't need ex parte communication or for
anybody to swear in on this item. It's a Growth Management Plan
ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: No, you do not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record.
MS. MOSCA: For the record -- good afternoon, Mr. Chairman
and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with
your Comprehensive Planning Staff.
Staff has prepared a brief presentation, PowerPoint presentation,
to provide this board and the public with a general overview of the
public school concurrency followed by an overview of its impact on
the development community, and then finally a discussion concerning
the Collier County Commission's recommendations.
With the adoption of Senate Bill 360 by the Florida legislature in
2005, public school concurrency became a requirement for all
non-exempt counties in Florida, such as Collier County.
The public school concurrency program requires school capacity
be available at time of residential impact, and it requires that the
program be adopted by December 1,2008.
Page 95
October 14-15, 2008
In order to implement school concurrency, Collier County and
the cities within the county must adopt a public facilities element. The
Public School Facilities Element is generally referred to as the
framework. It includes the goals, objectives, and policies for the
implementation of the program.
Local governments must also adopt amendments to the Capital
Improvement Element to include provisions for the incorporation of
the school district's Financially Feasible Capital Improvement
Program and to include the level of service standards for public
schools.
And the county and the municipalities must also adopt
amendments to the Intergovernmental Coordination Element to
include provisions for coordination.
Finally, the county is required to update its interlocal agreement
with the School Board on the school planning to include provisions for
public school concurrency.
The school concurrency program will, in fact, impact the
development community. As noted in bullet 1, the statutory provision
provides for an effective date for school concurrency 21 days after the
DCA, or Department of Community Affairs, finds the amendments in
compliance with Florida law; however, in recent verbal
communications with the DCA, staff has been informed that school
concurrency will become effective after the board adopts the
amendments today.
Regardless, beginning with the effective date of public school
concurrency, applicants will be required to submit a school impact
analysis to the county for transmittal to the school district for a
capacity determination.
The district will then notify the county if capacity is or is not
available for the proposed project. If capacity is not available to
support the project, then the district and county will begin discussions
with the applicant or developer to address the deficiency.
Page 96
October 14-15,2008
As mentioned earlier by County Manager Mudd, this is the
adoption for public school concurrency. The transmittal was held by
this board in December, 2007. As required by state law, the new
public school facility element and amendments were transmitted to the
Department of Community Affairs. The DCA issued its Objections,
Recommendation, and Comments Report to the county.
The DCA had seven objections and six comments. Only the
objections can form the basis for a non-compliance finding unless the
documents are substantially at adoption.
All seven objections have been adequately addressed by the
school district and county, and staff does not believe substantial
changes have been made to the transmitted documents.
This next slide identifies two outstanding issues not addressed in
the ORC Report provided by the DCA amendment but addressed by
the Collier County Planning Commission at both the transmittal and
adoption hearings. These items were also discussed by this board at
the transmittal hearing.
The two outstanding issues are the provision for the adoption and
the district's capital plan and the provision identified in the new Public
School Concurrency Interlocal Agreement concerning the 2003
School Board Review Interlocal Agreement adopted by the School
Board and this commission to address school siting, off-site
infrastructure, and other impacts related to school development.
I'll go ahead and address the second item first, and then I'll
discuss the first item based on the CCPC's recommendation.
First I want to explain and just remind everyone what the 2003
SBR ILA is, or the School Board Review Interlocal Agreement. The
School Board Interlocal Agreement established siting criteria for
schools in the county's various land use categories.
In front of you, Commissioners, there's a Future Land Use Map.
And if you'll look at the Future Land Use Map, schools are not
allowed in the green area; they're not allowed in what appears to be
Page 97
October 14-15, 2008
the blue area; that's the rural fringe sending lands; and the industrial
designated areas, which are somewhat difficult to see, but they're the
gray areas; and the industrial designated lands are also included in the
Immokalee urban area. Just wanted to give you an understanding
where schools are allowed and where they're not allowed.
The School Board Review Interlocal Agreement also provides for
the assessment of off-site infrastructure, environmental impact review,
and compatibility review at the time of school site plan submittal.
The SBR ILA will expire in May of 2009, leaving in place the
siting criteria in the Growth Management Plan without the binding
commitment or mechanism to assess and address impacts related to
school development, except as provided in Florida Statutes.
What are the potential impacts to Collier County as a result of the
expiration of the interlocal agreement? When the SBR ILA expires
and the district acquires a property for a new school site, the county
will only assess the site to determine if its location is consistent with
the Growth Management Plan policies and categories in which public
schools are allowed.
So as I mentioned just a moment ago, all those areas that schools
are allow, except, again, the conservation designated lands, industrial
lands, and within the sending lands; that's where schools are not
allowed.
At the time of school site plan submittal, the county will review
the site plan and impose reasonable development standards consistent
with Florida Statutes. Specifically section 1013.51 Florida Statutes
provides that the school district may pay for off-site infrastructure that
runs through the property or is contiguous to the property.
This section also provides that the district may pay its
proportionate share of infrastructure improvement and allows the
district to pay for more than its share provided the district is later
reimbursed as development occurs, and those developments pay their
share of the costs as well.
Page 98
October 14-15, 2008
This brings us to this staff recommendation on the SBR ILA.
Planning staffs recommendation includes working with the district to
revise the school siting criteria in the Growth Management Plan to site
future schools where infrastructure is available or will be available in
the future, and senior management of the district and the county agree
to seek a declaratory judgment in Circuit Court should there be a
disagreement over the school site plan, or any school site plan.
The Collier County Planning Commission recommended
extending the SBR ILA until another SBR ILA is adopted. They
recommended against seeking court action for resolving
disagreements over the school site plans, and recommended that the
staffs or the district and county work together to establish new siting
criteria in the Growth Management Plan.
Finally, this brings us back to the other outstanding item, which
is the adoption of the district's Capital Improvement Program.
The Planning Commission recommended that the district's
Capital Improvement Plan be incorporated into the CIE, providing --
you can see in the blue text, provided such adoption does not affect
the local government's ability to maintain a financially feasible CIE
for the current five-year planning period.
This was to prevent inconsistencies with the Capital
Improvement Element and the school district's plan.
Staff did not recommend including the additional checks -- text
proposed by the CCPC because the Florida Statutes require that the
county incorporate the plan.
Commission -- Commissioners, this concludes my brief
presentation on those two items, as well as the overview of the school
concurrency program. I would ask that you -- I would ask that you
look at the executive summary and the recommendations section on
page 4.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
County Manager?
Page 99
October 14-15, 2008
Did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, after the County
Manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just so that you know -- and I think
I've passed this out to all commissioners. I received a correspondence
from the superintendent of schools that has to do with Item 12-3(B)
and 13-8(A).
And in that correspondence he reiterated that when he and I had
met to try to work through this particular sticking point, so to speak,
we came up with an agreement that we would work each independent
district (sic) that's being built on a case-by-case basis and sit down and
work through the particular issues, come up with an agreement to
figure out where and who would pay for off-site improvements or
whatever as they may present themselves, and we talked through that.
That was basically staffs recommendation as you did transmittal.
It was also obvious from the correspondence that I received from
the superintendent of schools that the school cannot agree with the
additions that have been added by the Planning Commission on these
particular two items.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a clarification. You said each
district as its being built. What you meant was each school.
MR. MUDD: School, yes, sir. Thank you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the County Attorney, if I
may. Mr. Klatzkow, this particular direction we're going is based
upon a court case that took place in, what was it, Manatee County.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hillsborough.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hillsborough, excuse me. Is
that finding that they had in Hills borough, is that something that is
going to be challenged or that possibly is still up for a determination
what's correct and what isn't?
Page 100
October 14-15, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: My guess is that case is very likely to be
appealed to the Second DCA. Could take a year and a half, two years
before the second circuit comes down with a case.
I happen to think the trial court was right, by the way, and was --
my expectation is that would be the decision. So my expectation is, if
it's appealed, it will be upheld.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I appreciate that
particular bit of advice. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
MS. MOSCA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. MOSCA: I have -- on page 4 I have several staff
recommendations, of the executive summary, that is. In addition to
those recommendations, I also have a new item that we were made
aware of late yesterday afternoon by the DCA, and that information is
in front of you. It's CIE policy 4.2, and also the Public School Facility
Element policy 4.1, and I'll also put them on the visualizer.
My understanding is that the district is okay with the text that's
being proposed by the county. The issue was that we could receive a
noncompliance finding. It was a self-amending policy. The DCA
viewed it as a self-amending policy. The Public School Facility
Element policy was revised because there was a reference to that
policy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The question on 4.1, that's just a part
of the AUIR process.
MS. MOSCA: Actually it's not. The school district, their CIP is
not part of our AUIR process. We adopt the capital improvement
plan, the school district's plan, into our capital improvement element
by reference. But it will be located within our capital improvement
element as part of the schedule of capital improvements. It will just
Page 101
October 14-15,2008
simply be a paragraph in that text that you have in front of you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In previous years, I think we've heard
the AUIR after December I?
MS. MOSCA: I believe -- I believe that's the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What would happen if we don't
complete the AUIR by December I? Do we just have something on
the agenda that's saying we adopt the School Board's concurrency and
the CIE?
MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, comprehensive
planning director.
This year you'll hear the AUIR on November 3rd and 4th. DCA
is aware that there is an issue with the adoption of the five-year capital
works facility plan for schools which has to happen before October
1 st, as well as the CIE deadline of December the 1 st, that being" a
timing issue for local governments. Have had conversations with
them with regard to that because the CIP actually has to be
incorporated into our CIE.
The discussions that are occurring right now is DCA is aware that
there is a problem with the date and local governments being able to
meet that December 1 st deadline. I know they're working with
Sarasota County in coming up with a, from what I understand, a
January time line and potentially looking at amending that date.
In the meantime what will happen is we may be a little late with
our CIE that comes on up there. The penalty that we will face is we
won't be able to adopt any Comprehensive Plan Amendments until we
actually do adopt the CIE. But the way our schedule is actually set on
up, that's really not an issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not an issue for this year, but --
MR. COHEN: It shouldn't be an issue in any year because we
take in our Growth Management Plan Amendments in April, and then
we get into a cycle. And today, for example, is when you're hearing
the GMP amendments for the prior cycle, so it should cycle into where
Page 102
October 14-15, 2008
it shouldn't be an issue based on the general timing of when we do
GMP amendments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's no financial burden if it
doesn't happen in December 1, and there's -- the only reference to if
we don't pass it by December 1, is the reference that we can't accept or
adopt any GMP amendments.
MR. COHEN: That is the case with the CIE, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Randy, are you familiar with the
agreement that was constructed by the County Manager and the school
superintendent? And if so, do you concur with that agreement?
MR. COHEN: Well, we've had discussions, obviously, with the
County Manager's Office. You know, obviously the Planning
Commission felt more comfortable with including provisions in those
two areas with respect to school siting.
I think the first concern was the SBR upon its expiration. We
sited, I think, six or seven schools that went through locational criteria
but did not go through the formal process of being reviewed in
accordance with the SBR.
And you, as a commission, back in 2002 and 2003, when you
reviewed the SBR in conjunction with the School Board, both of you
as bodies respectively agreed to site schools but with the
understanding that they would go through that process.
So what you'll see on the map that's in front of you right now is a
set of schools that were located pursuant to that agreement based on
location but have not been through the process of site development
review or potentially would not be subject to site development review
unless the SBR was extended or put in force with respect to those
particular schools. And that's a general concern that staff had as well
as the Planning Commission.
Obviously the County Manager and the School Board
superintendent had a meeting with respect to this and agreed to do
Page 103
October 14-15, 2008
something contrary to that.
MR. MUDD: Now, wait a minute. Mr -- first of all, that was a
yes-or-no answer, but -- and I'll differ with that one.
The next question I've got for you is that agreement that I sat
down with the superintendent with was done prior to transmittal, and
that agreement is exactly what we transmitted to Tallahassee out of
DCA -- to the DCA; is that correct, sir?
MR. COHEN: That is correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What's the feeling from the
School Board in regards to adding the criteria that the Planning
Commission came up with? Is the School Board comfortable with that
additional language?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The letter that was given by the
superintendent to me basically says they cannot approve, they will not
agree, and they will go to their board with disapproval of this
particular concurrency action with the Planning Commission's
language added.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. COHEN: And let me add that the staff is comfortable with
the agreement that the County Manager made with the school
superintendent prior to transmittal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion.
MR. MUDD: On your recommendations, ma'am. You're still on
page 4?
MS. MOSCA: Yes. Page 4 of the executive summary, Mr.
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion that we accept
staff recommendations 1 through 5.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta to accept staffs recommendations of page 4, 1 through 5, and
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 104
October 14-15, 2008
Discussion? Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: Yes. Mr. Chairman, would that also include the
newly proposed text that was the additional item?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll include that in the motion.
MS. MOSCA: And then lastly, if you would provide staff the
latitude to make necessary changes for consistency with the
documents, grammatical changes and sentence structure. There are
some areas of the documents that there might be a strikethrough where
it doesn't require a strikethrough. It wouldn't change the substance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As long as it doesn't change the
substance, I would be more than happy to include that in my motion.
MS. MOSCA: And I do -- also I need to mention one more
thing, which I failed to do when I was going through my presentation.
The staff recommendation for the SBR ILA that appears in the
adoption portion of the executive summary differs from what I
provided on the screen. I inadvertently had taken a previous version or
revisions to that section, and the school district does, in fact, agree
with what was proposed today and was on the screen. So I want to
make sure that's clear for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to repeat that?
MS. MOSCA: Yes. I'll actually -- I'll actually go to the slide, if
that's easier. Yes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And while she's doing that, does the
second agree with the amendment to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To both inclusions, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion that's on the floor, does
that cover the agreement that the County Manager and the
superintendent of the schools had -- that came up with? Does that
cover that agreement?
MS. MOSCA: That does.
Page 105
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: That would be the staff recommendation that's in
front of you right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the school concurs with this?
MS. MOSCA: The School Board does, in fact, concur with that
recommendation, the staffs recommendation, again, which includes
the County Manager's and district's agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that in your motion, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is SBR ILA 12.3(B), correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else, Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just make a statement
real quick. I just want to make sure that the board understands that the
Planning Commission was looking out for the best interest of the
county, and there's no questions about that. They always are. But I
will also tell you that they did not have the Hillsborough decision
Page 106
October 14-15, 2008
when they added that particular language. That came out after the
Planning Commission came out with that language.
And I believe if they had that Hillsborough decision, the
language would have been different. But I can't speak for them, I'm
just telling you things changed by the time they added the language
and what finally transpired in a court of law.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that -- I want to
thank you for your time working with the superintendent of schools to
come up with something that both sides could work with, and I feel
that this is a lot better than ended up in court and not knowing where
we were going to be. So thank you and the superintendent of schools
for sitting down and working together on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next item?
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2008-56: CP-2006-5 - ADOPTED; MOTION TO
COMBINE CP 2006-7 & CP 2006-8 INTO ONE SUB-DISTRICT
WITH "EXHIBIT A" DISTRIBUTED DURING TODA Y'S
MEETING - APPROVED; ORDINANCE 2008-57: CP-2006-7 &
CP-2006-8 - ADOPTED; ORDINANCE 2008-58: CPSP-2006-12-
ADOPTED: ORDINANCE 2008-59: CPSP-2006-13 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 8B, and this
is a public hearing for the 2006 cycle of the Growth Management Plan
Amendments, and I believe Mr . Weeks will present.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm David
Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department.
Commissioners, I'm going to suggest that you refer to the binders
that were provided to you outside of the N ovus system. As I believe
you're aware, the -- due to the size of the materials and the volume of
Page 107
October 14-15, 2008
them, the Novus system, your regular executive summary packet, only
contains the executive summary and a few other items. It does not
contain the complete submittals for the 2006 cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks, are you okay if we take
one of these at an item with a motion because each one is attached an
ordinance number?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A motion and a second.
MR. WEEKS: So a motion on each individual petition, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. First one?
MR. WEEKS : Well, Commissioners, if you will, I need to make
a few statements for the record before we actually get into the specific
petitions, and I'll be as brief as possible.
First of all, to remind you that this is a cycle of Comprehensive
Plan Amendments, not the rezoning that you more frequently deal
with. Once you take action on these today, for those that you approve,
they will be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs,
DCA, and they will review these amendments that are adopted for
compliance with state law.
This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial; therefore, there is
no requirement to swear in participants nor to offer your notice of ex
parte communications.
As required by state law, there is a sign-up sheet out in the
hallway on the table outside of this room which allows interested
parties to sign their name to that sheet. It will be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs, and each person that has signed
that sheet will be notified by DCA once they have made their
compliance determination on the adopted amendments.
The Planning Commission held their hearings on August 29th
and September 18th for the five petitions that are before you today,
and the final preliminary comment is that, as always, once we
conclude the hearing, we would appreciate the reuse of your binders.
Page 108
October 14-15, 2008
If you would, please, leave those with Sue Filson or some other
designated person in your office. Staff will retrieve those tomorrow
.
mornIng.
Moving now into the executive summary, Commissioners.
There's actually two actions being requested of you today. One is to
act upon each of the five Comprehensive Plan amendments. The
second is a request by staff for direction to initiate another
Comprehensive Plan amendment for the next cycle, and the reason for
that is we need to get our Future Land Use map, the RLSA, rural land
steward area overlay time line, water and sewer master plans and
various other programs and policies and portions of the Growth
Management Plan all in alignment with the same dates.
For example, right now the RLSA overlay has a 25-year time
period, whereas the Future Land Use Map has a 10-year time period.
When these amendments were transmitted to the Department of
Community Affairs earlier this year, they issued their Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report, the issuing ORC Report
we call it, and in there they raised a few objections, one of which
addressed that specific issue of the time lines being different in our
Growth Management Plan.
The action that staff is recommending today on one specific
petition, and that is number CPSP-2006-13, is that we not adopt
certain portions of it, specifically not adopt changes to some
transportation element maps to show a year of 2030.
The reason for recommending that you not adopt those is because
by doing so, that will, if you will, negate the objection for this cycle of
amendments. However, DCA has made it very clear to staff that the
next time we adopt petitions, proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments, that increase density or intensity, this same objection is
going to come about again.
And as you're I'm sure aware, we have petitions in the queue
right now for the next cycles, '07 and '08, that will be coming before
Page 109
October 14-15, 2008
you next year.
So the specific direction staff is asking is that you give us the
authority to initiate a plan amendment to make whatever amendments
are necessary throughout the Growth Management Plan, to align the
dates, and of course, as part of that, to compile the necessary data and
analysis to support those amendments to align the various dates.
So again, some direction we're seeking, and then specifically
action on each of the five petitions before you today.
One of the documents in your binder has a tab labeled ORC
response and that is where staff has responded to DCA's ORC Report
to their objections, recommendations, and comments. And in some
cases we have modified some of the amendments to address their
objections and other cases we have provided some additional
information or explanation as to what we are proposing in these
amendments, and we may make some reference to those -- to that
ORC response document throughout this hearing.
I'll conclude by saying that the staff recommendation as well as
the Planning Commission's recommendation is identified within your
executive summary, and now, Commissioners, we could proceed with
each of the individual Growth Management Plan petitions, and the
first one is CP-2006-5.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And actually that is a board driven --
no, that is a church.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The first three are initiated by the
private sector.
MR. MUDD: And petition CP-2006-5 is -- you want to get a
short criteria on it, is on page 3 of your executive summary, and you
have the staff recommendation and the CCPC recommendation there
for you in a concise form.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To make it short, why don't we just
ask if commissioners have any questions of the petitioner.
(No response.)
Page 110
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain -- entertain a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve CP-2008-5 (sic).
MR. MUDD: No. It's CP-2006-5, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dash 5, and there is an ordinance
with this that we're approving?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's part of the motion,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's part of my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Part of the second, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. NADEAU: On behalf of the church, Commissioners, thank
you very much. For the record, Dwight Nadeau ofRW A.
Page III
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not speaking on behalf of
God, are you?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next one is petition CP-2006-7,
and this is requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element,
including the Future Land Use Element Map and Map Series, FLUE
and FL UM, to change the urban residential sub-district designation in
order to establish the Italian American plaza and clubhouse
commercial sub-district in the urban commercial district for a
2,000-square-foot clubhouse and up to 34,000 square feet of gross
leasable area for a financial institution, schools, professional and
medical offices and personnel and office services consistent with the
general office C 1 zoning district of the Collier County Land
Development Code for property located at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Airport-Pulling Road, County Road 31, and Orange
Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas has a
question of the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question I have is, when this
came before the board the first time, we approved 26,000. Since it's --
since the second time coming back, now it's 34,000, and I have not
only a concern on this one, but on the next one that we're going to be
addressing. Why the increase?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: When we came to you -- for the record,
Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the applicant.
When we came through the first time, there was not a market
study done to justify 26,000 square feet or any number regarding the
office. A market study was then performed and the market study
supported the 34,000 square feet versus the 26,000 square feet.
If you'll recall, we originally asked for 26,000 square feet of
retail, and the market study justified the 34,000 square feet of office.
We presented that data and information to the Planning
Page 112
October 14-15, 2008
Commission and your staff. The Planning Commission didn't have an
issue with that nor did your staff and nor did any of the neighbors.
That's the explanation for why those numbers changed. It was based
on the market study.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Did you also represent the
petitioner on the next one that we're going to do?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to make -- clear
the air because when it came to us the first time, if the public would
get ahold of this --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and then it's coming back on the
second time, why the difference here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve CP-2006-7 and approve the ordinance.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, staff is recommending that rather
than take action on each of these petitions individually, we've offered
a third option, and that is to combine these two into a single sub-
district, this petition and the one that follows.
As you're aware, they're both in the same area. They're adjacent
to one another, and staff has recommended, as has the Planning
Commission, that they be combined.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. There was a tie vote on one of them,
so they -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Rich. I did misspeak.
One of these, the Planning Commission, this petition, did vote to
approve it, recommend approval. The next petition, the property
Page 113
October 14-15, 2008
adjacent to the south, there was a split vote 4-4, which -- the result of
which is no official recommendation to you.
But staff has recommended that they combine the petitions. The
Planning Commission's reasons for that split vote did not relate to
combining the two petitions.
So the request of staff will be that you not take action on this one,
allow the next petition to be presented and discussed, and then we
would suggest that you take one vote to approve a combined sub-
district.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you just want to -- for us
to take that under consideration first, and if it fails, then we take it
separately?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Do you have anything else,
Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would prefer that you vote on these
individually and if they both pass, then vote to put them together so
there's not confusion as to the combined. That would be our request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I mean, I don't have a problem
with that. I mean, you know, it depends on if they -- David, do you
have any concern with that?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir, and I understand Rich's concern that, just
like with the Planning Commission, what if you approve one and you
don't the other.
So I believe the procedure would be that should you vote to
approve both of them, I would turn to the County Attorney, but I
believe your action would be to actually rescind your vote on both of
those and replace that with a motion to approve both as a single sub-
district.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or we can consider it jointly, and if
not, we can do it separately.
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
Page 114
October 14-15, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, do you want to
give us some direction here to make sure we're --
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not splitting atoms here. I mean, you
can vote separately on each one if you'd like and then do the separate
motion and combine the two. I mean, this isn't hard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then my motion stands.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, can I get clarification on your motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir. Let me--
MR. MUDD: Is that the Planning Commission's
recommendations, which is to accept the staff recommendations and
then to have the following eight items that are clarified underneath of
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that is my motion. Thank you,
County Manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And included in Commissioner
Coletta's second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Page 115
October 14-15, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is petition CP-2006-8,
and this is requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element
and Future Land Use Map, FLUE and FLUM, and map series to
change the urban residential sub-district designation in order to
establish the Airport/Orange Blossom commercial sub-district in the
urban commercial district up to 40,000 square feet of gross leasable
area for financial institutions, professional and medical offices, adult
and child day care, professional and businesses services and senior
housing in the form -- and assisted living facility and/or continuing
care retirement center or other similar housing for the elderly,
consistent with the general office C-I zoning district of the Collier
County Land Development Code for property located at the west side
of Airport-Pulling Road, County Road 31, approximately 330 feet
south of Orange Blossom Drive and immediately south of the Italian
American Club in Section 2, Township 49 south, Range 25 east of
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Halas has a
question for Mr. Nadeau.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Again, this one, we really jumped
it from 12,000 to 40,000, and if you could put on the record the
clarification of why we had such an increase from the first time we
had the hearing on this.
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely, Commissioner Halas.
For the record, I'm Dwight Nadeau, planning manager for R W A.
At the time of the transmittal hearings, we had a senior housing
developer that was under contract to purchase four acres of the
five-acre site, and we were asking for the remainder of the property to
be 12,000 square feet of professional office.
Since that time, with the downturn in the economy, that contract
Page 116
October 14-15, 2008
has fallen away, and so we're simply requesting 40,000 square feet of
professional office on the five acres and are also adding a provision
such that -- and Mr. Schmidt has a handout for you. We've been
working on this additional stipulation to provide clarity that it's not
assisted living facility and 40,000 square feet, and I'll read it to you.
It's for each acre or portion thereof that is to be allocated to an
assisted living facility, continuing care retirement center or other
housing for the elderly. The gross leasable area for the allowed uses --
for other allowed uses shall be reduced by 8,000 square feet or the
square foot equivalent of the portion thereof.
So for every acre of assisted living it would be reduced -- be
associated with senior housing on the property. The commercial
demand would also -- or the commercial allocation would also be
reduced.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has the transportation staff and all
others that may have an interest in this, have they reviewed this to the
utmost? And I'm assuming that this was brought up in discussion with
the Planning Commission and obviously that's probably why we have
a split decision.
And can you basically relate what some of the concerns were that
the Planning Commission had that they didn't come up with a
unanimous vote?
MR. NADEAU: Well, I believe there was some confusion
related to a specific question asked of me. Are you requesting the
assisted living and 40,000 square foot? And my response was a
simple yes. The clarification that I just gave you today was not
presented in a public forum but has been presented to a member of the
Planning Commission also.
There was some concern about a standard in the market demand
study, but it was more of a standard which is an overall issue that may
Page 11 7
October 14-15,2008
or may not need to be addressed on how these market demand studies
are reviewed. But the bottom line from the market study was that it
was proven that there was a demand, and the staff found that
appropriate -- excuse me -- to offer recommendation of approval to
you today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you --
MR. NADEAU: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for your clarification.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further -- other
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion at this time to
approve CP-2000 -- -2006-8, I believe. No?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 2008 with the amendment that Mr.
Dwight Nadeau provided us in number F for each acre or portion
thereof, there shall be an allegation (sic) of assisted living facilities,
continued retirement center or other housing for elderly, and the gross
leasable space use shall be reduced by 8,000 for the square feet of--
equivalent of -- portion of thereof, correct?
MR. NADEAU: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staffs recommendation with the
additional --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- staff recommendations and the
additional, second by Commissioner Halas.
Page 118
October 14-15, 2008
Discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks, you want to -- you want
to have one combined sub-district for this with all of the adoptions that
we made for one unified?
MR. WEEKS: Just for the -- those two petitions, the last two you
discussed; yes, sir, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. County Manager, did you
want to add something?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just need to -- I wish we had a clear
definition from the CCPC on their recommendation, but I want to
make sure that -- that your motion that you just took included those
eight -- those eight provisions that were recommended by the CCPC
on the previous item where they're applicable to this new provision,
okay. And --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They weren't included with that--
in our documentation.
MR. MUDD: It -- see, it -- the CCPC, the motion to approve
reflected the same eight items as indicated in petition CP-2006-7
except as may only be applicable to this petition in reference to the
clubhouse facility and except for the text revisions applicable to the
Page 119
October 14-15,2008
first two paragraphs specific to the CP-2006-8, which are, I believe,
that paragraph 11 that's on the next page.
Is that correct, Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS : Yes. And Commissioners, if -- it might be easier
to look at the tab that is labeled Ordinance and Exhibit A,
CP-2006-7/8. That reflects the combined sub-district as staff is
recommending to you. The only thing not there is the text that Mr.
Nadeau presented to you, which you've accepted. Of course, we
would have to add that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What particular page on CP-2006-7?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eight.
MR. MUDD: That's the tab.
Okay. Commissioner, you all received a book that looks like this
for this particular item. You have -- you have a tab in that book that
says, Ordinance and Exhibit A of CP-2006-7 /8. You see it?
MR. WEEKS: Should be about your eighth tab from the
beginning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have for the County
Attorney, do you feel that we need to go back and readdress that
motion that we just voted on to make sure that we included everything
in the motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we need clarity, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's appropriate, too. I
agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So why don't the motion maker --
you want to add just so that we make sure we clear up so there's no am
-- yeah --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ambiguity.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- ambiguities in regards to that
motion.
Page 120
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Big word. Did we already vote on
that. Do I have to re-open it or how do we do that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I'd like to get clarification from the board
exactly what was voted on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I voted -- actually I
recommended that we -- I made a motion that we take staffs
recommendations. So now I need to add, because I didn't add, that it
also includes the eight items that were -- that followed the first
petition, be added to this petition, plus the addition that Dwight
Nadeau offered us.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, actually I believe your vote --
your motion, Commissioner Fiala, was to approve that petition eight
as staff has recommended --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: -- and staffs recommendation did include those
eight items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. Oh, good. So we're clear
then?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, because that's exactly what I--
MR. WEEKS: Excuse me. And Mr. Schmidt has -- Corby
Schmidt of our staff, has advised me that your binders actually do
contain the text that Mr. Nadeau presented to you today. He had
presented that to staff in time to include in your binders, so that is
there as well.
So I think you have a very clean motion, and certainly from a
staff perspective, we believe we're very clear and, in fact, what is in
your hands is what we have recommended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying that we -- our
motion did include, because of your recommendations, to combine
these two sub-districts.
Page 121
October 14-15,2008
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. That is the one action you need to take
now. Simply to combine the two into a single sub-district.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's Commissioner Fiala's
motion. Is there a second to Commissioner Fiala's motion?
I'll second it for discussion.
MR. KLATZKOW: And for clarity, okay, are we talking about
now the ordinance that you've attached here on 2006-7/8, the
underlines; Is that what we're talking about?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is not. Commissioners, let me re-clarify,
please, if I could. The handout which I distributed while Mr. Nadeau
was speaking, the last three pages of that hand out is your combined
language for both 7 and 8 with the additional provision that Mr.
Nadeau spoke about.
So the -- Exhibit A that you have in your hands that was my
handout is the version that should be in this motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In the motion of the two --
MR. SCHMIDT: In your motion combined.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The sub-district or is it the motion
that we were just trying to clear up at the present time before we move
on to the sub-district motion?
MR. SCHMIDT: It's both, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we already cleared up -- we
already cleared up both 2006-7 and 2006-8.
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe you did, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right. They're all clear. We
made the motion to follow staffs recommendation, and that's been
completed. Now we're trying to make a motion to combine the two; is
that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct, but I haven't seen this before.
Ifwe can -- if I can get 10 minutes with staff to make sure that what's
in here is exactly what you're voting on before we vote on it. I just
haven't seen this before.
Page 122
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We didn't either, so we haven't been
able to review it as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I guess the best thing at this
time is to take a 10-minute break. That means you get an extra one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just make sure we're clear.
MR. MUDD: Take a 10-minute break, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I've reviewed the revised exhibit with
staff and with Mr. Y ovanovich and Nick Casalanguida, and it
incorporates the Planning Commission's recommendations. What I'm
going to do so that there's no question down the line is I'm going to
give this to the stenographer over here to put into the official record
that this is what we're voting on. It is the ordinance that is in your
binder here on the slash -- 7/8 as well as the Exhibit A which was
passed out to you just before the commencement of this hearing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the motion would be to
approve combining these two sub-districts with the inclusion of
Exhibit A?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
(No response.)
Page 123
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is petition
CPSP-2006-12, staff requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map, FLUE and FLUM and map series,
to change the FLUM designation from the urban mixed-use district,
urban coastal fringe sub-district, to conservation designation and make
a corresponding text change to reference a new map of the site for the
county-owned Margood property located in Goodland adjoining Pettit
Drive, Pear Tree Avenue, and Papaya Street in Section 18, Township
52 south, Range 27 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this is the board's request?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is parks and rec's.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Park and rec. Questions for Mr.
Williams?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve the amendments and ordinance, second by Commissioner
Halas.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
Page 124
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, next item would be petition
CPSP-2006-13, comprehensive planning department staff requesting
various amendments to the transportation element and maps,
recreation and open space element, economic element, Future Land
Use Element, and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series, FLUE
and FLUM, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate
Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to include a change to the
allowance for model homes in Golden Gate Estates and an expansion
of an area excepted from the conditional use locational criteria along
Golden Gate Parkway within the Golden Gate Estates; and extension
of the transfer of development rights early entry bonus in the rural
fringe mixed-use district; and making corrections of omissions and
errors and other revisions so as to harmonize and update various
sections of the various elements of the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta.
And what CP number is that, 2006 --
Page 125
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MUDD: This is CPSP-2006-13, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON : No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does this now finish all of our 2006
GMP amendments?
MR. WEEKS: Actually, it does not, and something I was going
to point out to you, if you'll allow me to jump in quickly. There are
two petitions that you heard at transmittal in the '06 cycle that are not
under consideration today.
