BCC Minutes 12/02-03/2008 R
December 2-3,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 2-3,2008
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 Coyle
Frank Halas (absent on 12/3/08)
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
December 2, 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."
December 2, 2008
Page 1
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor J. R. Pagan, International Worship Center
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. October 22,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special
Magistrate Scott Watson
C. October 24,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special
Magistrate Mark Pelletier
D. October 28, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. October 30, 2008 - BCC/LDC Meeting
F. November 3,2008 - BCC/AUIR Meeting
December 2, 2008
Page 2
G. November 5,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Meeting with Special
Magistrate Mark Pelletier
H. November 7, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with Special
Magistrate Davia Mazur
I. November 10,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation endorsing and supporting the activities of the Economic
Development Council's Project Innovation. To be accepted by Tammie
Nemecek, Bill O'Neill, Chris Doyle, Dolph Von Arx and Representative
Tom Grady.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by David Schimmel to discuss donation of County
Property at 425 1st Street North, Immokalee, FL.
B. Public petition request by Jim Dishinger to discuss main gate access at
Forest Glen.
C. Public petition request by Juan Barrera to discuss After The Fact Fee on
Permit #2008060365.
D. This item continued from the November 18,2008 BCC Meeting. Public
petition request by Jamesdon Stevens to discuss bid process for Solicitation
Number 08-5123.
E. Public petition request by Aisling Swift to discuss vegetation buffer between
New Hope Ministries, Briar Landings, Lake Pointe Condominiums and The
Enclave.
December 2, 2008
Page 3
F. Public petition request by Antonia Soto to discuss migrant worker transport
bus parking.
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 reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. SV-2008-AR-13374
Naples Grande Beach Resort, represented by Hunter Hansen, requesting
seven variances. The first six Variances are from the Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C.!., which requires a minimum separation of
1,000 lineal feet between signs, to allow a sign separation of 66 feet, 40 feet,
156 feet, 66 feet,71 feet, and 96 feet. The seventh Variance is from LDC
Section 5.06.04 C.l., which permits a maximum of two pole signs per street
frontage, to permit a maximum of four signs along a street frontage. The
subject property is located at 475 Seagate Drive, in Section 9, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. SV-2008-AR-13395
Immokalee- Wood, LLC, represented by Michael R. Fernandez of Planning
Development, Inc., is requesting a variance from the Land Development
Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C.l. to reduce the minimum separation of
1,000 lineal feet between signs to allow a sign separation of 276 feet. The
subject property is located at 2600 Immokalee Road, Section 25, Township
48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
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. ADA-2008-AR-13731 (AC) Monte Carlo Club
Condominium Association, Inc., represented by Quin L. Kurth of Turrell,
Hall and Associates, Inc., requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning
Appeals ofa decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in
Resolution No. 08-03 denying Petition BD-2006-AR-906l that requested a
15-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as
provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 35-
foot boat dock facility accommodating 20 additional boat slips for property
described as Lots I and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll Point Unit 2
Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
December 2, 2008
Page 4
County, Florida (part of the Monte Carlo Club Condominium).
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
C. This item to be heard at 11:30 a.m. To reconsider the Board of County
Commissioners direction for the EAC and the CCPC to hold a joint
workshop to hear the RLSA Phase II report.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the November 18.2008 BCC Meetinl!.
Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an annual
update and comparison of the local area housing market and the status of
current affordable housing programs, funding amounts and assistance
strategies. (Marcy Krumbine, Housing and Human Services Director)
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation ofland
and easements necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and
utility improvements required for the expansion of Collier Boulevard from
four lanes to six lanes from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard,
including portions east on White Boulevard and west on Pine Ridge Road
(Project No. 6S056). Estimated fiscal impact: $13,052,361. (Norman Feder,
Transportation Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposal regarding the Executive Manager to the BCC. (Jim Mudd, County
Manager)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners determine the
Fiscal Year 2009 capital projects to be programmed based on the $1 ,S03,392
turnback revenue allocated to the Landscape Beautification Master Plan and
the three projects scheduled for landscaping. (Norman Feder, Transportation
December 2, 2008
Page 5
Services Administrator.)
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the
County Manager or his designee with guidance on whether reimbursement
to the Conservation Collier Program from other County Departments for
Panther Habitat Unit Mitigation Credits at the Starnes property is
appropriate, and if appropriate, guidance on the amount of the
reimbursement. (Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist.)
F. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction
to stafffor the disposal of Delasol Neighborhood Park.
G. Recommendation to review and approve the proposed addition of Economic
Development to the list of Collier County 2009 State Legislative Priorities as
proposed by the Economic Development Council at the joint Board of
County Commissioners and Collier County Legislative Delegation Pre 2009
Legislative Session Workshop held on November 14,2008. (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 286.0 I I (8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from
the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on
TUESDA Y, DECEMBER 2,2008, 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 Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session
will discuss: Strategy session related to litigation expenditures in the
pending litigation case of Board of County Commissioners v. Dwight E.
Brock, Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1056-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
strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of
December 2, 2008
Page 6
Board of County Commissioners v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, Case
No. 07- I 056-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida.
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 approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for WalMart at Artesa Point.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Grand Lely Drive Extension.
3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Ole.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Verona walk Phase 2A
(Winding Cypress PUD) with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 2B
(Winding Cypress PUD) with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained.
December 2, 2008
Page 7
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 2C
(Winding Cypress PUD) with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained.
7) Request to increase the time frame associated with the contract to
allow for the Van Buskirk, Ryffel & Associates to provide the land
use modeling to be utilized by AIM Engineering & Surveying, Inc.,
the consultants for the Transportation Division to update to the Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
8) To request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a
single Land Development Code (LDC) amendment cycle for the 2009
calendar year to consider a limited scope of amendments to the LDC
as follows: to remove the administrative provisions from the LDC and
establish a separate Administrative Code; to consider the Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR) based Environmental amendments that
were continued by the BCC from the 200S Cycle I; to consider
amendments to the School Board review process as required by
adoption of the 200S GMP amendments; to consider an amendment to
the Nonconformities section of the LDC continued from the 200S
cycle I; to consider the proposed architectural design deviation
process for Immokalee as acknowledged by the BCC; to consider the
amendments to the Wellfield protection regulations as directed by the
BCC; to consider amendments to specify how to calculate shorelines
subject to conservation easements or the like when calculating the
number of boat slips per the Manatee Protection Plan, as directed by
the BCC; and to consider any amendments to the Stewardship
Receiving Area (SRA) ifthere are any at that time.
9) Request that the Board of County Commissioners, acting in the
capacity of the Enterprise Zone Development Agency (EZDA)
Governing Board approve a resolution to designate Penny Phillippi,
the Immokalee CRA executive director, as the official contact person
for the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. The current
official contact person for the Immokalee EZDA is the Director of
Comprehensive Planning, Randy Cohen.
10) Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County
Commissioners to amend the appropriate portions of the Litter, Weed
December 2, 2008
Page 8
and Exotics Control Ordinance found in the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, specifically relating to the abatement of weed,
grass and other similar overgrowth in excess of 18 inches in height to
include a requirement that presently exempt Estates zoned lots be
required to have a 30-foot area around any permitted structure on the
lot mowed to a length of less than 6 inches in height.
11) Recommendation to award Bid # 08-5103 -- Demolition of
Commercial and Residential Structures to Cross Environmental
Services, Inc., Honc Marine Contracting, Inc. d/b/a Honc Destruction,
and Gruelle Construction, Inc. 10 structural demolitions with an
average cost of $3,725 per structure.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the sponsor, Florida Department of Corrections/Hendry Correctional
Institution one (l) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement with two (2)
recognition signs at a total cost of $150.00 for Oil Well Road a/k/a/
CR 858 from SR 29 to County Line Road.
2) Request that the Board direct staff to bring back an amendment to
Ordinance No. 2003-37, as amended, clarifying the purpose section of
that ordinance to state that the Collier County Land Development
Code, as amended, does not apply to County Transportation projects,
to separate the Construction Standards Handbook into two separate
handbooks consisting of the 2008 version of the Construction
Standards Handbook for Work within the Public Right-of-Way,
Collier County, Florida and a new 2008 Collier County Landscape
and Irrigation Specifications for Beautification Improvements within
the Public Right-of-Way Handbook, and to authorize future revisions
to each Handbook to be made separately and by resolution approved
by the Board of County Commissioners.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
two sponsors, MavCor Distributors and Ad Expressions (2) Adopt-A-
Road Program Agreements with four (4) roadway recognition signs at
a total cost of$300.00, for CR 92 a/k/a/ San Marco Road and Pine
Ridge Road west ofI-75, respectively.
December 2, 2008
Page 9
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the sponsor, Rods Performance Marine, one (1) Adopt-A-Road
Program Agreement with two (2) recognition signs at a total cost of
$150.00 for Commercial Dr., Linwood Ave., and Linwood Way
roadways.
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for the donation of a .028
acre Perpetual, Non-Exclusive Sidewalk and Access Easement along
Golden Gate Parkway in the Golden Gate City area. Project No.
600831 (Fiscal Impact: $800.00)
6) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5095, The Purchase and Delivery
of Fungicides, Herbicides and Insecticides, to the Agro Distributions
LLC (dba Pro Source One), UAP Distribution, Inc., Helena Chemical,
Red River Specialties, Inc., LESCO, Univar USA, Inc., and DeAngelo
Brothers Inc. Alenza, at an estimated annual expenditure of
$300,000.00
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Change Order #4 to the contract with Astaldi Construction, Inc. in the
amount of$965,869.67 for additional work on the Immokalee Road
Design Build Project from Collier Boulevard to 1-75, Project #66045,
Contract #05-3770 and approve the necessary budget amendment.
8) Recommendation to award a construction contract to American Earth
Movers, Inc. for Bid No. 08-5135 Bridge Repairs (Chokoloskee,
Goodland, Green Boulevard and Oil Well Road), in the amount of
$720,000.00 to the contractor.
9) Recommendation to award Bid #09-51 llR "Radio Road
Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" to
Hannula Landscaping, Inc. in the estimated annual amount of
$104,741.50
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Maintenance Agreement to accompany the Locally Funded
Agreement between FDOT and Collier County for construction of a
new bridge over the Cocohatchee River on County Road 901
(Vanderbilt Drive), previously approved on October 28, 2008 and
December 2, 2008
Page 10
authorizing the Chairman to execute both agreements.
11) Recommendation to award RFP #08-5067 for Real Estate Appraisal
Services to the following firms: American Acquisition Group;
Anderson & Carr; Appraisal Group of Central Florida; Boyd, Schmidt
& Brannum; Callaway & Price; Kenneth C. Evans; Kenneth R.
Devos; Integra Realty Resources; Real Estate Appraisal & Litigation;
Retech; Wilcox Appraisal Services.
12) Recommendation to award Bid #09-5141 Golden Gate Parkway & 1-
75 Interchange Landscape Maintenance to Hannula Landscaping and
Irrigation, Inc. in the estimated annual expenditure of $55,000.00
(Fund III, Cost Center 163889).
13) Recommendation to award Bid #09-51401-75 at Golden Gate Parkway
Landscape Improvements to Hannula Landscaping Inc. in the amount
of$97,995.75 with 10% contingency of$9,799.58 for a total of
$107,795.33(Project #60043).
14) Recommendation to approve the Assumption Agreement under
Contract No. 07-4176 Purchase of Lime Rock and Fill Material, Fixed
Term Contract from Florida Rock Industries, Inc. by Vulcan Materials
Company.
15) Recommendation to secure a State Transit Grant for the addition of
Transit Service into Lee County and authorize staff to work with
Florida Department of Transportation and LeeTran staff on the
development of a Public Transit Service Development Program Joint
Participation Agreement.
16) Recommendation to obtain Board approval to pursue an agreement
between Collier County and Naples Lakes Country Club Homeowners
Association, Inc., a Florida corporation, to install a fence to separate
private property from a 99 acre mitigation area.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners execute
inter-local agreements between Collier County and the District School
Board of Collier County, Everglades City, the City of Marco Island,
December 2, 2008
Page 11
and the City of Naples for debris removal operations in the aftermath
of a severe weather event or natural disaster.
2) Recommendation to approve an Indemnification, Hold Harmless and
Test Monitoring Well License Agreement on an off-island vacant
parcel owned by the City of Marco Island, at no cost to the County, to
be used to provide data for future well field alignment hydrogeological
testing, for the Southeast Regional Water Treatment Plant Well field
Project, 70900.
3) Recommendation that the Board approve, and authorize the Chairman
to execute, an Agreement with American Electronics Recycling to
provide electronic collection at the Collier County Landfills.
4) Recommendation to increase Work Order PG-FT-3972-07-02 to de la
Parte & Gilbert, P.A in the Amount of$61,000 for Legal Services
under Contract 05-3792 Fixed Term Professional Legal Services,
Orange Tree, Project 75010.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Raudel
Gutierrez and Magnolia Pimentel (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 169, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Tomas E.
Payero Madera (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 168, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Joseph
Wilson Dorcelus (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 173, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
December 2, 2008
Page 12
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Osiel
Quintana and Magdalys Camejo (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 5, Block 9, Naples Manor Addition, East Naples.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Damian
Luizaga and Maria Luizaga (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 57, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
6) 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.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
budget amendments totaling $566,377 to ensure continuous funding
of the Older Americans Act grant in the Services for Seniors Program
for FY 09.
8) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize staff submittal of a Project AWARE Grant Application
for artificial reef cleanups and producing an artificial reef educational
video for the Coastal Zone Management Department in collaboration
with University Extension, Sea Grant Agent, that, if awarded, will
provide grant funds in the amount of $ I 0,000.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the submittal of the Aquatic Pond Renovation and Education
Development Project to the Big Cypress Basin South Florida Water
Management District for a grant to continue and expand water
conservation education through the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
Program in the amount of $56,000.00.