You might recall that both of those are in the rural land
stewardship area, one east and one west of Immokalee.
One of those is at Pepper Ranch, a/k/a Lake Trafford Ranch
property, that this commission voted to continue any action on until
the next cycle. Conservation Collier is just pursuing purchase of that
property .
The other one is petition CP-2006-1 O. You did vote to transmit it
to DCA. It was one of the petitions subject to an objection from DCA.
The applicant asked that the petition not be considered for adoption at
this time. So it would roll over to a next cycle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
MR. MUDD: So, ma'am, in reality, this is the last GMP
amendment you're going to get in this cycle because the other ones
have moved to the 2007 cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 126
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Is that it, Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: The last request is back to the direction that staff
is seeking to initiate an amendment to align the dates within the
Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Say that again.
MR. MUDD: State it again.
MR. WEEKS: As I was discussing at the beginning, we have a
Future Land Use Map that has a 10-year time frame, we have other
portions of our comprehensive plan and have different time periods,
and DCA said, you need to get those aligned. If we don't get them
aligned, then when the next cycle of amendments comes before you,
we're going to see that objection again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that's on the last -- on the
last one.
MR. WEEKS: That's not affiliated with any of these petitions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: We're seeking direction to set us off to do some
work to bring back to you with the next cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And is that -- you don't need a
motion. You need direction on that?
MR. WEEKS: I believe we would need a motion, or at least
consensus.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
Page 127
October 14-15, 2008
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2008-60: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-11914, GERMAIN
PROPERTIES OF COLUMBUS, INC., REPRESENTED BY
DOMINICK J. AMICO. P.E., OF AGNOLI, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE, INC. AND ROBERT J. MULHERE, AICP, OF
RW A, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE NO. 90-50 TO COMMERCIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS
GERMAIN TOYOTA CPUD. THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST
IS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING AREA FROM
THE CURRENT MAXIMUM OF 60,000 SQUARE FEET TO A
MAXIMUM OF 130,000 SQUARE FEET. THE 13.05+ ACRE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 13329 TAMIAMI TRAIL
NORTH; LYING IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE
INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (US 41) AND
WIGGINS PASS ROAD (CR-888), SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
(CTS) - ADOPTED WICCPC RECOMMENDATIONS AND
Page 128
October 14-15,2008
STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8C, and this is--
this item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
Should a hearing be held on the item, all participants are required
to be sworn in. It's PUDA-2007-AR-11914, Germain Properties of
Columbus, Inc., represented by Dominick A. Amico, P .E., of Agnoli,
Barber, & Brundage, Inc., and Robert J. Mulhere, AICP ofRW A,
requesting a rezone from planned unit development ordinance number
90-50 to commercial planned unit development, CPUD, to be known
as Germain Toyota CPUD.
The purpose of this request is to increase the maximum building
area from the current maximum of 60,000 square feet to a maximum
of 130,000 square feet.
The 13.05-plus-acre subject property is located at 13329
Tamiami North -- Tamiami Trail North, lying in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North, U.S. 41 and
Wiggins Pass Road, County Road 888, Section 16, Township 48
south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And all wishing to participate in this
item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ex parte communication by the board
members, starting with Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. 8C--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Yeah, 8C, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Threw me off for a second
there. Okay. Just testing, right?
8C, I've had meetings, I met with Bob Germain, Bob Mulhere,
Chris Thornton, email from Clay Brooker with correspondence from
Steve Terry, and that pretty much covers it, correspondence and
Page 129
October 14-15,2008
emails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with Bob Germain,
Chris Thornton, and Bob Mulhere, and also I spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have nada, nothing, zip.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have had meetings, emails,
and the meetings were with Chris Thorton, Bob Mulhere, and Bob
Germain, Jr., and also talked with staff and transportation on this
.
Issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I already did it once.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one is it going to be?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, right here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The guy on your right, okay. I
have had meetings with Chris Thornton and Bob Germain concerning
this item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Thornton --
MR. THORNTON: Thank you, Chairman. And good afternoon,
Commissioners. I'm Chris Thornton with Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson,
& Johnson, representing Germain Properties of Columbus in this
CPUD rezone of the existing car dealership facility just to the south of
U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road.
I'm joined today by Bob Germain, Jr., who's the vice-president of
Germain Properties of Columbus; also by Bob Mulhere, R W A, who's
the project planner; Dominick Amico and Matt McLean with Agnoli,
Barber, & Brundage, the project engineers; Chris Bowman of Kevin
Irwin Consulting Ecologists, the environmental consultant for the
project; JeffNunner is the project manager ofNunner & Associates;
Rob Price with TR Transportation is our transportation engineer; and
Page 130
October 14-15, 2008
Russ Weyer of Fishkind & Associates is the economist for the team.
This -- the rezone is in an activity center at the corner of U.S. 41
and Wiggins Pass Road. It's an existing car dealership. There are no
new proposed uses. The use will remain as auto dealer, new and used
and repair accessory use.
We did get a staff recommendation of approval and unanimous
recommendation, 8-0, at the Planning Commission. We did agree to
13 or 14 conditions that the Planning Commission asked that we agree
to, and those are incorporated in the document that's in front of you
today.
And at this time I'd like to turn it over to Bob Mulhere for the
presentation. We're all available if you have any questions for us.
Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with
R W A. I'll be as brief as I can be. We have a number of experts, as
Chris indicated, if there are any specific questions that I can't answer.
On the visualizer you can see the subject property. It falls within
a commercial mixed-use activity center at the intersection of Wiggins
Pass and U.S. 41, and I'm just going to step over to the exhibit.
And I'm going to speak softly into this microphone. The subject
property is right here in the center between their Germain auto storage
facility and the Germain Lexus facility. These -- both these properties
are zoned C4, but the subject property in 1990 was rezoned to a PUD,
and it's the Germain automotive facility PUD.
So obviously these properties to the north and to the south are
compatible, may be developed with any use allowable in the C4
district, though presently developed with automotive related. But this
PUD is limited to automotive related uses, new and used cars and
similar such uses.
I want to go over for a moment -- the specific request really is
very limited, but presently the PUD allows for 60,000 square feet.
The request is to increase that to 130,000 square feet.
Page 131
October 14-15, 2008
The specific conditions that the Planning Commission placed on
the site -- I want to step over and go over those one at a time because I
think they're important.
One of the Planning Commission requirements was related to the
setback along U.S. 41, that we retain a 75-foot setback along U.S. 41,
and we agreed to that.
There is some existing -- an existing wall that runs along the rear
of the Germain Lexus property, and there's also a wall that runs along
some of the Germain property as well as the -- I believe also along the
auto storage facility. But that wall separates the preserve area from
the paved area and also functions as part of the water management
facility .
And so there was discussion about that and there was discussion
about continuing -- or a requirement to continue this wall 200 feet past
the residentially zoned property . You can see right here, this piece is
commercial facility or community facility, I'm sorry, and this piece
here is RMF6.
And so while the wall presently exists to this point, the
requirement would be to extend it at least 200 feet past the
residentially zoned property to provide for additional protection to
those residentially zoned properties.
There was some concerns by these residents back here related to
noise -- particularly related to noise and particularly on weekends.
And their concerns really centered on the Germain Lexus property.
This building here has some garage doors that, you know, can
open, and while work is going on, it can be noisy, and SDP has -- and
this is not part of the subject site that's before you today, but I feel it's
important to go over this because it was discussed at the Planning
Commission.
As part of the SDP for the Lexus site, this building will be
demolished and a new building will be built and it will have
high-speed overhead doors and be fully air-conditioned and there will
Page 132
October 14-15,2008
be no more outdoor noise-generating activities.
Thank you. Let's see. Just seeing which ones are -- the building
height, our original proposal was for 75 feet, which is a height that's
allowable in the C4 district, here and here; however, based on
comments made by staff and members of the public and based on the
fact that we got an actual preliminary design from Toyota, we reduced
that request to a zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 60
feet.
There's also a condition that we design the site to allow for all
offloading of vehicles on the site. Presently the trucks often stop
within a turn lane and offload vehicles, and that creates a traffic
hazard or a traffic problem, and so we will be designing this site to
allow for offloading of vehicles for any of the facilities directly on the
site itself.
As part of the -- as part of the approval of -- I believe as part of
the U.S. 41 widening, a couple of these points of ingress and egress
are going to close. There is a new point of ingress and egress. This is
the main point of ingress and egress as you can see. This will close
and this will close, and the interconnection between these three
properties will be maintained and retained open as a condition of the
Planning Commission so that folks can move about within the
property and have less of an impact on the arterial roadway.
The application was discussed at length at the Planning
Commission. There was one element of the commercial market
analysis that was discovered to be absent in the original submitted
commercial market, or commercial needs analysis, and that was the
square footage for the Lexus dealership, and that was because the SDP
had not been approved for that yet.
The Planning Commission didn't feel that that was a significant
oversight. They still voted unanimously to approve the petition, but
they asked us to revise that analysis and send it to them, which we did,
and we heard no comments back from -- and it was included, that
Page 133
October 14-15, 2008
revised analysis was also included in your report.
I think I've touched on all the salient or significant issues. If you
have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them or somebody on
the team can answer them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I had discussed this with staff
in regards to the Hank Fishkind study, and my concern is that the
petitioner put together this study, and obviously since it was paid for
by the petitioner, we end up accepting those results, and I would hope
in the future that either we do an independent study or that's -- that
study is required by someone that comes in in regards to an auto
dealership, because I don't think we have the expertise on staff to
make a determination exactly what kind of an impact dealerships have
in general, and I'm not just picking on this particular dealership.
MR. MULHERE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's been other dealerships
that's come before us, and they've made studies, whether it's
impact-related or whatever else, and we accept those studies as the
gospel. And I think -- and I'm talking to the staff and not to you.
MR. MULHERE: Yep, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the things that I need to
have the transportation group -- I got a couple questions for the
transportation area, and that is, on number 6 of the recommendations
from the Planning Commission, it was transportation number 1, the
developer shall pay a fair-share cost of intersection improvements
including signalization and ITMS, at U.S. 41/Wiggins Pass Road,
which has been identified, and not to exceed $50,000.
There is a light there presently. Are you talking about some kind
of a SCOOT system or what are you talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, either that or maybe
improving that turn lane, the right turn lane, extending it back a little
bit. There were a couple things that came up, but we agreed that it
Page 134
October 14-15, 2008
would probably not exceed $50,000. So it would be the SCOOT
system or that turn lane.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then that next one down is Exhibit
E, transportation, number 2, the developer shall pay its fair-share cost
of intersection improvements including signalization and ITMS at
U.S. 41, Old U.S. 41, which has been identified not to exceed
$141,000 -- 141 and 902 dollars, excuse me.
Question I have is that we recently made some intersection
improvements at U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass Road, but they weren't
really -- they didn't really address a good proper right-hand turn lane.
Was that ever brought up in the discussion in regards to this PUD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was -- actually the right turn lane
was the Wiggins Pass one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct, the eastbound
Wiggins Pass onto southbound U.S. 41?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, that would be the six -- the Old
41. The amount you just mentioned was for Old 41. So I just spoke
with the traffic engineer. We agreed we could address it at the SDP,
but that exhibit or item line six would address that as well, too, so
we're going to look at that.
What happens is eastbound, sometimes you can't get into that
right turn lane. Ifwe extended it back 50 or 80 feet right to that
driveway, you'd be able to get into that turn lane. So we're going to
address that as that project comes up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because what we're doing is we're
doubling the square footage here at this location. And if my memory
serves me right on what I read here, that we're looking at drawing
people that are at least 30 minutes or so away from that complex to
either purchase a car or to bring it back for service, and the impact in
this area, I think, is going to be a very big concern, because right
presently in this general geographical area, there's an awful lot of
development going along -- commercial development along U.S. 41.
Page 135
October 14-15, 2008
The next question I have for you is, that we recently completed
the road improvements on U.S. 41. And what was in our agenda
package says that this road presently, after all the improvements of
this road, that now it's at level E. Can you explain that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, existing -- level of service
standard is E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Level of service standard is E on
U.S. 41.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And as per our AUIR, all
six-lane facilities will be maintained at level of service standard E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even with the update -- is this thing
going to -- is this including the additional impacts that are going to be
put on this by other commercial projects that are being developed in
this general geographical area of Wiggins Pass Road and U.S. 41?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Both our service standard
and its operating capacity is at E. So it is still functioning properly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I guess what I'm saying
is that, should we put this -- if the developer is interested in trying to
address the right-hand turn lane on Wiggins Pass Road, if we have a
buy-in from him, then we'll put that into the motion when we finally
put this all together.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could, sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Couple more questions for
Bob Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You talked of the road -- of the wall.
How tall is that wall?
MR. MULHERE: Six feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. And also
there were mentions of neighborhood problems.
Page 136
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MULHERE: Oh. Excuse me, I stand corrected. Eight feet.
I think we started at six feet but I think there was preference for eight
feet because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's even better.
MR. MULHERE: -- providing greater protection, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's even better, thank you.
There were quite a few mentions of problems with trash and loud
noises, and I don't want to go into all of them, but you have them
listed --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and Mr. Germain has them listed
in his letter. Have those problems been eliminated?
MR. MULHERE: To my knowledge they have been. We are--
we are working to not only eliminate them but maintain that
relationship with our neighbors.
One thing I will say is that one of the tenants that I think was,
you know, in some ways responsible for that will no longer be a tenant
when the redevelopment occurs, so that will go away. I think that's a
significant issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: Anything you want to add?
MR. THORNTON: There's a situation report from county
pollution control in your packets that basically says that all those
issues that were identified have been resolved to the satisfaction of
your pollution control department.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your name for the record?
MR. THORNTON: Chris Thornton.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my last question is dumpsters.
Where are they going to be located on this property?
MR. MULHERE: Good question. Yeah, that came up. I got a
cheap pen here. And we agreed to not locate the dumpsters within the
200 feet of the residential zoned property. So they're going to have to
Page 137
October 14-15, 2008
-- this will have to be designed so that they can be somewhere in this
vicinity here away from the residential zoned property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's a guarantee, they will be
located away from --
MR. MULHERE: It's a condition in the PUD, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta--
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a suggestion, Bob. Why don't
you put the site plan of the new building there so it shows what the
setback is? That way --
MR. MULHERE: Actually I have that on the master plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the commissioners would.
MR. MULHERE: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- would be able to see visually
what you're talking about. And I get half your fee for the last hour
now.
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Here's that 200-foot setback. Okay.
So within this area here the dumpsters can't be located, and also the
buildings have to be set back that 200 feet. That's why that's kind of a
curved linear like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we get a staff report? Do you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm fine, Commissioner
Henning, right now. Thank you.
MS. ZONE: Good afternoon Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone this property from a PUD to
Page 138
October 14-15, 2008
a commercial planned unit development. For that purpose, they're
also repealing Ordinance Number 90-50, which was known as their
Germain automotive facility PUD. They're readopting a new PUD
ordinance, a commercial PUD ordinance, to be known as the Germain
Toyota Commercial Planned Unit Development.
And they are increasing the maximum building area from 60,000
square feet to 130,000 square feet.
They have agreed to limit the building height or keep it --
maintain it to the current height, which is 50,000 square feet.
And this property is designated urban commercial district of the
mixed-use activity center number 20 at U.S. 41 and Wiggins Pass
Road.
Staff worked with the applicants resolving a lot of the issues with
the pollution and the noise, and the applicant agreed to a lot of the
stipulations that we have put in as conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission has supported that, and there was a
unanimous vote to bring this before this board for approval from
Planning Commission.
If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to address them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I do, but ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, just -- you had said they want to
maintain their height?
MS. ZONE: Right. It was at 50 -- it's at 50 and they're keeping
it at 50. They had originally asked for a higher, and they agreed at
Planning Commission to limit it to keep it the height that it is at now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is 60 --
MS. ZONE: No, 50, which you would be zoned -- it's -- the
actual height will be 60, but the -- it's 50 zoned height. There's two
differences depending on if there's air-conditioning on the roof or the
level from the road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's your understanding
about setbacks from U. S. 41 -- or 75? Is that setbacks from -- the
Page 139
October 14-15,2008
landscaping setbacks, or is that structure setbacks or what?
MS. ZONE: No, it's structure setbacks, and they need to
maintain it from their property line. It is the 75 feet.
They had originally asked for 25, so it's at 75, which was in the
old PUD. And so they're going to maintain that setback as well as -- if
you look towards the northwest quadrant of the property, they also
have to be 200 feet from residential property, and it -- not just straight
back, but even at a diagonal.
So the facilities -- any type of automotive facilities has to be not
only set back from 75, Commissioner Henning, but also from the rear
end as well, 200 feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, just stay with me.
MS. ZONE: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. ZONE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is your understanding that 75 feet is
including accessory structures?
MS. ZONE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They won't be able to put a sign out
there?
MS. ZONE: Signs are not an accessory structure. Those are
permitted through our LDC, and they did not request any type of
special provisions for signage, so they would have to follow the Land
Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So they can't put a lift there
for a vehicle. That's a structure, right?
MS. ZONE: That's a structure, and that is not the -- it hasn't --
their PUD ordinance -- and I'll take you to that page. It would be page
98 of your packet, that the accessory uses, which is the 75 feet from
U.S. 41, is the same as principal structures. And that structure, if you
had a vehicle, would not be allowed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me go on to my colleagues
Page 140
October 14-15, 2008
and go to that page. And I might come back to it.
MS. ZONE: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make something clear
here. When you were talking about the zoned height and actual
height, under item number 10, Exhibit B, says the zoned height will be
50 feet and the actual height will be 60 feet; is that correct? The very
MS. ZONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That the very tippy-top of
whatever's built is going to be 60 feet; is that correct?
MS. ZONE: Yes, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because in the front here
they were talking about zoned height of -- going up to 65 feet.
MS. ZONE: That was the original request and then--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Planning Commission, right?
MS. ZONE: Correct. And then the executive summary, just out
of logistics, was completed before the consent agenda of Planning
Commission, and it was just a matter of timing. But the PUD
document -- and you would see that as well on page 98 of your packet
-- shows the PUD document has them at 50 feet, is what they are
limited to, and 60 for the actual.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's very restrictive, the front
yard setbacks, considering it's an arterial roadway, but I see no
objections from the petitioner.
MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Bob Mulhere for the record.
I think we didn't object because it's permissible beyond the
Page 141
October 14-15, 2008
landscape buffer to park vehicles, either public vehicles or storage
vehicles, and that's, you know, what the Germains are in the business
of. So from our perspective, yeah, we could live with that setback.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well--
MR. MULHERE: Also with respect to the -- sorry. With respect
to the turn lane, the right turn lane that Commissioner Halas brought
up, our numbers -- and I understand as you explained it, your
concerns, the numbers don't necessarily show that it's warranted.
Now, if we have to install that at the time of SDP, would that be based
on some study to show that it's warranted or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, yes, and I think that should
be left up to the transportation department. If they feel it's warranted,
then it should be installed.
MR. MULHERE: And I think that's fine. That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Does that make sense?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Seeing no other questions, I'll
entertain a motion at this time. Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we approve
this item number 8C, which is PUDZA-2007-AR-11914 with the
caveat of the -- what the Planning Commission put in, and also I'm
going to put in this, that if they work with the transportation
department, transportation can make a determination whether that
right-hand turn lane on eastbound Wiggins Pass Road turning
southbound onto U.S. 41 is needed at the time of the Site
Development Plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve the petition with the Planning Commission's
recommendations and stipulations, and also at the time of SDP that, if
it is determined by transportation staff to extend the turn lane, that will
Page 142
October 14-15, 2008
be provided by the petitioner, and that is seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the direction by the board clear, by
staff?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say one thing
though, when we have another item like this, I believe that staff ought
to make an independent study or either have the petitioner provide an
independent study so that we get a clear clarification in regards to the
impact, especially when it's auto dealerships or whether it's some other
little item -- not a little item, but another item that deals with
transportation so that we have a full understanding that -- what the
impact could be for the citizens in this -- in the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you talking about a transportation
impact study?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In -- well, similar to what the
Fishkind report had here in regards to -- especially when you look at
the overall impact -- and I agree possibly with Mr. -- what Mr.
Page 143
October 14-15, 2008
Fishkind says, but I believe that staff should also have an independent
study either be provided by staff or provided by the petitioner so we
have a good idea that the information that's provided by someone who
has the study -- because let's face it, you go out there and pay for a
study, that person's going to tell you what you want to hear.
And we just want to make sure that we also include -- to make
sure that we're taking care of the citizens that live here in Collier
County .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think what you're saying is for
staff to verify the economic impact.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Good.
Next item.
Item # 1 OA - Continued from earlier in the meeting
REVIEW THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS MARINA AND BOAT
LAUNCH FACILITY PURCHASE OPTIONS AND OBTAIN
DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON HOW TO PROCEED - MOTION TO
CONTINUE THIS ITEM AND FOR STAFF TO EXPLORE IDEAS
AND RETURN WITH SPECIFIC PROPOSALS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to a tabled item
that you had, and that's lOA, and that's to review the Port of the Isles
Marina and boat launch facility purchase and obtain direction from the
Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed.
Mr. Gary McAlpin, your Coastal Zone Management Director,
had finished presenting. You had received public input on this
particular item, and the board was having discussions.
Page 144
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. First I'd like to ask
Ochopee Fire District Chief McLaughlin to come up, if you wouldn't
mind, sir. Get my mike up here where everybody can hear me, too.
Sir, it's been an endeavor on the part of the Ochopee Fire District
for some time to have a working location within Port of the Isles. This
past year we made a small budget correction to be able to allow for a
fire engine, I believe it is, to be located there and possibly the people
that would be -- the firefighters that would be staffing that would be
staying at the hotel.
Now, this other opportunity that's coming up that we're seeing the
possibilities of, have you had a chance to view the building that Mr.
Mudd was talking about as far as the conversion of that into a fire
station?
MR. McLAUGHLIN: For the record, Alan McLaughlin,
Ochopee Fire Chief.
Yes, Commissioner Coletta. We have reviewed the building,
looked through it, and looked at what we'd have to do to do
renovations to that building.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, taking a step
backwards, in order for a fire department to locate anyplace, I mean,
whatever land it's going to go on, there's going to be fixed costs that
they have to absorb, that they have to pay. They have to buy the land
generally, they have to pay for the renovation of a building or the
building of a building, not to mention the maintenance, too.
In this case, too, I guess there would be some costs for zoning
changes to be able to allow for it.
Do you have this in your budget to be able to work with? I
mean, can you contribute something to this pot for us to be able to
look at the economic ramifications of what it would be to purchase
this marina?
Page 145
October 14-15,2008
MR. McLAUGHLIN: I have not had the time nor -- to sit down
with Dan Summers to look at, economically, of what we actually have
and what it would take in hard numbers to give that to you today.
We just found out about this Thursday, so it's been kind of a
compressed time frame to sit here to tell you an absolute number
today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But there is something
within the Ochopee Fire District --
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to be able to pay for this. So
the numbers that we're hearing at this point in time don't reflect any
revenue or turn-backs or whatever you may call it from the fire district
itself to help offset this cost.
MR. McLAUGHLIN: Not that I'm aware of at this time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
If I may, I'd like to talk -- Marla Ramsey.
Marla, thank you so much for coming up. A question. A little
while ago we heard the number, 2.8 million; is that correct? Or was it
2.3? I'm sorry.
MS. RAMSEY: There's $2.8 million on the spreadsheet on the
packet that you have. I've got it on 7 of 7. It shows a 2.8 Delta on the
projects that we have on the books currently.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. So what we see at this
point in time is what's on the books without the Port of the Isles
Marina added to it; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: Port of the Isles and Manatee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. How much would the
purchase of the Port of the Isles Marina add to this debt in the first
three years if we went with the purchase package with a -- they have
offered for us?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, the first three years it's not out-of-pocket.
It actually rolls back into the principal. And I believe, depending on
Page 146
October 14-15, 2008
which one you choose, it's somewhere around 300,000, 350,000 a
year, rolling into the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let's stick with the first
three years, and I'll break it down several different ways.
The first three years we would probably have a net revenue -- a
revenue coming in for the fact that if we went with it with the fact that
we had no payments to make the first three years and it just accrued
interest doesn't mean we would take that particular avenue. We might
be able to cover the interest, I don't know, to be able to buy it down a
little bit.
But the first three years, the way the thing's put together, there
would be no expenses as far as paying for the land itself, probably just
for staffing and for maintenance, and we'd have some income coming
in from the facility itself; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, going from year--
after the first three years, four through 10, at that point in time, we will
be incurring the interest part of the debt.
Now, have you worked that into your equations, how that would
work out?
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. It depends on which option that you take,
but it could be anywhere from 230,000 a year up to 430,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's work with
realities, too. And I know there's some things we don't know at this
point in time, and I agree with comments that were made earlier by
some of my commissioners about -- especially Commissioner Coy Ie,
that we really don't have all the facts yet to be able to make a logical
decision.
But revenues coming in from this particular facility, from what
we can project at this point in time, not allowing for the fire district,
which will be making a contribution, I would assume, how close will
we be to a break-even point?
Page 147
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MUDD: Marla, before you get down to that road, you're
using, Commissioner, I appreciate this line of questioning, but you're
-- let me catch my breath for a second. Marla is basically giving you
an opinion based on the pro-forma that was provided by the owner.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. MUDD: This isn't -- and he didn't even provide a full year's
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm getting to that, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: -- nor was his data audited.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I understand. But the
thing is is that we're mixing some apples and oranges. The
assumption when you first hear this number is that there's a debt out
there that this is going to contribute to, and I'm trying to come up with
a rationale that this deal's been put together that will not contribute to
the debt in the first three years, that there'll be a carry-forward of some
-- of cash money. We don't know what it is yet. We have to look into
it.
We need to know all these answers that are out there. We don't
have those answers to the questions. The only thing we have is a
piece of information which is a little bit meaningless that there's a $2.8
million debt out there that we haven't been able to cover, which has no
bearing on this particular deal until you get to about the year' 1 0 when
you would have to be able to close this out.
And what I'm getting to -- and I'll cut right to the chase on this --
is -- well, first we could payoff the debt at any time if the -- in the
preceding 10 years without penalty . We know that. We also know
that when we get to year 10, it's an unpredictable situation. We don't
know where we're going to be 10 years out. I mean, I don't think
anybody but God knows where we're going to be 10 years out.
But we do have the ability when 10 years came around to be able
to re-evaluate it going into it. If we find ourselves still in the same
Page 148
October 14-15, 2008
economic climate that we have at this present time -- which God help
us if it ever lasted for that long -- we could sell the asset. These are
things that I'd like to see into the equation. In other words, what
would be able to make this all work back and forth to be able to offer
our residents here something at a cost that would be extremely
realistic? And that's basically where I'm going with it.
I think some of the information we got wasn't all that complete.
We need more to be able to go forward.
I, for myself, would like to see us concentrate mainly on 3A with
the option that when we do get grant money, or we get ahead in
money, we can payoff parts of the debt to try to bring it down. You
know, to be able to have a more detailed proposal come back to us
with the County Manager and your staff working on it to try to break
it down even further.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, without offending anyone, okay,
on the dais, if you would just give me direction to go back under this
particular issue on this particular item, meet with the developer, get
some things answered, get an audit on his figures so I've got an
audible amount of money that sits there, and let me work the particular
issues with staff.
You know, Marla gave you her estimate based on her capital
program as it exists today, okay. That doesn't mean that something
can't slip, okay. And I'll -- and I'll talk to Commissioner Fiala about
that after this meeting, and so -- about slippage.
But, you know, you're about ready to get -- if you decide to
purchase this, you're about ready to get a boat ramp, umpty-ump
parking spaces, 90-some, if I read it correctly -- was that correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ninety-six or something.
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Ninety-six, a parking area that's unspecified --
what is it, unspecified or unguaranteed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Non-restricted.
Page 149
October 14-15, 2008
MS. RAMSEY: Non-restricted.
MR. MUDD: Non-restricted or non-exclusive. That means that
there's a deal on top of the 96 with the neighboring property that we
could use part of that parking, and I got to get down to the basis of that
particular issue and bring that back to you as a board to let you know
where we stand, what the shortfalls are, if there's some decisions to be
made on slippage in order to get that done in order -- in order to get a
lot of the questions answered that need to be answered.
So if you could give me that direction, I will come back to you as
a board before the 18th of November, which is your meeting in
November. If I can get it done in the next two weeks, I will get it to
you in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
continue this item for more information, fact-finding, by the County
Manager's staff, second by Commissioner Coletta.
I didn't want to interrupt you. Are you done with your --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you for your
time you've allotted me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you sure? Okay.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just hope that we're not
jumping ahead of this whole thing. Let's kind of just settle back and
realize what's taken place here the last six, eight months.
First of all, the citizens here in Collier County demanded that we
roll back taxes, which we did. We ended up clearing about close to
300 people out of -- 280, is it -- people out of the county.
We ended up shortening library hours, we've ended up trying to
complete the road projects, and we have citizens clamoring saying
they want to have landscaping, et cetera. We have people out there
that have limerock roads, that they want to get those addressed.
Page 150
October 14-15, 2008
It seems to me -- and then we have the meltdown of the financial
world, and here we are wanting to go out there and use taxpayers'
money to buy a marina. I agree that we need to look at waterfront
property, but I'm not sure if this is the point in time that we need to go
after it.
Also, in the conversations that we had at the opening of this,
basically says, we don't have the money. So, I guess some of our
options are, we've rolled back taxes. Are we going to roll taxes up to
buy this thing? We're looking at $9 million.
And I'm not about to stick my neck out where I'm going to --
where we're going to get into the same situation as got into Wall Street
where we're going to only pay the interest and then all of a sudden the
note is due five years down the road or 10 years. I've got some real
concerns about this. And I want to really know if this is cost effective
to the citizens.
We got this unsolicited audit. That doesn't tell me anything.
And I can tell you right now that the information that's before me, I'm
not at all happy with this, and I'm not going to go in this direction.
And it's going to be interesting when we get the real story, and I just
hope that this isn't something whereby this individual's come forward
and he can't make the numbers jive, so he's looking for the county
which, again, is government, to bail him out, and I'm not for it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you want to address that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to give you my best --
my best opinion with the data that I can -- that I can garner. And I
will come back to the Board of County Commissioners and lay it all
out for you.
At that particular juncture the board needs to make a decision,
and I'll even give you financing options that are out there for this
particular -- whatever pieces that we can't pay for. And the board's
going to have to probably make a decision or two as we go down this
road to figure out where we want to be at the end.
Page 151
October 14-15,2008
You were presented with a proposition by a developer in Collier
County and we'll examine it and try to get to the bottom of it, okay.
And hopefully the options won't change again so we're looking at
something different.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I love to seize an
opportunity, and I don't want to lose any opportunity, especially to
give people access to the water.
I think Marla and her group have done a great job adding boat
launches and boat parking there. They're doubling parking over at the
boat launching facilities over at Bay Park. They're, I don't know,
quadrupling the stuff on 951, going from 19 spaces to 86 spaces,
they've added more spaces out at Caxambas, we're adding a bunch
more spaces in Goodland. We're really packing them in, and that's
good. We need that because we have to plan for our future. And if
this is an opportunity we can seize as well, that's great.
On the other hand, in the economic climate that we're in and as
you go to negotiate this out, Mr. Mudd, I certainly don't want to see us
losing something like, for instance, we've got a Manatee Park sitting
here waiting to be built. I don't want to lose that. And so keep that in
mind when you negotiate, would you? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Page 152
October 14-15, 2008
Halas dissenting.
Item #10H
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A JOINT LETTER
FROM COLLIER COUNTY AND BROW ARD COUNTY TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EXPRESSING UNIFIED OPPOSITION TO THE LEASING OF
ALLIGATOR ALLEY TO PRIVATE ENTITIES - APPROVED
Our staff has a burning desire to move item 10H, and that is a
joint letter from Collier County Board of County Commissioners and
Broward County Board of Commissioners to transportation -- Florida
Transportation Department expressing our unified opposition to
leasing Alligator Alley.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's lOG, by the way, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's 10H.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 10H.
MS. FILSON: There are two Gs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve the letter, second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIngs aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 153
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously. Thank
you, County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, lOB?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
Item #10B
STAFF GUIDANCE AS TO HOW TO PROCEED REGARDING
THE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD TO AMEND THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) IN ORDER TO ADDRESS
CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING THE PARKING OF BOATS ON TRAILERS AND
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN A FRONT YARD FOR MORE
THAN SIX (6) HOURS - MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION #3 -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is lOB, that the Board of County
Commissioners provide staff guidance on how to proceed regarding
the direction of the board to amend the Land Development Code in
order to address changes to the Land Development Code regarding the
parking of boats on trailers and recreational vehicles in the front yard
for more than six hours, and Mr. Joseph Schmitt, your administrator
for community development's environmental services, will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas had this item
brought forward. I'm in favor of allowing it all weekend, you don't
have to sign up, take a ticket, or anything. There would be -- provide
less staff, and the boat has to be in storage off property by what, eight
Page 154
October 14-15, 2008
o'clock at night on Sunday?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sunday night, yeah. I just wanted
to -- we have some concerns by some of the citizens in different
communities whereby they can have a boat, they have it in a storage
lot, they bring it to their residence, boat or motor home. A lot of times
they bring the boat or motor home home on a Friday night from a
storage area, they wash it.