E. ADMINISTRA TIVE SERVICES
December 2, 2008
Page 13
1) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a
Resolution acknowledging that the Countys Tax Collector, Clerk of
Courts, Sheriffs Office and Supervisor of Elections have directly
entered into leases for branch offices and/or warehouse space in which
limited County business is conducted.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
amendment A-I to Contract #08-5017 "Annual Contract for
Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal" with Resource Restoration,
Inc., Earth Balance Corporation, Environmental Aquatic Control, Inc.,
and DeAngelo Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Aquagenix to correct
Compensation Terms and Conditions language in the contracts to
match language in the Executive Summary that awarded the contracts.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
an amendment to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council
Bylaws that changes the frequency of Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council meetings from monthly to quarterly.
2) Recommendation to approve a State Emergency Response Team
Subgrant Agreement for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and the State of Florida Division of Emergency Management to
establish a Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program
for the Town of Ave Maria in the amount of$9,000.00.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
series of budget amendments to restructure the Court IT Fee Fund
(178) moving budget from General Fund (001) and Court
Administration Fund (681) into the Court IT Fee Fund (178).
4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
December 2, 2008
Page 14
1) That the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners includes
amendments to the LDC amendment cycle for the 2009 calendar year
as submitted by the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA and consider
any amendment to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Mixed Use
Overlay in the proposed 2009 LDC amendment cycle.
2) Recommendation that at the request of the Collier County CRA
Board, the Board of County Commissioners include amendments to
the LDC amendment cycle for the 2009 calendar year as submitted by
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA and consider any amendment to
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay in the proposed
2009 LDC amendment cycle, and that the CRA meet the LDC cycle
schedule requirements.
3) Request that the Collier County Redevelopment Agency amend the
Commercial Faade Grant Program to incorporate an Application,
Recipient Agreement, Lessee Agreement, Applicant Commitment of
Resources, Project Summary and Evaluation Form, and Payment
Request Form into the program documents packet for the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment area.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Kiwanis Govemor's Dinner on November 6th, 2008 at
the Collier Athletic Club in Naples, FL. $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marco Island Rotary Club Luncheon on November 6th,
2008 at the Marco Island Yacht Club on Marco Island, FL. $20.00 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend A Salute to Ben Bova on January 25th, 2009 at the Naples
Philharmonic in Naples, FL. $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner
December 2, 2008
Page 15
Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Marco Island Foundation for the Arts Quarterly
Luncheon on November 7th, 2008 at the Marco Island Yacht Club on
Marco Island, FL. $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended a cocktail party and silent auction on behalf of Gulfshore
Playhouse on November 9th, 2008 at Angelina's Ristorante in Bonita
Springs, FL. $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Naples Equestrian Challenge Bootstrap Boogie Barn
Dance on November 15th, 2008 at the Naples Equestrian Challenge in
Naples, FL. $150.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
7) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Collier Citizen of the Year Banquet on November 21 st,
2008 at the Naples Elks Lodge in Naples, FL. $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
8) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will be attending the Holiday Fashion Extravaganza for Youth Haven
on December 12th, 2008 at the Naples Sailing and Yacht Club in
Naples, FL. $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
9) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Naples Lakes Country Club Golf Course Grand Opening
Dinner on November 1st, 2008 at the Naples Lakes Country Club in
December 2, 2008
Page 16
Naples, FL. $55.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
10) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Windstar Club Cocktail Reception Benefiting the Boys
and Girls Club on November 22nd, 2008 at Windstar on Naples Bay
in Naples, FL. $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
11) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will be attending the Marco Chamber of Commerce Christmas Gala
on December 7,2008 at the Island Country Club on Marco Island, FL.
$75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 08,2008 through November 14,2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
November 15,2008 through November 21, 2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $57,000.00 for Parcel 145RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. John Goddard, et aI., Case No. 07-3111-CA (Oil
Well Road Project 60044). (Fiscal Impact $41,470.00)
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $51 ,900.00 for Parcels I 85RDUE and I 85TDRE in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Rupert Terry Dupree, alkla R. Terry
December 2, 2008
Page 17
Dupree, et aI., Case No. 07-3328-CA (Oil Well Road Project 60044).
(Fiscal Impact $9,970.00)
3) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Collier
County v. Naples Sunrise, Inc., Case No. 08-2803-SC, filed in County
Court Small Claims in and for Collier County, Florida, to Recover
Damages in the Amount of$I,102.03.
4) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit
on Behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
Against Paul R. Pransky, in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, to Recover
Damages in the Amount of$54,316.72.
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. Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the
attached Ordinance pertaining to the Storage, Parking and Use of
Recreational Vehicles to the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances
pursuant to Board Direction.
B. Recommendation that Board of County Commissioners repeals and replaces
Ordinance No. 74-7, through adoption of an ordinance prohibiting
unauthorized camping in the unincorporated areas of Collier County.
18. ADJOURN
December 2, 2008
Page 18
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
December 2, 2008
Page 19
December 2-3, 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, everybody. Welcome
to the Board of Commissioners' December 2nd, 2008, BCC Regular
Meeting. Invocation will be -- well, we're going to do the Pledge of
Allegiance, then after the pledge, the invocation will be given by the
County Manager, Jim Mudd.
Would you all rise for the pledge.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you all rise, please.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this Board
of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations, grant
them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day and the days
to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done. Amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The County Manager does a great
stand-in for the opening prayer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it was a nice prayer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you walk us through the change
list for today's agenda, please.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
December 2-3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' meeting,
December 2nd, 2008. Add on Item 3A, Floyd Crews, 10 years as the
Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency, and that's his--
and that is his 10-year award. That's at staffs request.
The next Item is Item 7B, which is continued indefinitely, and
that's SV-2008-AR-13395, Immokalee-Wood, LLC, represented by
Michael R. Fernandez of Planning Development, Inc., is requesting a
variance from the Land Development Code, section 5.06.04 C.1 to
reduce the minimum separation of 1,000 lineal feet between signs to
allow a sign separation of276 feet.
The subject property is located at 2600 Immokalee Road, Section
25, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, and
that Item is being continued at the petitioner's request.
The next Item is Item 7C. Page 13 of 192, sixth paragraph, last
sentence should read, the County Attorney advised that the CCPC
could turn down the boat dock extension even though, rather than
through, the criteria were satisfied. That correction is at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next Item is to move Item 16A8 to 10J. 16A8 to 10J. To
request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a single
Land Development Code amendment cycle for the 2009 calendar year
to consider a limited scope of amendments to the Land Development
Code as follows: To remove the administrative provisions from the
Land Development Code and establish separate administrative code;
to consider the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, EAR, report based
environmental amendments that were continued by the Board of
County Commissioners from the 2008 Cycle 1; and to consider
amendments to the school board review process as required by
adoption of the 2008 GMP amendments; and to consider an
amendment to the nonconformities section of the Land Development
Code continued from the 2008 Cycle 1; and to consider the proposed
Page 3
December 2-3,2008
architectural design deviation process for Immokalee as acknowledged
by the Board of County Commissioners; and to consider amendments
to the wellfield protection regulations as directed by the Board of
County Commissioners; and to consider amendments to specify how
to calculate shorelines subject to conservation easements or the like
when calculating the number of boat slips per the Manatee Protection
Plan as directed by the Board of County Commissioners; and to
consider any amendments to the stewardship receiving area, SRA, if
there are any at that time. This Item is being moved to the regular
agenda at Commissioner Halas' request.
The next Item is to move Item l6AI0 to lOH. Again, move
16AI0 to 10H. It's a recommendation to obtain direction from the
Board of County Commissioners to amend the appropriate portions of
the litter, weed, and exotics control ordinance found in the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinance specifically relating to the
amendment -- excuse me -- specifically relating to the abatement of
weed, grass, and other similar overgrowth in excess of 18-inches in
height to include a requirement that presently exempts Estates-zoned
lots to be required to have a 30-foot area around any permitted
structure on the lot mowed to a length of less than 6 inches in height.
That Item is being moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner
Coletta's request.
The next Item is to move Item 16B2 to 1 OJ. Again, move Item
16B2 to 1 OJ. That is a request that the board direct staff to bring back
an amendment to ordinance number 2003-37, as amended, clarifying
the purpose section of that ordinance to state that the Collier County
Land Development Code, as amendment (sic), does not apply to the
county transportation projects, to separate the Construction Standards
Handbook into two separate handbooks consisting of the 2008 version
of the Construction Standard -- Construction Standards Handbook for
work within the public right-of-way, Collier County, Florida, and a
new 2008 Collier County landscape and irrigation specifications for$
Page 4
December 2-3,2008
the beautification improvements within the public right-of-way
handbook, and to authorize future revisions to each handbook to be
made separately and by resolution approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. This Item is being requested to move to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Fiala.
The next Item is to move 17B to 8A. Again, move 17B to 8A.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
repeals and replaces ordinance number 74-7 through adoption of an
ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping in the unincorporated
areas of Collier County. This Item is being moved at the request of
Commissioner Coletta.
On the second page you have a series of time certain Items for
today. The first is 9C to be heard at 11 :30 a.m., and that's to
reconsider the Board of County Commissioners' direction for the
EAC, the Environmental Advisory Committee, and the Collier County
Planning Commission to hold a joint workshop to hear the RLSA
Phase II Report.
The next time certain Item is Item 10D to be heard at 11 a.m.,
and that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
determine the fiscal year 2009 capital projects to be programmed
based on the $1,803,392 turn-back revenue allocated to the landscape
beautification master plan and the three projects scheduled for
landscaping.
The next time certain Item is Item lOF to be heard at 2:30 p.m.
That's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
provide direction to staff for the disposal of the Delasol (sic)
neighborhood park.
The next time certain Item is 12 Noon, and it's Item 12A. Notice
is hereby given that pursuant to section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes,
the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County
Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on Thursday,
December 2nd, 2008, at a time certain of 12 Noon in the
Page 5
December 2-3, 2008
Commission's Conference Room, third floor, the 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 Hubbard will be in attendance.
The Board, in Executive Session, will discuss strategy session
related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of the
Board of County Commissioners versus Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of
Courts, case number 07-1056-CA, now pending in the 20th Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
The next and last time certain Item for today is Item 12B to be
heard at 1 p.m., for the Board of Commissioners to provide direction
to the County Attorney regarding strategy related to the litigation
expenditures in the pending litigation case of the Board of County
Commissioners versus Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, case number
07 -1 056-CA, now pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have any further guidance for today's
agenda?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
any ex parte communication on today's consent or summary agenda or
any further changes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Henning. I
have no changes to the agenda and I have nothing to disclose in the
summary agenda or the consent agenda. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to disclose on
Page 6
December 2-3, 2008
the consent or summary agenda. And I would like to pull Item
number 16K4 and put it on the regular agenda for discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That would go to 12C.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 12C, okay.
I have no further changes or ex parte communication on today's
summary or consent agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Chairman.
Good morning, Board Members.
I have nothing to reveal as far as the consent agenda nor the
summary agenda, and I have no additional changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
any ex parte or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no ex parte disclosures for
the summary or consent agenda, and I have no further changes to the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- today's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- agenda as amended.
Motion by Commissioner Coyle, 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 2. 2008
Add on Item 3A: Floyd Crews -10 years on the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency. (Staff's request.)
Item 7B continued indefinitelv: SV-2008-AR-13395Immokalee-Wood, LLC, represented by
Michael R. Fernandez of Planning Development, Inc., is requesting a variance from the Land
Development Code (LDC) Section 5.06.04 C.1. to reduce the minimum separation of 1,000 lineal
feet between signs to allow a sign separation of 276 feet. The subject property is located at 2600
Immokalee Road, Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Petitioner's request.)
Item 7C: Page 13 of 192, 6th paragraph, last sentence should read: "The County Attorney advised
that the CCPC could turn down the boat dock extension even though (rather than through) the
criteria were satisfied. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Move 16A8 to 101: To request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a single
Land Development Code (LDC) amendment cycle for the 2009 calendar year to consider a limited
scope of amendments to the LDC as follows: to remove the administrative provisions from the
LDC and establish a separate Administrative Code; to consider the Evaluation and Appraisal
Report (EAR) based Environmental amendments that were continued by the BCC from the 2008
Cycle 1; to consider amendments to the School Board review process as required by adoption of
the 2008 GMP amendments; to consider an amendment to the Nonconformities section of the
LDC continued from the 2008 cycle 1; to consider the proposed architectural design deviation
process for Immokalee as acknowledged by the BCC; to consider the amendments to the
Wellfield protection regulations as directed by the BCC; to consider amendments to specify how
to calculate shorelines subject to conservation easements or the like when calculating the
number of boat slips per the Manatee Protection Plan, as directed by the BCC; and to consider
any amendments to the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) if there are any at that time.
(Commissioner Halas' request.)
Move 16A10 to 10H: Recommendation to obtain direction from the Board of County
Commissioners to amend the appropriate portions of the Litter, Weed and Exotics Control
Ordinance found in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, specifically relating to the
abatement of weed, grass and other similar overgrowth in excess of 18 inches in height to include
a requirement that presently exempt Estates zoned lots be required to have a 30-foot area around
any permitted structure on the lot mowed to a length of less than 6 inches in height.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Move Item 16B2 to 10J: Request that the Board direct staff to bring back an amendment to
Ordinance No. 2003-37, as amended, clarifying the purpose section of that ordinance to state that
the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, does not apply to County
Transportation projects, to separate the Construction Standards Handbook into two separate
handbooks consisting of the 2008 version of the Construction Standards Handbook for Work
within the Public Right-of-Way, Collier County, Florida and a new 2008 Collier County Landscape
and Irrigation Specifications for Beautification Improvements within the Public Right-of-Way
Handbook, and to authorize future revision to each Handbook to be made separately and by
resolution approved by the Board of County Commissioners. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
12/2/2008 8:37:39 AM
._----,.~-_._-'----_.._- -., -'-'.~....,---
Move 17B to 8A: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners repeals and
replaces Ordinance No. 74-7, through adoption of an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping
in the unincorporated areas of Collier County. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9C to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. To reconsider the Board of County Commissioners direction for
the EAC and the CCPC to hold a joint workshop to hear the RLSA Phase II report.