Right now, the law says that they can only have it there for six
hours, so that means that if they try to abide by the law, then they have
to haul it back, and then in the morning go pick it up again from the
storage area so they can go boating.
I think that -- the recommendation that I'd like to see is whereby
Code Enforcement does not get harassed all the time by citizens who
say, this boat's been here for six or eight hours beyond the time
limited.
I felt that if we could put together the ordinance whereby the
homeowner who has the motor home or the boat can go on line --
because the majority of the people now have computers -- where they
can go online and download a permit that can be posted on the boat or
the motor home starting at the time that they applied for it, for 48
hours. And if someone in the neighborhood happens to see the permit,
then they realize they're in compliance.
The other thing is, if somebody complains, then Code
Enforcement can immediately, instead of dispatching somebody, to
take time and burn gas and everything else, they can look and see that
this individual has applied for the permit for 48 hours, and he's entitled
to a 48-hour permit just on the weekends, and then the next weekend
he can apply again, or she can apply again for the next 48 hours and
then leave the ordinance, the rest of the ordinance as such.
I think there's, what, they can have a motor home for seven days?
How does that read at the present?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator
Page 155
October 14-15, 2008
of Community Development, Environmental Services Division.
The LDC now reads they can park a vehicle, a boat on trailer or
motor home up to seven days, four times a year, with no two
consecutive weeks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So basically one week at a time, four times a
year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. But if they have a boat or
motor home and they go out every weekend, then they're prohibited
because they only got a seven-hour time frame.
MR. SCHMITT: Correction, that's six hours.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So as Commissioner Henning said
that he would be in favor, as myself, a 48-hour grace period from
Friday evening until Sunday night at eight o'clock where the boat can
no longer be at the premises.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm fine whichever way you want to go. My
recommendation is we remove this from the LDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And basically --
MR. SCHMITT: It does not belong in the LDC and we create a
separate ordinance, I'll find an ordinance either that this will go into or
we'll create a separate ordinance that will govern this because it
governs behavior. It does not govern land development.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And this would be under
option number three, I believe, that that --
MR. SCHMITT: Option number three, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- was put into our summary. So
I'll leave it open for discussion for my fellow commissioners, and then
at the time we can make a motion to move forward on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Halas has
done it rather well, I think. I'll make a motion to support his position
Page 156
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that we take it out of the Land
Development Code, put it in the Code of Ordinances, and that you
have an automated permit process.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I clarify, forty-eight hours, but you're
saying on weekends only up to 48 hours, or just 48 hours anytime?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, why don't we make it 48
hours anytime, but they -- they can't have two 48 hours consecutive,
because then that would --
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, that's fair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And just so the board understands, of course,
this is primarily in those areas that are not covered by deed restrictions
or covenants. So you're talking a fairly limited number of
communities that this will take place, primarily in those platted
subdivisions without governing bodies to govern any type of deed
restrictions or homeowner restrictions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's consensus.
MR. SCHMITT: We will do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. There's one other thing.
MR. SCHMITT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: While you're looking to do something
with the Land Development Code under, I think it's 8.8, I was looking
at it last night, it refers to the Code Enforcement Board, the CEB
board --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and we have a consolidated
ordinance. I believe it does the same thing.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if you would take a look at that,
and maybe it would be worthwhile in removing that from the LDC.
MR. SCHMITT: Our consultant -- and I covered that in the
Page 157
October 14-15, 2008
executive summary briefly . We're working with a consultant to try
and remove all that, I would call it, administrative criteria out of the
Land Development Code. This is the next step beyond the re-
codification, was to take some of that language, put it in the
appropriate codes of laws and ordinances.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to --
MS. FILSON: I have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon?
MS. FILSON: I have a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who do have you a motion from?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coy Ie, and the second from
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Coletta (sic), okay. I didn't hear it. I understood that
Commissioner Coyle said he'd support Commissioner Halas' motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I said I would -- I said I made
a motion to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- incorporate Commissioner Halas'
proposal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's a motion and a second.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 158
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, I want to make -- I want to make sure
I've got the motion down.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Number three.
MS. FILSON: The motion was Commissioner Coyle, the second
was Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MUDD: No, I understand that, but when the motion was
given, it was for a Friday evening through a Sunday and 48 hours, and
the final direction, consensus that I got was 48 hours --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hours, anytime.
MR. MUDD: -- anytime as long as you don't have two 48-hour
periods that are consecutive. Is that what everybody agreed to during
that motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2008-307: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER
THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE THE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM 13 MEMBERS TO 9
MEMBERS AND TO EXTEND THE COMMITTEES TERM 3
YEARS - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
That brings us to 10C. It's a recommendation to consider the
Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee's recommendation to
reduce the membership of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory
Committee from 13 members to nine members and to extend the
Page 159
~~_"''''K''" 'l
October 14-15, 2008
committee's term three years, and I believe Joe Schmitt, you're
presenting again, but you're running away.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know what the recommendations
are, but I don't know if we really need to have this committee.
They've been meeting for three years and started out with a limitation,
and then they expanded, and it's just not going anywhere. I don't
know why we have to continue this process. I would like to sunset
this committee personally.
Commissioner Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I? That wouldn't bother me
too much either, but let me tell you that -- what I think is the problem.
We started this committee with the intent of concentrating on a single
has been at that time conservation plan for Red-cockaded
Woodpeckers, and then the Fish and Wildlife Service says, no, you
can't do that. You have to cover all species, and it became such a
tremendously complex issue, I don't think any committee can do that.
So I am inclined to either say, forget it and let the federal
agencies deal with these issues themselves, along with the court cases
that will inevitably be filed as a result of their approval and/or
rejection of permits, or we go back to what we intended in the very
beginning; give the committee -- and I would say reduce it to nine
people. Thirteen people becomes unwieldy. I mean, you see what
happens when you just have five people, you know. If -- and 13
people is just crazy.
So if you want to continue it, then I would suggest we continue it
with nine people and that we tell them, let's go back to our original
process, go get us a Red-cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Conservation
Plan or a Bald Eagle Habitat Protection Plan or conservation plan, you
know, decide what you want, and -- but do something. Get one of
these things installed and then we'll move to the next one and then to
the next one and to the next one.
And over time, we might have a comprehensive habitat
Page 160
October 14-15, 2008
conservation plan in Collier County. But right now -- well, I think we
made a mistake by letting the Fish and Wildlife Service tell us what
we should be doing. We don't need their permission to do this. Ifwe
believe it's the right thing to do, then we ought to do it.
The only impact it has as far as I can determine from discussing it
with the County Manager, is that the Fish and Wildlife Service can
just refuse to let us make some of these decisions on a local level.
Well, so what? They've been doing that for years anyway. So if
they prohibit us from making the decisions, they've got to make the
decision themselves. And if there's a court case concerning it, they're
going to have to defend it.
So I don't see any downside for us and our taxpayers, but I think
the proper thing to do, if we're really interested in preserving protected
species, is to continue the committee but focus on something we can
do, like a single plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I agree with you. Many
times a scatter-shod approach leads you to nothing; whereas, if you
can focus all of your -- all of your efforts on one subject, tackle that
and complete it and then move on to the next, you have a chance of
being successful.
And I would say that if we -- at the end of 2009 when I believe
this committee is supposed to be sun-setting, if they don't have a plan
-- December, 2009?
MS. FILSON: September 12,2009.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. If they don't have a
conservation plan, for at least, say, the Red-cockaded Woodpecker,
then maybe we should allow the committee to die. And if they have
one and they have an effort going to tackle the next species, well, then
fine, then we can address it at that time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to make a motion to that
effect?
Page 161
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make a motion to that
effect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second. You want to decrease
the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to just leave it at nine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's at 13 now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I want to decrease it to nine --
I'm sorry, thank you -- decrease the committee to nine because I think
13 is unwieldy, and suggest to them that they focus on one species,
and I'm going to say the Red-cockaded Woodpecker initially, and then
if they complete that by September -- did you say 12th? September
12th, 2009 --
MS. FILSON: September 12th, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- then come back to us and see if
they want to continue this committee, and then they have at least a
record going for them --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- of the success.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to
support staffs, the recommendation, and also concentrate on a single
species, Red-headed (sic) Cockaded Woodpecker.
You know, does it take three years to do that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we don't know, but maybe --
maybe because they tried to do an overall approach, they haven't been
able to accomplish anything. So we're going to give them a chance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But the thing -- they started
out with an HCP. They couldn't get anywhere on an HCP. And the
whole goal was, is try to cut down the bureaucracy of government, not
so much county government but federal government and state
government.
We can adopt something, but Fish and Wildlife might not
recognize it, so all we're doing is creating more government, and that
Page 162
October 14-15, 2008
just does not make sense to me. It's obviously (sic) that the federal
government wants us to do a multi species countywide. That's not
going to happen, and to create more government is just not being
republican.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, Commissioner
Henning, you're close to where we need to be on that. How we got to
where we were -- originally we started out dealing with just the Red
Cockatoo Woodpecker. From there, we had the federal government
step in and say, no, you've got to grow the program much bigger than
it was.
At that point in time, there was an outpouring of grief from the
landowners who figured that they weren't too concerned about one
species being identified and the rules put into place, but they got very,
very concerned when it was open-ended. That's how the committee
grew from where it was to 13.
Now, if we're going to go back to base one, which may be a
viable option, we've got to first ask if there's an interest, first, on the
part of the committee to do it. Second, are we just spinning our
wheels where the federal Fish and Wildlife is not going to give us any
recognition for it? We -- there's some answers that we don't have.
Before we can take that next step, I'd like to be able to hear back
from staff to find out if this is a viable option before we have everyone
and his brother spending hundreds of staff hours on it and then find at
the end we've got a document and some direction that has no real
support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that the motion that's on the
floor, we ought to let it ride and see where it goes. I think there's
probably some public speakers on this, but the end result is, we're
going to give them a second opportunity here to see what they can
come up with and if they can address the Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
Page 163
October 14-15, 2008
And if they can't, then obviously this committee will die of its own
accord.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have --
MS. FILSON: We have two speakers, Mr. Chairman, Judith
Hushon. She'll be followed by Amber Crooks.
MS. HUSHON: Hello, I'm the chairperson. I'm Judy Hushon,
and I'm the Chairperson of the HCP AC, and we did look at the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker, and we were told that it had to be larger.
We then went back and said, well, the whole county was going to be
difficult, so what we discovered if we looked at the Immokalee urban
area, which is an area that's growing -- going to be growing hugely in
the next few years, we had a chance of really making a difference
where things would be -- permits could be much faster. You wouldn't
have to wait for a take permit from the federal agencies. You could get
it from the county in, I'm going to say, six months. You wouldn't have
to wait two to three years from the Fish and Wildlife Service. We
thought that was going to offer a real benefit to the property owners.
We put together a request a couple months ago to come in here to
get some federal funding to start the baseline work for that plan. We, I
guess, didn't quite have the landowners onboard yet, but they're not
opposed to this necessarily . We have a number of them that are
actually speaking very positively to us.
And rather than just going for Red-cockaded Woodpecker --
which is actually not going to work with Fish and Wildlife Service, I
can just tell you that right now -- we'd have to put in panther and we'd
have to put in some of the upland species like Indigo Snake and
Cypress Fox Squirrel or something into that area, which would be --
also Gopher Tortoise in that area, and that would have to -- then that
would end up being like the Belle Meade area as a region that we
would be cutting out and handling.
We have been focusing on the Immokalee area. We've been
interacting. I'm going to the IMPVC meeting tomorrow morning, you
Page 164
October 14-15, 2008
know. I mean, we've been dialoguing for a year, and to cut that off at
this point I'm not sure is worthwhile.
I know you think of it in terms of Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
Our goal is to roll back onto some of these other areas in the county,
to get a success story, for one, where we think there is a boundary that
it realistic to tackle and where we can get our hands around these
species. We've already figured out how to do it. It's just a matter of
doing it now. I actually can see the path forward. I can see that.
And that's where I would like to go with it, rather than this total
focus on Red-cockaded Woodpecker, which is Belle Meade, which is
probably not going to work. We did try to put a Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Amendment -- LDC Amendment, I believe, a couple of
years ago thinking that that -- the county could manage it like we
manage Gopher Tortoises and we could manage eagles and other
things through some of our LDC Code.
And we're happy to work on things like that with you, too, but I
think we would like to still be focusing on the Immokalee urban area,
at least that's where our energies have been. We've done a lot of
ground-level planning, and it looks like something that's doable in the
next couple of years.
We would actually have -- we would work on it, then it would go
to the Fish and Wildlife Service. And we've been working together--
we actually met with them a week ago, or two weeks ago.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're complete?
MS. HUSHON: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala has a
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I hate to put you on the
spot like this, but can you tell me something that you've accomplished
in the last three years?
MS. HUSHON: Something that we've accomplished. Okay. We
have done a Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Plan. We did
Page 165
October 14-15, 2008
do that, and that was something we wanted to incorporate into the
Land Development Code as part of that.
We would be developing similar management plans for the other
threatened and endangered species. Some of them exist, some of them
we'd have to develop. Red-cockaded's a little bit more unusual. Scrub
Jay's actually been developed by, I'm going to say --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did that answer your question?
MS. HUSHON: -- Sarasota.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. HUSHON: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. I
appreciate your dedication to this; however, I -- they do not want to
deal with it in Immokalee, and the people that I was told were
supportive of it, when I went and individually talked to them, they
were just taken back by the fact that I said they were a supporter of it
and tried to gain guidance from them.
If I were you, I would not keep pushing the button on
Immokalee. They made it very clear to me numerous times now, that
they don't want to deal with this plan in it's entirety like it is.
Now, some day if you come up with a single species plan, you
want to go back and talk to them, I say, go for it. But right now, the
CRA, the Chamber of Commerce, the big landowners, at least the
ones that have come to me, which is most of them, are not supportive
of this particular venture that you're still pushing.
So I wholly encourage you not to go forward with it, if this
commission votes for you to be able to carry something out. If you
say there's already a Red Cockatoo Woodpecker plan in place and all
Page 166
October 14-15,2008
that was going to be incorporated into a much larger plan, I say, break
that out and give it to us the way it is so that we can pick that up. We
already deal with the Gopher Tortoise very successfully. We're
dealing with the manatee. I believe -- well, we defer to the federal
government for the eagles, but for the most part --
MS. HUSH ON: They're still using the Eagle Act, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. They're pretty concise.
Now, the RCW is a weak link in the whole thing. Give us what
you've got, and we'll be very appreciative of it, but I'm not going to
support this committee to stay in existence if they're going to try to
push something on Immokalee that they do not want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Amber Crooks.
MS. CROOKS: Thank you. I'm Amber Crooks, the vice-chair
for the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee.
As Judy's already explained to you kind of our history and how
we evolved from RCW to kind of looking at a larger scope, coming
out with a conclusion that the whole county was just a bit too large
and would be too much for us to handle.
We will take the board's direction, but Fish and Wildlife Service
-- and there are some representatives, they're here to speak on another
issue but may want to comment also about a single species HCP and
the viability that that may have with that agency.
The feedback that we have received from them is that because
the woodpeckers, for example, share their habitat with the Florida
Panther, that just having a single species HCW for RCW would not be
viable. You'd have to add other species that are listed that utilize the
same habitat.
The Immokalee urban area is where we currently have been
focused for about the past year or so. We kind of are approaching it as
-- we recognize that they desire and deserve the increased
development to expand their tax base but that they also have listed
Page 167
October 14-15,2008
species within their borders.
And Commissioner Coletta, you may have received some direct
feedback from some of your constituents, but from some of the folks
that I have talked to, the IMPVC, they want that development. They
want to make sure that that's not hindered, but they also want
mitigation monies from any developments that happen within their
borders to go -- the mitigation monies to go to protect some of their
green spaces to preserve their quality of life and to, perhaps, promote
an ecotourism industry.
We're looking diligently to meet their requests for coordination
with other regulatory agencies, like the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and the wetland agencies. They want to --
they told me that they want to include as many federally listed species
as possible if they're going to have an HCP, and they want to include
wetlands, if possible, because if they're going to do it at all, they want
it to take care of everything.
So that means a lot more work for our committee to kind of
prepare all these documents and get all coordination before we move
forward.
I think we're further and closer to any real output for this
committee than we have ever had, and to having something tangible.
And we're at the point where the committee has the knowledge and
wherefore all (sic) to apply for the HCP if they choose to do so.
And you did hear some of the Immokalee stakeholders like Fred
Thomas come to you on September 9th about the grant, and he was
very concerned, but I hope you heard what else he said. He said, it's
not that we're against it. They're just not ready to move forward.
And I would ask that you table this direction that you're going
until maybe we can get some more input from some of those
Immokalee stakeholders. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Is there any discussion
on the motion?
Page 168
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, sure is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can either vote for it or vote
against it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I understand that, but I'd
like to make a case. I mean, you obviously have a committee that's
out of control. They have a particular direction they want to go in, and
they're not going to bend in any case. It's going to be -- listed species
is what they want. They don't want to deal with a single species. You
haven't heard them agree with you yet as far as this takes place.
As far as Immokalee goes, Fred Thomas told me personally -- at
the end of the meeting -- I suggest we continue it because I didn't get a
clear --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the motion--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- meaning for it. I understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion on the floor is for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, Commissioner
Henning. Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is for a single species.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand that, but I don't
have any faith in the committee to be able to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's direction from the board. I
don't know how they can go and do other things unless staff allows
that to happen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they also stated that they
already have a Red Cockatoo Woodpecker Plan in place to be able to
incorporate into the bigger plan. So if they have that together, give us
what they got, and out staff can put the final touches on it and bring it
forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't disagree. I can't support --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why waste any more time with
this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can't support the motion, but there is
Page 169
October 14-15, 2008
a motion on the floor, and I want to move on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's fine,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Is there something that--
whether it be in our county requirements or state requirements, that
says we must do this? .
MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, no, no. This was an initiative that was
-- started out originally with the land develop -- with landowners,
developers and stakeholders coming together to look at trying to
develop an overarching plan to look at listed species in the -- and in
areas of the county so it would, I'll use the word, accelerate the
permitting process.
The difficulty here -- and I know I'm getting a little bit beyond
what you asked. But the difficulty -- a single species will not really
solve the problem because you still have to go in for other section 7,
section 10 consultation, as it's defined in the Endangered Species Act
or in the National Environmental Policy Act or some of those other
governing programs or governing laws that required the -- and control
the permitting process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if this committee wasn't here, can
we still move forward? I mean, do the developers or whomever,
landowners or whatever, hire their own people to perform this work--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on their particular property; Is
that what you're saying? I mean, this is --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. They would do an environmental impact
statement, and based on that environmental impact statement, they
would go through the required permitting procedures depending on
what species are found on the properties that they're looking to rezone
or whatever they're going to do on that property.
And I know Paul can talk probably much more on that than I can
Page 170
October 14-15, 2008
from a standpoint of U.S. Fish and Wildlife. But they still would have
to go through the permitting process. The intent of the HCP was to
have a consolidated, holistic review to -- and I'll use the word again,
an attempt to streamline the entire process.
You would have all the state and federal agencies in agreement
as to what the impact would be for a certain area of the county, and
that was -- that was the original intent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Schmitt, we have had
landowners step forward before and come up with voluntary programs
to be able to move issues of conservation and protection of --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- rural lands, the rural fringe,
and now we have a bigger program that's going to cover just about -- a
good part of the eastern part of Collier County, and that's that panther
protection.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And now who is driving the
horse on that one there?
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, that's the Wildlife Federation in
conjunction with the property owners. That was solely a private
initiative. Barron Collier, Collier Enterprises, Nancy Payton was
involved in that, and then certainly it's a tremendous initiative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, and it's got a buy-in by
the landowners.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, it has to have a buy-in by the
landowners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this particular program, the
Page 171
October 14-15, 2008
listed species does not have a buy-in from what I can see.
MR. SCHMITT: My understanding, they do not. There's no one
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: There's not a whole buy-in from everyone
involved. It's -- so -- and that would have to eventually happen, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion caries 3-2.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I ask for a clarification? It was to reduce it
to nine but stay with the original sun-setting, is that correct, or extend
't?
I .
MR. MUDD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: The board's motion was to do single species,
Red-cockaded Woodpecker, reduce it to nine members, and have a
plan back to the board at sunset time, which was the 12th of
September, 2009; no plan, and the board's -- if they come back with a
plan and they ask for a continuance of the advisory board, the board
will make a decision at the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Terri, did you capture the motion?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
Page 1 72
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So excited to get rid of that one.
Item #10D
AWARD OF BID #08-5078 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,887,800 TO
DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS FOR MASTER PUMP STATION 302
IMPROVEMENTS AND PURCHASE ORDER TO ITT FL YGT TO
PURCHASE PUMPS IN THE AMOUNT OF $471,588 FOR A
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $2,359,388, PROJECT #72548 AND #72549
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: -- that brings us to 10D. It's a recommendation to
approve award of bid 08-5078 in the amount $1,877,800 to Douglas
N. Higgins for master pump station 302 improvements and purchase
order to ITT FL YGT to purchase pumps in the amount of$471,588
for a total amount of$2,359,388, project 72548 and 72549. And--
MS. SRIDHAR: Shanthi Sridhar.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta
(sic) to approve the item, second by Commissioner Halas. What?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't make the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You didn't?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It was the other C.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. I heard it from down there.
Motion by Commissioner Coletta -- Coyle --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to approve the item, second by
Commissioner Halas.
Page 1 73
October 14-15,2008
I have a question on this one. Is the county going to purchase the
pumps or is the contractor going to purchase the pumps?
MS. SRIDHAR: The county will be purchasing the pump.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And so there would be a
savings on sales tax.
MS. SRIDHAR: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the contractor will be just doing
the labor?
MS. SRIDHAR: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- to install the items on page 12.
Okay, thank you.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10E
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,789,131 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
MEDICAID LOW INCOME POOL PROGRAM FOR SERVICES
PROVIDED ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING AND HUMAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GENERATE AN
ADDITIONAL $485,309 IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS -
APPROVED
Page 174
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10E. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the chairman to sign an agreement with the Agency for
Healthcare Administration in the amount of $2,789,131 to participate
in the Medicare low-income pool program for services provided on
behalf of the housing and human services department in order to
generate an additional $485,309 in federal matching funds.
Ms. Marcy Krumbine, Housing and Human Services Director,
will present, and make sure we let the board know who our hospital is
that's sponsoring, please.
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing and Human Services.
This is a program that we have the lower income pool program
where we send our general revenue budget up to OCCA (phonetic) of
the State of Florida. They match it with federal dollars and then send
back the, what I call magic money, more money, to our participating
hospital, which is Physicians Regional Medical Center, and they, in
turn, pay bills for uninsured, underinsured. It gets returned right back
out into the community to benefit our citizens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who was the first one?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You take a guess.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
approve the item, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor -- yes, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. It is Physicians
Regional on 951, or is it the one on Pine Ridge Road?
MS. KRUMBINE: They're the same hospital. They're two
locations but they're all under the same auspices.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you.
Page 175
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MUDD: And without -- and the reason I mentioned it,
without that hospital, okay, being the sponsor, the conduit of those
dollars, we would not get the 485,000 federal money in order to
augment our program. Without them, it wouldn't happen, so we've got
to pull the thanks for them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we ought to put out a press
release or something like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We ought to. Good move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It makes me feel better about sending
my monthly payment to them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Makes me feel better about
getting older.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #10F
GUIDANCE TO STAFF ON WHETHER TO PURSUE A POLICY
FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE EXPENSES TO
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS AND IF SO PROVIDE
FURTHER DIRECTION AS TO PARAMETERS AND
CONDITIONS FOR SAID REIMBURSEMENT - MOTION FOR
COUNTY TO REIMBURSE ALL ADVISORY BOARD
Page 176
October 14-15, 2008
MEMBERS FOR EXPENSE COSTS FOR ACTUAL MILES OVER
20 MILES ROUNDTRIP PER MEETING AND DIRECT STAFF
TO BRING BACK THE FUNDING MECHANISM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 1 OF. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides
guidance to the staff on whether to pursue a policy for reimbursement
of mileage expenses to advisory board members, and if so, provide
further direction as to the parameters and conditions for said
reimbursement. And Steve Carnell will present.
MR. CARNELL: I'm here on behalf of Len Price in your
Administrative Services Administrative Division and wanted to
provide you just a brief report in terms of data regarding your advisory
board participation and travel time and distances that they employ in
order to serve on the various advisory boards that they are part of.
Collier County has nearly 50 of these advisory boards and/or
commissions, and there are approximately 350 individuals that serve
on them. And at the present time, based on current enrollment and
membership across all these boards, a majority of them, of the
members, live within 20 miles round trip of the meeting location for
the monthly or bimonthly meetings that they attend; 82 percent live
within 30 miles; 92 percent live within 40 miles, so just giving you a
little overview of how that works.
Most -- a majority of the folks, a typical trip for one of your
advisory board -- I'm sorry -- for one of your advisory board members
would be between 15 and 20 miles round trip to get to a meeting.
Now, we -- your staff looked briefly at what other counties,
neighboring counties are doing with regard to this question of
remunerating advisory board members for expenses. Broward County
presently has no remuneration plan. They did pay out-of-county
travel previously, but they have since rescinded that policy. Lee
County does not reimburse at all. Palm Beach County does not pay
Page 1 77
October 14-15, 2008
for in-county travel, which we assume means they do pay for
out-of-county travel in the rare instance that it would be relevant.
In Charlotte County they limit reimbursement to what they call
judicial board members only. And I don't know for a fact exactly
what that is, but I assume that's probably the quasijudicial boards that
they have similar to our contractor licensing or Planning Commission,
or perhaps our Code Enforcement Board. So they limit it to just
strictly those boards, and apparently there's quite a bit of travel
involved with that activity for those volunteers.
In considering whether you want to pursue a policy with this, Ms.
Price had mentioned in the executive summary that you need to
consider certain factors, essentially eligibility factors, who would it
cover? Would it be all volunteers or a portion of the group,
remembering that some of the people that serve on your advisory
boards -- it's a small minority, but some of them are actually paid staff.
They are representing their employer and they may very well be
already getting some reimbursement from their employer to attend
those meetings.
Then you also want to look at, if you were going to do any
reimbursement general parameters as to exactly what you're going to
reimburse, how much and when or how often you would provide this
reimbursement.
So if you think in those terms, staff looked at two possible
options. One would be to reimburse the actual miles, and that could
be actual miles all told for a round trip or it could be actual miles
above a certain trip point, say, above 20 miles, above 30 miles, to try
to capture the more extraordinary computes, if you will, between trips.
And logic here was, on the partial reimbursement idea, was that
these are volunteers by and large, and we're not -- what we found in
the other counties were, the general spirit of things were that they
assumed that these folks were volunteers and were volunteering their
time and the expense that goes with getting to and from meetings.
Page 1 78
October 14-15, 2008
So if you did a partial reimbursement, you're somewhat splitting
the difference between the idea of full reimbursement and also
recognizing that voluntary role.
So think in two concepts here. Either reimbursing actual miles or
using a stipend-type approach to reimburse a portion or all of the
expense.
I've got, just briefly -- I don't want to dazzle you with numbers
here, but I do have a couple of numbers.
Mr. Mudd, if you could put that on the visualizer. Thank you.
This is just a quick breakout for you to see if you worked on an
actual mileage basis, how it might pan out based on your current 350
members and where they live in Collier County and their travel costs
to and from the designated sites where their meetings took place.
If you reimbursed everything -- and remember, there is no budget
presently for any of this. If you reimbursed everything, it would cost
you in the neighborhood of $489,000 as you see on the slide, and then
progressing down, if you reimbursed everything for trips above 20
miles round trip, your costs would be almost $16,000; above 30, it
drops to 9,100; above 40, it drops to 6,100, and above 50 miles -- and
you do have some folks in the east part of the county who do have that
type of a commute, the costs would more like $4,400.
Now, if I could -- Mr. Mudd, one other slide here. If you -- that
was the actual miles approach.
If you use the stipend method and you make a determination --
first off, you distinguish the fact that some boards meet more
frequently than others. If you were to pay a stipend for people who
are serving on advisory boards that meet six times a year, you pay a
stipend of$50. If you were to then take people who attend monthly
meetings, 12 per year, and give them a stipend of$100, and people
who attend bimonthly meetings or twice a month advisory board
meetings where you have a cost of $200 for a stipend.
If you use that as your basis for setting up the stipend program,
Page 179
October 14-15,2008
then it's just a matter of how -- again, how you want to deal with the
mileage. If you're going to reimburse for more than 30 miles, your
cost using that stipend plan would be about $6,400.
MR. MUDD: Annually.
MR. CARNELL: If you were going to reimburse only for trips
that are more than 40 miles, you can see the number is $3,100, and
more than 50, it would be $2,100 and change.
So with that, I wanted to just put that information in front of you,
and then we were seeking more direction from the board.
A couple of brief comments in addition. If you pay the actual
expense, that's a more accurate way of reimbursing the cost, but it's
also more bureaucratic and time consuming. People have to keep
records. They have to submit requests and get them reimbursed.
In a stipend method, you could set up a system where essentially
you pay it out once a year and all we have to do is verify that
someone's on the committee and their address is correct and we go
from there.
So with that, I'll take any questions from the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The reason this is
coming forward is because of the exorbitant costs that some of our
members have been incurring. They have made comments to us over
the last year, and so this is why we got it before us, before the
commission for discussion.
I don't know what would be really fair, but if we're going to try to
find something in the middle to be able to address the situation
because right now they're getting absolutely nothing, and I can tell
you some people that are traveling from Immokalee to here, and
they're just average folks earning average wages. It becomes a
hardship with gas prices the way they are today.
I would suggest something like about a 15 -- 15 or 20 miles that
Page 180
."'._~;-'.' -~ - <r _____"," -^,
October 14-15, 2008
would be -- everything above that, they would get reimbursed for, and
then that would bring it down to something -- at least they're getting
reimbursed for their gas, to bring them back to being where they need
to be. We very much value their services, we really do. Without them
we couldn't operate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's something that's way
overdue. Some of the advisory committees that work under the Board
of County Commissioners, some of those people work as hard as the
commissioners do in regards to preparing, getting ready for meetings.
And so I look at the second one from the top here, all miles that
are greater than 20 miles round trip per meeting, that we should
provide something. I think that their service -- you can't put a value
on the service that they provide. They take on a lot of responsibility.
And then, of course, they bring forth their findings, and a lot of times
their findings helps us immensely to work through the process to make
our job a lot easier so that we don't have to go through everything that
they have already gone through, that they -- so I suggest that at this
point in time we look at that, and then I think what we need to do is --
there are some advisory committees that really don't spend that much
time, but they're an asset, and that's open for discussion what we
should do about that.
But there are committees that are here almost -- more than eight
hours at a time a lot of times, and I really think that we should make
sure that we address their needs because it's very difficult to find good
people to get on these particular committees, and as I said, we count
heavily on them, so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll go along with
Commissioner Halas. I totally agree with all his comments. And
probably 20 miles round trip per meeting is a good figure to stick by,
Page 181
October 14-15,2008
so I'll go along with that, if you want to put that into a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think what we need to do is
-- as was brought up by Mr. Carnell, that we have over 50 groups. Do
we want to include all 50 groups that -- advisory groups that report to
us or do we want to go with the top 10 groups that report to us?
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Let me interject myself. You've got to be -- I
think you've got to be fair and set the policies so it governs them all.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Because then you're going to get into, you know,
why me? Why wasn't I this person? And right now, from what I'm
hearing, at least three commissioners have got in the ballpark that
basically said, the county will reimburse all miles on our mileage rate
that we have right now that we keep and we updated for anything
above 20 round trip miles per meeting, okay.
So if somebody does 30 miles round trip, okay, we subtract 20
because that isn't reimbursed because that's standard, and those 10
miles above it would be reimbursed based on the standard mileage
rate. That's what I heard, but I don't have a motion yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For all groups then so we don't
have any discriminating -- we're not discriminating between any of the
groups.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. For the easy sake of
trying to figure mileage, so we don't get into trouble, we could use one
of these mileage charts like they have at Google (sic) or Yahoo --
MR. MUDD: We already have one, sir. We already have one,
.
SIr.
MR. CARNELL: We have it broken out for every single
committee already.
Page 182
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CARNELL: But if I could get one other clarification, Mr.
Chairman. Does the board have a preference in terms of reimbursing
actual miles versus a stipend method? The staff would recommend a
stipend approach using the 20-mile cutoff that you're talking about,
Commissioner Halas.
Does the board care to give a direction as to which of the two
approaches as part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give actual mileage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For actual mileage.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're going to have to bring it back
anyways --
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- with a budget amendment.
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We'll have to do a budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you want to keep your motion or
Is that direction?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, give him direction at this
time, and then we'll --
MR. MUDD: No, you vote on it and we'll bring it back as a
budget amendment. Budget amendment will probably be --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
MR. MUDD: -- on the consent agenda, and then if the board
wants to pull it because there's some difference of opinion, we can do
that, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
MS. FILSON: Can I ask a question? Will the reimbursement
sheets be turned in to the staff liaisons and then come from -- and then
they will turn it in to finance?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll work that out later.