Item 100 to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
determine the Fiscal Year 2009 capital projects to be programmed based on the $1,803,392
turn back revenue allocated to the Landscape Beautification Master Plan and the three projects
scheduled for landscaping.
Item 10F to be heard at 2:30 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
provide direction to staff for the disposal of Delasol Neighborhood Park.
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, DECEMBER 2, 2008, at a time certain of 12 noon in the
Commission conference room, 3'd 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
Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss: Strategy session
related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of Board of County
Commissioners v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1056-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 strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation
case of Board of County Commissioners v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, Case No. 07-1056-
CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
12/2/2008 8:37:39 AM
December 2-3,2008
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H & #21
MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 22, 2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SCOTT WATSON; OCTOBER
24, 2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE MARK PELLETIER; OCTOBER 28, 2008 BCC
REGULAR MEETING; OCTOBER 30, 2008 BCC/LDC MEETING;
NOVEMBER 3, 2008 BCC/AUIR MEETING; NOVEMBER 5, 2008
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
MARK PELLETIER; NOVEMBER 7,2008 VALUE
ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRA TE DAVIA
MAZUR AND NOVEMBER 10, 2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve
October 22nd, 2008, Value Adjustment Board hearing, Special Master
Scott Watson; October 24th, 2008, value adjustment board meeting
and Special Master Mark Pelletier; October 28,2008, BCC/regular
meeting; October 30th, 2008, BCC/LDC meeting; November 3rd,
2008, BCC/AUIR meeting; November 5th, 2008, Value Adjustment
Board special meeting, Special Master Mark Pelletier; November 7th,
2008, Value Adjustment Board hearing meeting with Special Master
David Munzer (sic); and November 10th, 2008, Value Adjustment
Board meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 8
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
We have no service awards. We have one service award.
Item #3A
SERVICE A WARD 10- YEAR RECIPIENT - CONTINUED TO
LATER IN THE MEETING UNDER ITEM #15A
MR. MUDD: We have one. We have one service award today,
and that's to honor Floyd Crews for 10 years that he has spent working
with Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
Mr. Crews?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't believe he's here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to put that offuntil--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could, please. One of the
things you can be sure is if Floyd Crews was in the room, you'd know
it.
Item #4A
PROCLAMA nON ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL'S
PROJECT INNOV A nON. ACCEPTED BY TAMMIE NEMECEK,
BILL O'NEILL, CHRIS DOYLE, DOLPH VON ARX AND
REPRESENT A nVE TOM GRADY - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is a proclamation.
MR. MUDD: Is a proclamation endorsing and supporting the
Page 9
December 2-3, 2008
activities of the Economic Development Council's Project Innovation
to be accepted by Tammie Nemecek, Bill O'Neill, Chris Doyle, Dolph
Von Arx, and Representative Tom Grady.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it's my honor to be able to
read this proclamation today. Welcome, Gang.
Whereas, a dramatic decline in Collier County's legacy industry
of real estate, construction and service, coupled with declined real
estate values has impacted nearly every citizen's quality of life; and,
Whereas, Collier County recognizes the diverse economy
comprised of new innovative industries is key to a prosperous future;
and,
Whereas, as a community, one must embrace innovative and
drive change if we are to remain relevant and competitive; and,
Whereas, we must look beyond our own individual priorities to
the collective good of current and future citizens of Collier County;
and,
Whereas, this is an opportunity to change the culture of the
community and to build the innovative economy that will endure,
involve, and remain sustainable for generations to come; and,
Whereas, we must engage citizens community-wide in the
collaborative, creative process that will provide a concrete action plan;
and,
Whereas, it is urgent that innovative -- innovation be explored
and applied at a much higher elevation; and,
Whereas, Project Innovation will not only create a new
awareness, but also will allow us to take charge of the future of our
community .
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that we endorse and support
the activities of the Economic Development Council of Collier County
Project Innovation.
Done and ordered this, the 2nd day of December, 2008, and
Page 10
December 2-3, 2008
signed by our Chairman, Tom Henning.
I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hal- -- or
Commissioner Coyle -- 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's like me trying to call one of my
kids.
(Applause.)
MR. O'NEILL: Good morning. This is Bill O'Neill, Chairman
of the Economic Development Council, and I want to express our
thanks to the Board of County Commissioners for the proclamation of
support for Project Innovation.
We've seen an outpouring of sentiment and support for the ideas
of economic development and economic diversification in this county
in a very gratifying way, some of this spontaneous.
This is the time when we need to build on that. Project
Innovation will help us all, give us all the tools to build on that general
support that we have for economic development.
Ideas are important. Project Innovation will be a major influence
and a major activity which will -- which will communicate the ideas
that we need to go forward with economic development, not only to
those who already are onboard on this and already are familiar with
Page 11
December 2-3, 2008
these ideas, but to the community at large.
W e'lllearn from the successes, local and otherwise, that have
been made in economic development and in innovation and find out
how to create a community where innovation and creativity are
encouraged.
Again, we thank you for your support and look forward to your
participation in the Project Innovation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DAVID SCHIMMEL TO
DISCUSS THE DONATION OF COUNTY PROPERTY AT 425
1ST STREET NORTH, IMMOKALEE, FL. - TO BE BROUGHT
BACK TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING IN JANUARY, 2009
WITH OPTIONS - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next -- there are no
presentations.
Brings us to the public petitions section of our agenda. The first
public petition is a request by David Schimmel to discuss donation of
the county property at 425 1st Street North, Immokalee, Florida.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Thanks for the opportunity to appear before
you.
There's an aerial view of the 10-acre parcel that's currently
owned by the county. If you see the triangular area at the upper right,
that's the portion of this property that we're referring to. That line
running through the top of the roof is not accurate. Just ignore that
blue line. It's about 1.73 acres out of a 10-acre parcel.
For 40 years the county and the David Lawrence Center have had
Page 12
December 2-3, 2008
a partnership. Many of you may not know this, but almost 40 years
ago you gave us trailers that lined the county dump for us to start a
drug and alcohol treatment facility. It offered current clients a
wonderful scenic view, but the reality is, they were able to recover,
and we couldn't have started our treatment service in Immokalee if it
hadn't have been for you doing that.
I think after a few years we actually had to haul those trailers off
they were in such bad shape, but we appreciated the support.
Twenty-one years ago we were able to secure money to build a
facility in Immokalee, and you did a lease with us for this parcel that
we're talking about today. It was a 30-year lease. We have nine years
left on that lease.
We're requesting that you transfer that property to us for -- with
two conditions. One is a revertment clause that's been suggested by
the County Manager and the County Attorney, so that if we were to
not occupy that space and provide mental health and substance abuse
services, the facility -- and you already own the land, but the facility
would then revert to the county; and the second option, we would like
to be able to purchase it at some point in time.
Now is not a great economic time for us. We should have
purchased it 21 years ago. It would have been -- I think it's worth
approximately $180,000 now.
But we do foresee, hopefully, better economic times, and
ultimately being able to have full ownership of that property secures
that building asset for us. That's a 7,000-square-foot building. Our
hope is to be in Immokalee forever.
We provide hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of free,
uncompensated care in Immokalee, and so that's our request today is
that we be able to do an agreement with the county with those two
clauses, a revertment clause and an ultimate option for us to purchase
that property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
Page 13
December 2-3, 2008
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Dave, first I want to tell
you how much we appreciate what you've been doing in Immokalee.
It's an extremely valued service. And I do like the idea of the reverter
clause; however, I question, if you were to purchase the land, the
reverter clause wouldn't go away, would it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it would.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Yes, it would.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There lies a problem. I'll tell
you what it is, Dave. I wouldn't even have a problem, because the
land has no value. I mean, I'd love to be able to tie it up so that we
have David Lawrence Center in Immokalee forever. I mean, the
foreseeable future.
Who knows what a future board 20 years from now will want to
do? And to lose this asset 20,25,30 years from now, even though I'm
sure I won't still be on the dais; Commissioner Fiala will be -- but I
can tell you, it's disturbing because, you know, we have no control
over certain future events; however, we can control some things at the
present that will make sure that in the future we won't lose that ability.
I'm hesitant to do that because of the uncertainty of what the
future could bring. I mean, if you owned the land outright as a non-
profit and you sold it to be able to build a bigger facility someplace
else and possibly not in Immokalee, and then shame on me for
allowing this to go forward with that particularly premise.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Except that we would be willing to
compensate you for the land at fair market value. Let's say three or
four years in the future we have the ability to purchase that property
from you, we would do so at fair market value. So you wouldn't be
losing anything. You would be being paid for that property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, let's fast forward. The
advantage to David Lawrence Center to be able to do this would be to
-- equity, would it be?
Page 14
December 2-3,2008
MR. SCHIMMEL: Well, at this point we've constructed a
7,000-square-foot facility that we don't own because you own the land
that it sits on. So it's very difficult for us to go out and borrow against
that facility if we wanted to expand in Immokalee. And ultimately --
ultimately, we may never be able to have the benefit of that 7,000
square feet, I mean, if it reverts to the county.
In nine years, we don't know what a board may do. We may not
be able to get a continuation of that lease. So it gives us some
flexibility to be able to protect what we've bought and paid for.
And we're not suggesting that you give it to us for nothing. All
we want is an option at some point to compensate you for that parcel
ofland.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dave, I have no problem
bringing this back at a future commission meeting, which we would --
before we'd be able to move forward -- we wouldn't be able to do it
today in one big jump. It would have to come back. And as far as
bringing it back and be able to discuss it further and have all the facts
in front of us, I want you to know, I support that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You done?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think it's important that we
understand, when we're being asked to do something for David
Lawrence Center, we need to understand what David Lawrence Center
is doing for the county and all of the residents of Collier County.
Just as one example, we've spent a lot of money building a new
jail. David Lawrence Center participates in diversion programs which
take people who are not violent offenders and tries to rehabilitate them
without them being incarcerated. It's very expensive to keep those
Page 15
December 2-3, 2008
people in a jail cell.
So anything that we can do to help David Lawrence Center
support this diversion program and rehabilitation program works in
the best interests of Collier County residents and Collier County
Government.
I would not be reluctant at all to just gift this property to David
Lawrence, and I think the staff needs to take a look at what control we
would have over future use of the property from a zoning standpoint if
David Lawrence Center opted to move or build another facility
somewhere else in Immokalee.
It might be that we can exercise acceptable control over the
future use of that property through zoning without having a reverter
clause, because I suspect the reverter clause is going to cause you
some problems with respect to any financing issues associated with
the building sitting on the land.
But Commissioner Coletta is right, we need to tie those loose
ends together, see if we can find a way to solve that problem for you.
But like Commissioner Coletta, I'm strongly supportive of this. It's an
investment by the people of Collier County to provide this property
for this particular use. And I, quite frankly, wouldn't have a problem
transferring ownership to David Lawrence Center.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'm -- I'm in favor of
whereby you've got control of the property, but at such time as you
want to sell the property, then it comes back to the county.
I feel that this is an asset that belongs to the county, the land.
And I feel that lending institutions here in this county understand that
you're going to be there permanently, but if you ever decide to want to
sell that, that that land should come back to the citizens of Collier
County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 16
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. David, you mentioned
something about, it would give you the ability to take a loan out for
expansion. Were you speaking of expansion on this particular piece
of property?
MR. SCHIMMEL: Yeah. We've looked at expansion in the
past. We don't have current plans to expand, but there's a possibility
that that's something that we may want to do as the Immokalee
community continues to grow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask you. Of course, I'm just
looking at an overhead shot. How would you expand that facility? It
doesn't look like there's much room for an expansion there.
MR. SCHIMMEL: There's a small area to the back that we could
add a couple thousand square feet. We've had an architect look at
that.
Now, if we expanded, we'd have to come before the board to get
a conditional use, I think. If we do any expansion on that site, we
have to -- it will impact the zoning, so we would have to come back
before you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, I think everybody in
this room is thankful that you provide that service because without it,
we would certain- -- many people would certainly have some great
problems.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it sounds like it's unanimous on
the board to give the -- probably the proper entity -- well, no, the
County Manager, since he manages the board's property, to bring it
back for some kind of consideration, maybe two options of -- with the
reverter clause and without a reverter clause.
MR. MUDD: And I'll check -- and I'll check the zoning, as one
of the commissioners mentioned, to make sure that maybe the present
zoning restricts some other issues, and we'll make sure that we get the
document all laid out so that you have it, and then you can make a
decision. And if you want to strike a clause, we can strike a clause
Page 17
December 2-3, 2008
and bring it on back and get it to the chairman for a signature based --
I've got direction, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, all right.
County Attorney, do you have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Schimmel.
MR. SCHIMMEL: Thanks, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Any time period? Are you crunched for time? So
we'll bring it back one of the meetings in January if that's okay.
MR. SCHIMMEL: That's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JIM DISHINGER TO
DISCUSS MAIN GATE ACCESS AT FOREST GLEN - MOTION
FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK W/ALTERNATIVES FOR
CONSIDERATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, and it's a request by Jim Dishinger to discuss main gate
access to Forest Glen.
MR. DISHINGER: Good morning.
MR. MUDD: You're pretty good at that. You're hired.
MR. DISHINGER: I have instructions.
I'm the president of the master board of the homeowners
association of Forest Glen.
As a result of the Collier Boulevard widening project,
southbound vehicles coming into our community will be denied
left-turn access to our main gate. We are asking you to investigate
Page 18
December 2-3, 2008
and consider all possible alternatives to this closure prior to allowing
that to take place.
It is very disconcerting to our residents that a better
accommodation for this community of 799 housing units could not
have been found in the years that this project has been in the planning
stages.
It is also disconcerting that we have continued to receive
conflicting information. Up until a month ago, we were told by
sources directly involved in the project that we would not be losing
our front gate access.
Weare now in the position of trying to appeal a decision that will
have a huge impact on our community without the necessary data and
background information that this decision was based on.
Two hundred to 400 vehicles enter our community through our
front gate on a daily basis. So we are very concerned with the safety
impact in so many vehicles being forced to make U-turns across three
lanes of oncoming traffic.
At a recent meeting with Mr. Feder and Mr. Ahmad and Mr.
Casalanguida from the transportation department, they were very
cordial and clearly explained the reasoning why the project has been
designed as it is. The reasons given are all plausible, but the end result
that Forest Glen guests and vendors will be losing our ability to easily
and safely access our main entrance is not acceptable.
After listening to our concerns, we were assured that other
reasonable alternatives could still be considered. We believe that
there are other options available that do not require the elimination of
all left-hand turn access into our community, and we appeal to you to
hear and give consideration to our alternatives.
This is an overview, and I'll come back to this, the area in
question showing Forest Glen, the Wal-Mart complex, Davis and
Collier and Cedar Hammock.
Our primary community concerns are three. Number one is, we
Page 19
December 2-3,2008
have serious concerns with the long-term safety factor of being
required to make U-turns across three lanes of on-coming traffic,
especially as our community ages.
As our community ages, we can envision someone trying to
make that U-turn but wanting to wait until all oncoming traffic is out
ofthe sight. And on some certain times of the day, that could be a long
time, and traffic behind that person could be backed up to Davis
Boulevard.
The other extreme is drivers finally growing so frustrated and
impatient that when there is no break in traffic, that they try to make a
break in traffic, pull out in front of somebody and cause a very serious
accident, maybe fatal.
Secondly, we believe that large vendor trucks, semis and buses
will have great difficulty accessing our community. Even though Mr.
Feder tried to assure us that semis and large box trucks can make that
U-turn in the space allotted, we have our doubts.
Vehicles unable to make those U-turns or are afraid to even try
will be required to make a 16-mile loop in order to enter our
community from the south. They will be required to go Davis
Boulevard west to County Barn Road, then south to Rattlesnake
Hammock, back east to Collier, and then back north to Forest Glen.
This is unfair and unreasonable to expect of them. And if they
don't know this in advance, they have an even greater problem. There
are no easy or convenient -- just turn around and go back to the south
of us. They might have to go all the way to 41 unless they want to use
the hospital's parking lot, which probably won't be appreciated.
The third concern is that emergency vehicles will probably lose
direct access to southbound Collier from our front gate for the
transport of patients to the Physicians Regional Hospital down the
road.
Emergency vehicles can access our community through our back
gate on Beck Boulevard, but because of the 951 design plan, it calls
Page 20
December 2-3,2008
for a high median curb all the way across our front entrance that will
require that ambulance to exit out our back gate to take those patients
to the hospital and travel an extra three to five miles to get to that
hospital, which is only five miles down the road from our front gate.
Mr. Feder did say that after being made aware of our concerns
that a lower curb could be put in front of our community. But if they
don't do that, it would be a pretty rough ride for a patient getting
medical attention in the back of that ambulance.
So based upon our concerns and the following rationale, we have
three recommendations that we are offering for consideration. One--
some background for recommendation number one. We were told by
Mr. Feder that Business Circle South was designed to be a Radio
connector road connecting Collier to Davis Boulevard based on the
assumption that there will be a future need to divert a large amount of
traffic away from the Davis/Collier intersection. And our question is
why.
The current amount of left-turn storage at the Davis/Collier
intersection has been very adequate, even during rush hour, as much
of the northbound Collier Boulevard traffic is trying to access I-75,
and I think that will continue to be the case.
We wonder whether the need for traffic to be diverted away from
the Collier County intersection, in large part, is due to the planned
reconstruction of Davis Boulevard. If that's true, this will only be a
temporary need, and to permanently shut down left-turn access into
our main gate to accommodate a temporary traffic issue seems to be a
pretty high price to ask our community to pay.
Business Circle South does not appear to have been designed as
an efficient thoroughfare to alleviate and divert traffic from the
Davis/Collier intersection. It's only one lane in each direction,
through traffic must compete with commercial traffic, and after
winding around the complex, it requires a left turnaround across
oncoming traffic in order to get to Davis Boulevard.
Page 21
December 2-3,2008
But based on the assumption that a large amount of traffic will
want to be diverted away from the Davis/Collier intersection, 550 feet
of two-lane left-turn storage has been put into the design plan to
accommodate that traffic.
And these two lanes, the left-turn storage, which can
accommodate 45 to 50 vehicles, is the cause for the left turn access
into Forest Glen being eliminated, because this design leaves no room
to accommodate a left-turn lane for traffic wanting to enter Forest
Glen.
So our recommendation is to change this plan so as to allow for
300 foot ofleft-turn storage for entry into Forest Glen and do so by
either totally eliminating the inside left-turn storage lane for Business
Circle South or by reducing that inside-turn storage lane to 250 feet.
Background for recommendation number two. There appears to
be no rational reason for Forest Glen to lose access to our main gate
24 hours a day because traffic is going to be heavy between three and
six every day. There is an option that can allow incoming traffic to
access our main entrance during the other 21 hours of the day, and that
is to leave our existing cut in place but restrict the timing of allowable
use through the use of signage. For example, no left turn three to six
p.m.
And the recommendation number three is, please keep this issue
open while viable alternatives to the current plan are being considered.
Another short-term community concern, if the project goes
forward as planned, how far beyond our front gate will we have to
drive before we can make a U-turn during the construction phase?
Currently it looks like we might have to proceed nearly one or
more miles before being able to make that turn, but that is only if the
current cuts are not eliminated during construction.
Mr. Feder told us during our meeting that he would ask the
contractor to complete our new U-turn lane prior to eliminating our
current cut. That accommodation would be extremely critical for our
Page 22
December 2-3,2008
community because of the amount of traffic we have during season.
In conclusion, losing our permanent direct access into our
community's main gate 24 hours a day for vehicles coming from the
north will have many negative repercussions for our community. Our
community is having a very hard time understanding why we are not
being told there is no other alternative.
We hope and would like to think that the commissioners feel that
Forest Glen is an important part of the fabric of Collier County and
therefore worthy and deserving of some additional consideration.
We respectfully ask you to weigh the permanent negative effects
that our community will suffer from the implementation of the current
design plan and try to find and give consideration to an
accommodation that will work for us as well as it does for everybody
else.
There again is the overhead view of the area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Sue, is the timer not working
today?
MS. FILSON: It's on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- questions, comments
from the board? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Feder, in may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I was going to ask.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your situation's far from
unique. Since 2000 we've seen similar situations come up on a regular
basis, and I can't remember any point in time from the first one to the
present where this commission has overturned something that
transportation have, because we feel that their expertise on these
things far outweighs ours. But, however, with that said, there may be
a first time on anything you could possibly think of.
There was some interesting points that were brought up here and,
you know, there is going to be an inconvenience. There is going to be
Page 23
December 2-3,2008
a certain amount of safety element that's going to be added to this.
There was a couple questions I'm going to ask directly before you
go into more details with why it is the way it is. But it was suggested
about the time -- the timing of a sign so that the cut could remain there
to be able to allow residents normal egress and -- egress of their
property during the off times. Is that something that's possible, or
possibly emergency services could use it just about anytime because
of their sirens and lights; is that a doable thing?
MR. FEDER: As we noted, we are looking at dropping the curb,
as we've done in a few places around the county, on Vanderbilt, at
Island Walk, their emergency access, Goodlette-Frank Road at the
north end for emergency access where emergency vehicles can cross,
but not to open it up for access because it then restricts your ability to
meet both the main line operations and the needs for the Radio Road
at the Business Circle.
And so, we are going to address the issue of emergency access by
dropping that curb, allowing the emergency vehicle.
The idea of signing it for permissive use during the day and not
certain hours, one assumes that you can provide the storage for that,
and that's the first issue. The second is that people won't use it during
that time and it won't become a problem, and that's been our
experience if you try to do that type of approach.
But the real issue is the first, and that is, you have to take away
from your dual left storage to provide for it, and taking away from that
increases both the green time required for the left movements and,
therefore, more delays on 951, as well as reduces your option to do
this, because then you have to extend your single storage well past the
opening to this development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Now, the exit lanes that
are coming out of the Wal-Mart shopping complex over there, and the
two of them were talking about, I mean, they're being built not for
present need but for future need to be able to accommodate all the
Page 24
December 2-3, 2008
businesses that are planned for that area, and that I do understand.
Is there any possibility that those lanes could be shifted farther
over on the right-of-way to be able to allow for an opening on the
other end for --
MR. FEDER: We discussed that with them. What you're talking
about is you have to go a good distance both north and south of there
to try and do that. First of all, you have to acquire right-of-way, and
then it has to be a bigger distance because you can't just have traffic
do an immediate job. It has to be a gradual -- a shifting of all the lanes
to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it wouldn't be doable
then?
MR. FEDER: Well, you've got a canal on one side. Makes it
very, very difficult. You've got property that goes into a golf course
pretty quickly on this side.
I will never tell this board something is not doable. We'll find
your answer when you tell us to do it, but it is not necessarily feasible
or plausible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Do you have a map, Mr.
Feder --
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you can show where an
entrance and exit to this community is? And at that, I'll turn it over to
Commissioner Halas. You might be able to show the -- how the future
road system's going to work.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. What you have on the
overhead here is basically pretty much the same picture that you just
saw on the other. But basically what you've got is Collier Boulevard,
and north is here to my left. Then you have Davis Boulevard and
Beck.
The development's entrance right here to Forest Glen. They also
have another entrance off of Beck, which was referred to as well. Of
Page 25
December 2-3, 2008
course, Beck is signalized.
The Business Circle right here, which is just about 700 feet from
their entranceway, is signalized. It is that future circle, which, when
signalized at Davis, is going to become a big reliever to what we know
is a major problematic intersection we have here in town.
Right now it's still bringing some traffic, but less without that
other signal. And, of course, all of these out-parcels, some of which
shown has started, some of which hasn't started yet.
We've got something akin -- and I know Commissioner Halas
will appreciate this -- to Naples Boulevard essentially being
established in this area, very major commercial activity that's going to
generate a lot of traffic, as well as serve for that Radio Road.
Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it does. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I understand -- could you
move the slide a little bit up so we can see the entrance to Forest Glen.
There we go.
What is the distance from the Business Circle to Forest Glen?
MR. FEDER: As I noted, about 700 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: About 700 feet?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's where you're saying that
we're going to have dual lefts going into that business; is that --
MR. FEDER: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so, therefore, it
restricts the amount of availability of the median to put a southbound
left-hand turn into Forest Glen; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern is, if we --
what's the distance from Beck Road to the next traffic light down on
951 south? It would be some distance from here.
Page 26
December 2-3, 2008
MR. FEDER: Well, the next one south would be at Business
Circle, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you're going -- if you're going
southbound, you've got a light at Beck Road sometime.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure ifthere's any other
traffic lights in between Beck Road -- I think there is. There is one up
here going into the Wal-Mart shopping center; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That's the one we're talking about, the Business
Circle, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then the next traffic light
after that is where, down by Rattlesnake?
MR. FEDER: Rattlesnake Hammock.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we've got is a
length of road between Rattlesnake Hammock and Beck Road. My
concern is, if we end up with a left-hand turn going into -- and you
guys are the traffic engineers. I'm not the traffic engineers. But if
you've got to end up with a left-hand turn into Forest Glen during
rush-hour traffic, how is that going to work because of the fact, people
are going to go in against the traffic, and that traffic on Collier
Boulevard is probably -- when it gets widened, it's probably going to
run around 60 mile an hour.
Is there going to have to be another traffic light put someplace
else to quell that traffic?
MR. FEDER: Not necessarily, Commissioner, ifI understand
your question. My problem is not having the storage for it and it
overlaps the storage for the left turn northbound. But in answer to
your question, we do have other median openings between those two
signals.
And the question of safety, if we have sufficient storage -- and
again, when you look at storage, all that can't be caused as
deceleration within that, and then the storage.
Page 27
December 2-3, 2008
If I have sufficient deceleration storage, you can take a left turn
across traffic very safely or a U-turn across traffic very safely, then
you're not going across six lanes, just jutting out across an open
median, let's say. You're then in a protected situation and taking a
turn outside of the forward traffic of one direction in the traffic that
you can see.
One of the issues I think you do raise, though, is the proximity to
the signal there at circle, the prospects that even if I were able to get
an opening there for left turn, that it may well end up with backed up
traffic, and then we have the Good Samaritan issue where one lane is
stopped letting someone in, another lane has a little bit of opening and
comes up there, and you have the Good Samaritan issues, and that's
another reason you don't try to do conflicting openings that close to a
signal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. That's some of the problems
that we ran into in our district whereby we ended up having to put two
lanes, left-turn lanes, because if you only have the one left-turn lane,
then it ends up backing up traffic into the right-of-way and, therefore,
it restricts the traffic flow, and I think that's why we're widening this
road is to try to get as much traffic flow as possible.
The other question I have is, bring the map up again. How far
south would the people have to go before they would have a stacking
lane to make a U-turn to turn back into Forest Glen?
MR. FEDER: I have Jay Ahmad here with the plan, so I'm going
to ask him to give you the specific distance, but there is a U-turn
option mid block further down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And one of the questions that was
brought up was, will it accommodate 48-foot to 53-foot semi trailers
as far as having enough turning radius?
MR. FEDER: Your semi trailers will have difficulty whether it
be at the signal at Business Circle or down even at the middle median
opening. They can, obviously, make the turns at the larger
Page 28
December 2-3,2008
intersections, which would be Davis and at Rattlesnake Hammock.