Page 183
October 14-15, 2008
MR. MUDD: We'll work that out later, Sue.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I was planning on updating your budget by
$15,900 and letting you figure it out. But that's okay, we'll work it out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas and
second by Commissioner Coletta to approve over 20 miles actual to
advisory board members, that include directing staff to bring back the
appropriate mechanism and budget amendments.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
You need a break, Terri?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Be back at 4 o'clock, so nobody's
confused.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Everybody take their seats.
Anybody wishing to talk about items besides what's on the agenda,
please take it out in the hall.
Item #10G
ACCESS ALTERNATIVES AT THE INTERSECTION OF
Page 184
October 14-15, 2008
WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND DUDLEY ROAD - APPROVED
W/STIPULATIONS
The next item is request for the Board of Commissioners access
alternatives for the intersection of Whippoorwill Lane and Dudley
Road.
Mr. Nick Casalanguida will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida with transportation services, the planning department.
Commissioners, for a little background on this project -- because
you asked for more information and an alternative as well, too. When
the county reviewed the Naples Nissan project, we (sic) asked that we
review all projects. We tried to review them in aggregate and see
what the impacts would be to that intersection, both -- in all
approaches, because what was happening was you were getting Site
Development Plans in piecemeal, and you were getting small projects
coming in and they weren't reviewed in aggregate to see what those
impacts would be.
So we had the developer provide an area-wide traffic study, and
we said, we're going to adhere to that study and not allow any
development orders to proceed until those improvements identified in
that traffic study are completed, and those improvements included
lengthening the turn lanes both eastbound and westbound on Pine
Ridge Road, which has been completed, and also putting in dual
southbound left-turn lanes -- I'm sorry, northbound left-turn lanes
coming out of Whippoorwill. And that was based not only in the
existing condition, but future growth also, too, and that improvement
was completed.
At the time that was done, we started hearing from the residents
in the area off of Dudley Road and Larson that their access had been
compromised off of Whippoorwill Lane. And so the commission, I
guess, through public petition, asked staff to research that and provide
Page 185
October 14-15, 2008
an alternative and some guidance.
We've done that with the exhibit items that we provided to you.
Weare able to open that median. And our recommendation is that it
can be done but with a caution. Because now things have slowed
down, you can open that median. We think if they adhere to the
signage and keep that intersection clear, you won't have a problem.
But if the volumes pick up at that intersection and they start to queue
up past the opening of Dudley Road and don't keep that intersection
clear, our concern is that they'll back up onto Pine Ridge Road.
People coming onto Pine Ridge and traveling south won't -- they'll
want to make a left, will be backing that traffic up.
So in its condition right now, we can open it up. There will be a
cost to opening that up, probably around 20- to $25,000 -- we've done
a little more research on that -- and it will provide interim access to
Dudley Road. But if that Whippoorwill Lane is connected to the south
of Livingston and the volumes pick up on that and they do not adhere
to that signage, you're going to have a problem there.
So with that, our recommendation to you would be, that you
could open it now, but we want to put it clear on the record that we
would, you know, close it in the future should there be a problem
there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess my concern is, the businesses
requested (sic) for that to be opened up is a PUD, and there's -- they
had made some commitments within the PUD that are not fulfilled,
and I have a concern of some body coming to the board asking to take
action and they haven't fulfilled their actions required under the PUD.
Well, the -- they were to provide 30 feet of right-of-way for
Whippoorwill. We think they did that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have a plat that was recorded in
the '80s that showed that dedication.
Page 186
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The second thing, they were supposed
to construct that segment of Whippoorwill. We don't know that they
did that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was an existing condition consistent
with the plat. I don't know who did it, but it was there on the ground.
So I can say that it was either done as part of the plat or done
thereafter. That condition has been satisfied.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two things that remain outstanding
for that PUD we'll be sending over to Joe's shop for further
compliance efforts would be the arterial level of street-lighting on
Larson and Dudley as well as their fair share towards the intersection.
Prior correspondence did not. There was none coming back to the
county. We'd sent out a memo to the developer of the -- the owners of
the PUD and we received nothing back.
So we're going to follow up with PUD monitoring and again --
notify them again, this time certified mail, and see what kind of
response we get from the PUD owners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the -- and the second thing is, I
think the interconnection of east Whippoorwill, which we're going to
have an agreement on our future agenda, is actually going to reduce
the need for that intersection of Whippoorwill and Pine Ridge and,
therefore, allowing to open up an access to Dudley, just the opposite
what Nick thinks, but he does this for a living and I don't.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the problem, I guess, that I have
at this time is why would we want to make those expenses to open it
up only to find later on that we need to close it again?
So at this time I think the best prudent direction that we give is
wait till the east/west Livingston is complete and open, and that we
have ample enough peak time to see what the effects of those
improvements are going to be on Livingston and Whippoorwill.
Page 187
October 14-15,2008
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When will that be?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, right now the owners
of Marbella Lakes have transferred their rights to GL Homes in
coordination with the bank. They have a proposal in front of me right
now.
All permits have been approved. The water management permit's
been approved. That connection could proceed in the next three or
four months, and I have an item coming to the board the next month or
so to have that happen, and they told me it would take about seven
months to make that section.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, at least another
year before that road is built.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably another year before that
connection is built.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will that hurt the businesses in that
area in that year's time?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, I went on
Whippoorwill and made the U-turn -- of course, I'm not doing it all the
time -- and I didn't have a problem with the traffic there.
There is a concern of the hotel for the people to go to Avow or
the Hospice. They stated some of their clients stay there. And it is
going to be an inconvenience for them to get to Avow. They'd have to
get on Pine Ridge through Whippoorwill and go into is it the Kraft--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioners, this is Whippoorwill Lane right here. This is
traveling eastbound on Pine Ridge until Larson Road that connects as
well, too, and comes -- circles back around to Dudley.
There's also a provision in Naples Nissan PUD with the Kraft
that a westbound directional left-in coming in Kraft, can also come
into the back and come out through Whippoorwill. So people that
wanted to enter this site before that used to come westbound and then
Page 188
October 14-15,2008
south on Whippoorwill can make aU-turn and come into Larson.
Now, moving this primarily affected the people that come up
Whippoorwill, use any of these services and want to come back out is
the one that's primarily affected. But the rest of the traveling public
can come in through Larson, can make the U-turn, or come in through
Naples Nissan.
And again, when we do traffic improvements, it's consistent with
a long-term review, not just a short-term review when we do these
kind of improvements.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to approve
making this cut in the road -- or let me see -- review the access
alternatives and provide staff with direction on how to proceed, and I
would like to see -- I would like to proceed in opening up this road so
that we can get traffic in and out of there, at least presently.
We don't know what's going to happen in the future, but it looks
like there's plenty of road space there, that you're not going to block
traffic on Pine Ridge. I can't believe that many people are going to be
going into Avow or even the hotel that would block up the traffic.
So I would like to see us make traffic less cumbersome and move
more freely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, will you -- in your
motion, would you put the caveat that the Sutherland PUD fulfill their
transportation commitments before that opening takes place?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll second that motion then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, would that motion be
the caveat that if we reviewed any sort of safety problems in the
future, that we put on the record that we would close that median?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as you come back to us,
okay?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair. Thank you, ma'am.
Page 189
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll include that in my second.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #101
THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (AND OTHER SIGNATORIES) AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT -
MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item would be 101, which
used to be 16B2, and that basically is a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the Memorandum of
Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other
signatories, and authorizes the chairman to sign the document.
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas asked this item
to be moved off the consent agenda onto the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, who wants to go
first? Commissioner Halas does, then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is that the county puts
in the wildlife crossings to make sure that we take care of the wildlife,
Page 190
October 14-15,2008
that it doesn't run abounds with the traffic, and we don't get any credit
for it, and I have some real concerns about that. And I'm hoping that
Mr. Feder can give us some direction.
I understand you've had some -- since this was pulled, that you've
had some conversation, and maybe we need to bring this back at a
later date to have a full decision, but maybe you can enlighten us a
little bit.
My concern is that I feel the amount of money that we've put into
wildlife crossings to make sure we take care of that, that we're not
getting any credit for it, and that concerns me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feeder?
MR. FEDER: By all means. For the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
That is our concern as well. First of all I want to tell you that
we're very supportive of developing this Memorandum of Agreement.
We've worked quite some time on it. The board directed us to pursue
it.
We've worked closely with the different entities, but we do find
that we're now trying to explore some issues that are related just to
that fact. The question is whether or not a wildlife crossing constitutes
not only a relief for the roadway that's being built, but also a provision
for overall habitat for the panther in connecting different areas to
allow for corridor movements, and that's something we did talk to
with Paul Souza the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. He's here, and I'd like to
give him an opportunity to talk to you a little bit about some of those
issues, along with Nancy Payton, and I would recommend that we get
an opportunity to discuss a little bit of the concerns with you and then
have you consider possibly asking us to come back in November after
we've had some further discussions.
MR. SOUZA: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Paul
Souza. I'm the field supervisor for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
ecological services office in South Florida. That's a mouthful.
Page 191
October 14-15, 2008
I was here back in 2007 . We had a similar discussion about
panther conservation issues, panther habitat conservation, as well as
crossings and the challenges posed on roads.
At that time you asked me to work with county staff as well as
others to explore an MOA, to stand tall together to address these
needs.
I'm very happy to report that we did that. We also broadened the
conversation to our partners at the State of Florida, the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Florida Department of
Transportation, and also Big Cypress National Preserve, in an effort to
really ensure that the right group of people was at the table.
I firmly believe that panther conservation represents one of the
greatest challenges in the country, and I firmly believe that agreements
like this where we stand together in partnership are the path forward.
These challenges are too large for one person or one organization.
There have been a couple of questions that were raised about a
specific project. That has to do with Oil Well Road and its
relationship to this overarching Memorandum of Agreement that we
have drafted and that has been signed on by all parties, except for the
county .
Weare prepared to sit down and fact check. There are just some
questions of facts, I believe, about this Oil Well Road project in
relative short order, if that is the will of the commission, and to see if a
resolution is possible in the short-term. Again, I sincerely hope it is.
Crossings are sorely needed for many reasons. With a panther
population of only a hundred, very endangered animal, one of the
most endangered in the country. Fifteen were killed on roads in 2007.
So working together, I'm confident we can find a solution. And
with that, with your guidance, we're prepared to further address the
factual questions in return.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, did you want
to wait until Nancy Payton speaks?
Page 192
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I have a question for Mr.
Souza.
Sir, is there any possibility -- it seems like right now our
partnership consists of great ideas from your department and money
from us. Is there any possibility we might be able to come up with
something in the way of federal funds to be able to protect this
national treasure, which everybody owns in the United States?
MR. SOUZA: I'm really happy that you asked that question,
Commissioner, and there is a rich history that has occurred since we
last talked about this question that I believe would be in your benefit
to know about.
For example, with leadership of Nancy Payton with the Florida
Wildlife Federation and a private developer in Collier County building
a project called City Gate very close to where 1-75 turns north, we are
using our authorities to have a private funded crossing be put in place
in eastern Collier County Road 846. This is an avoided cost to the
county that we were able to help broker through our authorities.
There have been, and continue to be, a host of other fronts
through which we provide dollars. One example comes to mind, the
Picayune Strand restoration project, a crown jewel of Everglades
restoration. My agency paid $38 million to help secure that footprint
for that very important project for the Fish and Wildlife resources that
we care so deeply about in this county.
We also, of course, manage lands or refuge, panther refuge, Big
Cypress National Preserve. I really believe that this new concept that
you alluded to earlier today promises to provide a new and wonderful
partnership for addressing panther conservation. That's the
landowner, environmental group driven panther protection plan. That
could, if it moves smartly through the process which we are
committed to assisting, provide not only habitat protection, which is
sorely needed, but a panther protection fund that I'm told could reach
$150 million that could be tapped into for crossings and other key
Page 193
October 14-15, 2008
locations. We are committed to moving all of these efforts forward
and doing our part.
Again, I firmly believe that this issue is bigger than Fish and
Wildlife, it's bigger than Collier County, it's bigger than one
landowner. To the extent that we can all come together, we can do
great things.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Souza, I need to ask you a
question, maybe not so much on this item, but a statement that you
made. We have a hundred panthers. In the State of Florida?
MR. SOUZA: In the world.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In the world?
MR. SOUZA: And they are largely confined to Southwest
Florida. Occasionally there'll be a male panther that traverses the river
and gets up into south central Florida. But largely speaking, south of
the Caloosahatchee, south of Lake Okeechobee, is the only place that
they're left.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, are those collared animals?
MR. SOUZA: A number of them are. I don't have the precise
number of them, but my best estimate is roughly 30 have radio collars
which allows them to be tracked over time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll leave it at that.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker. Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. I wanted to speak in support of Norm's
recommendation that this item be continued till November, or longer,
if necessary, to allow this ongoing discussion with Fish and Wildlife
Service to address how wildlife crossings interact with obligations for
mitigation for impacts to panther habitat.
I think the MOA, as it remains alive, provides a positive forum to
have those discussions. Maybe at some point we're going to have to
bring in some landowners to join the discussion.
Page 194
October 14-15, 2008
But please, I urge you to continue the item so that the discussions
continue on in a positive vein. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commission Halas --
Commissioner Coletta to continue the item and second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have the same concerns that
Commissioner Coletta had. You come before us and come up with
these mandates, and obviously we don't have a lot of that money. So I
would hope that Fish and Wildlife would come forth with the needed
money to address these issues if you are going to throw this on our
back.
And I hope through the discussion that we come up with
something that's palatable for all of us without undue pressures being
put upon the county.
I think that we're doing the right thing by -- presently we have a
two-lane highway out there. There's no crossings whatsoever.
So as you brought up, there are -- there is road kill out there. But
if we take the initiative to build these runways for the habitat, then I
think that there should be something that comes before the Fish and
Wildlife that says, we are taking an initiative to try to protect the
wildlife.
So I hope that you'll carry that back to whoever you report to,
that we are trying to take the initiative and help; and if there's any
other things that need to be brought forth, then I think you need to
bring some money to the table, okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
Page 195
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It carries unanimously.
Item #10J
AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SUBRECIPIENT
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $900,000.00 HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. FOR
INFRASTRUCTURE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is 10J, used to be
16D22, and that is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approves and authorizes the chairman to sign a
sub-recipient agreement providing for a $900,000 Housing and Urban
Development, HUD grant, to Habitat for Humanity of Collier County,
Inc., for infrastructure.
This item was asked to be moved from the consent agenda to the
regular agenda by Commissioner Fiala. And Ms. Marcy Krumbine,
your director of housing and human services, will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want me to just start?
MS. KRUMBINE: Sure, go ahead and ask questions. Thank
you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope you're feeling better.
MS. KRUMBINE: A little bit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, she's got a cold.
Page 196
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I thought maybe you beat her
up.
MS. KRUMBINE: She's doing a preamble before she beats me
up. It's not personal though. Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not at all. This is -- this is about
something that we voted on as commissioners just a little while back,
and really I think at some of your suggestion, and that is that we
should be using the money that we get right now to rehab homes
because our market is so saturated with foreclosed and abandoned
homes, and we can pick them up very inexpensively, or we can --
other people can pick them up and we can use that money to rehab
them, thereby bringing them off the market rather then building
low-income housing right now, and so this kind of flies in the face of
that, and I just wanted to know why.
MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you, Commissioner. You're absolutely
right. When we do our one-year action plan for HUD, it actually
begins this time of year. So last year this time of year we were
soliciting a request for proposals from organizations, and then
December and January, we rank them, we bring them before the
Affordable Housing Advisory Commission, and then we decide, based
on the proposals and their scoring, who will get funding.
We bring that proposal to you as an action plan in April. This
was one of the projects that was in that action plan.
During that meeting, you had the public, including John Barlow,
come to you and say, why don't we go ahead and start funding
working with the foreclosures and the rehab, and the board directed
me to go ahead and see if we could find funds to do that, and we did.
We went back and we found $1.7 million based on projects that
were not completed or that ran under budget so that we could
reallocate, and we did reallocate that amount of money, and you
approved those contracts in September with HOME, Housing
Opportunities Made for Everyone; Habitat; and the Empowerment
Page 197
October 14-15, 2008
Alliance.
So these are still the projects that were based on the one-year
action plan from April before you gave that direction.
So we can proceed for this coming round, starting right now,
because we're getting ready to advertise this, and if the board's
direction is, do not do any more requests for proposals that involve
infrastructure, we could certainly limit it as we go forward. But this
was in the action plan before you suggested that we find other money
to reallocate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I worry just about putting more glut
on the market than we already have. And so I'd like to hear from my
fellow commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody want to go for it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: By all means, the other Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta, sir.
Thank you.
Let's get back to where we actually are. And I heard you plain
and clear. This was money that was allocated for a specific purpose,
and the agencies that committed to it promised before 'em in a certain
mode to be able to get to that point.
Commitments were made on our part, and probably planning
went forward on the part of the agencies, expecting this funding to
come down at a predictable rate.
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. So now let's go
back to realities in this world. Excuse me. Maybe I better grab a
drink of water. Just one second.
MS. KRUMBINE: I think maybe you have my cold.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for that,
Page 198
October 14-15, 2008
too, Marcy.
MS. KRUMBINE: No problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll keep a little more distance in
the future.
The situation is not uniform throughout the county as far as the
amount of affordable housing that's being used in anyone place.
While there may be a glut at one end, the other end they're able to
maintain something with the inventory that's in place.
Now, I know we have some serious problems within this part of
the county. I know when you get out on Immokalee Road with
Lennar's project, that we have a problem there trying to sell the
affordable units. I know we had a problem in Ave Maria. Let's get to
Immokalee specifically. Are we having a problem at this point in time
with Habitat for Humanity filling the units in Immokalee?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, I'd be happy to refer you to Habitat to
answer that question, because they're the ones that sell the units in
Immokalee, not me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the chair's permission, I'd
like to call Sam Durso up here, see if I can --
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers, and he's one of them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, count him off the list now
because he's up there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You might want to say something
besides what you're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're absolutely correct,
Commissioner Henning.
MR. DURSO: Yeah. I'll answer your question first. We have
absolutely no problem filling our houses in Immokalee, we have
absolutely no problem filling our houses in Naples. The need for
affordable housing continues, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have vacancies within
your community?
Page 199
October 14-15,2008
MR. DURSO: We have no vacancies. Any of our units that are
vacant are only because the paperwork hasn't been processed. We
have tons of homeowners. We're approving 15 homeowners every
month. It has not changed. We've consistently approved 15
homeowners a month for the last three years. Last year we deeded
150 houses. Of those, about eight of them were rehabs and 142 new
ones.
We are definitely changing our business plan. We are smart
people, okay. If you asked me a year ago would I do more rehabs, I'd
say no. Ask me today, we are the best people at doing rehabs.
Nobody can do it better than us. We've done six in the last six weeks.
We'd love to have you come out and look at them. I actually enjoy
doing it. It's fun, it's great. They've come out super, and we're
preventing blight from coming around.
We plan to do 14 more in the next two months, and we plan to do
lots more with this -- this federal money coming down in the next
couple months. We hope to get -- apply for a lot of that.
We will probably do 50 rehabs this coming year. We still will
build new houses, but we will build less new houses.
So, Commissioner Fiala, you're right, we don't need as many new
houses. We still need to do new houses. We already have the land.
We need to do it. And our volunteers -- most of our volunteers still
like working on new houses.
But our long-range business plan is to do less new and more
rehabs. Let's hope it only happens for three or four years and then it
will change. But I'd say over the next three or four years, instead of
doing 130 to 150 new houses, it's probably closer to 80 new ones, and
we'll replace the rest with rehab houses. That's our plan right now.
Subject to change. We may do even more rehabs. We find that
rehabs definitely -- it definitely makes sense to do rehabs. And I feel
bad that there's so much inventory out there, there really is. There's
lots of stuff to buy. But it doesn't mean that we should completely
Page 200
"""^""'''_' ... T __..~".",.
October 14-15, 2008
stop building new houses. We're still the biggest -- we're probably the
biggest builder in the county now, the biggest residential builder. We
don't want to stop the machine that's going.
The good news is, as you know, we've done 1,100 homes in 30
years. We have been recognized by Habitat International. On
November 13th, a tremendous honor is being brought to this county.
The 300,000th house worldwide by Habitat for Humanity is going to
be built in Collier County, and I'm happy to say it's going to be in
memory of my wife, Maryann, who passed away about four months
ago.
And that's going to be built at Trail Ridge. And you're all
welcome to come out. Come. We've got lots of politicians coming
that day, it's going to be a big celebration. We're going to put most of
the house up in one day on November 13th, and it's going to be a fun
thing.
Obviously it will never happen again. They do this -- you know,
this is our big chance to shine, and it's the 300,000th house worldwide.
But Habitat all over the country is getting into rehabs, and
Habitat's very good at rehabs. But this is -- this is for infrastructure.
We're already committed to spend this money. It's also part of a
developer's agreement that you're going to see in a couple of weeks.
The other developers that are out building that area will not be
able to proceed without us paying our share. We're committed to pay
$2 million in traffic impact fees for this development.
So it all kind of goes together. But I agree with Marcy, if we
were coming forward today and it was money for today, sure. Put all
the money in the next cycle for rehabs and we'll apply for it. We'll go
for rehabs.
But infrastructure still will happen eventually . We've got a
couple of projects that we're putting off by a couple of years. But this
is a project that we do need to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I exhausted my
Page 201
October 14-15, 2008
questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to make a
motion to approve this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- but we still have public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Ready for the speakers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Nick Kouloheras.
MR. LOULOHERAS: I waive my right to speak.
MS. FILSON: And Dr. Sam Durso.
MR. DURSO: Waive it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have any
other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just wish you would use that
money toward rehabbing instead so -- and I'm going to vote that way.
It seems only right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, it's coming.
It's coming. And Mr. -- or Sam -- Sam really knows the monies that
are coming for that. And, you know, I think it's probably some of that
$700 million bail out that we're having. You need to get those homes
back into the market that are not occupied right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to, at some point in time
-- aren't we having an affordable housing workshop sometime soon?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Marcy said that -- remember when
we had the SHIP down payment assistance --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- that she would come back here November, first
part of December, and basically talk that particular item either in an
agenda or a separate workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And at that point in time we're
going to talk about oversaturation, we're going to talk about
Page 202
October 14-15, 2008
concentration, we're going to talk about the effects that has on a
community, the effects it has on the vitality of a community, as well
as, of course, the crime rate on a community, and how we avoid
oversaturation. We must do that, because we're struggling under the
load that we're carrying for the rest of the county.
We're carrying this load not only for the City of Naples and the
City of Marco Island. I can understand why everybody wants it here
because then they don't have to live with it. But we're struggling
under it, and we can't -- we can't, can't live with much more. We've
got to have another form of economy.
And I'll go on to say how difficult it is when you have a
community, half of it is, say, retired and the other half is low income.
And when the retired people leave in the summer, there's no buying
power left to encourage retail to come into your area, to encourage
restaurants, to encourage businesses to come in because there's no
nobody left to buy there.
And unless we start filling that middle income gap, year-round
young professionals -- I can see everybody glazing over here, and I'm
sorry to bore you guys with that, but unless we start filling that and
making it a well-rounded, well-balanced community, we're not going
to survive here in this geographical area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any more discussion on this
item?
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner--
MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you.
Page 203
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Fiala dissenting.
And we go to public comment.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That brings us to paragraph 11, public
comments on general topics.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker, Phil
Brougham.
MR. BROUGHAM: Mr. Mudd, can I ask you to --
MR. MUDD: Absolutely, sir.
MR. BROUGHAM: Chairman Henning and Commissioners, my
name is Phil Brougham, and I live on Pepper Tree Way in East
Naples.
I have been actively involved and interested in the development
of the proposed Manatee Park since 2006. I and the majority of the
residents in my area wholeheartedly support this park and we look
forward to the day when this park is finally a reality for us.
I fully intend on monitoring every step of the park's development
to help ensure that it meets the needs expressed by the residents of
East Naples and does not include features that we do not want and we
do not need.
In your May 13th, 2008, board meeting you passed a motion
approving the awarding of a design criteria contract for Manatee Park
to three -- to C3TS in the amount $193,950. The motion included the
elimination of the proposed day care area of the community center.
The contract was signed on June 3rd, 2008. Under a public
records request, I obtained a copy of the deliverables from this
contract provided to date, and one of those documents was the overall
site plan for the proposed park dated August 29th, 2008. You can now
Page 204
October 14-15,2008
view that on the visualizer.
Please note -- if you could zoom in on the upper right-hand
comer of this document, there is a tabulation of the proposed features
of the park, and in some cases, the square footage or number of tennis
courts, bocce courts, et cetera, that lead to a calculation of the number
of parking spaces required.
There is an entry under community center labeled day care,
accommodating 20 teachers and 100 students resulting in the
allocation of 30 parking spaces.
My question is this: Why is the county paying a consultant for
work that includes the design of a building or a site plan including the
necessary parking places and infrastructure for a daycare facility that
the board voted to eliminate?
I posed this question to Mr. McAlpin last Thursday and I spoke
briefly with Gary this morning. His response, and I don't mean to
speak for Gary, but to paraphrase was, that we're including that to
provide future flexibility and efficiencies if, in the future, a day care
center is desired by the board. I personally have a problem with that.
My purpose in bringing it to you is, one, to make you aware of
this fact and, two, to ask you to reinforce your prior direction to staff
that a daycare facility is not to be designed or included as part of the
site plan, the infrastructure, or the building design contract with C3TS.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next item?
Item #12C
TO ENTER INTO A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT WITH DAD
DEVELOPMENT CORP., THE DEVELOPER OF
PEBBLEBROOKE, WHICH AGREEMENT WOULD BUFFER
AND OTHERWISE MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THE TWO-
Page 205
October 14-15,2008
STORY BUILDING ON THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD, IN EXCHANGE FOR RESOLVING ANY
DISPUTE THE COUNTY MAY PRESENTL Y HAVE WITH
RESPECT TO THIS BUILDING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there's no other item on public
comment, but we do have one more item on today's agenda, and that's
12C, and that's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners enters into a developer agreement with DAD
Development Corp., the developer of Pebblebrook, which agreement
would buffer and otherwise mitigate the impact of the two-story
building on the adjoining residential neighborhoods in exchange for
resolving any dispute the county may presently have with respect to
this building.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And, Commissioners, you've seen this
several times before. As you know, there are two issues with respect
to Pebblebrook, and one is the two-story building; the other is Stevie
Tomato's. This item has nothing to do with Stevie Tomato's. It is
only about the two-story building.
I know that the developer's here with his attorney. We believe
that we've captured all prior board direction in the agreement. And it's
my recommendation the board vote to accept this developer
agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have two public speakers. Cindy Obrecht.
She'll be followed by Greg Rearden.
MS. OBRECHT: Cindy Obrecht, 293 Spider Lily Lane.
You will not hear it or see it. Those are the infamous words to
the Pebblebrook Lakes residents about commercial property, also
known as the Richland PUD developed by DAD next to our
community.
Remember that the rezoning of the Richland PUD to a
Page 206
October 14-15, 2008
commercial property was not to include a two-story building 30 feet
from residences or a sports bar which we have, Stevie Tomato's, or
dumpsters on the property.
I have a DVD today to remind you of the negative impact this
has had on our families and the ongoing issues that we've endured for
over two years.
In the proposal, the developer's proposal, there is an 8- foot wall
that they're proposing to go behind one of the buildings. And we had
asked for a higher wall than that for various reasons; security, noise
abatement, and also the visual barrier. And you'll see some issues in
the DVD that we're going to watch today. You can see people
climbing over the fence, and you'll just see some of the visual aspects
that we're exposed to as well as the noise.
One of the things also with the 8- foot wall is motorcycle and
traffic noise. I know they are suggesting to designate parking so that
there's striped areas where no motorcycles or cars can park; however,
they can still drive around the building and they'll still be parking
there, and the 8- foot fence will not do much to mitigate the noise of
that.
Moving the dumpsters. They're going to move those a hundred
feet north; however, the concrete wall does not follow that, so then
they're still exposed. And we can hear that noise right now. Even the
further dumpsters from our homes, we can hear that, and that's going
to be an issue again -- with the chain link fence around it. So I don't
know if we have the visual show, but the chain link fence is slightly
north of where these people were just crossing the fence, so that
doesn't provide any kind of security for us.
Finally, before we watch the DVD, something we've talked about
before is making adjustments to the PUD to bring it into conformance.
And this goes beyond just today's issues and tries to protect us for the
future because if we don't decide on things today, who knows who's
going to be allowed to move in there in the future as far as in the
Page 207
October 14-15, 2008
commercial property and the things that we will be subjected to.
Ifwe can show the DVD, please.
(The DVD was played.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MS. OBRECHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Greg Rearden?
MR. REARDEN: Yes. My name is Greg Rearden. I realize, you
know, that a picture is worth a thousand words, and it kind of speaks
for itself. You kind of see a little bit of what we go through and have
gone through over the last couple of years. The peace and serenity
that we purchased in the Pebblebrook area, obviously we do not have.
I realize that also -- and some zoning mistakes that maybe the
county has made, and it doesn't matter at this point because all I really
want is our peace and serenity back.
A lot of suggestions have been made to build a wall; however,
the TV s are actually higher than the 8- foot height, which means that
the speakers of the TV will actually go right over the 8- foot wall right
into our back yards again. The wall is really not going to be long
enough and/or tall enough. Do appreciate your suggestions. I really
appreciate everything that DAD is doing to try and help resolve the
issue, but what we really need is Stevie Tomato's to go away, which I
understand that it's not our issue today.
But what my question is going to be is, what can we do to
alleviate these problems in the future so that Stevie Tomato's or
anyone like them does not come back in there.
And if we do go forward with all of these suggestions to build a
wall, whatever height and whatever length, who is going to take care
of these things over the years? Is DAD going to be responsible for
that? Is the county?
And at what point are we going to be able to not hear and see
some of these things as we were promised from the beginning?
Page 208
October 14-15, 2008
I do not want to be redundant, but -- I do know that you guys are
working hard. I know that you guys have said in other meetings that
you would not like this in your back yard either. I'm just asking that
you, you know, reach down into your heart and look at what we're
having to deal with.
We're trying to just sit on the lanai and just listen, you know, to
some peace and quiet and/or have some peace and quiet while we
drink some coffee and/or, you know, just have fun with our grandkids
or whatever.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, I think we're trying to work on
all aspects. We're presently having staff come up with a new noise
ordinance, and hopefully that will help alleviate some of the problems
that you're experiencing at the present time. It probably won't be all
of them, but at least I believe that with the direction that we're going, I
think it will address a lot of the concerns that you have.
MR. REARDEN: Can you advise me then as to, if we do change
the new noise ordinance, who is going to supervise and/or enforce
this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Code enforcement.
MR. REARDEN: Okay. And the advice you would give us is to
call them every time we have a problem?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If -- yes, if that's the --
MR. REARDEN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That way we can figure out if
they're violating the new noise ordinance and take appropriate action.
MR. REARDEN: Okay. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other thing that is happening, I
was just trying to pull up something. Actually the county and the
Sheriff's Department is working on a task force to enforce the new
noise ordinance.
Page 209
October 14-15, 2008
Another thing, the Planning Commission implemented a consent
agenda, so whatever changes they make on their recommendation is
truly captured in what comes to the Board of Commissioners.
The County Attorney is monitoring what those recommendations
are and to make sure those recommendations are carried to the Board
of Commissioners. Slow down the process for land use changes, but
we truly want to capture what the recommendations of the advisory
board is.
The -- County Manager?
MR. MUDD: I believe there's -- the lawsuit against Stevie
Tomato's is still open; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- yeah. And I think the board is
committed to following through that lawsuit. You know, we are told
as far as what was committed at the Planning Commission, if we take
it to court, it will not -- we will not be successful.
And I understand the frustration over there of what the
commitment was at Planning Commission, wasn't carried out. DAD is
stepping to the plate, like you recognized, and made some additional
enhancements that they will be responsible for maintaining.
MR. REARDEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. REARDEN: And do you actually think that the 8-foot and
the length of the wall is going to be adequate enough?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For Stevie Tomato's, no.
MR. REARDEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a separate issue.
MR. REARDEN: Okay. And what about the prevention of any
new tenants going into that building with the same type of problem?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That we'll have to get from the
County Manager. I think the board individually and collectively has
said, you know, that was -- that's not an ancillary use to a restaurant,
Page 210
October 14-15,2008
that outside seating, so --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I believe --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the County Manager--
MR. MUDD: -- the lawsuit will answer that particular case. And
if there is another tenant, based on the answer from the lawsuit, plus
the new change in your noise ordinance, if there is a restaurant, not a
-- not this particular situation. If there is a restaurant then it will be a
restaurant with -- if it served alcohol, it will be inside and it will be
enclosed, sir, because it won't be authorized to be outside anymore.
That's what's going on right now with the change to the noise
ordinance. No outside seating in that particular area, and that's a hard
-- it's a hard issue and it's one that the Planning Commission is
grappling with right now.