But a large semi would have difficulty making the U-turn from
the median opening at a normal intersection or just at a mid-block
U-turn. And so they would have to not necessarily take the circuitous
route around County Barn and all the way down, but they would have
to maybe go down, if they were traveling southbound. If they didn't
turn at Beck and come in the rear entrance to the development, they
would then have to go down and very possibly go down as far as
Rattlesnake to make the U-turn to come up and enter in a right-hand
turn into the development.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. One of the things, I don't
understand --
MR. FEDER: But that would be for a semi. That wouldn't be for
your average vehicle. Even carrying a trailer or landscaping, others
can make that U-turn, whether it be at Corporate Circle at a signal or
down south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing, I'm not sure how
many semi trailers would go in there a day because of the fact that this
is a residential community and --
MR. FEDER: I was told that they do have some frequency daily.
A little bit surprised. But, again, those that are coming there daily on
a consistent basis would probably understand their routing and adjust
accordingly, not always come and have to find a different routing to
get to them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then most of them would be
delivery trucks, and shouldn't pose any problem as far as U-turns.
MR. FEDER: Again, delivery trucks can make the U-turns at the
places I noted at mid block. It's a semi. If you truly have a full-size
semi, that isn't going to make it at those other than at the major
intersections, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Page 29
December 2-3, 2008
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm really concerned. If
there's only 700 feet from their entrance to the light -- and isn't it
going to be very difficult to get across -- that traffic really clips along
that -- I mean, we're building speedways now. We don't just build
neighborhood roads anymore. We're building speedways here. And
for them to get out of there and cut across the three lanes of traffic, it
seems it would it be very dangerous, wouldn't it?
MR. FEDER: There is plenty of room within 700 feet most any
time of the day. There may be occasions where they'd have to go and
make the U-turn up at Davis if they didn't come out their rear entrance
and go on back and take this signal at Davis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what does that do with Davis
Boulevard being -- being that that's such a congested area and
certainly in need of modification, I mean, expansion, you know. As
we all know, that's the worst intersection in this whole region,
according to Stan Cann. How can they --
MR. FEDER: According to me as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- make U-turns there? It's just
going to tie that area, which is already congested, tie it up even more.
MR. FEDER: And that's one of the reasons that we're putting the
heavy focus, when Wal-Mart was permitted in there, to establishing a
Radio Road to provide reliefthere, and that's why the expectations
are, especially when the signal goes in at Davis and it truly has that
opening. That will be a major relief of that intersection.
Most of the traffic will be able, in 700 feet, to make it to that
Corporate and to the signal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me just see if I understand
what you just said. So what they have to do is cut across three lanes
of traffic to get over to the light by Wal-Mart, travel through the Wal-
Mart back around, over to Davis Boulevard, come back up to 951 to
turn south; is that what you're saying?
Page 30
December 2-3, 2008
MR. FEDER: No, I did not say that. If they make it over to that
signal in 700, which most every time they should be able to, then they
make a U-turn right there and head south.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Other than --
MR. FEDER: They've got to go up 700 feet and come back, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The purpose of this hearing
is to determine whether or not we want to bring it back. I think the
staff has enough guidance to understand that I believe the majority of
the commissioners are concerned about this issue, we'd like to get it
resolved.
So I would make a motion that we instruct the staff to come back
to us with some alternatives, including the use of Periwinkle Way as
another way to get into the area. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where's Periwinkle Way?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- give us some -- it's off Davis
Boulevard, and ifthere is a way to accomplish that, then there's a way
for northbound -- or southbound traffic to get into the area there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Top of the slide.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, okay.
MR. FEDER: Periwinkle Way that the commissioner's
mentioning is right here off of Beck, is their exit onto Beck.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So we need some
alternatives, okay. We don't want to ignore the residents' concerns
because they're real. So give us some alternatives and let's see what
we can do with it. And I make a motion we bring it back for
consideration at the soonest possible time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I'd be happy to
second that with -- also I want you to include not a maybe, but a
definite as far as emergency access goes as far as the modifications,
Page 31
December 2-3, 2008
the curb if necessary, or whatever modification--
MR. FEDER: That was not a maybe. We're doing that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. FEDER: You've got your definite now, but I'll also bring
that back as you are directing me to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on this
Item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg 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 #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JUAN BARRERA TO
DISCUSS AFTER THE FACT FEE ON PERMIT #2008060365 -
MOTION TO REDUCE FEE TO 1 ~ TIMES THE FEE -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public request by
Juan Barrera to discuss an after-the-fact fee on a permit number
2008060365.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Barrera? There we are. Just
Page 32
December 2-3,2008
come up to the mike and state your name for the record, please.
MR. BARRERA: My name is Juan Barrera, and I'm here to --
there's an after-the-fact fee. I paid for a permit and there was an
after-the-fact fee in there, and I'm here to petition that. I'm not sure
how this works here, but I have the fee amount here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You could put it on the visualizer, or
just give it to the gentleman sitting there, who's the County Manager.
He'll put it on there for the board. And I also believe it's in the board's
agenda packet, so I think they're well aware of it. Please continue.
MR. BARRERA: It's third line Item. It's an amount for 2723.36,
and I was cited for an after-the- fact fee. And I have some images here
of it.
There's some excavation that was done, and that was basically it,
and it was excavation. There was no construction started or no -- I
received my permit in November for -- paid for it, and I applied for it
early June.
I'm just -- I was surprised to see that there was an amount for that
much for excavation. There was no actual construction. So I was told
by the county that I had to bring it to the board for it to be either
removed or not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BARRERA: There is some evidence of earth being, I guess
-- there was a -- there was two fills (sic) of dirt that were being -- that
were delivered to my site mistaken. They were supposed to be
delivered to another site in that area, so that made it seem like there
was more construction. There was also a silt fence that was placed on
the property, and it was also supposed to be done to another site, not
mine, and that's what made it more evident that there was construction
in that property. So I don't know the process here how this --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you've pretty much explained
your case --
MR. BARRERA: Okay.
Page 33
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that you would like the
after-the-fact fee waived.
MR. BARRERA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But if you don't mind, let's go to
commissioners for questions or comments starting with Commissioner
Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we get a member of staff to
address a little history about this fee? And also, I hope you're going to
tell me that these lot lines that are overlaid on this photograph are not
correct.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development, environmental services division.
First of all, those lot lines are nothing more than a representation
or over an aerial photography. It's from the Property Appraiser's
Office. They're not accurate. They represent somewhat what actually
exists, but it's not -- it's not registered to a land -- from a registration or
surveyed in -- on a registration mark for Orthophoto, which is really
what it would be if it were registered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It looks to me like there's a lot
more than just excavation in this photo. It looks to me like footers
have actually been poured.
MR. SCHMITT: In could run through a series of photos. Just
briefly for the history, this was an anonymous complaint investigated
by code enforcement. Note that the picture shows this was 1 January.
And if, Jim, you could go through the other series of slides. It's
clear and evident that work was being performed on site. You can see
the forms were going in and actually steel and rebar were already
going vertical in 1 January.
Just for your understanding, the code was changed from four
times after the fact to two times after the fact if, in fact, either in this
case, the property owner or the contractor agrees to abate the violation
by obtaining the necessary permit.
Page 34
December 2-3,2008
In this case he obtained the necessary permit, so it's two times the
fees for an after-the-fact permit. This board, the Code Enforcement
Board, and the Contractor Licensing Board has it within your
authority to assess four times the fees. But in this case, only two times
the fees were assessed.
Again, this was in January. These pictures were in January. And
as was stated on the record, the application for the permit was actually
June 5th, and the permit was picked up November 4th.
So there was work being performed, a red tag was noted, and the
applicant -- or the property owner and the agent was advised to apply
for the necessary permit.
I have nothing else to add.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And does the staff feel that the
applicant took the proper corrective action and should not be
penalized, or do you believe that the applicant should be penalized?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, according to state statute and according
to your fee codes, an after-the-fact permit is assessed at two times the
permit fee. The building official, under state statute for performing
work without a permit, is twice the fees, likewise, in your fee
ordinance or your fee resolution, the -- it's twice the fees, and that's
what was assessed.
I have no option to waive that. You certainly have it within your
authority to waive that if you so believe that it's warranted in this case.
To answer your question, I do not. The work was being
performed in January, '07, permit wasn't applied for until June, and the
permit was picked up in November. So there was certainly --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: November of '07 or November of
'08?
MR. SCHMITT: November of'08. Now, that does not prevent
an applicant from coming in and applying for an early work permit or
an early work authorization to do foundation work or those type of
things. That could have been done. After the -- when someone
Page 35
December 2-3, 2008
submits a building plan and it goes through initial review and it goes
through the review procedures, then one can apply for an early work
authorization to begin to do -- perform work up to the first level of
construction.
This work is actually to the first point of construction where they
would have to then call in for an inspection of footers.
So it's clearly -- and evident that the batter boards were put in, the
site was laid out, steel was placed, it was ready for placement of
concrete. Of course, no concrete could be placed for the footers until
you call for your first inspection. They were not able to call for any
inspection because they had no permit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, one final question. Has any
site survey been performed to make sure that this construction is being
accomplished within the proper building envelope?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't have that information. I'd have to defer
to the contractor. It's 10 days after placement of the slab. There's a
site -- a spot survey that's required to be performed by a registered
professional land surveyor. That surveyor then is required to turn it in
to the county for review.
So it is required. If this is placed wrong on the site, it will be
rejected, and they'll have one of two options, either seek a variance or
rebuild it. But I trust that it's placed properly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- based upon our past experience,
I would not trust anything to be placed properly unless it's been
surveyed.
MR. BARRERA: We have a survey scheduled.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You do -- survey scheduled but
you don't have a survey yet?
MR. BARRERA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You haven't poured the concrete
yet, have you?
MR. BARRERA: Not the floors.
Page 36
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You -- I would suggest that
you do that survey before you've poured the concrete; otherwise, you
might have a lot of concrete to take away.
MR. SCHMITT: You do survey it to lay it out. It's surveyed to
layout -- the layout is surveyed, then it's surveyed again after
placement of concrete.
MR. BARRERA: What we did is we did a footer -- we wanted
to see that -- this property has an odd shape to it, so we wanted to
make sure that the building fit on this -- on this site, and we did, you
know, excavation. And I did apply early January, took in plans, but
they reviewed them, and after being reviewed, it was told I needed
other stuff, so -- window details and others -- just details that -- but I
did -- my intention was to apply and then start.
But I never poured concrete -- I never did any actual. It was just
prep work, just prep work before -- for the foundation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner
Fiala, and Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Question. The
after-the-fact fee that you've already paid, how much was that?
MR. BARRERA: It's halfof2723.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty seventy (sic)--
MR. BARRERA: Twenty seven hundred and twenty-three.
That's, I think, 13 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: About $1,300.
MR. BARRERA: About 1,300, 1,360.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me go through this
just a little bit, make sure I understand the progression of events,
because I think there's some circumstances here that are a little bit
different than normal.
Generally we have those fees pumped up quite a bit because
usually they're existing structures that have already been placed there,
Page 37
December 2-3, 2008
and they have to be (sic) a tremendous amount of work trying to
certifY the fact that everything was done right, and trying to do a
forensic examination of a building that's already existing's extremely
difficult and time-consuming for our code enforcement.
And so this is one of the reasons why the law exists; however,
you know, you have to have a beginning point. So the technicality of
the law has been violated. There's no question there.
MR. BARRERA: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any oversight on your part,
most likely. I doubt you were planning to build the whole building
without a permit. I mean --
MR. BARRERA: I was not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have you been before this
commission before?
MR. BARRERA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And so this is more or
less you -- you're the owner/builder, right?
MR. BARRERA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And so you're trying to
do this to make this thing an affordable thing for your family in very
difficult times.
MR. BARRERA: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I guess the question that
I would ask is that, to say, you know, that we should not charge you
anything -- I mean, it's minor in scope because, I mean, what you had
placed out there was very easy to view.
There was never a question about, you could go down there and
site what was there. It wasn't hidden underneath the concrete. It was
-- it was very out in the open. And if for some reason something was
wrong, the whole thing could have been deconstructed and reput into
another location.
MR. BARRERA: Yep.
Page 38
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: However, you know, I don't
think you anticipated this kind of a fee when you went by and asked
for the permits.
MR. BARRERA: Well, I knew there was a fee. I know better
not to start without a permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I'll tell you where
-- let me cut to the chase where we are with this. One of the reasons
we sit up here as a commission and to be able to hear public petitions
is to be able to weigh the differences that exist between one case and
another.
In this case, I think we've got mitigating circumstances that are
far different than a vagrant (sic) violation of somebody building a
building on a piece of land and then asking for forgiveness. This is of
a pretty minor consequence.
However, with that said, my suggestion would be is that we have
this come back to this commission with an adjusted fine that would be
less than that, at least to be able to cover the cost of what we have for
staff and maybe a little bit more just to be able to make sure the public
knows that under any circumstances, this still isn't something that's
permitted.
And that would be my suggestion is we bring this back just to be
able to see if we come up with a more favorable settlement with you.
MR. BARRERA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You stated initially that somebody
dumped two loads of dirt on your property by mistake?
MR. BARRERA: Yes. There's a -- there was a new project
starting down the road, and I think they were supposed to deliver it at
that location and they brought it in and -- it actually helped me, but it
brought more attention to the site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So did you get rid of the dirt that
Page 39
December 2-3, 2008
they brought?
MR. BARRERA: No. We just spread it out. They never
removed it, and I guess it was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And who put in all of the -- those
steel things that -- did they do that by mistake, too?
MR. BARRERA: No, no, no. That was -- that was me. I'm a
form carpenter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm trying to figure out, when were
you first cited? Were you first cited when the dirt was placed on the
property before any of this construction took place? When were you
cited on this?
MR. BARRERA: In January.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, in January. Is this -- the
picture that I see here in my book, okay, which is the outline of the
house, the foundation, was that taken in January?
MR. BARRERA: It probably is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Put it on the overhead, the picture
of what we have in our book, right here, right here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Joe has it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This picture here.
MR. MUDD: This picture?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. When was this picture
taken? Was this taken in January?
MR. BARRERA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And this is when you went
in to apply for a permit, or you didn't apply for a permit?
MR. BARRERA: I was trying to make it before --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. When did you -- when did
-- first of all, you brought up the case where somebody brought two
loads of dirt and put it on your property. Is that when you were cited?
Page 40
December 2-3, 2008
MR. BARRERA: It was around the same time, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Joe, can you help us out on this? Is
that when he was cited, when the dirt came up, or was he cited when
we got to this point in the construction where you can see the whole --
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I have no idea when -- these are
aerial photographs from the Property Appraiser's Office. I don't know
what date they were taken. Obviously it would have been after the
January '08 -- or January, 2008. But I do not have those -- the date of
those photographs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was this picture taken in January
of '08? Is this where you were --
MR. SCHMITT: The pictures that I put up that show the
construction of the footers and steel going in, that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. I'm trying to get to this
point here when this picture was taken.
MR. SCHMITT: Sir, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this when you -- is this how far
you were in January, sir?
MR. BARRERA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And you didn't apply for a
permit prior to that point; is that correct?
MR. BARRERA: I did, but it was rejected at the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why was it rejected?
MR. BARRERA: Because I needed other details along with the
plans.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But you continued to build the
house; is that correct?
MR. BARRERA: No, I wasn't building. It's just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's this I see here?
MR. BARRERA: Excavation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no, no. This is the outline
of the house. This is where you're putting footers and everything else
Page 41
December 2-3, 2008
. . h?
m,ng t.
MR. BARRERA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. It seems to me you tried to
-- you were rushing the process or trying to circumvent this thing
before you actually decided that maybe you better get a permit.
MR. BARRERA: No. My intention wasn't to do any
construction without a permit. It was just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what is this? This is
construction. This is construction. This is where you put the gray
beams in and you start to go up vertically, you pour all the structure --
the substructure prior to even pouring the floor. This gives you the --
MR. BARRERA: But there was no structure in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- the main support of the house.
Pardon?
MR. BARRERA: There was no structure in. It was --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I see here is the outline of the
walls and where everything's going to be laid out in the house, and
before you do that, you have to have a permit. Okay? Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, you referred to Florida
state statutes where the building official, is it shall or may?
MR. SCHMITT: It's shall, shall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shall--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- charge twice the amount?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I don't have that language. I apologize. I
don't have the specific language in the Florida Statute. It's in the
Florida Building Code where -- it's in the building code which is part
of the Florida Statute where the building official -- it says may. I
believe it says may, and I don't have the exact language. But I have
the language that's in our -- in our fee structure, and it basically says,
failure to obtain a permit where the work for which a permit is
required is started or proceeded without prior obtaining -- without
Page 42
December 2-3, 2008
prior to obtaining said permit and where a contractor and
agent/provider were -- I'm trying to read my writing -- were to
building offen- -- where the building official or zoning director deems
that the contract should have known that a permit was required but
voluntarily seeks compliance by obtaining the necessary permit to
abate the violation, the fees herein specified shall be two times the
regular fee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But they could be four times.
MR. SCHMITT: They could be four times if it went to the Code
Enforcement Board and it was a judgment through the Code
Enforcement Board, through the Contractor Licensing Board, or
through the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And the only one that can
waive fees is the Board of Commissioners.
MR. SCHMITT: Is the Board of County Commissioners, that's
correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But--
MR. SCHMITT: And with the understanding -- and just so you
have the background, this is a -- I believe, was an affordable housing
deferral of impact fees as, Commissioner, you alluded to, and that's
why it shows where there are a waiving of impact fees on this. There
were associated fees waived based on the fees schedule, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're--
MR. SCHMITT: -- those are not doubled. The only thing that
would be doubled are the fees for the permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. We're deferring impact fees.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, and then I'm
going to call for some kind of direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think I made a motion
early on that we bring this back, but I didn't hear a second, and I just
need that recognized.
Page 43
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you go ahead and make
that motion again and let's see if we could get a second to your
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I make a motion we
bring this back for consideration because of unusual circumstances
that exist.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would second it except for one
thing. I don't think we need to bring it back. I think we have enough
information to make a decision either to assess the fine or to reduce it.
MR. SCHMITT: If I may add, it would cost me more to bring it
back because of the executive summary and the time. I'd just as soon
not even spend that kind of staff time and money to bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I would make my--
redefine my motion to be a fine that would be $200 plus costs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there would be--
MR. SCHMITT: I don't assess fines. I mean, this is not a fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, if you want to assess that, that is the
fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The fee would be $200 plus
costs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And let me -- let me just get that
straight is, the regular fee for the permit plus $200?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's correct, okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for clarification. Commissioner, your
motion said costs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's drop the cost there and just
say $200.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. Because I just heard Mr. Schmitt say
it's going to cost him more to bring it back, so I don't know what this
Page 44
December 2-3, 2008
cost is going to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, $200.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, but I would second it if the fee
were one and a half times rather than two times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the fee?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the fee --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 1,300 or--
MR. MUDD: Hang on. Let me show you this sheet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Keep in mind that we have a
case here where this man is qualified under low income for affordable
housing. He's building his own house to try to make it work. An
oversight on his part, and he's asking the commission for a small
relief.
MR. MUDD: The building permit out in Immokalee would be
half of the 2,723.36 that's on this piece of paper, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: About 1,362.
MR. MUDD: This is double. The value on this sheet is double
what the normal fee is. I just don't have my calculator to give you the
exact number.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. There's a motion on the floor.
Is there a second to the motion before we go back into discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The motion was what, 250 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two hundred dollar above the regular
fee charged for building this home, okay.
There's -- the motion fails because of a lack of second.
Commissioner Fiala, did you -- then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I had a question. Youjust
stated that this gentleman is building his own home on affordable
housing. How come MDG was the developer who cleared the land if
Page 45
December 2-3, 2008
he's building this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Usually when you become your
own contractor, you sub out certain things you can't do yourself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this isn't an MDG project. It's--
I don't understand.
MR. SCHMITT: It's a lot in Arrowhead. It's in the Arrowhead
development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Oh, I see, I see. And so
MDG owns the lot, and then he is building on the lot that MDG -- that
he bought from MDG?
MR. SCHMITT: Purchased the lot from MDG.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. SCHMITT: He's the qualifier -- he's the qualifier and
contractor who's building the house.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's nice --
MR. SCHMITT: Owner/builder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that they can build their own
house when Arrowhead owns the property. I think that that's pretty
good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, it keeps the costs down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's wonderful. Okay. Now
I understand. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that this gentleman --
I understand where you're coming from when you're trying to get
something even lower, but I think you've gotten a gifted horse
because, as was stated here, that you could be assessed four times.
And the county realized your predicament and has only assessed you
two times.
You have to realize that it costs us money to run the county. So
even though you were -- you should, as a citizen, know what the rules
and regulations are -- and that doesn't give you the opportunity to
Page 46
December 2-3,2008
continue on building anything or being involved in something if you
don't know what the rules are. And being ignorant to the rules isn't
really any grounds for cover.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further discussion on this
Item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just -- yeah. Go ahead,
Commissioner Coyle. I was going to ask if you wanted any more
comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one comment. I think -- I
think we should be compassionate in these cases, but remember, we're
already providing $28,000 of waivers for this home, and I would be
willing to reduce the fee one and a half times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1'11 second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I can't go lower than
that because I think there must be a penalty for ignoring the law, and
we've already put a lot of money into helping Mr. Barrera afford this
house, and I just don't think we can ignore this particular violation
completely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the second by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with it. I had a problem with
the dumping of the dirt and some of that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wish somebody would dump dirt on
my land.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then you can get to keep it,
Page 47
December 2-3,2008
yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Spread it out a little bit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I had a real problem with that
part of the evidence. But anyway, I agree with the motion.
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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1. Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
We have time for one more before we give Terri a break.
MR. MUDD: This brings--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JAMESDON STEVENS TO
DISCUSS BID PROCESS FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER 08-
5123 - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: This brings us to Item 6D, and this Item was
continued from the November 18th, 2008, BCC meeting. It's public
petition request by Jamesdon Stevens to discuss bid process for
solicitation number 08-5123.
MR. STEVENS: Hi, Commissioners. How you doing? My
Page 48
December 2-3, 2008
name's James Stevens. I was the low bidder on a project for the ITB
for the lime sludge hauling.
And it's a little premature probably coming in here, because I
guess it hasn't been awarded yet, but I was told that I was not going to
get it even though I was the low bidder because of a local preference
form that we had filled out, sent in after the fact, and I learned that we
were not getting the job when I sent an email the following day after
the bids were posted.
Little nervous. Never done this before.
Anyway, the online portion of the submittal asked for three
things. I provided all three things that it asked for. It asked for a spot
to check saying that I had read the other bid packet. I did so.
On the bid packet it states, do you need insurance, the local
preference form filled out, and a few other things, but there was no
attachment or place on the online portion for it to go. There was three
attachments, like I had said. One was a location of the dumpsite, like
physical address; the second was an agreement that they'd allow you
to dump that; and the third was for any permits or anything else that
would go along with it, which we did all that.
And I'm just kind of wanting some output, or some input to know
what to do here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm not sure if we can really
take action on this Item. We have a process. We have a policy on the
process. If a vendor objects to the award, they may protest that award.
MR. STEVENS: Even ifthere's a defect in the online portion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's part of the protest, is give the
evidence, but that's my only opinion. Commission Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You know, you're right,
Commissioner Henning. We have reached out to the applicant,
petitioner rather, a number of times to remind them about that, but still
they have the right to come here under public petition. If this serves
any purpose this moment in time, it will remind other vendors out
Page 49
December 2-3, 2008
there that deal with the county to file this particular piece of
paperwork qualifying them to be a local vendor. Meanwhile, I hope to
see you back under the protest part of this --
MR. STEVENS: Yeah, I'll be back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- whole process.
MR. STEVENS: That's all I wanted to say. I just wanted to, you
know, let everybody know that, I don't know, I just feel like I was
treated unfairly, because I was low bidder, I am local. I went to
school here, my kids go to school here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not over yet, sir.
MR. STEVENS: Yeah, this whole spirit of the form's been
exploited, so -- all right. Appreciate your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I was going to -- I'll support
what you just said. We do have a process. We have to go through
that process. We can't shortcut the process because it would be unfair
to, perhaps, other people if we did that.
MR. STEVENS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I think going through the protest
process is the proper way to go, and we'll be happy to consider it
under that process.
MR. STEVENS: Right. The thing that I had, you know, against
the whole protest process was, I -- I don't understand, since I was the
low bidder and I am local, it should have never went to another guy
for him to match my price because he filled out a local preference
form when there was no place to attach that form to my online portion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My questions is, how come there
wasn't a place for him to attach it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think we need to find that
out from the staff when they go through the protest process. There
might be a flaw in our procedure.
MR. STEVENS: I mean, to be honest, completely honest with
Page 50
December 2-3,2008
the board, I could have scanned that sheet, you know, in the computer
and tried to attach it somehow. But like I said, there was no -- they
asked for three things, so I supplied all three of those things.
The only other thing was a little check box to say that I had read
the online bid packet, which I did. There's also insurance, a few other
things that you have to do after the selection's been made.
So the following day when the bids were posted and I found out
that I was the low bidder, I sent an email to Mr. Coran (sic) stating,
you know, I see that J.D. Stevens was the low bidder. Is there any
other information? I know you need insurance, you need this. Is there
anything else?
And he emailed me back and said, yes, you were the low bidder,
but because you didn't fill out the preference form and attach it to your
bid, it was offered to another contractor and he's going to get the job
because he filled out a local preference form, and his sunbiz.org
registration's from Washington, Michigan. So I mean, how local is
that? All my guys were born and raised here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This has got to be left for the
protest. The formal part.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The key here is your local -- your local
preference letter needs to be notarized, okay, and you can't do that on
an e- -- on a form. But this is part of the protest, and I believe -- I
believe it's better said to wait, and then the board will have it--
probably have a decision to make to either accept the after-the-fact on
the thing with the local bidder -- and that's up to the board, but it's at a
different time, I believe.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. STEVENS: Okay, yeah. Because I did send that in after
the fact, and they wouldn't take it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Stevens -- yeah. Let me
give you a little bit of history where we are with this. We have had
several of these protests come to us in the past because of flaws in our
Page 51
December 2-3, 2008
local ordinance and how we got it put together. And in -- I think just in
every one of those cases we recognized the protest as being valid and
awarded the contract in that direction. Doesn't mean it's going to
happen this time.
MR. STEVENS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if that gives you some sort
of comfort to not drop this, to pursue it to the next level.
MR. STEVENS: Right. I mean--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It will come back before us and
we'll deal with it at that time. But we do appreciate you being here
today.
MR. STEVENS: Yeah, I just --like I said, I just didn't
understand, you know -- like tangible tax, I've been paying that since
'90. I've been in Golden Gate, you know, so I didn't sign up for that or
sign a local preference form to be taxed, and I'm getting all the
penalties of being local but none of the advantages.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it hasn't happened yet.
MR. STEVENS: All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we really need to make this
process user friendly instead of blocking our people out. We need to
make this process user friendly so somebody knows exactly what to
do and can submit it rather than -- you know, like Jim Mudd just said,
you can't notarize online. So I mean, we need to be helpful to our
community rather than blocking them out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. STEVENS: Yeah. I'm not trying to buck the system at all.
If -- I sent the email in the next day asking if I needed to come down
and fill out anything. I was just trying to do it online, keep it, you
know, green, like Collier County's wanting to do, and I got bit for it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 52
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sure we'll see you again.