MR. REARDEN: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: And in fact, the Planning Commission will
be looking at that issue on Thursday, if you're interested.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And maybe a good thing to do is give
examples of outside entertainment and the effects of (sic) residents.
We have that in our possession, right, the video that was just shown?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It is part of the county -- the record. I
just put it on with the court reporter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, can you do that for the
Planning Commission?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion at this time. I'm
going to make a motion to approve the agreement.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
Page 211
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Do we want to do communications and comments,
commissioners' comments at this time? Anybody have a problem with
having those at this time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, might as well.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- or County Manager?
MR. MUDD: It's the second time today. The -- I'm County
Manager Jim Mudd, and the only thing I have to talk to the
commissioners about is that letter from the Fort Myers Beach mayor.
We went and we -- Mr. Schmitt's staff talked with the Fort Myers
Beach staff. I've talked to the Fort Myers Beach Manager. We've also
talked to the planning department and the building review department
inspection at Lee County.
I will tell you that there isn't -- I don't believe we're in the middle
of a tug of war. The Lee County permitting staff and inspection are
still working in Fort Myers Beach. They will continue to work there
as long as Fort Myers Beach wants them to be there.
I think Fort Myers Beach wants to become more independent of
Page 212
October 14-15,2008
Lee County is my particular opinion. They don't want to get
themselves stuck in the mess that Bonita Springs is in right now with a
-- with a private provider where the permit fees have gone right
through the roof, and they're looking for some options and some outs.
Based on that conversation where we weren't stepping on
anybody's toes, I asked the manager, the Fort Myers Beach manager,
would he like us to provide a perspective -- prospectus of some sort,
Le., what the fees would be if -- and he said yes, and that is the end of
the discussion so far, and Mr. Schmitt is working on that particular
input for him.
If they choose to go any further with this, I would expect some
kind of communication from them to the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question's to you,
Commissioner Henning. Have you had a chance to communicate with
our counterparts in Lee County?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On this item, no. I haven't -- I
thought the County Manager, Joe Schmitt, was going to contact the --
his counterpart in Lee County.
MR. MUDD: And we've done that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But nobody's contacted the
county commissioners?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I don't typically talk to the county
commissioners. I wanted to make sure there was no -- based on the
comments I received from the board, we didn't (sic) want to make sure
we were walking into a political controversy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We still don't know that.
MR. MUDD: Well, yes. I can get it from a staff perspective.
They say it's not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd feel much more comfortable
if Commissioner Henning, if we could task him with taking some
phone calls and reporting back, if he wouldn't mind.
Page 213
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That would be fine. I could probably
do that tomorrow afternoon. Call, Mr. -- Commissioner Judah up
there and find out what the -- the politics involved with Fort Myers
City?
MR. MUDD: Fort Myers Beach.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fort Myers Beach, and their
permitting issues up there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like me to provide it in
the form of a memo or wait to another meeting time?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You could do both,
Commissioner Henning. It would be up --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, we have MPO on Friday,
joint MPO. Would it be appropriate to ask it at that time? Of course
Fort Myers Beach will be there.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You could have an informal discussion with
your counterparts afterwards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If they're comfortable with
doing it in that type of setting. I was thinking a one-on-one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me talk to Commissioner
Judah and tell him our concerns and questions and ask him if he'd be
okay to talk about that at the joint MPO.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds good.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I have two items. First is notice of
shade session pursuant to statute asking that the board meet in closed
attorney-client session on Tuesday October 28th, 2008, 12 noon in this
room to talk about the case, Blocker versus Collier County . We've
received a settlement proposal in this case.
In addition to myself and the board members, Mr. Mudd and
Jackie Hubbard will be in attendance.
Page 214
October 14-15,2008
The second question I have for you is a follow-up from our -- a
prior meeting. You had asked me to look into the possibility of
bringing litigation against the State of Florida over Alligator Alley,
and my answer to you was that, yes, we can do that if that's your
desire. The time isn't ripe quite yet for that, but we can do so.
I have received a telephone call unsolicited from the County
Attorney's Office in Broward County saying that they've heard that
we're considering bringing suit against the State of Florida and that if
we were to do so, they would like to be included in that suit.
I told them that I'd have to talk to you first before I'd have any
conversations with them concerning -- well, for direction from the
board, is do you want me to talk to the County Attorney of Broward
County to see if we can join forces to sue the State of Florida?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so. I'd rather deal
with the court system than with the legislative body where they
outweigh us as far as controls go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's all, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only concern I have is the
gentleman and wife that sat here most of today, and he brought up a
question, and I don't know if he got his answer in regards to this --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Site plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- site plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Manatee Park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And maybe Commissioner Fiala,
could you enlighten me a little bit?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. He's been asking for that, he
hasn't -- and he hasn't gotten it, and that's why he was here today. He
was hoping that somebody would say, okay, fine, we'll give it to you,
Page 215
October 14-15,2008
and he still doesn't have it.
And we don't know what the foot dragging is about. And all he's
asking is to let him know. There was actually a site plan drawn by
another person, and the name was George Fog, and then they decided
not to use that site plan, to use something else, and he's been trying to
get it ever since.
And, you know, when somebody asks for something and they're
ignored or overlooked or just don't receive anything, they become a
little anxious and maybe a little bit curious as to why they're not being
responded to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I thought that what he said
was that, I've got this brand new site plan.
MR. MUDD: Sir, if I could clarify. Phil has been asking for the
site plan. We provided the site plan. He put the site plan -- had me
put it on up on the visualizer just now. Phil's question was, why is
there still parking spaces and something for daycare on the particular
park on a community center.
He asked that question of Gary McAlpin, and Gary was on leave
when he asked the question and didn't get back till today.
Mr. Barry Williams answered -- tried to answer the question and
said, can you give me a day, Phil, when -- as soon as Gary gets back,
he'll respond.
I just learned that he and Gary had a conversation today about the
particular issue on the Site Development Plan, and he brought it to
your particular attention, okay.
I still haven't got back with Gary. I didn't know they had the
conversation already. So I'll go through the discussion.
But I will tell you the Site Development Plan that Phil put up
there still has spaces and a childcare center proposed in the process.
Now, I don't know if that's going away, but it was the 60 percent
design or whatever.
But ma'am, if you could help me here, that's what I know.
Page 216
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It's actually the YMCA who
wants to fund that and who will operate it for us, or they'll fund part of
it. But most of the children in the area are close to the Eagle Lakes
Community Park, and they would much prefer to put their childcare
center there, because you've got all the kids walking from Whistler's
Cove from Naples Manor, Trail Acres, all of those low-income areas
there, and it would be difficult to get to, to Manatee Park for them.
And so they were really hoping to build it there, so I believe that
that transition is going to take place, and at the same time maybe our
people will be able to build -- we don't have a community center at the
Eagle Lakes Park yet. There's really no place for people to go in and
do anything. So I think our people are hoping at some point in time to
even build a community center there. I don't know when that will be,
but, you know, hopefully.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess, to cut to the chase here,
basically there's just been a breakdown in communications, but it
sounds like that line of communications has been possibly
re-established today; Is that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sounds like it.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am; yes, ma'am. He got the information
he was looking for.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for asking.
MR. MUDD: He's still wanting to know why the daycare
center's there and why it's back on that drawing, and if it has to do
with the community -- is it a day care center or is it a community
center? The park is out years in order to do it, but you're going to need
parking space in order to get there and whatnot. It's one of those
things I'll get into.
And the other question I've got to ask, ma'am, is, do I have room
for a daycare center at Eagle Lakes Park, and I'll ask that question too.
I'm writing notes right now, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness. You've got a lot
Page 217
October 14-15, 2008
of room there for -- yeah, it's -- Eagle Lakes is huge.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- and there's an area, I think,
identified also at some point in time when we get to have a community
center. So it will --
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that will be just great for the
children, even if they can just build a daycare center for the kids so
they'd have an after-school program or summer program. They can't
hold summer programs now at Eagle Lakes because there's no place to
put the kids.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All we've got to do is just get
money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep, that's it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Money, yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope, thank you. I just wanted to
clear the air. I just felt that we didn't properly address the gentleman
when he had a question, and that was all, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you don't mind me, I'll go next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- hopefully on our next agenda, that
we have an agreement with the medical director, Dr. Tober, to answer
to the Board of Commissioners. I would like to ask, with the board's
permission, write a letter to Dr. Tober to ask him how he's going to --
and how long will it take to train and certify these medics and EMTs
for the independent fire districts so we can get some details on how
that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I'm in -- I'm all for that, also. I
support you on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So long as there -- I had a meeting
Page 218
October 14-15, 2008
with the people up in North Naples, along with the chief there and
along with some of our staff people, and I can tell you that at first the
talks were a little testy, but I think that there was an understanding that
the chief, along with some of the other people up there, they were
going to try to work with Dr. Tober, and I think we should let that--
see if that manifests itself into something that's more positive. And I
think the assistant County Manager can also weigh in on this also.
But there has to be an understanding of what the responsibilities
are of the people who work EMS and the responsibilities of the
requirements ofEMTs and so on. And I think that's where we need to
address the issue. And we're trying to take the politics out of it as
much as possible to make sure that people have an understanding --
that we want to make sure that the people here in this community,
Collier County, are protected, and that there is a differentiation
between what the responsibilities of EMS is and what the
responsibilities of EMT is.
So I think hopefully that if they can work through some of the
issues, that we can get an understanding of what's going on. But the
primary thing is to make sure that we have the right personnel for the
right job.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have a
problem with me writing a letter to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- until I have Dr. Tober here
and we can talk to him at great lengths, I feel that we may be
prejudging this whole thing and trying to give directions where we
don't have the expertise to do so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let me emphasize what I
stated. To ask -- write a letter to Dr. Tober, the medical director, ask
the question on how long he thinks it will take to train the medics and
EMTs to get them certified affecting the independent districts.
Page 219
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, once again, that's a --
that's a question that runs a little short. How much -- getting them
certified to be able to having them on continuous training, the
hands-on experience. There's a whole bunch of issues out there that I
don't feel this letter is going to cover, and Dr. Tober might think that
we're directing him to drop his training program back and just go
forward and offer --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- some beginning training. I'd
rather have him here to be able to have that discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you know what, in the letter -- I
didn't say direct, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So it's a misunderstanding, so
I'm not even going to bother with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was an idea at least.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And sorry for the
misunderstanding, but there never was a -- where the chairman or --
on behalf of the board, was going to direct the medical director. It was
a question to the medical director. There is a difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd feel much more comfortable
if he was standing before us so we could get the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- details of the game.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next thing I have a problem with,
our staff writing letters to the independent fire districts. And it's just a
constant battle on this consolidation that we have staff interjecting in
the process. And I'm very concerned with these letters going back and
forth, and it needs to stop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you
know, I agree with you. I think that the staff sometimes -- it's just as
bad as the fire departments as far as trying to protect their little --
Page 220
October 14-15, 2008
possibly what we may want to do is, if they're going to send letters
that, of what, of a nature that's going to be anti merger some day, we
might want to have them cleared through the County Manager first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The county commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would be another
step.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think it needs to come to the
county commission. These letters, if they're acting on behalf of the
county or under the Board of Commissioners, these letters needs to be
cleared by the -- by the board.
It's clear that the board has directed that we want consolidation.
It's clear that we have directed our staff that we want them to
participate through the chiefs' association, and I'm looking forward to
the report from the independent fire districts.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So let me just see if I
understood what you just said. From here on in, when our people are
writing letters to the independent fire departments --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: About consolidation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- about consolidation, it first goes
through us, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So long as we have an
understanding here that there's two sides to every story and that we
also look at some of the -- hopefully most of us have been getting that
information from the different fire districts in regards to what their
concerns are.
But I think when you look at the dialogue that's taking place on
both sides, yes, sometimes it's very contentious, but I think this is part
of the growing pains of trying to reach consolidation.
Page 221
October 14-15,2008
It's not going to be easy. There are going to be some painful
things that we're going to go through. But I think we're slowly
working through the process, and as I said, meeting with the chief of
the North Naples Fire and along with people from county staff and
also East Naples Fire chief was there, so we're getting somewhere. It's
just -- it's a slow process, but it's going to work.
But keep in mind that there's two sides to every story. There's
people throwing -- throwing grenades in each -- in each foxhole here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just to respond to
Commissioner Halas' comment. You're right, there's two sides to
every story, but we have control over one side, and that's why I think
it's important that we make sure that we rein in any kind of animosity
that may be coming from our departments and be able to control it
through the commission, because we have told -- every time we've had
them come before us, we've been united on the fact that we were
looking for this merger, and then it seems like sometimes -- I'm not
saying they're doing it quite deliberately, but sometimes it doesn't
seem like our directive's being followed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got some direction?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Based on board's direction from last
time, I didn't think I -- and I've read the letters that have basically
come from Mr. Summers and Mr. Ochs, okay, that have gone forward,
and they've asked some clarifications to particular issues.
The latest letter that went out was in response to the chief from
Corkscrew where she basically told the commissioners, or
Commissioner Henning, that she would like to come in front of the
board on the 28th of October to present a status report on the fire
district merger along with EMS. That's coming to you on the 28th of
October.
Page 222
October 14-15, 2008
I will tell you at that -- and what the latest letter was, you've got
it for the 28th. We haven't even seen the briefing yet. Could we
please have a copy, was the request that was sent on the particular --
on the particular case.
I have seen, I think I've seen, a similar briefing that's being given,
and that showed up on the Naples City Council agenda, and I've got a
copy of that from the read ahead.
And I will tell you, I'm very -- I'm very happy and I'm very
ecstatic about what I saw in the recommendations from that particular
briefing because they basically said, let's get on with it, let's go out for
an RFP and get to the next phase. We've laid out everything we can.
Let's get an outside consultant to get into the nitty-gritty as far as the
consolidation is concerned. And it's a very positive report from what I
could ascertain, so that's the good news.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well--
MR. MUDD: Hey, Commissioner. I've heard what the board
said. There won't be another letter that's sent to anybody unless it
comes to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, on consolidation.
MR. MUDD: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to say happy birthday again
to Jim Coletta. It's his day, and I hope you have a wonderful evening.
You and Mary enjoy a wonderful birthday together.
I want to apologize a little bit for my outburst before, but yet at
the same time I want to tell you why I had that -- why I really want to
discuss the affordable housing issue here in East Naples.
We have six elementary schools, two middle schools, and they're
92 percent minority. Middle income people don't want to move here
with their children because they don't want their kids in our schools,
and the only thing we can do is to try and encourage young families
with children to try and balance out our schools.
Page 223
October 14-15, 2008
I'm trying to give my community a balance, a better balance,
which I've been trying to do, by the way, for -- you know, for your
community as well. And I think you're doing good in yours.
But you see, our communities, the three of us, especially, we're
mentioned in the police beat a lot, although I have two-and-a-half
times more crime than you do, according to the Sheriff's Office, but
anyway. That -- that's kind of interesting, isn't it?
What I'm trying to say is, right now we're drowning in all of the
things that we have to live with here, and we can't, we really can't
continue to throw all of the low income and low, low income housing
into one area and expect it to survive and be healthy. The only way to
make a community healthy is to balance it out. And so that's what I
do want to talk about at this meeting, just getting into it a little bit
now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- I know the School Board
provides the stats on minority versus majority populations in schools.
Have you looked at all the schools?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I haven't looked at the other
ones, to be honest with you. I just really know our own. And I say 92
percent, that's average. There's some that are more than that. For
instance, Park Side Elementary School only has five white kids out of
a 750 population.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which school?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Park Side Elementary, the one in
Naples Manor. And last year when the school opened, out of750
kids, 256 -- 256 did not speak a word of English. That's one-third of
the entire school population.
Well, how are the other little children to learn when one-third of
the population can't even speak English? So they have to wait until all
of these kids catch up.
And this happens by concentrating all of the low income in one
area. So -- and I see you smiling, but that's what we're dealing with.
Page 224
October 14-15, 2008
And so, I mean, I think -- I think the people deserve a chance to
improve also.
We've got this. We have to live with it. We can't change it, but
we can improve it. We can balance it out better and make it a more
wholesome and well-balanced community, right?
But I need your help. I can't do this by myself. If I don't have
the support of my other commissioners, I'm lost. There's a place that's
building right out at -- all of that stuff, that Collier Enterprise stuff and
that Barron Collier stuff that they're building out there, well, maybe
that's a new area where we put some of this low income. I'm sure they
don't want it there, but nobody else wants it. But maybe that's --
maybe we should be looking at trying to balance out our growth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, Commissioner
Fiala. And they are allowing 20 percent. They're looking for
opportunities to be able to expand it. There's very low-cost housing in
Ave Maria. Unbelievably low-cost houses. It's one of the best deals
in the area right now.
There's all sorts of outreach to the Immokalee community.
They're in the process now of putting in a stadium, soccer stadium. It
will have a tremendous impact on people from Immokalee. And I
suppose a lot of them are going to end up eventually settling in parts
of Ave Maria. Big Cypress will not come aboard unless they provide
20 percent affordable housing.
So when you get down to it, yes, there is something that's being
done. But realities are, there's certain areas like Immokalee, I
challenge anyone to come up with a community that is more
non-English-speaking than Immokalee. It doesn't exist. I think it's,
what, 95 percent of the population is Hispanic. The high school there
is at a tremendous disadvantage.
John Norman, who's in the background, is shaking his head no.
MR. NORMAN: It's about 85 percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Eighty-five percent.
Page 225
October 14-15, 2008
MR. NORMAN: And 15 percent Creole. They don't speak
English either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's correct, there's also
a Creole population there. But the thing is, is that where do you --
how do you handle these populations? How do you be able to offer
better schools? How can you provide services to be able to make it
even?
Granted, I'd love to see a population shared with Marco Island,
Pelican Bay --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes, but there's no room to
build there. I mean, let's face it, they're built out. So I think by good
planning, by smart growth, by planning where the growth is going in
the future, maybe we can start placing it around in other areas.
I know when we were going to build Orange Blossom, is that
what it was called, or Orange Grove or orange something or another.
What was that guy's name from LaBelle who had that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Brian Paul.
MR. MUDD: Brian Paul. It was Orange Blossom Ranch.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Brian Paul. And he was happy to
have some -- we voted no affordable housing into his development.
And when Habitat was supposed to go into Ave Maria, we put them
into Immokalee instead. Well, you know, we've got to start planning
better. We've got to start so that everybody shares in the
responsibility .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No offense, but you mentioned
Ave Maria. They have been the greatest entity out there for affordable
housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm saying they're good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you've mentioned Ave
Maria. Make sure you recognize the fact that they've done more than
any part of your community or any part of any other gated community
out there.
Page 226
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, boys and girls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Boys and girls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the time for each of the
commissioners to have a discussion with their other colleagues, and if
you all want to have a conversation, we're all going to leave and we'll
let you sit here and have that conversation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we can only do it here, of
course. We can't even do it privately, so this is it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As a birthday present to
everyone, I'm not going to say a word.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We're going to give it to
Commissioner Halas then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just -- Commissioner
Fiala, I understand that you sometimes feel that the whole load is
being placed in your district, but I can assure you that District 2 has an
awful lot of affordable housing. Up on Old U.S. 41, there's a number
of places that we have affordable housing. They're apartments that
were built probably within the last 10 years. So it's being spread out.
And obviously, we love to have everyone have a home or an
apartment, but the idea is, we don't have any control over the type of
people that move in, okay. This is a free society. And if people are
here legally, then they can move to a neighborhood where they feel
that they're comfortable in.
I know that my ancestors, they resided in an area where they only
spoke a European tongue until at such time as the children grew up,
and then they moved on. But I understand sometimes your frustration.
But I think it's something we have to work with. We have to
make sure that we treat everybody equally.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, and that's all I ask is some
Page 227
October 14-15,2008
equal treatment. That's all I'm asking. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're in recess until tomorrow
at 9 a.m.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:20 p.m.
Page 228
October 14-15,2008
October 15. 2008 at 9:00 a.m. (Day 2)
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 14-15,2008 (Day 2)
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: Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
Fred Coy Ie
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page 229
October 14-15,2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Today being
Wednesday, October, 15th, 2008, the continuance of the board's BCC
meeting. One more item left on the agenda, and that's the appeal that
county manager will read.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2008-308: ADA-2008-AR-13529
THEODORE J. RAIA, JR., REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SDPA-AR-12644. THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THE
APPROVAL OF SDPA-AR-12644 VIOLATES THE PELICAN
BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
(ORDINANCE NO. 04-59) AND THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (ORDINANCE NO. 04-41) AS THEY
EXISTED ON THE DATES THE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED AND
APPROVED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN
W A TERP ARK PLACE, PHASES In AND IV IN THE PELICAN
BAY PUD, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49S, RANGE 25E,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE BACK UP INFORMATION
FOR THIS ITEM IS LOCATED AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OFFICE, 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES,
FL 34112 - MOTION TO DENY PETITION AND UPHOLD
STAFF'S OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is Item 7 A. This item requires that
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn
.
In.
Page 230
October 14-15, 2008
It's ADA-2008-AR-13529, Theodore J. Raia, Jr., requesting an
administrative appeal to the previously approved SDPA-AR-12644.
The applicant believes the approval of SDP A-AR-12644 violates
the Pelican Bay planned unit development ordinance, ordinance
number 04-59, and the Collier County Land Development Code,
ordinance number 04-41, as they existed on the date the plan was
submitted and approved.
The subject property is located in Waterpark Place, Phase 3 and 4
in the Pelican Bay PUD, in Section 4, Township 49 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida.
The backup information for this item is located at the board's
office for convenience, and all the commissioners have been issued
their particular copy.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All wishing to participate in
this discussion, please rise, raise your right hand. The court reporter
with swear you in, and that includes public speakers, too, if you signed
up to speak.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now we're going to do ex
parte communication.
Commissioner Coletta, you ready to give that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am, Commissioner
Henning. I had meetings, I met with Rich Y ovanovich, Mark Strain,
Joe ParisL I've had correspondence and emails, and everything's in
my folder if anyone wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Actually I spoke with staff on
this a number of times, and I spoke with Mark Strain.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board members received a packet
from staff, we also received from Mr. Y ovanovich a packet from the
landowner and Mr. Y ovanovich, two binders with a lot of information.
Page 231
October 14-15,2008
I met with the landowner's representative, representatives. I spoke to
Marcy Krumbine -- no, Marcy Crav -- Marcia Cravens, Cravens --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Marcia Cravens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Cravens about that, and I also did a
site visit.
Mr. Coletta -- or Commissioner Halas? I'm sorry. Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. As the
chair has basically described, I received two large folders from the
developer. We also got one from the -- our staff, and then I also
received one from Rich Y ovanovich's group.
I've met with Rich Y ovanovich, Joseph Parisi, and I met with
Ted Raia and also met with Mark Strain. And I've had
correspondence or meetings with our county attorney and staff in
regards to this item.
And I also have emails in this, and I made phone calls to the
people in Pelican Bay, both the chairperson for the foundation and
also Jim Hoppensteadt.
And I believe that's about the length of my ex parte on this
matter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I had had several
meetings and a substantial amount of correspondence. The meetings
were with Rich Yovanovich, Mark Strain. I met with Mr.
Hoppensteadt briefly in my office, and there is the possibility this
came up, but there certainly wasn't an extensive discussion concerning
it.
I have read Mr. Raia's complaint. I have read the response by the
developer. I have read all of the correspondence produced by the staff
that's included in our packet.
I have seen the site, and I have received administration from our
county attorney outlining the appropriate issues and the manner in
which they should be decided, and I think that's about it.
Page 232
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And then Commissioner Fiala
has a question of Rich Y ovanovich.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rich, did I happen to meet with
you? I don't remember if I did or not. Did I?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry. I don't have that in my
packet and I'd forgotten, so please put that on the record as well. I'm
sorry .
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The proceedings surround the
administrative appeal by Dr. Raia, and it doesn't pertain to the --
whether it was a beer truck or soda truck that overturned on 1-75, so
we need to stick to the appeal.
And Mr.-- Dr. Raia, I need to understand, for time-wise, how
long you would need for your appeal presentation.
DR. RAIA: I would say about an hour.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then it's only proper to allow
the county staff to have the same amount of time and the property
owner. The -- in the proceedings, the zoning director may have up to
10 minutes to cross-examine yourself, and the property owner would
do the same, and vice versa.
When the zoning appeals director makes her presentation, you
have the same right of cross-examination of up to 10 minutes. And
then the board will deliberate on the appeal and make a determination.
I understand that you have -- you want to hand out your
presentation to the Board of Commissioners?
DR. RAIA: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If you would just give that to
Sue Filson or the county attorney, and you may go to either
microphone, and you have one hour. That's fine.
MR. MUDD: If you have slides, I'll get the overhead for you.
DR. RAIA: Good morning, I do want to clarify something. I did
meet with Commissioner Halas but it had nothing to do with this
Page 233
October 14-15,2008
appeal.
I didn't know if it was proper to meet with the commissioners to
present my presentation before to them. I met with the county
attorney and sought his advice, and he thought it was better that I did
not approach anybody before the hearing.
So it was not because I did not want to or had no interest in doing
it, but I thought I'd take his advice.
Honorable Commissioners, my name is Ted Raia, and I reside in
Pelican Bay. I am an affected property owner appealing the
Waterpark Place Site Development Plan. My appeal is based on
substantial, competent evidence that, one, the set-aside open space is
limited to the clustering of just 320 acres, the additional garages will
exceed the area limited for accessory buildings and, third, the Site
Development Plan violates the Growth Management Plan drainage
element, and connection to the Pelican Bay water management system
is not possible until corrected.
Although I am a retired military physician with 26 years of active
service, I have served 10 years on a planning board, three years on the
zoning board of appeal, and three years on the conservation
commission in my home town of Harvard, Massachusetts.
Why are we here? Collier County laws do not provide an
opportunity for the public to challenge the approval of a Site
Development Plan. Approval is the administrative action of an
unelected official, the director of planning.
The only opportunity to intervene is to have been present when
this PUD was approved in 1977; otherwise, the public is required to
file this appeal. Since the public is excluded, the director must
preserve the public trust in administering the code. But have directors
done that?
The Pelican Bay planned unit development has been criticized as
not well written. The staff has said, this would not happen today.
Let's turn the clock back to 1977 and examine what you
Page 234
October 14-15, 2008
approved. The PUD contains a statement of compliance. The site
plan will be in harmony. It will not be injurious. Variances shall
conform at the time of application. All definitions shall be contained
in zoning ordinances, and shall is a mandatory word.
Group 2 section spells out where and what is to be clustered.
Single-family units permitted as clustered, attached and detached.
Minimum yards paragraphs establish setbacks from crosser lines
and between building, and in a case of cluster buildings where the
common architectural theme, these distances may be less.
You should be commended for approving this PUD. You
obtained over 3,000 feet of beach with parking, land for parking at
Vanderbilt Beach, Clam Bay and a mangrove forest, land for public
tennis courts and soccer fields, a library, fire station, sheriff station,
and finally, it is not a gated community. The staff was correct. This
doesn't happen today. Let's see how the developer and the staff joined
to emasculate this fine document.
We mentioned harmony. Beginning in 1978, harmony was
established in the development of Pelican Bay south of the Gulf Park
Drive. Around 1990, things began to change, an increase in demand
and rise in property values led to an increase in housing density.
Setbacks were arbitrarily reduced between adjacent buildings and
parcels owned by the same developer.
Setbacks from property owned by others, including the county,
were protected. The staff permitted this. The owners of the property
were not going to complain. They benefited from the reduction. The
general public was kept ignorant.
This issue came to light when Gulf Bay reduced the setback of
the Cap d'Antibes from the St. Raphael parcel line. Waterpark Place
is the only property where a developer managed to include the
purchase of the berm and adj acent wetlands to add 100 feet of depth
for the required setback.
This enabled the developer to site his buildings directly on a
Page 235
October 14-15, 2008
berm, forsaking the harmony, uniformity, and natural environment
that had been observed by other development along the berm.
Waterpark Place is also the only high-rise development where
garages were built as additional buildings.
You permit me, I'm going to just show you some aerial photos.
You do have copies of all this in your packet, so -- can you hear?
Yeah.
Just to orient you, this is the Gulf, the Clam Bay Estuary and
mangrove forest, this area here is the berm. This is Pelican Bay
Boulevard, and here's Route 41. This area here is Waterpark Place.
Now, originally, the property would have been sold -- all the
property sold would have been sold between the berm and Pelican
Bay Boulevard as all other development has been, and the developer
would not be able to get as much development in that piece of land the
way it was because he would have to observe a hundred-foot setback
from county property.
So he managed for some means or other to purchase an additional
hundred feet so he would protect the county's property line. And with
that purchase, he was able to place these buildings directly on the
berm.
And in addition, these original buildings reduced their setbacks,
those buildings -- the distances between the St. Laurent and the St.
Margo and the St. Armand's, which are the two originally proposed
buildings, was reduced on the original plan from the required 200- feet
distance to 100- feet distance.
He even played with the distance between the St. Armand's and
the St. Raphael parcel line. That's supposed to be 100 feet. It's listed
as 99-plus-or-minus feet.
This is just a blow-up now to, again, show you how these
buildings were placed directly on the berm. In addition, I want to
show you, this is the only development where free-standing additional
garages are placed adjacent to the building.r
Page 236
October 14-15, 2008
I realize that harmony is subjective, but if this is the standard for
harmony, then the staff has effectively eliminated harmony as a
requirement for development.
In determining whether or not a project qualifies as a common
architectural theme, the architectural sty Ie of the dwellings shall be
similar in design and in the use of materials and color.
This decision is based solely on a letter from the developer's
architect. Common architectural theme is like beauty in the eye of the
beholder. I am unable to appreciate the common architectural theme
the developer and director say to be present at Waterpark Place.
Professor Susan Tate of the University of Florida Gainesville
agrees. Her opinion was for the original Cap d'Antibes but the
description of the St. Pierre and the St. Laurent are still valid.
The dominant linear character of the St. Pierre is horizontal with
strong bands of windows. The St. Laurent is vertical. She concludes,
this analysis found no continuity, relationship, or pattern of design,
features or architectural sty Ie in either the existing or planned
structures ofWaterpark Place.
Now, I have included photographs in your packet, and I will
show them on the monitor now. This first photo is the westerly view.
It's considered the back of the units. The top one is the St. Laurent.
This is the St. Pierre.
Next one, please, thank you.
This is the east side, the front of the building. This is the St.
Laurent. This is St. Pierre. These are the bands of glass that Professor
Tate was referring to. The vertical lines are the St. Laurent. This is,
again, a side view demonstrating the difference.
Let me have this one up first. This is a -- an overhead view
showing that the shapes of the buildings are even different. The St.
Laurent has more of a U shape and the St. Pierre is a somewhat
truncated I. The St. Laurent is actually a little bit bigger than the St.
Pierre.
Page 237
October 14-15,2008
And finally, I have the audit's rendition of what the future Cap
d'Antibes or the Cote d'Azure is going to be.
If these buildings have the current architectural theme, how
different must they be before they don't have one? Therefore, the
requirement for a common architectural theme has been effectively
eliminated. Unfortunately, this is the first step in clustering.
The Land Development Code defines cluster as allowing for
reductions in the standard lot requirements. All reductions shall -- and
that's mandatory -- be required to provide an equal amount of common
open space unless said cluster development is part of a planned unit
development where the open space requirements of this code had been
satisfied.
I want to point out that the Land Development Code states that
the cluster development is part of the whole PUD. It does not say that
the cluster development is the PUD. It is only part of the
development.
The open space requirement has been satisfied. I agree with the
interpretation of the director that the clustering included in the group 2
section needs no additional open space. Group 2 is the only location
where you approved clustering; however, the developer wants you to
believe the Pelican Bay planned unit development is a cluster.
All of Pelican Bay, single-family homes, multifamily homes,
high-rises, low-rises, can have setbacks reduced with no need to
provide the open space.
Setbacks would only apply if you have one building. If you add
a second building, the setbacks can be reduced to zero.
Commissioners, I have here before you a copy of the planned
unit development. That's what it says, planned unit development. It
does not say it is a planned unit cluster development.
Now, I went through this volume many times. There is nothing in
here that says, this is a cluster volume (sic). It does say, under group
2, where satisfied clustering is going to be. If this volume is a cluster
Page 238
October 14-15, 2008
development, why single out group 2 as being clustered?
Now, the staff says, well, the only time setbacks are going to be
observed if you have one building. The setbacks have to be observed,
fine. If you have two buildings and they don't have a common
architectural theme, the setbacks would still have to be observed. If it
is determined that they have a common architectural theme, you can
reduce the setbacks.
Now, I am not arguing that there's no harmony. I am not arguing
that there's no common architectural theme. I am not arguing that you
can't reduce the setbacks. I am not arguing against cluster. Cluster is
a beautiful method of development. Look what it does. It preserves
all the open space. There is less destruction of the environment, and it
should also decrease the impervious amount of land, which I will
address in a few minutes, because instead of having multiple roads and
sidewalks leading to individual buildings, you're able to approach this
clustered building with just one road and one sidewalk. So really,
impervious land should be decreased.
But this is not what the staff and the developers want you to
believe. They believe in Pelican Bay when you reduce setbacks in a
cluster development, you can use the created open space to make the
buildings larger.