MR. STEVENS: Yes, you will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. STEVENS: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take a 10-minute break and be
back at 10:38.
(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. Next public petition-
Item #6E
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY AISLING SWIFT TO
DISCUSS VEGETATION BUFFER BETWEEN NEW HOPE
MINISTRIES, BRIAR LANDINGS, LAKE POINTE
CONDOMINIUMS AND THE ENCLA VE - DIRECTION GIVEN
FOR HOMEOWNERS TO MEET WITH DEVELOPER AND
DISCUSS OPTIONS REGARDING A WALL VERSUS A
VEGETATION BUFFER AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT FOR
BOTH PARTIES
MR. MUDD: Is 6E, and this is a public petition request by
Aisling Swift to discuss vegetation buffer between New Hope
Ministries, Brian's Landing (sic), Lake Pointe Condominiums, and the
Enclave. Ms. Swift?
MS. SWIFT: My name is Aisling Swift, and I'm a homeowner at
Briar Landings at the Enclave. I'm here to ask commissioners to grant
New Hope Ministries a permanent waiver of the wall requirements so
our condos can, again, have trees and shrubs behind them. We oppose
a wall.
Page 53
December 2-3,2008
Many of us purchased our condos due to the preserve behind
them, which Realtors wrongly assured us would never change. Many
homeowners bought their homes through the county affordable
housing program.
This is a photo of what our rear views once looked like. They
were beautiful.
One Enclave resident taught his son about wildlife showing him
the birds, opossums, raccoons, and armadillos that were there.
That's what my back yard looked liked.
In April we woke up to find the trees and shrubs, the buffer
behind the condos and the church being ripped out. Although there
was a neighborhood informational meeting months before, we were
under the belief the woods would only be thinned before a buffer
would be replanted, giving some condos the woods back and others a
view of the new lake; however, there were many exotics.
This is what our views were like in April. That's my back yard
now. There are 13 air-conditioners back there.
After the woods were ripped out this spring, I gathered 112
signatures from homeowners and renters at Briar Landings at the
Enclave and Lake Pointe Condominiums, who wanted trees and
shrubs to be replanted.
I petitioned to speak to you but came to a compromise with the
church, which agreed to work with us on the trees and planned to plant
50 percent more than the county required.
This is what our views look like now. The area that looks like a
dirt road was once dense woods.
MR. MUDD: I'll go through these individually.
MS. SWIFT: That was all woods. It looks like a road now, and
that's the lake that's being built, so some homeowners' got improved.
Views. I get 13 air-conditioners. That's -- three buildings get
that.
MR. MUDD: This is the last one.
Page 54
December 2-3,2008
MS. SWIFT: And that's the lake that the Enclave also has a view
of. That's the church's new lake.
We were under the belief the foliage would soon return but more
was being taken out. If I hadn't called the engineer and county
officials about three weeks ago to ask why, a wall would have begun
going up without our knowledge.
We don't understand the county's requiring two separate walls,
especially one that would obscure the view for condo owners who
were told they'd have a lake view. A wall doesn't prevent trespassers
and a piece of wall doesn't block noise, so we don't understand the
necessity at this point in their development.
On January 29th when the church asked for a waiver of the wall
requirement, Commissioner Coyle was concerned about the school to
the north of the property, but the county doesn't require a wall there.
At that point we were under the belief they were going ahead with the
trees.
We understand it would take time for the foliage to grow back
but are willing to work with the county and church on that. The
church has said the trees would be 14 feet high and 6-foot-high shrubs
and staggered plantings also would be added. This is something we
support.
At this point I was going to give you the 112-point -- name
petition I gathered in April and another of about 25 names that an
Enclave resident and I gathered Monday, but I left it at home. But I
do have a letter from the Enclave Homeowners Association president
supporting a permanent waiver of the wall requirement.
This is not a Stevie Tomato's situation. This is a church we
barely would know is there except for the construction noise going on
now, noise that isn't even that loud but is repetitive.
The church has been a good neighbor. Mostly quiet except for
that and a few instances that include paintball games and A TV s riding
around the construction site. And the church has worked with
Page 55
December 2-3,2008
residents who did complain and moved construction noise farther
away from the residents in the early morning hours.
We appreciate county staff trying to protect us, but we are asking
you to allow us to have our wooded buffer back and to grant the
church a permanent waiver of the wall requirement. Without that, the
church won't give us all the trees and shrubs we want. If there is a
noise or glaring light problem years from now when there supposedly
will be a pool and ball fields built, residents can work with the church
and county on it, but a wall isn't what we want aesthetically. We just
want our wooded buffer back. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Questions?
Commissioner Fiala, then I want to go, and then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, this is your district. Do you
want to go first. Go ahead?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, ladies always first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you're always too nice to me.
Ma'am, I wanted to -- now, you're speaking for all of the
homeowners; is that correct?
MS. SWIFT: I've spoken to them. When this all started, I
gathered 112 names, and I spoke to homeowners, and then this
weekend I spoke to more. There's only one who had concern that
maybe this would be a bad thing, asking for a waiver of the wall
requirement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want you to know, we could --
they already have to build the wall, and we could also suggest to them
-- not suggest -- we can tell them they must build a landscape buffer in
front of it that will border your property so that when you look, you
don't even see the wall, but it will buffer the noises that come from
ball fields.
And, of course, ball fields don't play during the day. They play
at night. And it will buffer the noises and the light from the cars
coming in and so forth. But once we tell them we don't want a wall,
Page 56
December 2-3, 2008
you can't come back to us again.
MS. SWIFT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Once that's done, that's done;
however, right now we can tell them we want a wall and a landscape
buffer on the property owners' side to mask the wall.
MS. SWIFT: I understand it's going to be a nice wall, but what
we had was really beautiful. And we couldn't see through there at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you'll never get that back again.
And, you know, no matter how many times people tell you that, it's
not going to be the same. And the thing is, once you eliminate that
wall, you can't -- you can't get it back. You'll have to build it yourself,
and now you're talking lots of money.
And so I would suggest to you that you would want to get input
from all of the residents. What happens is, we have somebody -- this
happens to us all the time, we can all confirm it. People come in and
tell us what they want, and they're speaking for their neighbors.
We give it to them, and then the neighbors come crashing in on
us saying, we don't want that. We want a park. No, we don't. We
want landscaping. No, we don't.
And so, I think I'm -- this is Commissioner Henning's district, and
so I don't want to overstep my bounds here, but I would think that we
would need -- I would need to know that over 50 percent of your
residents say, yes, we don't want a wall and we understand we'll never
have a wall, even if at some point in time we're sorry we made this
decision because now it's too noisy and too many cars and too many
hours all day and all night.
We can't get it anymore, then -- but they understand that then
they're going to be responsible for building it themselves.
MS. SWIFT: But it's a piece of a wall, so how can a piece of a
wall here and a piece over there really block noise? It's not like a full
wall. It's not even that high.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If that wall-- how long is that wall?
Page 57
December 2-3,2008
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, for the record. I'm not -- I guess
I'm not quite understanding why Aisling thinks it's a piece of the wall,
and it's probably easier ifI just show you on the visualizer.
The yellow areas are where the deviation was granted. So the
white area -- and let me just point, here and here, that would be the
north, and then on the east side would be one continuous wall 6 feet in
height.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Six feet in height?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. With the required type B landscape buffer
on the residents' -- Aisling's side of the wall.
MS. SWIFT: I was told it was going to be a wall by the Enclave
and then a wall by the three buildings right behind the church, which
is where I live. Like two separate pieces of the wall.
Well, residents did oppose a wall, but maybe we don't understand
why the county is pushing for this. We don't understand why the
county is pushing for this. Maybe we don't understand what is coming
in the future, like how loud it's going to be or -- but I know during the
first discussion, you talked the county water park, and there don't
seem to be problems there, and there wasn't a wall. It was a wooded
buffer. So that was brought up under the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Ms. Swift, the staff is going by
the board's Land Development Code, and there's no sense to put a wall
next to a preserve.
The question -- the direction that I would like to see is, I share
Commissioner Fiala's concerns. I don't even know the process that --
what we can do as far as a deviation of a conditional use. But if you
can get the majority of the people within those buildings -- I don't care
about somebody that lives 600 feet away from that.
And I understand a wall is not going to give you what a
landscaping vegetation would provide you. I understand that. But the
concern, and I share it with Commissioner Fiala, is, you know, do a
petition of exactly what is being proposed, have the residents either
Page 58
December 2-3, 2008
sign it, yes, I'm in favor of it, no, I'm not in favor of it, and bring it
back.
MS. SWIFT: The petition I did gather just--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But that was a different issue.
MS. SWIFT: -- yesterday was only the ones that are affected by
the wall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. SWIFT: Although I wasn't aware that it went -- it was full,
but I did basically focus only on those buildings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have that with you?
MS. SWIFT: No, but I'll -- I left it at home, but I'll bring it in
today. I'll go get it. I don't live that far away.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just briefly. I mean, I've heard
many situations in the past, but it's always been fighting a vegetation
buffer in favor of a wall. The walls cost more. No, this has been the
case. You really need to have somebody come down and talk to you,
maybe give you some idea sketches. If you're looking for a vegetative
buffer that you're not going to see through, you're not going to get it
on that space of land. You're better to get the wall.
I mean, do what you want to do. We're here to meet your needs,
but you have to know what you're asking for. A wall with a
vegetative buffer in front of it to break down the outline of the wall, to
me, would be much more preferable than a vegetative buffer that
would be between you and your neighbor that's only about 15, 20 feet
wide with spaces between it. You'd be able to still see everything
that's going on. It won't stop the noise. It's going to be -- it's not
going to be an amenity that's going to increase the value of your
property, where a wall generally does. I don't know what the
apprehension against the wall is, but we're here to serve you.
MS. SWIFT: Because -- I guess because it's a wall. We just
Page 59
December 2-3,2008
liked what we had. We bought our houses because of the beautiful
woods, and now it's gone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but those woods were not
yours. They were on your neighbor's property --
MS. SWIFT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and your neighbor has every
right to be able to develop his property within reason.
MS. SWIFT: Yeah, but it was a buffer, and we couldn't even see
through it at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, I know. But the woods
was not a preserve. A little bit of research would have probably led
you to know -- understand that it could be changed, the use of the
land. The only time you get reasonable assurance is if something's
been placed into conservation easements, and this wasn't the case.
So I think your expectation for a buffer that used to exist is
unrealistic. But we see it all the time, and generally the Realtors that
are out there will tell the people it's a preserve, it's this or that.
MS. SWIFT: Yeah, they lie.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what you see will be
forever.
MS. SWIFT: Yeah. That's exactly what they told all of us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, nothing's changed.
They're still doing it.
MS. SWIFT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two questions. Number one,
when the people signed this morning or yesterday -- yesterday, I think
you said, 25 signatures, were they under the impression that the wall
was just in pieces rather than a continuous wall all the way down the
one side and down the other side?
MS. SWIFT: I said it would be a wall-- I thought it was in two
Page 60
December 2-3,2008
pieces, but I did tell the Enclave people it would be a wall behind their
condos which would block the view of the lake, which, apparently at
the neighborhood informational meetings, they were told, well, now
you'll have a view of the lake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then if you have a vegetative
buffer as you're looking for -- although it will never be a forest again.
It will only be about 15 feet -- it will still block the view of the lake,
but it won't block your sound.
I mean, I think the developer would love to grant your request
because it's going to save him probably a couple hundred thousand
dollars. And then in the end, when you want the wall back, they'll
say, sorry, but, you know, you didn't want it.
So I would hate to work -- go any further unless all your people
understand that if they're not happy with the end result of just
landscaping -- and, you know, landscaping dies and so forth and it
must be maintained. But anyway, if they're not happy and they do
want a wall because of the noise generated from the ball fields and the
swimming pool and so forth, they don't -- you know, they have to pay
for it themselves. And if that's their understanding and if they're okay
with that, you know, it's going to be -- we just want to make sure that
you're happy, and Mr. Developer would love it if he didn't have to
build the wall.
So I think you need to go back and -- you know, when you bring
this petition back to us, make sure that the people that signed it
understand what they're signing away, okay?
MS. SWIFT: I told them it would be a beautiful wall. I mean--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With, by the way, landscape
buffering that, so you probably won't see too much of the wall because
it will be landscaped.
MS. SWIFT: And we would only see about 4 feet of the wall.
Even though it's six feet, it would only come four feet up to our
houses, apparently.
Page 61
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a correct statement. It's a
two-story condo unit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the first story would receive
some benefit, but not the second story.
MS. SWIFT: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the landscaping would be shrubs.
Mr. Klatzkow, the process?
MR. KLA TZKO W: You don't really have a process for this and
-- well, the process for this would have been for the community to
come forward at the time this whole thing was being approved and to
have this discussion then.
I think what you and Commissioner Fiala have been saying, I
agree with; get a petition together so we know the majority want this,
and then we can sit down with the developer and see if we can work
something out with the developer.
MS. SWIFT: Good luck trying to reach them. I mean, my
problem is, we don't have a homeowners association. We just lost our
property manager. And I couldn't get ahold of the developer's
attorney. So I was stuck just doing -- going door to door.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See that guy sitting right there?
Raise your hand, Tim.
MS. SWIFT: I know him, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, do you have a problem with
the process?
MS. ISTENES: I just want to clarify. This is a two-party
process. In other words, I mean, it's the church's property, and what
was approved on that plan is what they need to build. They are in the
process of finalizing their Site Development Plan.
So if he wants to modify it, obviously they'll have to work with
the homeowners association to get a specific plan together and then
work in agreement with the property owner and come back through
Page 62
December 2-3,2008
the process.
I don't have a problem with that. If they don't want a wall and
they can work something out with Tim and his church, then they can
come back through the process and we'll certainly consider it as long
as we know that's the majority of the property owners, and I think
that's what I heard you say as well.