Now, when you do that, you actually increase the impervious
amount of land, and I will show you where that's just -- has happened.
The director has the administrative authority to -- does the
director have the administrative authority to increase the 320-acre
satisfied cluster to include clustering the entire 2,104 acres? I say no.
The Southwest Florida Management District permit which lists
impervious amounts of land for all of the acreage -- when you reduce
setbacks, you don't provide the open space. You increase the
impervious portion. The water management system permit is
designed to allow for the satisfied clustering of only 320 acres.
Additional clustering must retain the balance between pervious
Page 239
October 14-15, 2008
and impervious, thus preserving the open space is necessary.
This is a schematic of the drainage plan I had mentioned that the
Pelican Bay independent district had to construct in order to get the
permit to build Pelican Bay. And again, to orient you, here's the Gulf.
Here is Clam Bay, Pelican Bay Boulevard, and up here is Route 41.
Now, the -- there are about five drainage systems in the water
management plan. Each system is independent from one another.
The sheet flow is from the east to the west. Waterpark Place is
this piece of property here. It sits in system three, live between
Pelican Bay Boulevard and inner Clam Bay.
Now, this is -- I can't show the detail of this, but if you will
please refer to the packet I gave you. You may not have this in your
packet. All it is is the -- this is table one from the planned unit
development. I just want to show you that this is the land use
schedule. It's contained in the PUD.
What I do want to present and what you do have is table one that
is present in the request for a permit from the South Florida Water
Management District in order to construct the drainage system that is
going to protect the Clam Bay Estuary.
Pelican Bay does not receive any waters from Collier County.
Pelican Bay is an independent water management district. We are
responsible only for the waters within Pelican Bay.
Now, this table is exactly the same as the table in the planned
unit development except at the bottom it adds hydrologic
classifications and it lists impervious services, area, 870 acres, it is 41
percent of the 2,104 acres. That is the amount of land that can be
impervious for this engineered system to function.
Table 2 in the same submission -- now remember, this is
Westinghouse community of Naples making simultaneous
submissions of the same data and material to both the county for
approval of the PUD and to the South Florida Water Management
District to get approval to build a drainage system so that they can
Page 240
October 14-15, 2008
build once the PUD is approved.
Now, this table lists the five drainage systems. In each drainage
system, it tells you how much acreage is allowed for each type of
housing. And you can see, in system one, there's cluster single-family,
group 2. You're allowed 56.4 acres. Only 54 percent of it can be
impervious. Leaves you with 30.49 acres, and this goes on.
Now, Waterpark Place is in system three and they -- in system
three you have single-family housing group 1, cluster single-family
group housing, 2, garden apartments, and then at the bottom we have
multi-story residential group 4; that is Waterpark Place. The total --
but there are other developments as far as Waterpark Place in system
three.
The amount of impervious surface permitted for multi-story
residential units group 4, in system three, is 46 percent. That is the
amount that is allowed.
Okay, Jim, thank you.
Reductions in setbacks never allow the space created to be used
to build larger buildings. I challenge the director to show where in the
literature of the Land Development Code or the planned unit
development, that the benefit of cluster is to increase building size.
In his ruling, Judge Ted Brousseau cited the definition of a
cluster, and I quote, it is obvious that the intent of permitting
clustering is to exchange reduced lot size requirements for more open
space.
Sadly, the site plan change allowed Cap d'Antibes to reduce
setbacks and increase building size. The emphasis on "end" is the
judge's. This statement was not used in arriving at his decision
because the appellate court has ruled that the Circuit Court cannot act
as a super zoning board; however, the covenants which were violated
contain the same setback restrictions.
Gulf Bay failed to prove that they had permission from the
declarant to reduce the setbacks and lost the case. Why didn't they use
Page 241
October 14-15,2008
the argument that all Pelican Bay is a cluster and therefore they did
not need the permission?
You are the super zoning board. It is for you to decide whether
the satisfied clustering is limited to only part of the planned unit
development as in the Land Development Code and an integral part of
the South Florida Water Management District permitted system or
does it include the entire 2,104 acres on which this approval has been
based?
The success of the water management system is another reason
for you to be congratulated. Pelican Bay does not pollute Clam Bay
Estuary. Success is not cheap. Pelican Bay, and not the county, spent
over $12 million to construct the system and spends about $800,000 a
year on water management.
In 1990 the county assumed the responsibility of the Pelican Bay
independent district which had provided water and sewer services.
Surface water management was also provided and development
required its approval.
The county retained water and sewer services but transferred
water management to the municipal services taxing benefit unit and
appointed the Pelican Bay Services Division to administer it.
Plans are still required to be submitted for review; however, the
staff now claims there's only a cursory review. The findings are not
important and interfere with the approval process.
The Pelican Bay Service (sic) Division is the permittee, pays to
manage the system, and is the responsible agency to approve
connections.
The requirement is also in the restricted covenants of Waterpark
Place, and I'll read them. Owners shall provide water management
areas for the neighborhood in accordance with the requirements of
Pelican Bay independent district surface water drainage and
management including, but not limited to, storm water storage
capacity, shall conform to the overall water management requirements
Page 242
October 14-15,2008
of the Pelican Bay independent district and meet the approval of the
declarant.
And apparently the declarant might have been concerned that the
Pelican Bay independent district might not be doing their job and
retained the right to also have approval. He didn't say "or". He said
"and" .
The review by the Pelican Bay Service Division noted that the
plan had 82 percent impervious land instead of the 46 percent. The
developer and the planning staffwere notified of this noncompliance
by letter on April 18th and asked to make suitable corrections. They
never responded.
This -- that letter will not show well, but you do have a copy of
the letter in which the Pelican Bay Services Division notified the
developer that there is a problem.
Instead, the developer procured a letter from the South Florida
Water Management District claiming the original plan had been
approved by the Pelican Bay Service Division. Since this new plan is
.66 acres less impervious than the previous plan, there is no reason to
withhold approval; however, the previous plan had 86 percent
impervious land, should not have been approved.
The plan was never submitted to the Pelican Bay Service
Division Board. Instead, the manager at the time, who was also under
contract by the developer at another development, issued an approval
letter, perhaps somewhat erred in the calculations. I don't know.
This is a copy of the approval letter from the South Florida Water
Management District. I just want to read the last paragraph; please
understand that your permit remains subject to the standard limiting
conditions and all other special conditions not mentioned and as
originally issued.
I think that's a significant restriction of that letter.
Now, I have graphically demonstrated the difference between
pervious and impervious. The blue is the impervious amount of land,
Page 243
October 14-15,2008
and this is just done graphically. Actually, the South (sic ) Water
Management District doesn't really care about the distribution of this
impervious land, only that it remains at 46 percent.
This is what the 81 percent looks like. Actually it's 81.9 to be
exact. And this is what the 86 percent looks like.
Now, I believe Gulf Bay is going to claim that, well, we're
looking at individual parcels. You're supposed to look at the whole
basin. Well, there are two problems with that.
One, if we look at the whole basin, if they're going to say that,
well, look, somebody had 40 percent impervious and they only used
20 percent, so we're going to use their 20 percent, well, that might be
reasonable. But then that person, we need a letter from that person --
you should provide a letter from that person, and it should be deeded
in the property, because what that person gave away was rights to
further build and add impervious land to his already planned
development. But this was never forthcoming.
But more important than that, what is the purpose of this plan, the
water management system? It is to prevent runoff and pollutants from
going into Clam Bay Estuary. The major problem is Waterpark Place
is situated right on the estuary. The pollutants from there are not going
to have any chance to benefit from all the lakes you may have seen on
your visit to Pelican Bay. Those are not just lakes. Those are aeration
fields. Those are sedimentation places. Those are filtration lakes.
They are part of the system to prevent pollutants and runoff from
going into the Clam Bay Estuary.
Waterpark Place cannot take advantage of that system because of
its location, so we would have a jaundiced eye in anyone saying
they're going to benefit from using somebody else's not-used
impervious land. And when I say we, it's the Pelican Bay I'm
speaking for, and in particular, Pelican Bay Services Division.
The South Florida Water Management District is now reviewing
the calculations but agrees that the Pelican Bay Service Division must
Page 244
October 14-15, 2008
approve any connection. Because of the location of Waterpark Place,
the discharge of runoff and pollutants will go directly into Clam Bay
Estuary. That is a violation of the Growth Management Plan, and the
Pelican Bay Service Division is responsible for the quality of these
waters.
Cleanup is much more expensive than prevention. Look at the
Everglades and the problem the City of Naples has with their waters.
Whoever approves the connection is going to assume this
responsibility .
The proposed garages present another violation of the Land
Development Code. The Land Development (sic) states that
accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than 5 percent --
and shall is, again, a mandatory word -- shall -- 5 percent of the total
land area in all residential zoning districts and shall include detached
and attached accessory-use structures or buildings not withstanding
the attachment of such structure or building containing the accessory
use to the principal-use structure of a building. I did not word this
paragraph, but that's -- I'm quoting it.
The existing garages for St. Pierre and St. Laurent already
occupy 6.8 percent of the total land area; therefore, it is a violation to
add additional aboveground garages.
Limiting the size of accessory buildings preserves the residential
character of a development, lest it appears commercial or industrial.
The director solves the problem by stating, during review of a
Site Development Plan for a multifamily project, staff was asked to
clarify whether the limitations regarding size of accessory buildings
would apply to an attached one-story structure providing parking for
the residents of a multifamily high-rise tower.
It is my determination that a one-story parking structure attached
to a multifamily tower must be considered part of the principal
structure and that the area occupied by the parking structure would not
be used in the calculation of lot covered by accessory structures. In
Page 245
October 14-15, 2008
conclusion, it is my opinion that there is no exception in the language
of the Land Development Code to indicate that a parking structure
attached to a multifamily high-rise tower would not be considered part
of the principal structure; and, therefore, it is my opinion that it would
be exempt from accessory structures lot coverage requirements of the
Land Development Code.
What is the director thinking when she claims that as long as the
garage is attached it can be any size? And how convenient to have
this problem solved in the year 2004.
The garages, in fact, are two stories. The same as at in
Nordstrom's and Waterside Shops, not one story; therefore, the
explanation for one story is not valid.
In summary, one, satisfied clustering is limited to only 320 acres
as identified in group 2 of the planned unit development. The Land
Development Code and the South Florida Water Management District
permit does not allow the director and the developer to extend
clustering to the entire 2,104 acres without providing the open space.
The two-story garages exceed the Land Development Code limit for
accessory buildings.
Three, the current plan violates the Growth Management Plan,
and connection to the water management system is not possible until
corrected.
Four, there is no reason why the developer can't develop this land
without following the planned unit development, the Land
Development Code, and the Growth Management Plan.
I want to thank the commissioners for -- I know this is extra time
on your behalf. I regret having to do this, but I appreciate the time,
thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It doesn't matter the time. We still get
paid the same. I think Commissioner Coy Ie gets paid extra though.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm worth it.
Page 246
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And he's worth it.
Do you -- Mr.-- Dr. Raia, do you have any experts that you--
DR. RAIA: Excuse me, I'm sorry. I wasn't paying attention.
MR. MUDD: Do you have any experts that you'd like to bring
forward?
DR. RAIA: Is there any expert here that wants to volunteer?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
DR. RAIA: No. I'm sorry, sir. I don't have any experts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
DR. RAIA: But let me say this--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask my colleagues if they
have any questions of you.
DR. RAIA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions down here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to hear the whole story, both
sides, before I ask questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- have one, Mr. Raia, or Dr. Raia?
DR. RAIA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Colonel Raia? Which one is it?
Mr. Raia?
DR. RAIA: Call me anything you want, at this age.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You had mentioned something
about we -- Pelican Bay doesn't receive any waters from the county,
and I wanted to ask Jim Mudd, don't they receive IQ water?
MR. MUDD: No. What he's basically talking about is
stormwater. You don't get any runoff on the other side of 41 that goes
into Pelican Bay, and that's what he was basically talking about,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My second question, Jim, is
Page 247
October 14-15, 2008
how much does the county spend on Clam Bay? I think Mr. Raia was
saying how much Pelican Bay does, but I want Pelican Bay to know
that we also spend money on Clam Bay, don't we?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. He was, in his argument, if I listened
to it correctly, and I think I did, he basically talked about $12 million
being applied when they developed the stormwater system for all of
Pelican Bay, and then he mentioned that in the Pelican Bay Services
District they have, on an annual basis, around $800,000 dedicated to
stormwater -- stormwater in the particular development. He wasn't
talking about how much monies we and the services division put
together to restore the Pelican -- the Clam Bay part of Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just trying to make sure we
got some credit for our part in that, too.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that was all I was doing.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We--
DR. RAIA: No, I don't -- it's not my intent, but we did get some
outside water, because the irrigation water does come in from outside,
and we have to handle that once it's there.
But Commissioner Coyle, just to answer your question that I
have no expert. It's not that I'm a complete novice. The reason why I
introduced and said, I've had experience in reviewing plans, I have
served 10 years on the planning board and three years on a
conservation commission and three years on a zoning board of
appeals.
My undergraduate studies, I had one year of engineering school.
It did include engineer drawing. I graduated with a math major, so I --
it's not that I'm a complete novice and that I don't know what I'm
talking about. I stand by every word I said.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dr. Raia, I didn't ask that question.
I didn't ask you to produce any experts.
DR. RAIA: I'm sorry. Somebody asked that, and I regret--
Page 248
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you have presented a very,
very detailed case, and I think you did a thorough job.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if the applause is really
needed.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have about two or three, but
I'll wait till everything is presented.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Dr. Raia, which zoning
ordinance are you going by when you say the Pelican Bay PUD?
What is the zoning number?
DR. RAIA: There have been some changes, but none of those
changes ever affected the statements that I have made.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, that wasn't my question.
DR. RAIA: Okay. I don't--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My question is, what zoning
ordinance are you going under or referencing? I don't disagree with
your statement. My question is, what zoning ordinance is it? Is it -- it
was done in 19 --
DR. RAIA: Sir, all I do is go on the Internet, log onto your site,
search down and get my information off the Internet, look up what
these things say and do, and that's what I say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- you held it up. You
had the PUD in your hand.
DR. RAIA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's -- does it state a
number on the front of it?
DR. RAIA: Well, actually--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What year?
DR. RAIA: Actually I do have a newer one than this, but I have
it on my desk. This one is bound. The one I have is loose sheets. I
didn't want loose sheets flying all over the place. But let me see if
Page 249
October 14-15, 2008
there is -- I can go to my desk and get the other one that may have the
number on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was asking the number that you
were referring to on the dais there. But, you know, let me move on.
DR. RAIA: It just says as amended through June of 1989.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you have '89?
DR. RAIA: This is '89 that I used.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
DR. RAIA: Just to make the point, though I wasn't--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That answers my question.
DR. RAIA: Yeah, okay, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My next question is, you referred to --
I don't know if you can see that here. You had it on the visualizer, this
-- these two buildings. Is this in Waterpark Place?
DR. RAIA: Yes, sir. That's the St. Pierre and the St. Laurent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And the setbacks on that you
stated was?
DR. RAIA: They are a hundred feet from the county's property
line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- now is this -- this is in
Waterpark Place?
DR. RAIA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which group does it have to comply
to, two?
DR. RAIA: Four. It's a high-rise building.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
DR. RAIA: The land uses are broken down in group 1,2, 3, and
4, and one is single-family home, and I don't recall right off hand -- 2
is the clustered home, three is mid-rise, I believe, and four is high-rise
buildings.
The only place where high-rise buildings can be built in Pelican
Bay is west of Pelican Bay Boulevard and west of Crayton Road.
Page 250
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The regulations that I have in group 4
-- and I'm going by PUD '04, I think.
DR. RAIA: That would be page 7, 7 something. You're taking
about four, 7.1?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When were you chairman? 2004?
Yeah. It's the -- it's the latest PUD governing the development.
And in group 4, it calls for, in case of clustering buildings and
common architectural theme, these distance (sic) may be less provided
in the site plan approved in accordance to section 2.5 of the ordinance.
DR. RAIA: That's in the original submittal, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So your statement says that clustering
is not allowed.
DR. RAIA: Oh, I didn't say that, sir. What I did say was,
clustering without providing the common open space is not allowed. I
would like to see all of Pelican Bay clustered and preserving the
common open space as required by the Land Development Code.
The only section where you don't have to provide the open space
and where it has already been provided and satisfied is that group 2
where it states clearly, group 2 clustered.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And where does it -- where
does it state in group 4, as long as it doesn't comply to -- it must
comply to the open space regulation?
DR. RAIA: Turn to the definition of cluster. Turn to 2.15. 2.15
tells you about definitions, and it says, definitions not contained in the
planned unit development must be referred to the zoning ordinance
definitions. You are directed, go there. The definition of cluster is
what I said.
Now, the staffhas said, well, no cluster doesn't mean that. In this
term it just means bringing buildings together. I'm sorry. This is a
planned unit development. This is technical language. Cluster has
one meaning. It is the meaning that is contained in the definitions of
the Land Development Code.
Page 251
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Cluster -- in the definition of the Land
Development Code.
DR. RAIA: Cluster -- definition for the word cluster. If you're
asking me, what is cluster, I'm telling you, it's in the Land
Development Code, and I did include -- in my presentation at one
point I said cluster -- well, let me find it, sir.
The Land Development Code defines cluster as allowing for
reductions in the standard lot requirements. All reductions shall be
required to provide an equal amount of common open space. That's
straight from the Land Development Code, and they're using the word
shall. There's no latitude there.
You can't -- you can't reduce setbacks and use that setback that
you reduce to build a larger building. It's -- you know, I've never
heard of a community adopting anything like that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I was going by the PUD, and
you said that's in section -- the definition of cluster's in 2 --
DR. RAIA: No. I referred you to 2.15, definitions. Since you're
asking about a word that is not defined in the PUD --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
DR. RAIA: -- you are then obligated to go to the definitions in
the Land Development Code. You can't go to a dictionary or ask your
friend. You are directed to go to the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2.15 of the Land Development Code?
DR. RAIA: No. 2.15, and I shall turn to it here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Of the Land Development Code?
DR. RAIA: Of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Of the PUD.
DR. RAIA: Of the PUD. It says, definitions. For the purpose of
this planned unit development, and then it gives a couple of
definitions. Then it ends by saying, all other definitions shall be as
contained in the zoning ordinance of Collier County. What could be
more clear than that?
Page 252
October 14-15,2008
So if you're not sure about what the word cluster means, you go
to the Land Development Code and look up cluster.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My zoning ordinance that was
adopted in '04 says it different than yours. It says -- it does have 2.15,
definitions. For the purpose of planned unit development, recreational
clubs, it has a definition there, then it has hotels or motel.
DR. RAIA: Yeah, but skip that paragraph because --I'm going to
the last paragraph because they weren't going to define every word in
the PUD. The last paragraph, which is on the next page --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: States that all definitions shall be
contained in the zoning ordinance.
DR. RAIA: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But then it says in section 7 of --
which is -- you have defined as group 4, in case of all cluster
buildings, common architectural theme in distance may be less
provided in the Site Development Plan.
DR. RAIA: Of course. When you cluster, the whole reason for
clustering is the distances are less. The problem we have here, what
do you do with the open space you create by reducing the setbacks? I
claim by definition, not only in your Land Development Code --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
DR. RAIA: -- but universally.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're done with your argument. I'm
just asking questions, that's all, and I heard your argument.
Can you provide me any documentation where PBS&D has
approved the impervious surfaces or the connections to these two
buildings?
DR. RAIA: To those two buildings, no, I don't have that with
me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
DR. RAIA: I --I'm sure, you know, something may -- I cannot
answer that.
Page 253
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you. I'm complete.
Thank you.
DR. RAIA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Dr. Raia, didn't we discuss this
clustering effect about five years ago? We went through this whole
scenario with clustering, and I think that was part of your argument
about five years ago?
DR. RAIA: Commissioner, when I came here five years ago, I
was a novice, and whatever we discussed then was discussed with the
knowledge I had. I have learned an awful lot in the past years.
Now 1--
,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, my point is that we -- we're
hashing old ground. I believe this was a court case that was involved
in this whole process. So I think the real concern that you have is in
regards to stormwater management in this particular project.
DR. RAIA: Are you asking me a question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
DR. RAIA: There's no question about it, that is a major concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
DR. RAIA: But because violations had occurred in the past is no
reason, legal, morally, ethically, for those violations to continue in the
present time. There is -- yes, I am concerned that they're reducing --
that they're abusing cluster by saying they can reduce setbacks and not
conserve the open space because that does relate to the storm drainage
plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I believe the zoning director is up
next? Mr. Schmitt is up next.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development/environmental
services division.
And you wonder why I'm here. Well, I'm the one responsible for
Page 254
~""." . ~ w .
October 14-15, 2008
the consolidated and integrated review of the Site Development Plans
as they go through community development.
And I want to note for the record, it is the engineering director
that signs off on the Site Development Plans, and that responsibility,
through the zoning director for the review, but it is the engineering
director that does the final sign off and as -- that responsibility as a
supervisor of both those directors, it is my responsibility to ensure that
they comply with all the plans and ordinances and Land Development
Code.
I want to note for the record that Waterpark Place, Phases 3 and
4, which include the Cap d'Antibes and the Cote d'Azure, submittal
number SDP-2007-AR-12644 -- and I note for the record, in response
to Mr. Raia's appeal in the approval of the SDP, that the professional
staffs of 18 reviewing agencies within the community development
and environmental services division, the transportation division,
public utilities division, the county health department, Collier County
fire review official, have all reviewed -- complete their reviews and
ultimately approve the SDP pursuant to the requirements of the
Pelican Bay PUD, ordinance 04-59, and the Collier County Land
Development Code, ordinance number, 04-41.
And I want to introduce for the record, just so it's there, section
10.02.03 of the Land Development Code which involves a -- site
submittal requirements for Site Development Plan along with the
amendments that amended that. And Heidi, if you could pass that -- if
we could pass that over there.
Yes, I'll read the ordinance numbers for the record. Ordinance
numbers -- ordinance 07-62, which amended that section, ordinance
number 08-10, and ordinance number 08-8, all of which amended that
section of the code.
Again, for the record, the departments and sections that reviewed
this Site Development Plan are: The department of zoning and land
development review, specifically zoning and planning review and
Page 255
October 14-15, 2008
landscape planning review; the engineering and environmental
services department, which included the engineering utilities review,
environmental review, engineering transportation review, engineering
water management review and, of course, that is also to validate the
South Florida Water Management District permit; the transportation
division, which included transportation concurrency review,
transportation planning review, pathways transportation review, the
Collier County fire review official, the Collier County Health
Department, environmental health review, and the public utilities
department, including utility billing.
The SDP also went through impact fee, validated through
addressing and throughout GIS section. And note I did not state
public -- or sorry -- Pelican Bay Services Division.
I wish to stress to the board that Mr. Raia's appealing the
approval of the SDP amendment, an approval based on the application
of the Land Development Code and development standards as
approved in the PUD. This is not an appeal of the interpretation of
those codes.
As such, we are here -- not here to argue the interpretation of the
codes. We're here to review the review standards in relation to the
SOP.
It is important to note that staff applies the code, and the
interpretation of the code is legally vested only with the zoning
director.
If deemed consistent with the Land Development Code and PUD,
the SDP amendment is deemed to be sufficient to preclude any
adverse and injurious impacts on the surrounding properties and
deemed sufficient to assure compatibility of this development within
the Pelican Bay community.
I note that the zoning director did issue two separate official
interpretations associated with this development, those are in your
packet. In tab C, it was a June 17th, 2008, official interpretation; and
Page 256
October 14-15, 2008
as Mr. Halas pointed out, back -- and that was the packet that the
developer submitted, tab 9, which was back in September, 2000 -- or
September 29th, 2003.
And I want to note for the record, if you go to your tab C, which
is the book that was prepared by staff, it clearly goes through
clustering, the application of clustering, the interpretation of
clustering, and how staff applied that in the review of this SDP. We
can go in that -- into great detail if you so wish.
But that was the official interpretation. That official interpretation
was issued, it was never appealed, and so we're not here again to
discuss the application or the interpretation of that. We're here to
discuss, frankly, the application.
I think our executive summary enclosed in your appeal packet
outlines in detail the staff's response to the five points by Mr. Raia's --
raised by Mr. Raia's appeal related to this SDP. And in doing so, we
find no merit to Mr. Raia's appeal and, furthermore, note, the appellant
has not provided what we believe any competent and substantial
evidence to support his appeal.
And I'll note, those five points were: Mr. Raia raised concerns
about a submittal letter to the applicant. He didn't raise that this
morning, but that was in his appeal to Ms. Murray. His dispute with
the applicability of the rules related to clustering and open space. I
think the 01 defines that clearly as we addressed how we apply
clustering and open space for this PUD.
The dispute and the applicability of common architectural theme.
Again, the OI's address that clearly.
The approval of the water management district permit -- and I
note the water management district is responsible -- they're the
responsible entity for issuing the water management district permit,
and any dispute related to the issuing of that permit should be raised
with the water management board and not with this board.
And the applicability of the criteria related to the accessory
Page 257
October 14-15, 2008
structures and lot coverage, and staff certainly can address those.
I have with me Ms. Susan Istenes,Director of Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review; Mr. Bill Lorenz, Engineering
and Environmental Services; along with members of their respective
staff, to answer any specific questions you may have related to the
review and ultimate approval of the SDP or any objections raised, of
course, by Mr. Raia.
Pretty much, subject to your questions, that pretty much
concludes my opening remarks and, frankly, our staff presentation.
In conclusion, staff recommends that the Board of Zoning
Appeals upholds the county staff approval and consistency finding of
the Site Development Plan amendment SDP-AR-12644 known as
Waterpark Place, Phases 3 and 4.
And in doing so, the SDP is deemed consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan and complies
with the applicable LDC and PUD requirements; to reduce the
setbacks of minimum yards and the SDP are in compliance with the
requirements of the PUD and LDC; the SDP, including the attached
parking garage, complies with lot coverage requirements, and in doing
so, approves staff's conclusion that the conservation acreage, golf
course, parks, and other recreational areas within the PUD, Pelican
Bay PUD, meet the definition of usable open space in the LDC as
confirmed by staff and the applicant, frankly, exceed 30 percent; and
then finally, that the SDP complies with all impervious surface water
management regulations in the LDC, the South Florida Water
Management District rural criteria and the surface water management
permit for Pelican Bay.
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, one thing I forgot to do is
ask our staff if they have any cross-examination of Dr. Raia.
MR. SCHMITT: We have none. Susan or Heidi, any
cross-examination?
Page 258
October 14-15,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the property owner have any
cross-examination of Dr. Raia?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Raia, do you have any
cross-examination for our staff, in particular, Mr. Schmitt?
DR. RAIA: Well, I just -- I have before me the pre-application
meeting notes and submittal list.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, do you have any --
DR. RAIA: Well, I'm answering -- I'm referring to a statement
he said that they don't require anything from the Pelican Bay Services
Division. He inferred that. Am I right or -- Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, we submit, as a courtesy copy,
the SDP for review. They are not a reviewing entity as far as Collier
County is concerned, at least from community
development/environmental services.
They are the agent responsible and permit holder for the
operational -- functioning and operational aspects of the water
management permit. They are not a review entity. And that is -- was
clearly defined by the South Florida Water Management District as
well.
And if there's a dispute there, again, I recommend that that issue
be raised with the district board.
DR. RAIA: I just want to point out that located in Pelican Bay
Service District, one additional set required. They are required to
submit that -- required to submit us a set of plans. Why would that be
a requirement and why would they not listen to us when we told them
there is a problem in April and they rushed to approve this project in
June?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the property owner have any
questions of the staff, and in particular, Mr. Joe Schmitt?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, sir.
Page 259
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Commissioners, questions for
our planning staff?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to have the chance to
ask the planning staff questions after all sides have been heard?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: However you want to do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I'll wait.
MR. SCHMITT: We're open for questions now, Commissioner. I
mean, we can address every aspect of the SDP if you want to go
through it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are three parties here. I'd
like to hear all three parties. I think it will be a lot more efficient that
way. I'll have a broader range of information and I'll be able to make
my questions much more precise.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I only have one question for planning
staff, and I'll wait till the landowner's representative does his or her
presentation, which we can hear now.
Terri, are you okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because we're about 15 minutes away
from taking a break.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I should be able to keep you on
schedule for that.
Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of
the property owner. Also with me are Ron Weaver and Barbara
Wilheit (phonetic) of Steams, Weaver. They assisted in the
preparation of the response.
I want to just go over a couple of preliminary matters, and then
I'll go and do a brief summary of our argument.
We submitted to the commissioners and Dr. Raia was provided a
copy of our response to the appeal, which is a two-volume set of
documents with backup, and as well as a notice of filing that was
submitted a week or so ago. I believe you have copies of this.
Page 260
October 14-15, 2008
I just would ask that the commission accept those documents as
part of the official record so I don't have to go through and introduce
each document individually during the presentation. So I would -- it
was a request that the commission accept those documents as evidence
in the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody have a problem with
submitting those into the official record?
Commissioner Coletta, you okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Second, we have six expert witnesses
that have provided documents within the -- within the two-volume set.
I'll name them by name and then ask you to accept them as experts.
We've given you copies of their -- basically their resumes to support
that they are experts in their individual fields.
We have Lawrence Cohen, who's a professional architect; we
have John McGinty, who is also a professional architect; we have Dr.
Wu, who has -- who provided an expert report on one of Dr. Raia's
arguments, which was the Venturia (phonetic) effect, which he didn't
raise in his oral argument but he did raise. So he's an expert in that
area; we have Wayne Arnold, who's a professional planner; and Mark
Minor, who's a professional engineer. They're both with Grady Minor
& Associates; and finally, we have Julian Stokes, who's a
state-certified appraiser.
And I would request that you accept them as experts in their
individual fields and to support the studies that they provided.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does any of the board members have
a problem with recognizing those named people as experts?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: May I? May I?
Page 261
October 14-15, 2008
Dr. Raia, do you have any objections to any of those people as
experts?
DR. RAIA: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let the record reflect that Dr. Raia
has no problem with recognizing those named persons as experts and
there's no objection by the Board of Commissioners.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
I just want to briefly touch on our responses to the individual
arguments in our book, and I'll go through it quickly.
As you know, Dr. Raia filed his appeal challenging an SDP that
was originally approved back in 1991, and there have been a few
amendments since that time period. He raised essentially three issues.
I think he focused on one issue today, which is the -- the reduced
setbacks between the buildings he claims violates the PUD. He talked
about the parking structure exceeding the lot coverage, and the water
management district permit issues.
I think Joe did an excellent job responding to all of those issues,
and we go into great detail in our individual responses.
On the common architectural theme, I've put on the visualizer the
-- basically the two existing buildings, and then we've been able to
show you the two new buildings that will be constructed as part of the
SDP.
What we're talking about today is, these are the two existing
buildings, St. Pierre and St. Laurent. This is Cote d'Azure and then
Cap d'Antibes. These are the two buildings that have yet to be
constructed. And I think, as you can see, they are architecturally
similar to each other as well as architecturally similar to St. Laurent
and St. Pierre.
I just would like to point out that there's no separation reduction
between St. Pierre and St. Laurent. The only separation reduction is
between these three buildings.
And I'm not sure from what Dr. Raia said whether he's even
Page 262
October 14-15, 2008
contesting at this point whether there's a common architectural theme
between the four buildings, but I just wanted to point that out in case I
misunderstood what he was saying.
We provided two architect experts to support the argument that
there is a common architectural theme to support the clustering of the
buildings.
Dr. Raia relies on a letter from Dr. Tate for a hearing five years
ago for the Cap d'Antibes building, which is no longer applicable. So
he still has not provided any competent substantial evidence to
contradict the common architectural theme. Thus, the support for the
reduction of the buildings.
In addition, I believe at last hearing four or five years ago, Dr.
Raia said he had no objections to the original SDPs that were
approved for the building even with some modifications to the SDPs,
and we provided you copies of a letter I think you wrote to Dr -- I
mean Mr. Halas, as well as his prior testimony.
The SOP he was referring to had a building separation between
the two buildings I was just discussing of 157 feet. We've asked for a
reduction to 150 feet. And I would point out that the original SOP in
1991 had a building separation of 150 feet between those two
buildings.
So we weren't asking for anything new from what already had
gone through and been analyzed. And, in fact, it would appear to be,
what Dr. Raia was (sic), we went back to the original plan and the
original separation.
He raised an issue regarding view. I didn't hear any testimony on
that. We've provided Mr. McGinty's letter to analyze the view issue
for St. Laurent as well as San Marino.
You know, I would note when he was speaking, I think he's just
representing himself; is that correct, Dr. Raia? You don't have any
authorization to represent any of the other condominium associations
or anything else to that effect, correct?
Page 263
October 14-15, 2008
I should have asked you that on cross, but I'll make that statement
and he can correct that later. But I think he's just representing himself,
and I think that's important because we've provided you the letters
from the foundation, from St. Pierre, and St. Laurent, that have signed
off on this settlement.
There was a lawsuit. He referred to that lawsuit. That the
lawsuit was a deed restriction lawsuit. It was not a clustered building
lawsuit. It was a deed restriction lawsuit. That was resolved through a
settlement agreement signed off by the Pelican Bay Foundation, St.
Pierre, and St. Laurent. You have all of that in your backup.
It was also discussed with the board members of Dr. Raia's own
building, and those board members did not object to the settlement as
well. So there's nobody here objecting to this from an association
standpoint. No associations are opposed to this settlement.
The -- his next issue was wind damage. He didn't raise it. He
didn't raise it again and he admitted he has no experts. Dr. Wu
provided a report basically, that from a wind-damage perspective,
there is no harm to anybody from the buildings being 150 feet apart
versus 200 feet apart; there's no difference, in effect, to wind damage,
and those documents are in your record.
He raised an issue on impacted value. He didn't discuss that
today, but Julian Stokes did provide you an analysis that there's no
impact -- negative impact to the value of the neighbors through these
-- the construction of these luxury high-rise buildings.
He spent a lot of time on the impervious area argument, and he
glosses over the phrase average, but the word is there. It's an average.
It's not a project-by-project analysis. Dr. Raia wants it to be a
project-by-project analysis today because he loses on the average
argument.
Now, this particular basin has a requirement, and he's pointed out
that there must be -- you cannot have more than 46 percent impervious
for the basin. Mark Minor, who's here if you need to ask him any
Page 264
October 14-15, 2008
questions, has provided a certification that this basin achieves that 46
percent. It's less than the 46 percent. In fact, it's 44 percent.
So from an impervious perspective, we satisfy the South Florida
Water Management District permit requirements.
And we didn't even take credit for something we could have
taken credit for. There are additional lakes out there that do provide
additional water management functions. If you took those into
consideration, that number comes down to roughly 23 percent. It's
22.7 percent, according to Mark Minor.
So we far exceed the South Florida Water Management District
requirements for the permit. And it is the South Florida Water
Management District that administers the permit. They require that
we provide certifications regarding the basin.
Frankly, the response to the Pelican Bay Services District
comment was a simple response; They're wrong. Joe's shop
understood that they were wrong. It's an average basin requirement.
It's not a project-by-project requirement.
We've provided you certification that if Dr. Raia's right, which
he's not, you have a whole lot of projects out there that far exceed, on
an individual project-by-project basis, the impervious requirements.
So I don't think we've been getting wrong all these years. I think
we've been getting right all these year, and Dr. Raia is trying to utilize
a different analysis to support his position.
As far as the Pelican Bay Services Board review, the Pelican Bay
Services Board doesn't have the authority to review individual
applications. He knows that. We've provided you with the county
attorney's opinions on that.
The Pelican Bay Services Division staff does get a copy of the
document to review and confirm that the connections to the water
management system do, in fact, comply with the requirements but
they don't get into the individual on-site calculations. That's the
purview of the Water Management District.e
Page 265
October 14-15, 2008
In conclusion, your staff did a -- Joe did an excellent job
summarizing the open space arguments and the lot coverage
arguments, so I won't repeat those.
The Water Management District argument is, we're consistent
with the permit. The basin is less than authorized under that.
Even if you wanted to take his argument that we somehow need
to get the permission of our -- the other neighbors, you've got to
remember, we owned all of the land in the basin, so we controlled how
much we wanted to use in each individual area because we owned all
of that land.
If we decided to use less impervious on one project and then have
another project be a little bit more impervious since we own the whole
basin, we were authorized to do that, and we've kept that control.
But let's just say we didn't keep that control. You have the two
existing buildings. Their associations have signed off on our Site
Development Plan, just as it is, with the impervious for this one
project being whatever number Dr. Raia says that number is.
So we don't agree that he's right, but even if you did, you've got
-- you've got the associations in the -- that share the basin saying, this
is okay with us. You know, any leftover area would be association
property, if Dr. Raia's argument is correct. We have the necessary
authorizations, even though we don't need it.
We have provided competent substantial evidence to support
your staff's decision. Gave you two volumes of it. Everybody who is
here who prepared any of those reports, if you want to hear from them
or Dr. Raia wants to ask them questions, they're here and available to
testify .
Dr. Raia has not provided any competent substantial evidence.
The fact that he served on a review board does not make him an expert
in any particular field. I don't think he's a professional engineer. I
don't think he is a professional planner.
We have provided the necessary analysis, your staff has provided
Page 266
October 14-15, 2008
the necessary analysis, and they are experts in their individual
respective fields.
Based upon the evidence in the record, we are requesting that you
support your staff's decision to approve our Site Development Plan
and deny Dr. Raia's appeal.
And I am available to answer any questions you may have, or
anybody who prepared any of the documents in this book are available
to answer any questions you may have, and we're available for any
questions from your staff or from Dr. Raia himself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to go back because I think --
go back in time, because I think this is where we are again today when
this was brought before the Board of County Commissioners about
five years ago.
And originally we heard, because of the massiveness of the Cap
d'Antibes, we now have -- have gone through a period of time, the
developer has come back and proposed two separate buildings.
My question is, as I look at those two buildings, obviously, what
is the difference in square footage compared to the original Cap
d'Antibes? Anybody got a percentage?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the number of units, I believe, has
gone down, but if you'll remember, I believe it was 650 feet long
originally; is that about right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was quite long.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to have the original -- the
architect answer that. But remember it was -- I believe the testimony
from Dr. Raia was two football fields, the original building, and that's
not what's before you today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what I'm trying to do here is
get closure on this thing, that what we're still doing is we're still
fighting what was originally placed on there and where we are today
in respect to how it fits into the neighborhood architectural theme and
so on.
Page 267
October 14-15, 2008
So does somebody have some figures on --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I do now, Commissioner. What
you have is basically these -- these two buildings, if you will recall,
were basically joined. They're roughly 50 feet apart. There was
another third stack on this building right here. So there's one -- there's
about 30 percent less building area today than there was before, and
it's essentially in the same location as the original 1995 permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So where we're going with this is
that we have more pervious area with these two buildings than with
the original building?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir; yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a -- give Terri a
10-minute break at this time, and let's be back at 10:40. So a
12-minute break.
(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 HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas, do you have any other questions -- further
questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a couple more.
Is there anybody --
MR. SCHMITT: Quiet, please.
MR. MUDD: Now, I asked everybody to please take their seats,
okay, and we'd get on with this meeting, and I appreciate that. If you
have a conversation that you want to have now, please do it out in the
hallway. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are there any representatives here
of the condo associations, the presidents, that wrote letters, saying that
they approve? Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to come to the mike, and I
Page 268
October 14-15, 2008
must ask you --
MS. MACCHI: I didn't take the oath because I didn't I think was
going to be answering questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was my question. And you have
to be sworn in.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And when you come up to the mike,
please state your name for the record.
MS. MACCHI: Yes. Good morning. I am Leonor MacchL I
am the president of the St. Pierre Condominium Association, and that
is my signature in the letter that you have in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's what I wanted to
know. Thank you so much.
MS. MACCHI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Appreciate you coming up here.
How about St. Laurent. Anybody from--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: St. Laurent?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: St. Laurent.
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Veto Suziedelis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll have to come up to the mike,
and then I must ask you, were you sworn in to give testimony?
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Yes, I was. I was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record?
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Veto Suziedelis. 6849 Grenadier Boulevard
in Naples. I'm the president of St. Laurent Condominium Association
and also a director of Waterpark Place Village.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And, sir, this is your signature on
this letter saying that --
MR. SUZIEDELIS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- you conform --
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to -- agree with this? Okay.
Page 269
October 14-15, 2008
Thank you.
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then the final one is the
president of Pelican Bay Services, Jim Hoppensteadt.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pelican Bay Foundation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Same thing applies.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Were you sworn in?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes, I was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Jim.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this your signature in regards to
this letter that the foundation approved the plans on these two
buildings?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yes, Commissioner, it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your name, for the record?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Jim Hoppensteadt, president of Pelican
Bay Foundation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any further questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to ask this question of
our staff. Joe, you probably would be the right person to answer it.
I would like to get an understanding of the impact on lot
coverage of your decision that the attached garage is not considered an
accessory structure but is considered part of the principal structure
itself. How does that affect overall lot coverage?
MR. SCHMITT: All right. I'm going to defer that to the zoning
Page 270
October 14-15, 2008
director because that staff is the expert in the interpretation and
application of that part of the code.
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director, and I'm actually
going to defer that to technical review staff so they can give you the
numbers.
Mike Sawyer, do you have that information?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has he been recognized as an
expert?
MS. ISTENES: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not by the Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm just kidding. I just didn't
want him to delegate it to somebody else.
If you need a few minutes, we can go to another question --
MS. ISTENES: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that will be equally as confusing.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me try to describe the
staff's position on the clustering issue and see if I have it right.
You have determined that it's okay to cluster buildings on a
portion of the overall PUD so long as the open space requirements
have been met for the entire property, the entire 2,104 acres, or
whatever it is. I think that's right. So that -- that explains accurately
your position?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I would just qualify that by saying we are
talking about the Pelican Bay PUD and the development regulations in
the Pelican Bay PUD, and that was what I analyzed in my official
interpretation, 2008-AR-13411, and I would agree with your
summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Yes. And that is in tab C, for the record.
MR. SCHMITT: Make sure we introduce this for the record.
MS. ISTENES: County Attorney's Office has asked, while I'm
Page 271
October 14-15,2008
up here, Commissioner, that I just confirm that this white notebook
that says Site Development Plan and Application Documents for
Waterpark Place Phases 3 and 4, Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure,
SDPA-2007-AR-12644, is part of the record. And within that tab C, I
have provided a copy of the official interpretation that I just
referenced.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before we go on, can we stay
on that point? Does any commissioner have any objections to enter
that into the official record?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, okay. Consider it done. I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we ready now to answer the
first question?
MS. ISTENES: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Mike, can you put that on the visualizer.
MR. SAWYER: Commissioners, for the record, Mike Sawyer,
senior planner with zoning and land development review.
If you don't mind, Commissioner, could you go over the question
again, please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would if I could read your chart.
Yeah. The question is, that in the staff's interpretation that a garage --
an attached garage is not an accessory structure but is part of the
principal structure, what impact does that have on lot coverage in this
particular case?
MR. SAWYER: In this case -- actually I'll go over to the chart.
MR. MUDD: Where do you want me to focus in on?
MR. SAWYER: These three checkmarks.
MR. MUDD: These three checkmarks.
MR. SAWYER: Okay. There we go. I think we can hopefully
Page 272
October 14-15, 2008
read that. I'm taking off my glasses.
If you look, the two buildings are listed as Phase 3 and Phase 4.
And if you look at the buildings, the totals, there are, for the entire
portion of this SDP amendment, is 46.9, I believe, for Phase -- let's
see. Phase 4, it's going to be 47.5 --
MR. MUDD: 47.3.
MR. SAWYER: -- 3 and then 46.5. That basically is going to
give you the lot coverage for the buildings on the two phases.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that includes the parking
garages.
MR. SAWYER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And your -- what is the
difference, the bottom line impact, of interpreting that they're not
accessory structures?
MR. SAWYER: If they were -- if I'm understanding your
question, if they were separate accessory structures, they would only
be allowed to have 5 percent for the entire site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The accessory structures only 5
percent.
MR. SAWYER: The accessory structures themselves, if they
were separate structures and accessories.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How would the overall amount of
open space on the site change if you considered these as accessory
structures?
MR. SAWYER: You would probably -- I'm not sure because
what you're -- what we're talking about are parking garages that would
-- if you don't have them as structures, would wind up being parking
lots on grade. So overall, you would probably still wind up with a
comparable amount of open space. It would just be in the form of a
parking lot as opposed to an attached structure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you're telling me that the
effect of this interpretation is not -- or would not change their
Page 273
October 14-15, 2008
percentage of open space on the lot; is that true?
MR. SAWYER: I believe that's accurate, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, tell me whether or not
there are any guidelines about the minimum open space requirements
on lots such as this.
MR. SAWYER: On individual lots like this, we really wind up
having to look at the overall PUD requirements and the open space for
the entire PUD itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that, and that's
where we're going ultimately. But the question -- and let me just state
this right up front so you understand where we're going and I'm not
taking you down a path where you can't see any light at the end of the
tunnel.
Whether or not there is substantial competent evidence to
disapprove this, Dr. Raia has, in my opinion, made some very
important points that are, perhaps, relevant to future developments and
future land code modifications or changes.
I won't dwell on this very long, but I would like to get an
understanding from you because I -- it would be my intent to make
some recommendations about that sort of thing later on.
But how -- when you deal with meeting open space requirements
by considering open space requirement open space that exists in a
remote location from the area where the building is actually being
constructed, how do you accommodate stormwater runoff if it's not
tied into the stormwater system that does use those open spaces that
are remote from the building?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski with engineering review. Could you ask that question
again. I'm not sure I understood exactly what you said, but I think it
concerns me more than Mike.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We've got this lot.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
Page 274
October 14-15, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to go build a building
on it, we're going to call it clustering, and we're not going to preserve
as much open space as we normally could because open space
requirements have been met in other locations of the PUD.
So a cloud comes over and rain comes down, stormwater drains
or falls onto this parcel, how does that remote open space that might
be a mile or two miles away help with the appropriate treatment and
discharge of stormwater runoff?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If it's within the same basin, if it goes
through the same discharge structure, the systems rise and fall because
water kind of lays level. So the water culverts work both ways. The
water that falls there will eventually work its way into the lower part
of the system.
Is that what you're asking?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not really, because these are
located right on the edge of the -- of Clam Bay. That water, I'm sure,
no doubt, is going directly from these parcels straight out into Clam
Bay without going through any settlement ponds.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There is a retention basin on the inside
of the berm that sits between those projects. If you've ever gone
through Pelican Bay, there's a raised berm there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: There's a retention area on the inside.
These systems don't discharge directly into Clam Bay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this one does, in fact, have --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It ties to an internal--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- a discharge system.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A discharge -- yes. It ties to an internal
part of the system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Even though this drawing shows a
control structure, it's technically not -- if I could say a few words, it
Page 275
October 14-15,2008
might clarify future water management comments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It probably will confuse me, but go
ahead.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I won't. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Here's my final conclusion;
I'm all finished. I believe that there is an inevitable collision of
interests between a developer and residents when we have a Growth
Management Plan or we have Land Development Codes which permit
phase development that takes place over 10 or 20 or even 30 years to
utilize clustering on an incremental basis and a phased basis.
It's unfair to the people who live in the adjacent buildings. It's
not something they had a reason to expect. And I think we will
always have a conflict when we permit that sort of thing, and I would
very much appreciate -- I cannot find any substantial competent
evidence to dispute the staff's finding on this because the rules are
sufficiently broad to be interpreted the way you've interpreted them.
But for the future, I think we would be well advised as a board to
see if we couldn't deal with that, because as time goes by, the
developer has a natural inclination to try to maximize profits as costs
go up, of course, and they do that by getting higher densities.
And it is unfair to the people who bought in these areas to have to
go through this. And I would like to suggest at some future point we
deal with that issue and see if we can't resolve it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can I go, or one of the other
commissioners go?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, yeah, go ahead, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, or maybe -- no, not Joe. In the
PUD it calls for, in this group 4, in this case of clustered buildings
with common architectural theme, the distances may be less --
provided in the site plan, and it has to be in accordance to the 2.05,
Page 276
October 14-15, 2008
which directly relates to the planning director.
So my question is, in the submittal of the site plan, do you find
this has common architectural theme?
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, we relied on -- not unlike what
we did the first time the Site Development Plan was approved for this
plan, we relied on letters from expert architects -- experts, architects,
to make that determination, and that's what we did in this case as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On those submissions, did you
disagree?
MS. ISTENES: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MS. ISTENES: We certainly reviewed them, and we did not
disagree. There is a signature entryway, unified landscaping, and
elements of the building that were unified with the existing buildings.
We did not disagree with their findings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In this approval of the Site
Development Plan, do you take a look at the density when approving a
Site Development Plan?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. The Pelican Bay PUD has a limit on the
number of dwelling units that can be constructed, and we track how
many dwelling units have been approved and built to date, and then
we ensure that any amendments or additional site development plans
don't exceed the threshold that's established by the Pelican Bay PUD
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you have a checks and
balances to make sure it doesn't exceed the threshold.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is it -- is it wrong to state that
most multifamily, more than a duplex or a triplex, has parking
underneath their structure or their -- the main structure in the coastal
area?
MS. ISTENES: In this case I don't believe there's parking under
Page 277
October 14-15, 2008
the structure, but it's common to find that, especially in multistory
buildings, yes, in the coastal high hazard area, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And -- maybe for two reasons,
one to create more open space and the other one to get above the
FEMA regulations of habitable floor space?
MS. ISTENES: Correct. I wouldn't disagree with that, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Good.
MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, may I put a couple of things
briefly on the record, please?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, and then I want to go to
Commissioner Halas.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. One thing I just want to point out -- and I
don't know that this point has really been discussed, but on tab C of
the staff's handout, specifically page 2 and 3 of the official
interpretation, just for your information -- I just wanted to give you a
brief history of that official interpretation because one of the questions
in the official interpretation has to do with clustering and the Pelican
Bay PUD and the language in the Pelican Bay PUD related to
clustering.
And the history I want to give you is, this official interpretation
actually came about as a result of a formal request by Dr. Raia for an
official interpretation, and he actually was the person who filed for the
request and asked these questions.
So we analyzed his request, and I provided him, before I
officially released the official interpretation, what I call a courtesy
copy or a draft copy before it is officially released, and shortly
thereafter Dr. Raia withdrew his request or his application for an
official interpretation.
At that point, Joe Parisi of the Parcel J Joint Venture Group filed
the -- an application for an official interpretation, paid the fee, and
asked these same questions, and the official interpretation was then
released, that being AR-13411, to Joe Parisi.
Page 278
October 14-15,2008
At that time we also notified Dr. Raia of that fact, that, in fact,
Joe Parisi had requested an official interpretation asking the same
questions, and I believe we sent him a copy of the response, but he
was duly notified.
So the response was released, the official interpretation was
released, we advertised in accordance with our Land Development
Code, we notified those property owners in accordance with the Land
Development Code, and we have received no applications for appeals.
And I call your attention to pages 2 and 3. In the middle of the
paragraph -- and I don't want to repeat them because I know you were
provided this well in advance. But in the middle of the paragraph
there's a short paragraph that defines what the request was with respect
to clustering.
And if you go to page 3, the second paragraph down, you will
find the conclusion which basically says that clustering, per the
Pelican Bay PUD, allows clustered buildings under two conditions,
and that provided a common architectural theme is employed and a
site plan is approved in accordance with 2.05, and this project has met
both of those requirements.
And lastly, I mean, the important point I want to make out --
make here is there was no appeals filed to this official interpretation;
therefore, per your Land Development Code, this is how you apply the
clustering provisions of the Pelican Bay PUD in this case.
I think that's really important because that is the proper avenue to
appeal this clustering question that keeps coming up, and none -- Dr.
Raia did not file for an appeal, so I just wanted to make that clear.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. This is a question for Stan
Chrzanowski.
Stan, is there any outstanding issues presently pending with the
South Florida Water Management District in regards to stormwater on
these two buildings?
Page 279
October 14-15, 2008
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir, not as far as I know. We have a
letter from them saying that it's been permitted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how strict is the oversight by
South Florida Water Management in regards to projects of this nature?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I imagine -- I've seen some of their
requests for additional information. They're usually very strict.
This one's a little strange, and even though I said I wouldn't --
this is an old permit, and the provisions of the permit, the same ones
that quote coverage, also have something in there that says during the
25-year five-day storm we don't use that anymore.
The proposed five systems will discharge a peak amount of 1,118
CFS. Well, that's about .77 CSF per acre, which is five times the
allowable permit we -- or the allowable discharge we have now.
So we try not to get -- as the county, we try not to get involved in
this because it's an old permit. And I don't know what they're doing as
far as totaling up how many CFS per acre they're getting, but that's
five times the discharge we presently would allow under our
ordinances. So I'd just as soon stay out of this one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm not trying to put you into
this one.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just trying to make -- make
sure that we're --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The district does a good job.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that we're clear of this and
basically South Florida Water Management has the total oversight in
regards to stormwater.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, they do, and we have a letter to
that effect. It's probably in your packet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Stan, the services division controls the
operational aspects of it.
Page 280
October 14-15,2008
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: Put that on the record.
MR. MUDD: It's there.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Joe wants me to remind you that
the services district controls the operational aspects, but that's between
them and the district. Again, we don't get involved in that as a
community development review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The final question I got--
and I don't know if Commissioner Coyle has gotten a good answer in
regards to, what's the difference between an accessory building and a
building that's attached to the main -- the main structure itself?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I may, Commissioner, I have a copy of
the ordinance that was in effect in 1977 dealing with this issue, and I'll
read it -- I'll read it into the record. And this has been carried forward
into your LDC. And then when you recodified it, it dropped out. But
as you know, things that were unintentionally dropped out still apply
in the Land Development Code.
So let me -- I'll read you the garage provisions that were in effect
in 1977.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before you do that, I think you need
to provide the proper citation. Wouldn't it be the 91-102 code?
MR. YO V AN 0 VI CH : Well, the original -- this is the 1977
zoning ordinance, which was in text when the PUD for Pelican Bay
was adopted, and it was carried forward into 91-102, which is your
Land Development Code, and then in 04 -- and I don't remember the
exact number, 04 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Forty-one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 04-41, does that sound right? It was
inadvertently dropped out, and the 04-41 code specifically said, if you
inadvertently dropped something out, you go back to 91-102 as
amended.
So this is essentially what's in 91-102 as amended.
Page 281
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it's not 90-102.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not 102?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. What you have in your hand is
not 91 --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. It's the 77 ordinance, but let me --
if I can read that for you, it -- I think it sheds some light on it. And
this is under the definition, private garage. It says, a private garage is
an accessory structure designed or used for inside parking or private
passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles or boats solely by the
occupants of the main building.
A private garage attached to or part of the main structure is to be
considered a part of the main building. An unattached private garage
is to be considered an accessory building. And that's what I think staff
is saying is, if it's unattached, it becomes an accessory building and
the percent of lot coverage applies.
But if it's part of the main building, it doesn't apply. And note
that's -- do I have that right, Susan -- and that's what was in effect in
'77 and has been carried forward to today.
MS.ISTENES: If I could just complete kind of the question,
because I want to make a couple points. I mean any -- one of the
challenges when you're trying to apply accessory structure coverage
is, first of all, how do you apply the code when you have accessory
structures such as parking underneath a building?
If the parking structure is an integral part of building, it becomes
very challenging to determine if that should only cover 5 percent of
the lot area. Same thing, for example, with a portico share. If you --
and I'll use our transportation services division building, if you're
familiar with that. When you drive up underneath, that is integrated
into the building.
When you start chopping portions of building out, whether
they're internal or external, attached or detached -- and in this case I'm
talking integral and attached -- it becomes -- it's challenging to apply
Page 282
October 14-15,2008
that provision of the code, and that's why -- and I hope I'm not adding
confusion rather than clarification.
That's why -- the reason for this staff clarification on how to
apply that lot coverage, and that is consistent -- and I have not
confirmed the 77/91 code, although I do recall that being in the '91
code -- consistent with the definition for garage here and the
distinction between attached and detached. So I just wanted to add
that.
The other thing -- the other thing to recognize, too, is when you
have parking underneath a building, you generally have less of a
parking structure somewhere else or of a need to park somewhere else,
so you have less impervious, you have less structural impact, so that's
something to think about as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, maybe I can shed a little light
on it. On your determination of -- clarification on page 4 of your
official interpretation, it says, in division 6.3, ordinance number 91- --
or 91-102, the definition of an accessory use or structure states that
where a building is attached to a principal building, it shall be
considered a part thereof and not an accessory building except
provided in division 6 -- or 2.6.
MS.ISTENES: Thank you for that reminder, Commissioner.
That is exactly consistent with what I've been -- the other two points I
made, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so we want to make
sure we have that on the record in regards to what this is, okay.
MS. ISTENES: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sounds like you know more than the
attorneys do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm not an attorney.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, at least you found the answer
for us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Proud of it, too, right?
Page 283
October 14-15, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Well-- okay.
I think you had your time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I'm just asking. I don't know if you
asked Dr. Raia if he had any cross-examination for me or my
witnesses. I just wanted to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's what I was just going to
get to. If there's no other questions on the board. And seeing none,
Dr. Raia, do you have any cross-examination of Mr. Y ovanovich,
representing the landowner, or any of his experts?
DR. RAIA: I would like to correct some statements made or add
to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to go to the mike. Are these
statements that Mr. Yovanovich made?
DR. RAIA: And Ms. Istenes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we kind of went through that
already.
DR. RAIA: Well, I thought I was permitted time to have
rebuttal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have a closing -- time for a
closing statement. Now, this time is only to cross-examine Mr.
Y ovanovich or his experts, and you will have that closing statement
before we end and go into deliberations.
DR. RAIA: But he called on her, who then called on Mike
Sawyer, so at what point can I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the board did -- the Board of
Commissioners did that. And, again, during your wrap-up --
DR. RAIA: I'll have an opportunity to do this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can say, no, that's not true, this is
what the facts are, but not at this time.
DR. RAIA: Yeah, fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any questions or any
examination of Mr. Y ovanovich or his witnesses?
Page 284
October 14-15, 2008
DR. RAIA: Well, do you accept the fact that the total is the sum
of the parts? Simple mathematic question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you could tell me what context you're
asking that question, because it may be more appropriate for someone
other than myself to answer it.
DR. RAIA: Well, you have stated that you approach the water
discharge problem on the basis of average, and in order to arrive at
that average, we have to have the parts, add them up, and come up
with the average.
Now, for years the system has been, we looked at individual
parts, and if somebody wanted to adjust that, we had to see
specifically where that was coming from; otherwise, somebody else
may claim the benefit of having less impervious someplace else.
So somewhere, to have fiduciary responsibility in the
stewardship of this water management system, there has to be
accountability .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And--
DR. RAIA: And your system just doesn't seem to allow that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's not my system. It's actually the
water management district's.
DR. RAIA: Well, you're representing somebody.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do, and the water management district
is responsible for answering that question from the average on the
basin.
Mr. Minor's the professional engineer who worked on this
specific project, but he has provided a certification as part of the
backup, which you've been provided, that looks at the basin and
provides exactly the accountability you want. If you look at that
certification, it certifies that this basin is 44 percent impervious, not --
and taking no credit for the additional water management provided on
the individual projects.
So, in fact, the sum of the parts does equal, and the water
Page 285
October 14-15, 2008
management district's responsible for that, and we have to make the
water management district comfortable with -- that those basin
requirements are met.
DR. RAIA: Well, nonetheless, our engineer looked at the project
and said it was 82 percent impervious when it's supposed to be 46
percent.
Now, wait a minute. You were notified on April 18th. We
should not be in this camera discussing this. It could have come back
and been discussed at the proper place and time.
Now, you have presented a lot of expert names, which I have
accepted, but I also want to point out, you have not presented any
expert testimony that what I say about cluster is wrong. You have
presented no expert testimony about the -- about the accessory garage.
In fact, I have to dispute that, and you're trying to show that
there's continuity, because I went on the Internet to see what the --
what it said about accessory garages, and it states very clearly,
accessory buildings shall not occupy an area greater than 5 percent of
the total lot area in all residential districts and shall include detached
and attached.
So you're trying to tell the commissioners that back in 1971, or
whenever it was, it was okay to have it attached, and now we can
interpret it as being -- if it's attached -- and, therefore, it could be
attached now.
Well, someplace in between 1970-something and 2008 somebody
said that -- and include detached and attached. That's my only
question here, but I would like to have an opportunity to -- for rebuttal
later.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. If that was a question, I'm happy
to answer a couple of things, if you don't mind.
First of all, your district engineer said that this particular project
was 81 percent, or plus or minus, impervious. You have all my notes
there, so I'm going from memory. But again, it's a basin approach. It's
Page 286
October 14-15,2008
not an individual project approach.
And the fact that the Pelican Bay Services Division engineer said
what he said indicates that he was wrong because he applied the
wrong analysis.
And if you want to go back in history, and none of these
documents, because I don't have them with me, is, he gave a different
answer earlier on. He gave an answer when he analyzed --
DR. RAIA: Excuse me. I can see this --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You can see this --
DR. RAIA: There's no need to argue this, because this is not the
-- this is not the forum -- this should have been discussed engineer to
engineer back in April. That's my point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Do you want me to answer his
questions or I'll just move on? I don't want to waste the board's time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think he wants the question --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He doesn't want an answer, okay. I won't
answer it then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the county attorney has spoke to
me and is asking me to allow Dr. Raia, if he has questions of others,
such as the zoning director, to allow that.
Do any of my colleagues have a problem with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Raia, I apologize for that.
DR. RAIA: Good exercise.
Okay. Mike Sawyer was up, and there was some question about
how much of the lot area -- how much area is now taken by the new
building, and he said it was .46-or-something acres, and a question
was then asked, does that include the garage, and he said yes.
Now, they are referring now to the original plan when you had
the St. Margo and the St. Armand's. And I just want to point out that
the new buildings are 42 percent larger and the garages are 54 percent
larger than that original plan. And really in today's market, it is not
Page 287
October 14-15,2008
how many units you have. The builder would just as soon sell his
whole building to one person. People buy square footage today. The
units are larger.
Now, if you see -- if we can go up here. The Cap d'Antibes is .46
acres. Its garage is .82 acres. That's quite a difference than saying
that it's still the same.
And if you look at the new Cote d'Azure, it's .46 acres again, but
the garage is .83 acres. I don't know how combining that garage,
attaching it to the building, makes it included in the .46 acres.
MR. KLATZKOW: Dr. Raia, this is your chance to
cross-examine staff. If you want to cross-examine Mr. Sawyer or Ms.
Istenes, this is your opportunity.
DR. RAIA: Well, this is one of the points I was raising. I have
some points that were raised by Mr. Y ovanovich, if I may include
those now or do --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think what we're trying to do,
if you have any questions of staff, you can do that, and then your
rebuttal to staff or the -- you could do that in your closing remarks.
DR. RAIA: One question for the planning director which I still
don't quite understand. I do agree with clustering in Pelican Bay in
the planned unit development and I do agree that the set aside open
space allows for not requiring common open space when you reduce
the setback; however, that is for the 320 acres expressly stated in the
planned unit development.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly that she's saying
cluster from now on. Now, it's in -- it's in the Land Development
Code, the definition of cluster. Is she changing the Land Development
Code that from now on cluster means you can reduce setbacks, you
don't have to provide the open space, and you can make the buildings
larger?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you understand the question?
MS.ISTENES: Could you repeat it?
Page 288
October 14-15, 2008
DR. RAIA: I'll try again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Without the statement though.
DR. RAIA: Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are saying
because of your official interpretations, that the definition of cluster in
the Land Development Code has now been changed? You can now, if
you have a common architectural theme, reduce the setbacks and not
provide the common open space?
MS. ISTENES: My answer was provided in the official
interpretation and my answer is related to the Pelican Bay PUD
because that's the question I was asked to analyze in the official
interpretati on.
So your -- it sounds to me you're asking me to make a general
broad statement as applicable to any project other than the Pelican
Bay PUD, and so I just wanted to qualify that my official
interpretation relates solely to the Pelican Bay PUD.
The other question -- and one point I might ask you is, you keep
referring to 302 acres or something, and to be honest with you --
DR. RAIA: Three hundred and twenty, yes.
MS.ISTENES: -- that is a figure that I have not from heard
about any of your correspondence until today, so I have no idea where
that's coming from, but -- let me finish, please.
The official interpretation clearly referenced the Land
Development Code or the provision in the Land Development Code
relative to the requirement for open space and clearly says in the case
of PUDs, if the open space has been met, then it doesn't -- the open
space requirement for clustering doesn't apply. So I just want to
clarify that.
DR. RAIA: And I want to further clarify it, because it states for
that part of the PUD that is clustered. It doesn't say that the entire
PUD is clustered. That happens to be your interpretation, which I
choose to challenge now.
I -- you're saying now that you can cluster in the Pelican Bay
Page 289
October 14-15,2008
planned unit development in spite of the definition of cluster, that
everybody can reduce their setbacks to zero and not provide the
common open space? Is that what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before you answer that, this is an --
the appeal of the Site Development Plan. This is not the appeal of the
official interpretation. That's already out the window.
DR. RAIA: I appreciate that, sir, but she is the one that raised the
issue of my having submitted an official interpretation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The official interpretation is there. It
is law and hasn't been challenged.
DR. RAIA: I mean, look, I don't accept it. But if that -- look, I
am -- I want -- unfortunately, there is no press here. I would just like
the public to appreciate how laws are changed in Collier County,
okay?
This should -- I have no objection to a -- the declarant coming up
before you and requesting this change, a bona -- fine, in the public, but
without anybody knowing, these things can transpire.
And it -- it was not too difficult to ask for an official
interpretation of a plan already on review -- under review. What kind
of interpretation is the director going to use, an unofficial
interpretation, a wrong interpretation?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Is this part of your closing
statement?
DR. RAIA: No. Did I -- that question can't be asked because
we're not dealing with official interpretation; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's correct.
DR. RAIA: Okay, fine, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any other questions of
Susan?
DR. RAIA: No. I had something with Mr. Yovanovich, if that
could be permissible now, or I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I thought you were complete.
Page 290
October 14-15,2008
Are you complete with our staff?
DR. RAIA: I don't think I have any more questions of her unless
she makes another statement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think she's done.
DR. RAIA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead, Doctor.
DR. RAIA: Okay. He alluded to a couple of things. One, he
said a settlement was made over the lawsuit that they lost, and that is
not true. A settlement should have been made before the judge
decided the case. They lost the case in the circuit appeals, and then
they lost it in -- at the appellate level.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your question for Mr.
Y ovanovich is?
DR. RAIA: I am correcting a statement he made, and he can
have a chance to too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need to do that in your closing
remarks, sir.
DR. RAIA: What settlement are you referring to?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sir, I'm referring to the same settlement
that the three individuals responded to Commissioner Halas regarding
after the lawsuit was resolved, negotiations, and a resolution to all of
these issues occurred, and you heard from three members of the --
three of the parties say, yes, there was a settlement and that they
signed these letters. That's what I'm referring to.
DR. RAIA: But that settlement had nothing to do with the
lawsuit that you lost.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I disagree with you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do you have any other
questions --
DR. RAIA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- of him?
DR. RAIA: I'll address this issue when I have rebuttal then.
Page 291
October 14-15, 2008
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can we go to public speakers,
and three minutes for each speaker, and assuming that everybody was
.
sworn In.
MS. FILSON: I believe they were, but we ask then if they come
up. Jim Happensteadt (sic).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jim Hoppen --
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: He's going to waive.
MS. FILSON: Vito Suziedelis. He'll be followed by Leonor
Macchi.
MS. MACCHI: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So then he's your only speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Sir, were you sworn in at the beginning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He was.
MR. MUDD: He's already said that.
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Well, as I mentioned earlier, my name is
Vito Suziedelis. I live at St. Laurent and I'm the president of St.
Laurent and also director of Waterpark.
By way of my experience, I'm a retired professional engineer,
had 35 years of industrial construction experience.
On behalf of the owners of St. Pierre and St. Laurent, we have a
very strong interest in having this project completed. We would like
to see Waterpark completed. These are the last two buildings in
Pelican Bay to be erected.
And right now we share with Gulf Bay the cost of operating the
village; in other words, St. Pierre, St. Laurent, and Gulf Bay share the
cost. Eventually, we will be the owners and -- together with the new
owners of Cap d'Antibes and Cote d'Azure, the owners and operators
of that site.
And I have a high regard for Dr. Raia and his interest in Pelican
Bay, but I believe in this particular argument he's overstepped the
Page 292
October 14-15,2008
boundaries of reasonable argument going back to approvals and
layouts and discussions, technical, going back to 1992 or thereabouts.
St. Pierre was erected in '97 -- I'm sorry, '94. St. Laurent in '97.
So we're going back some years into the history here.
And what we are interested in as owners of the two existing
buildings, we are interested in seeing the layout that was approved in
1994, which showed four separate buildings, essentially what is
presented now by Gulf Bay.
Now, we keep referring to the earlier concept of Cap d'Antibes,
which had a very large building, and there were objections from our
owners as well as Pelican Bay Foundation, and that resulted in
litigation, and the Court decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
Now, I commend Gulf Bay in going back and redesigning the
buildings along the lines of the original layout. Now we're looking at
four separate buildings, and I think that rendering, the aerial rendering
of the site, including the two proposed buildings, shows the similarity
of the size and the shape and architectural appearance. So from that
standpoint, we would like to see that project done.
Just like to touch a little bit on the questions that Commissioner
Coin ( sic) has expressed --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to wrap it up, sir.
MR. SUZIEDELIS: -- with regard to space that the garages or
parking spaces occupy. The new Cap d'Antibes building has a garage
that is larger than the St. Laurent garage, as was indicated, maybe by
40 or 45 percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, you have to wrap up your
comments. Your time is up.
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Okay. Well, I'll -- could I just take another
30 seconds?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MR. SUZIEDELIS: Okay. It's 156 units -- 156 spaces versus
164 that we have in the St. Laurent. Our spaces are actually 50 percent
Page 293
October 14-15,2008
of -- 50 spaces are outside. So actually what Cap d'Antibes has, has a
more compact parking arrangement with the total space actually less
than St. Laurent.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Closing statements starting with -- I'm sorry. Mr. Klatzkow, can
you help me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Dr. Raia.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Dr. Raia, you have 10 minutes on
your closing remarks.
DR. RAIA: Well, at this point, it's a little difficult to close this
issue. It appears a decision has been made by the board, at least from
the questions being asked.
But many citizens -- and that's why I'm here -- do feel, as I do,
that the cluster -- the interpretation of cluster was rendered years after
the developers were reducing setbacks getting away with it by not
reducing setbacks against the county, because we would have known
about that.
And now, 10 years later, 15 years later, passing a law saying it
was okay for everything they did then, and I -- you know, and I'm not
a businessman, I'm not a lawyer. I look at something like that. To me,
it's just basically wrong.
I still -- in my reading of the problem with the -- with the
attached garages, to me it clearly states shall. Somehow or other, that
has no meaning anymore.
The problem with the garages and the area and the 82 percent, I
still differ with that, and we will resolve that outside this room. But
Mr. Sawyer said, well, listen, you can have either those garages or a
parking space, and we elected to have garage -- well, the fact is -- and
this was also mentioned -- the third choice is, you put the garages
under the buildings. That's what all other developers have done right
up and down the entire Pelican Bay Boulevard.
Page 294
October 14-15,2008
This particular developer decided to maximize sales and put --
and use the space he had to put the garages outside.
A little comment, you know, we have letters from Mr.
Hoppensteadt -- is he still here -- and other people. Nobody addressed
how those letters originated -- originated. They didn't run up to Gulf
Bay and say, look here. Here's my letter.
What happened after -- remember, the county right now is--
states the original Cap d'Antibes, the 650-foot building can be built.
The county has no objection to it being built. It lost because of a
violation of the deeded covenants.
Now, a settlement could have been made at any time for that
case. The developer fought that case right up to the appellate court.
Either you make the settlement before you go into the court, but once
the case is settled, it's settled. It's over.
What happened, Gulf Bay had two more lawsuits against the
Pelican Bay Foundation, and they offered the Pelican Foundation
( sic), look, if you approve and support this plan, we will drop those
two lawsuits against you. There were some other goodies thrown in,
but essentially those are the big ones.
Now, you know these lawsuits can be quite expensive. That was
a very expensive litigation -- pending litigation for the foundation.
They made a business decision and agreed to write these letters.
And if you look at the three letters, they're almost identical in
form and wording. So it is my impression that they were probably
written by the attorney for Gulf Bay and signed. So I -- it's not
completely free will that that -- this support approval.
I t also completely neutralized any further opposition. Why am I
here alone, a person who's been active in the community? Because if
Gulf Bay, if Pelican Bay Foundation steps to this podium and supports
anything I say, they're going to get sued again. Unfortunately, this is
the environment we live. I don't like it.
Well, I don't have any other comment to make. I am -- I was
Page 295
October 14-15, 2008
hoping that we would resolve these festering problems and improve
the government in Collier County.
To say that you've got to do something so that 10, 15 years from
now it's going to be better, I can assure you it's not. Ten, 15 years
from now, they're going to look at you as having passed a PUD or
other ordinance and say, oh, we don't do that now. That wouldn't
happen today.
I think the people who sat in those chairs in 1977 produced an
exemplary document. It was torn to pieces by a staff who works very
closely with the developers.
My position here is the battle of two against one, but I take it
gladly because there is an important point to be made here.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next?
MR. KLATZKOW: See if staff has any closing comment.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I'll just take a moment. Again,
for the record, Joe Schmitt.
I truly respect Dr. Raia's tenacity in this, and certainly it speaks
well, I think, for local government that a citizen can appeal to his
county commissioners based on a staff review, and certainly we did
that, and I think today provided an opportunity for him to present his
position to you.
I just will conclude that we, again, recommend that the Board of
Zoning Appeals uphold the staff review and approval and find it
consistent with the site -- that the Site Development Plan was
consistent with the application of the Land Development Code and the
PUD.
Staff reviewed it, and based on the criteria and the design
standards in both the PUD and LDC -- that's what we have, that's what
we applied, and that's what we did.
Subject to your questions, again, our conclusion is we
recommend that you support the staff position.
Page 296
October 14-15, 2008
MS. MACCHI: May I approach--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MS. MACCHI: -- as a personal privilege, as a point of personal
privilege?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, we had -- public comments is
done and gone now. I'm sorry.
MS. MACCHI: The reputation of the residents --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am?
MS. MACCHI: -- of the board has to be impugned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, I'm going to have to ask you
to leave if you don't sit down and be quiet.
Mr. Y ovanovich, you have 10 minutes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think I need 10 minutes. I just
want to say that the -- as you've heard through the testimony of Dr.
Raia, or the lack of testimony of any experts, that there was really no
basis for his appeal. He has his -- he paid his thousand dollars, he had
his opportunity to continue arguing a point that I think you could see
from some of the reaction of people who have participated in this
process of reaching resolution don't appreciate how he's characterized
how that was resolved.
It was a good process in place where affected parties got
together, resolved this in a manner that the community supports. Dr.
Raia has provided no testimony contradicting what your staff has
determined or that we have provided as far as competent substantial
evidence.
He's never challenged the official interpretation. Those issues
were resolved. He's provided really no analysis of the Site
Development Plan itself, and your staffs interpretation of the code is
the correct interpretation of the code. It's been correctly applied all
these years, and I think that Pelican Bay probably is an example to a
lot of people around the country and probably around the world as a
very nice, very high-end community.
Page 297
October 14-15, 2008
And to characterize how your staff has interpreted this ordinance
to imply anything else, I think, is unfair to your staff and unfair to the
individuals who worked to resolve this issue and have signed those
letters based upon their belief that this is good for the Pelican Bay
community .
We would ask that you support your staff and uphold their
approval of the SDP and deny Dr. Raia's appeal.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. I believe that we have
gone through a lot of things that was rehashed a few years ago.
Bottom line, the developer has property rights. The developer has a
right to develop this piece of property.
I believe the developer has gone above and beyond the call of
duty in regards to making sure that the present plan basically conforms
to the wishes of the people in Pelican Bay. And as I asked those
people who are present today that are presidents of condominium
associations, said that they are in agreement with the present plans.
All I can say is that Mr. Raia, or Dr. Raia, obviously is not very
satisfied. So he's got the option here of going out and purchasing this
land, and then you can do what you well please with the property.
We're not going to get ourselves in another Bert Harris claim.
We've gone through litigation when it was brought before us before.
We were basically hauled into the -- into this fracas, and I feel that our
staff has basically looked at this in all aspects.
I've talked to a number of people, as I stated in the opening
statements, of people that I talked with in regards to this.
I've read the majority of the material that's placed in front of us,
and I'm going to make a motion that we agree with staffs
interpretation of INTP-2008-AR-13411.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas and
Page 298
October 14-15,2008
second by Commissioner Fiala to deny the appeal and approve the
staff s --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Interpretation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- interpretation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Official interpretation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The site plan.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, it wasn't the interpretation. I
just want to make sure the record's clear. This is an appeal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appeal to the site plan. Staffs --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: SDP-AR-12644, excuse me.
MR. SCHMITT: I'll note for the record, Commissioner. It's on
the executive summary. ADA-2008-AR-13529, which is Ted J. Raia
requesting an administrative appeal of the previously approved SDP
amendment, AR-12644.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we can put also the
interpretation in there also on record, the official interpretation.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though it wasn't challenged.
MR. SCHMITT: Part of the record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have something I think is very
substantial, what Commissioner Halas is saying. Well, actually it
maybe cleared up some of the concerns about the process of Site
Development Plan in this case of the Pelican Bay PUD where it calls
for clustering and it allows the zoning director to approve smaller
setbacks in accordance to 2.05 of the PUD document.
Back when this was approved in 1977, there was a zoning
document, which was 76-30. In that process, Site Development Plans
were submitted to the Planning Commission for their approval. That
Page 299
October 14-15,2008
is why this language is in there.
That language, 2.05 in the PUD document which allows the
zoning director to do certain things, is still in the PUD document, but
the process through our Land Development Code for a long period of
time, we don't -- the Planning Commission doesn't approve site
development plans, and nor they have time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is -- it is the PUD document that
allows that. I was concerned about staffs -- make sure that staff did
not delegate their authority to the developer or their experts on
common architectural theme.
The zoning director assured me that staff did review that and has
agreed that it fits the architectural theme under the Land Development
Code, which was there in 1991, and many other PUD documents have
that language about common architectural theme.
They did the process correctly to approve this Site Development
Plan, and it's my feeling that they -- our staffwas -- went through
several iterations or probably had concerns since this is a high profile
Site Development Plan, that they spent the time on it to do it correctly.
And I don't have the experts and I don't see anybody giving
testimony that they have not done it correctly.
So with that, I support the motion.
Any other discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 300
October 14-15,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, and now that you've rendered a
decision -- I was going to say something earlier, but I didn't want to
prejudice the board.
Dr. Raia opened up by saying that I told him he should not see
the Board of Commissioners on this. That wasn't true.
I met Dr. Raia in my office. I went through the procedure with
him. I gave him copies of all the materials I had, explained to him
what he could expect.
He asked me ifhe could see you, and I said, it's every
constituent's ability to see their commissioner if the commissioner
wants to see them.
He then asked me, do you think I could sway them? What I told
him and what I tell everybody is that this Board of Commissioners is
going to sit in a quasijudicial capacity, they're going to hear the
evidence before them, and that's what they're going to rule on. You
want to talk to them beforehand, you've got that right. I don't think it
makes any difference. And I just wanted to clear the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, is there anything
other else before I ask for a motion?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I have no other additional items for this
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
Page 301
October 14-15,2008
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
* * * *Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * *
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2008-296: 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- AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2008-297: A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES, RECOMMENDING
THAT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF TOURISM, TRADE AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPROVE MILANO SERIES
INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS, LTD. AS A QUALIFIED
TARGET INDUSTRY BUSINESS, CONFIRMING THAT THE
COMMITMENTS OF LOCAL FINANCING NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THIS TARGET INDUSTRY ARE IN PLACE, AND
APPROPRIATING A TOTAL OF $16,000 AS LOCAL
PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY
Page 302
October 14-15,2008
TAX REFUND PROGRAM (QTI) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012-
2017 - FOR THE PROPOSED CREATION OF TWENTY (20)
NEW JOBS IN COLLIER COUNTY BY SEPTEMBER 30,2012
Item #16A3
AN APPLICATION BY MILANO SERIES INTERNATIONAL
PRODUCTS LTD., FOR THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS PROGRAM
- ELIGIBLE FOR $20,000 IN JOB CREATION FUNDS TO BE
P AID OVER THREE (3) YEARS AFTER THE JOBS HAVE BEEN
CREATED AND VERIFIED
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA PHASE FOUR,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2008-298: PROHIBITING THE OPERATION OF
TRUCKS AND OTHER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES HAVING A
RATED LOAD-CARRYING CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF ONE (1)
TON FROM THROUGH-MOVEMENTS ON OAKS BOULEVARD
AT A COST OF $200 - FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE TWO
NECESSARY "NO THROUGH TRUCKS OVER ONE TON"
SIGNS
Item # 16B2 - Moved to Item # 1 01
Page 303
October 14-15,2008
Item #16B3
AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BONNESS, INC.
FOR RADIO ROAD (C.R. 858) MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS
FROM KINGS WAY TO TINA LANE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$516,505.46, BID #08-5116, PROJECT #66065
Item #16B4
RESOLUTION 2008-299: AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT
INCREASE FROM 35 MPH TO 45 MPH ON GOODLETTE
FRANK ROAD FOR THE NORTHBOUND SECTION FROM
ONE-HALF MILE SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD TO PINE
RIDGE ROAD - FOR A UNIFORM SPEED ZONE ALONG THE
ENTIRE ROADWAY BY ELIMINATING UNECESSARY SPEED
ZONE CHANGES, AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $100 TO
INSTALL THE NECESSARY SPEED LIMIT SIGN
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2008-300: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO ACCEPT BICYCLES AND A
DEMONSTRATION TRAILER, WHICH SHALL SOLELY BE
USED WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY CONSISTENT WITH THE
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM GOALS AND
GUIDELINES - PROVIDING BICYCLE-USE AWARENESS AND
EDUCATION TO STUDENTS THROUGHOUT COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16B6
Page 304
October 14-15,2008
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
MCDONALDS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD A/K/A CR 846 FROM
US 41 TO 1-75 WITH TWO (2) ROADWAY RECOGNITION
SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $150.00
Item #16B7
ADOPT -A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE
CHROME DIVA'S MOTORCYCLE CLUB FOR THE ROAD
SEGMENT WEBER BOULEVARD NORTH WITH TWO (2)
ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF
$150.00
Item #16B8
AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A DRAINAGE ACCESS
AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR THE
BA YSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #511341- AT AN ESTIMATED
FISCAL IMP ACT OF $54,030.00 - FOR A 0.379 ACRE
EASEMENT USED FOR THE LAKE KELLY DRAINAGE
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN EAST NAPLES
Item #16B9
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE
HAMILTON HARBOR YACHT CLUB FOR A SEGMENT OF
ROADWAY KNOWN AS FERN, BAY AND DANFORD
STREETS WITH NO FISCAL IMPACT FOR ROADWAY
RECOGNITION SIGNAGE INVOLVED
Page 305
October 14-15,2008
Item #16B10
TWO I-YEAR TRAFFIC RESERVATION EXTENSIONS
ASSOCIA TED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE TRAFFIC
IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED WITH THE CIRRUS
POINTE SDP AR #10427 - FOR AN EXTENSION THROUGH
FEBRUARY 28,2010
Item #16Bll
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE REVENUE
RECIEVED FROM THE FY2007 5309 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$238,000 - WILL BE USED FOR FUEL TANKS AT THE
FUTURE FUELING FACILITY LOCATED AT THE NEW CAT
ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS CENTER
Item #16B12
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE AN
EXCEPTION TO THE CURRENT HIRING FREEZE POLICY TO
AUTHORIZE THE STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT SECTION
OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
(TRANSPORTATION DIVISION) TO ADVERTISE FOR AND
REPLACE A VACATED ESSENTIAL PROJECT MANAGER
POSITION - FOR AN AMOUNT OF $81,800 TO COVER
SALARY AND BENEFITS
Item #16B13
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REJECT ALL BIDS
RECEIVED FOR BID #08-5040 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
Page 306
October 14-15, 2008
THE OLD US 41 STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS - STAFF
BELIEVES A MORE COMPETATIVE BID CAN BE ACHIEVED
AND WILL SOLICIT A FY 09 BID
Item #16Cl
AWARD BID #08-5098 FOR THE FURNISHING AND
DELIVERY OF MEMBRANE SCALE INHIBITOR TO
AMERICAN WATER CHEMICALS IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $150,000 - ONE OF THE CHEMICALS USED FOR
TREATING RAW WATER AND CONVERTING IT INTO
POTABLE WATER
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $86,434 TO REIMBURSE THE COLLIER
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF CASING CROSSINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE RELIABILITY WELLS PROJECT #71062
Item # 16C3
RESOLUTION 2008-301: APPROVING A FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) STANDARD
FORM UTILITY WORK AGREEMENT AND A FDOT
STANDARD FORM UTILITY WORK BY HIGHWAY
CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT REGARDING COLLIER
COUNTY RELOCATING ITS UTILITY FACILITIES
NECESSITATED BY FDOT REPLACING THE V ANDERBIL T
DRIVE (CR 901) BRIDGE OVER THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER,
PROJECTS #70045 AND #73045 AND AUTHORIZING THE
Page 307
October 14-15,2008
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS ($34,500) -
INCLUDES THE RELOACTION OF A WATER MAIN AND THE
ADJUSTMENT OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Item #16Dl
METLIFE FOUNDATION/SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
COMMUNITY GRANT AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PUBLIC PROGRAM RELATED
TO BEYOND BASEBALL: THE LIFE OF ROBERTO
CLEMENTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200.00 AND APPROVE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR
IMMOKALEE FOURTH GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN TO VISIT
THE EXHIBIT HELD AT THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL
PARK/EXHIBIT HALL FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2008 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31,2008
Item #16D2
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
181, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item # 16D3
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
Page 308
October 14-15, 2008
182, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
183, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
184, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D6
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT
185, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D7
Page 309
October 14-15, 2008
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
186, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D8
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
187, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D9
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
188, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16DI0
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
189, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Page 310
October 14-15, 2008
Item #16D11
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
190, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D12
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
191, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D13
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
192, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D14
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
Page 311
October 14-15,2008
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
193, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D15
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
194, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $22,325.96 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D16
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $400,000.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO
THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE CORPORATION OF SW
FLORIDA FOR INSTALLATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON A
14 ACRE SITE (ESPERANZA PLACE) IN IMMOKALEE, FL-
WILL BE SOLD TO APPROXIMATELY 60 FAMILIES (235
PERSONS) EARNING 80% OR LESS OF MEDIAN FAMILY
INCOME
Item #16D17
AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,050 TO BE USED
AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MATCH FOR STATE AND
FEDERAL FUNDING TO OPERATE THE HORIZONS PRIMARY
CARE CENTER- TO ENHANCE ADULT, PEDIATRIC AND
FAMILY HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR LOW-INCOME
Page 312
October 14-15, 2008
INDIVIDUALS THROUGH SPECIAL MEDICAID PAYMENTS
Item #16D18
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $30,000.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO
IMMOKALEE NON-PROFIT, INC. FOR A FACILITY
MANAGER FOR IMMOKALEE NON-PROFIT HOUSING, INC. -
TO P ARTIALL Y FUND A NEW POSITION AT THE TIMBER
RIDGE RECREATIONAL FACILITY IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D19
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $33,217.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) OPERATING
GRANT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CCHDC) TO ASSIST A
COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION
(CHDO)WITH THEIR OPERATIONS OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR VERY LOW AND LOW
INCOME FAMILIES THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY -
PROVIDING AN ARRAY OF SERVICES IN LOW INCOME
NEIGHBORHOODS
Item #16D20
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $99,653.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO
THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE CORPORATION OF SW
FLORIDA FOR ACQUISITION OF A SIX ACRE PARCEL IN
IMMOKALEE, FL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWENTY-
Page 313
October 14-15,2008
EIGHT (28) SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES (ESPERANZA PLACE)
THAT WILL BE SOLD TO FAMILIES EARNING 80% OR LESS
OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME (APPROXIMATELY 235
PERSONS WILL BENEFIT - FUNDS ARE USED FOR THE
PURCHASE OF THE LAND AND FOR APPRAISAL AND
CLOSING COSTS
Item #16D21
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $94,007.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) EMERGENCY
SHELTER GRANT (ESG) TO ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE, INC. TO
PROVIDE EMERGENCY SHELTERING, TEMPORARY
HOUSING AND DIRECT SERVICES FOR THE HOMELESS OF
COLLIER COUNTY AND TO ASSIST WITH THE EMPLOYEE
SALARIES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ST.
MATTHEWS HOUSE FACILITY
Item #16D22 - Moved to Item #10J
Item #16D23
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $246,000.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO
LANEMARK INVESTMENTS, INC. WHO WILL UNDERTAKE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIRTY-SIX
(36) AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS KNOWN
AS THE TOWNHOMES AT ESPERANZA WHICH WILL BE
LOCATED ON MYRTLE LANE, NAPLES, FL - TARGETING
HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 80% OR LESS OF THE AREA
MEDIAN INCOME
Page 314
October 14-15,2008
Item #16D24
AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED SUB-
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
FOR BOAT DOCK IMPROVEMENTS AND USAGE OF THE
CAXAMBAS BOAT DOCK MARINA - LOCATED AT 909
COLLIER COURT, MARCO ISLAND FOR THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND'S FIRE RESCUE AND POLICE VESSEL UNIT
Item # 16D25
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND
APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT FUNDING
FOR THE FY08-09 PROGRAM YEAR IN THE AMOUNT OF
$827,715 - FUNDING THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS
PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR A CONTRACT
PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2009
Item #16D26
AN AGREEMENT WITH FINANCIAL MARKETING
CONCEPTS, INC. FOR THE PRODUCTION AND
DISTRIBUTION OF A DISCOUNT PHARMACY CARD FOR
RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D27
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $100,000.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO
Page 315
October 14-15, 2008
YOUTH HAVEN, INC. TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE AND
INTERVENTION SERVICES FOR AT-RISK FAMILIES WITH
YOUNG CHILDREN WHO ARE RECENTLY HOMELESS OR
AT-RISK OF BECOMING HOMELESS - ASSISTING
APPROXIMA TEL Y SIXTY FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AGED
ELEVEN (11) YEARS AND UNDER; FOCUSING ON
TEACHING LIFE SKILLS, BUDGET PREPARATION AND
PARENTING SKILLS
Item #16D28
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $25,000.00
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) GRANT TO
FUN TIME EARLY CHILDHOOD ACADEMY, INC. FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF ITS CURRENT BUILDING, AND THE
RETURN OF THE PRESENT SITE TO ITS ORIGINAL
CONDITION - LOCATED IN THE RIVER PARK COMMUNITY
AT 1010 5TH AVENUE NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16D29
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY09, INCLUDING THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS APPROVED, THE TOTAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED AND THE BALANCE
REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL DEFERRALS IN FY09 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16El
AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH JOHNS EASTERN
COMPANY FOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CLAIMS
Page 316
October 14-15, 2008
ADJUSTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,000 - FOR
THE CONTRACT PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1,2008 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30,2010
Item #16E2
RE-ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT NO. 06-3959; ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR ANAL YTICAL LABORATORY SERVICES
FOR COLLIER COUNTY FROM ELAB INC. TO PACE
ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC. AND TO RELEASE ELAB, INC.
FROM LIABILITY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
BOARDS CONSENT - DUE TO THE ACQUISITION OF ELAB,
INC. BY PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.
Item #16E3
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 20, 2008
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
Item #16Fl
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT #401818G563 AND AN
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,460 FOR
THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND PROTECTIVE
CLOTHING FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT,
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - CRUCIAL FOR WILD
LAND FIRE FIGHTING AND NECESSARY FOR THE DISTRICT
Page 31 7
October 14-15,2008
TO CONTINUE NFP A STANDARDS OF PROTECTION
Item #16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT #08-544 - FOR AN INCREASE IN THE
CONTRACT AMOUNT WITH THE DIVISION OF FORRESTRY
IN THE AMOUNT $16,100.00
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2008-302: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT REDUCING THE BUDGETED
TRANSFER TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD BY $60,000 IN
THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET - THE CLERK
OR CLERK'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL NO LONGER ATTEND
THE BOARD MEETING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY
Item #16Gl
PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT IN
THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART OF A CRA
RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; TO APPROVE PAYMENT
FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A
PAYMENT FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
CRA FUND 187 IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 PLUS COST AND
EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT
Page 318
October 14-15,2008
PROPERTY - LOCATED AT 3258 LUNAR ST.
Item #16G2
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $7676.00
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2737 SHOREVIEW DRIVE
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER HENNING
ATTENDED SHERIFF DON HUNTER'S RETIREMENT PARTY
ON OCTOBER 4, 2008; $45.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT
THE HILTON HOTEL, 511 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COYLE ATTENDED SHERIFF
DON HUNTER'S RETIREMENT PARTY ON OCTOBER 4,2008;
$45.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COYLE'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE HILTON HOTEL, 511
TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H3
Page 319
October 14-15,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER FIALA ATTENDED SHERIFF DON
HUNTER'S RETIREMENT PARTY ON OCTOBER 4, 2008;
$45.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - HELD AT THE HILTON HOTEL, 511 T AMI AMI
TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
TO ATTEND A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER HALAS WILL BE ATTENDING
THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
ADVISORY BOARD RECEPTION ON OCTOBER 30,2008 AT
THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
4760 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, SUITE 7, NAPLES
Item #161
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 320
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 14, 2008
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management
District:
Minutes of June 17,2008.
2) Immokalee Fire Control District:
FY09 Meeting Schedule; District Map.
3) Tuscany Reserve Community Development District:
FY09 Meeting Schedule; District Map.
4) North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District:
Annual Financial Report ending 09/30/2007; District Audit for FY
ending 09/30/2007; District Map; Registered office and agent
form; Schedule of meetings FY 08/09; Public Facilities Report;
Five Year Strategic Plan; Resolution 08-035 Final Millage Rate;
Resolution 08-036 Final Impact Fee Rate; Resolution 08-037 Final
Budget FY 08-09; Resolution 08-038 Final Budget for Impact Fee
Fund; Budgets FY 08-09 for: General Fund, Impact Fee Fund, and
Inspection Fee Fund.
5) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District:
FY 08-09 Regular Board Meeting Schedule.
B. Minutes:
1 ) Airport Authority:
Minutes of May 12,2008; June 9, 2008.
2) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of August 5, 2008.
3) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of August 20, 2008.
Minutes of August 20, 2008.
4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of January 11, 2007.
5) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of July 31, 2008.
6) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of September 18,2008.
Minutes of July 17,2008; July 30,2008 LDC Meeting.
7) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of August 20, 2008.
8) County Government Productivity Committee:
Minutes of June 18, 2008.
9) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of August 6, 2008.
10) East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public
Participation Master Plan Committee:
Minutes of July 21, 2008.
11) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of September 10, 2008.
Minutes of July 9, 2008.
12) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of August 4, 2008.
Minutes of August 4, 2008.
13) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of July 28, 2008.
Minutes of May 28, 2008; June 25, 2008; July 23, 2008.
14) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Agenda of July 3, 2008.
Minutes of June 5, 2008; July 3, 2008.
15) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of June 9, 2008; July 14,2008.
16) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of August 21, 2008.
Minutes of June 19,2008; July 17,2008.
17) Library Advisory Board:
Agenda of April 25, 2007; May 24,2007; August 19,2008;
September 16, 2008.
Minutes of January 31. 2007; February 28,2007; March 21,2007;
April 25, 2007; June 27,2007 Regular Meeting; June 27, 2007
Annual Meeting; January 23, 2008; April 23, 2008; May 28,2008
Regular Meeting; May 28, 2008 Annual Meeting.
18) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of August 20, 2008.
19) Public Vehicle Advisory Committee:
Minutes of July 14,2008.
20) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of September 2, 2008.
C. Other:
1) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council Sub-Committee and
Productivity Committee Sub-Committee:
Minutes of July 3,2008; August 8, 2008; August 28, 2008.
2) Special Magistrate of the Code Enforcement:
Minutes of August 15, 2008; September 5, 2008.
3) Negotiations for the Annexation of the Senior Care Development Site:
Minutes of September 5, 2008.
October 14-15, 2008
Item #16Jl
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 13,2008
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 19,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2008
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
THROUGH OCTOBER 3, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED CASIMIR BATOR V. COLLIER COUNTY,
CASE NO. 07-0065-CA. (FISCAL IMPACT $20,491.00)
Item #16K2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY SERVICES MEDICAL CONSULTANT
CONTRACT WHICH AMENDS THE AGREEMENT BY HAVING
DR. TOBER REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE SAME AND AUTHORIZES USE OF NEW
Page 321
October 14-15,2008
LETTERHEAD - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K3
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE
BID ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY AT A CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIEN FORECLOSURE SALE SCHEDULED BY
THE CLERK IN THE LAWSUIT TITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL, CIRCUITCOURT
CASE NO. 06-1902-CA, NOT TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE
COUNTY'S FORECLOSED LIEN INTEREST OF
APPROXIMATELY $180,000 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3175 AND 3176 KAREN DRIVE, NAPLES - FOR A PUBLIC
SALE WHICH WILL BE HELD OCTOBER 27,2008 ON THE
SIXTH FLOOR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2008-303: PETITION A VPLAT-2008-AR-13356,
PELICAN BAY COMMUNITY CENTER, TO DISCLAIM,
RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN THE DEDICATION OF THE UPLAND
CONSERVATION AREA DESIGNATED AS TRACT 1 TO
PELICAN FOUNDATION OF NAPLES, INC., ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF OF PELICAN BAY UNIT SIXTEEN
PARCEL B, REPLAT, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 22, PAGE 22
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SITUATED IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND SPECIFICALLY
DEPICTED AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A.
Page 322
October 14-15, 2008
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2008-54: PETITION PUDA-2008-AR-13063,
SILVER LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC., REPRESENTED BY DWIGHT
NADEAU OF RWA CONSULTING, INC. REQUEST A PUD
AMENDMENT TO THE SILVER LAKES PUD (ORDINANCE
NO. 2005-14) TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE FOR
SPECIFIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE 146-ACRE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED APPROXIMA TEL Y ONE
AND A HALF MILES SOUTH OF THE TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41)
AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) INTERSECTION IN
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2008-304: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET ($8,510,012.77)
Page 323
October 14-15,2008
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:53 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DIST CTS UNDER ITS
d~
TOM HENNING, C
ATTEST:
DWIGHTIi.cBRQCK, CLERK
~,,-.., _.. ...... . . .
~; ..~~ ~~Jfh'O('
AtUU"O to ClIat-rtl4n \
,10llati/l'" ~I .
These minutes approved by the Board on ~, as presented
" or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 324