But I just want you to understand it's -- what's approved is
already approved, so he's going to need to come back through the
process with a specific plan that he's worked through with them. And
if he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't have to.
MR. SCHMITT: The decision will be final. I mean, that's --
MS. ISTENES: Right, right.
MR. SCHMITT: Make sure you understand that.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. Ifthere's no wall, then there will never be
a wall unless, as you said, Commissioner Fiala, the other property
owner builds it if they want one.
MS. SWIFT: So ifthere is noise, there would be no way of
counteracting the noise?
MS. ISTENES: There would be a noise ordinance that you
could, you know, register a complaint against, but, yeah, as far as any
additional buffering, if that's what you wanted to do to resolve, that
would be your responsibility to provide on your property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is definitely a case of the
buyer beware of what you're asking for. You need to have a
community meeting, you need to have people there that are
knowledgeable about the facts on what you're going to get to be able
to present it to all the homeowners. Just to get their signature on a
piece of paper without them being in front of a display to be able to
see what they're talking about is going to be a terrible disservice, and I
know that if they actually put in the vegetative buffer, there's going to
be a buyer regret afterwards on it. But you just be aware of what
Page 63
December 2-3,2008
you're asking for.
MS. SWIFT: No. I did have some concern after reading the
January 29th minutes, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Speak in the mike, ma'am.
MR. MUDD: Speak in the mike.
MS. SWIFT: 1 don't know how loud all of this is going to be. I
mean, it's probably some activities on the weekend and, you know, a
soccer field. I don't know, are you talking every night?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. These churches can be very
loud.
MS. SWIFT: That's what we're saying, it's a church.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they're very obnoxious. You
might hear some singing and praising.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Children laughing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Stuff like that. Does the board -- is
the board okay with the direction? Does anybody -- is there a majority
of them? And the direction is, work with the church, provide a
petition of exactly what is being proposed, and the majority of the
homeowners, the affected homeowners, sign that and take it to staff,
which would be at community development, and provide that
information to them.
MR. SCHMITT: We'll be glad to even come out and explain to
the homeowners what the options are. And I explained to Tim what's
going to happen with Tim, he's got an SDP. Somehow we'll have to
work the process because, of course, he wants to start construction,
and we can -- we can hold off on requiring the wall to be built until we
get this resolved, but we would want to get it done quickly so that he
can develop the right plans, submit a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You okay with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just one little final note.
I'm still worried about the actual consumer out there not being aware
what they're dealing with. Please ask your -- the members of the
Page 64
December 2-3, 2008
condominium facing this area to view this particular little public
petition on their computers. They can access just that and be able to
play it back. If you have any questions, just call the commissioner's
office and we'll give you directions for it.
But they need to view this and understand the concerns of the
commission as they proceed through this.
MS. SWIFT: Yeah. Well, some of them did go to the
neighborhood informational meeting and they were just under the
impression it was going to be a wooded buffer. No wall. And they
even expressed that that's what they wanted, the buffer. So nobody
had any concern about huge amounts of noise at that point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
MS. SWIFT: But maybe the staff knows something we don't
know. But we would prefer the beautiful woods that may never
return, I guess.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. This is a difficult problem,
and it occurs too frequently where residents don't understand what is
happening next to them. And I understand why it's difficult for them
to appreciate what things are going to look like when development
takes place next door.
When we talk about a buffer, we have a set of specifications for a
buffer, and it might not be acceptable to you. I don't think that your
back yard will ever look as beautiful as it was before --
MS. SWIFT: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with the buffers that we talk
about and -- but the problem is, this has been going on since 2003.
There have been public hearings during all these years. The Site
Development Plan was submitted in January of2008 -- or '5, I'm
sorry, 2005.
There's been plenty of opportunity for public input. But, again, I
understand that lay people who are not familiar with our procedures
Page 65
December 2-3,2008
and our specifications can reach the wrong conclusions.
But it's very hard for us to reverse something that we've already
approved because we have a property owner who has an approved Site
Development Plan, and it costs them money to continually go back
and reconsider these things over and over and over again.
So I would encourage you to try to -- and this is hard for a person
if you don't have a homeowners association. But I'd encourage you to
move this along as quickly as you can and be fair with the church
because -- and I think they want to be good neighbors, but there's a
limit to what they can afford to do. And if you would try to move this
along very quickly -- the key under this circumstance, in my opinion,
is for you and the concerned homeowners to get with the church
representatives and talk with them, and Mr. Hancock will be happy to
give you his home number and his office number and cell number and
-- so that you can contact him any time of the day, even weekends.
So -- but try to expedite this as quickly as you can because we
have no reason to re-open this case and deny them something we have
already approved for them. That's the thing that's difficult for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to suggest, maybe
you could call a fast town hall meeting with your neighbors, you
know, post things up on the trees or something, meet, and the church
will give you a room that you can meet in, because it doesn't sound
like you have a place there on your property.
MS. SWIFT: We do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do you?
MS. SWIFT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Call it real quickly, our staff
will come over there as well. I'm sure the developer will, so you can
see pictorially what it's going to look like in the end and then -- or
what it would look like versus another plan, and then everybody can
Page 66
December 2-3,2008
make --
MS. SWIFT: An informed decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a knowledgeable -- an informed
decision, thanks, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I believe that most ofthe
points have been covered. But I think that you ought to stick with the
wall and along with the buffering of the trees, because if you just
decide that you just want the buffer with vegetation, it's not going to
be suffice, and that's why we have this in our code. It's through years
of experience that we've had experience with other PUDs and other
neighborhoods and realize that there has to be some additional
buffering of noise, and especially an area that's going to probably have
a lot of activity in the future. Okay.
MS. SWIFT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MS. SWIFT: Thanks.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have an 11 o'clock, but you
have one more petition. I believe this petition's kind of short. It has to
do with --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very short.
MR. MUDD: -- chickens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I, Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
Item #6F
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY ANTONIA SOTO TO
DISCUSS MIGRANT WORKER TRANSPORT BUS PARKING-
PETITIONER NOT PRESENT
MR. MUDD: This is 6F. It's a public petition request by
Page 67
December 2-3,2008
Antonio Soto to discuss migrant worker transport bus parking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I don't
think they're going to show. When they seen the letter from the
Chamber of Commerce, the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce, and
the Immokalee CRA, they decided that it was futile to pursue their
issue here and left the building, but I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As far as the process goes, are we
okay to -- or what should we do in this case, somebody petitioned the
Board of County Commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Is the petitioner here?
MR. KLATZKOW: He's not here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's not here. Okay.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDA nON THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS DETERMINE THE FISCAL YEAR 2009
CAPIT AL PROJECTS TO BE PROGRAMMED BASED ON THE
$1,803,392 TURN-BACK REVENUE ALLOCATED TO THE
LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN AND THE
THREE PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR LANDSCAPING -
MOTION TO COMBINE OPTIONS #2 & #3 AND OBTAIN BIDS
FOR ALL 3 PROJECTS AND WAVIER OF LOCAL
PREFERENCE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our time certain
Item, which is at 11 o'clock, and it is 10D. It's a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners determine the fiscal year 2009
capital projects to be programmed based on the $1,803,393 turn-back
revenue allocated to the landscape beautification master plan and the
three projects scheduled for landscaping.
Mr. Norm Feder, your Transportation Service Administrator, will
Page 68
December 2-3,2008
present.
As you remember, last meeting during communications, I said
that I'd have the unenviable task to bring this back to the board
because there didn't seem to be enough funds total in order to do all
three projects, capital projects.
And Mr. Feder is here to address alternatives and what he can do
with the dollars that you allocated.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Jim.
Commissioners, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. I think Jim has pretty well covered the issue. We were
asked to look at three projects, that being Rattlesnake Hammock,
Immokalee Road between 951 and I-75, and Vanderbilt Beach Road
between Airport and 951, for landscaping.
The estimate for the three was 2.9 million; based on turn-back, as
Jim has noted, 1.803392 was provided.
This agenda Item is to ask the board how you want me to
proceed. We provided some alternatives, and I'm here to take any
direction the board might provide.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I think we could
spend most of the morning arguing about who should get the
landscaping money. I think there's an easier way to resolve this.
Since we are unsure about the actual costs that would come in on a bid
for any landscaping project under today's circumstances, why can't we
put out a bid for the entire -- entire length of roadway median that we
want to landscape and ask the bidders to provide the level of
landscaping they can provide consistent with our budget constraints.
We have a choice of saying, we've got this much money to
spend. You tell me what you can do on this project for that much
money, and then the decision is based upon who can provide the best
landscaping within that budgeted amount.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 69
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that way it gets all of it done
to some degree.
MR. FEDER: Basically, ifI understand your recommendation,
it's taking our options 2 and 3 and combining them, which says, go out
to bid. And ifI understand correctly, we'd ask for bid alternates for
each one of the projects. And then a bid alternate as well if all three
cannot be funded by the 1.8 million, what could be done to bring the
projects within line to be let at 1.8 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we might be happily surprised
to find that they can do something on the entire length of roadway
within our budget.
MR. FEDER: If that's the board's direction, we're fine with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seconded.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Coletta wanted to
second. Commissioner Halas, and then we have some public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. The other thing that concerns
me, once you get the landscaping in, how are we going to maintain
that level of service on the additional landscaping in the upcoming
years?
County Manager, maybe you can chime in on this? Do we have
the revenues that are going to be coming in to take care of all this --
the additional maintenance of this landscaping area?
MR. FEDER: Jim, you want me to hit it?
MR. MUDD: I'm--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's looking into his crystal ball.
MR. MUDD: There's no crystal ball here. What I will tell you
is, the allocation of monies in order to bring full maintenance for this
Page 70
December 2-3, 2008
year for what was cut prior and what's coming onboard is about
$500,000 shy of what was -- what Norm had come up with, estimates,
so there is going to be some degradation to the entire system as far as
landscaping is concerned because he is not going to be able to
maintain it to the level that it was last year, and I'm talking about
what's presently in the ground right now and the three projects that
you're talking about bringing on board.
And I do not have a staff analysis of what that degradation will
look like. I can't tell you if it's only -- we're only going to mow it
twice, three times, four times, six times, but Norman will provide that,
and it will come back to the board and we will provide the board that
information so that you know what that is, okay.
Now, you asked me a question, Mr. Halas, which I haven't
answered yet, okay, and you asked me about funding for the future.
And I can tell you, the recession we're in -- and I can use that word
now that it's official, okay, and the stock market basically proved my
point yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's going to go the big D.
MR. MUDD: But -- and, oh, by the way, we've been in it for
over a year and we just found out about it yesterday. So I got to tell
you, something's going on. But outside of that statement -- and what I
will tell you is, I can't tell you that the home prices in Collier County
are going to go up this next year.
I will tell you -- I'm pretty sure to tell you that they will continue
to go down. And so your assessed values will go down. And
depending on the board's decision on what they want to do with the
millage rate, that will determine what the -- what the influx of dollars
will be for that -- for next year. That's up to the Board of County
Commissioners, and you'll make that decision in June and July of
2009.
And that's kind of where I'm at on that, to answer your question.
I'm not trying to avoid it, but you're asking me a question I have no
Page 71
December 2-3, 2008
control over. The five people on the dais do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that, and I've made it
very clear here if people think that they want to keep the level of
service on the landscaping -- and let's just cut to the chase here. If
people don't like the idea that we're going to be mowing once every
two weeks and we're going to be mowing once every six weeks and
they want all this landscaping in and they want all this stuff kept up,
there's going to be a raise in property taxes. That's where I stand on
this.
So I just want to let people know that yes, it's nice to have all
these amenities, but our -- we are charged with health, safety, and
welfare. And if they want all these nice amenities which make this
community what it is, then -- there's no such thing as a free lunch.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. May I ask, when the figures
were calculated for the maintenance of these, and -- might they be
different now, at this time?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes, the costs have generally come
down, but they're pretty much reflected in that calculation. We started
off, if you remember, about 80,000. We're down to about 57,000 a
mile for maintenance based on the better costs and very good work
done by Michelle and the staff to try and pull back those costs with the
contractors, plus the economies helped quite a bit as well.
So in answer to your question, we've taken reduced costs into
account. As we go out, we find that they're creeping down a little bit.
I don't know where that floor is, but we've used the most recent bids
that we've had out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas mentioned
something about raising taxes. Is -- rather than raising tax, ad valorem
taxes or whatever, we have the MSTU, the 111 fund that specifically
can handle the -- not only the landscaping, but the maintenance. And
we have a lot of people that write us all the time about wanting the
Page 72
December 2-3,2008
landscaping and it's the signature of the community and they want it
maintained beautifully.
I wonder ifthere's some way that our citizens could let us know
if they want to pay for the landscaping maintenance and beautification
process through that fund. I don't know ifthere's a way to do that or
not, you know, to contact our citizens and get a majority ruling on
that, but it might be interesting, as long as that seems to be so
important to everybody. I know I think it's beautiful.
Would -- you might think it's beautiful, but would you be willing
to pay for it is the question.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I think some of your question was
answered, but I think you've asked a broader question, obviously.
Right now fund 111, which is the unincorporated MSTD is what
is funding the program. There are other segments of roadway beyond
these three that are completed and/or getting completed that are going
to call for landscaping.
If any exposure that you probably had and I've had to the desires
of the community are out there, that is an option to look at relative to
what rate you set on the fund 111 next cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the motion on the floor is
to task our staff to get some bids with the monies allocated for the
three projects. Tell us what you can do for that and bring it back. So
when the speakers come up to speak on that, just give us some
guidance on the motion, or if you have some other ideas, please share
it with us.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Before you take a vote, I'd
just like to reinforce what Commissioner Halas and Commissioner
Fiala have said.
The capital costs for installing landscaping is the minor portion
of the cost. Every time we install more landscaping, we obligate
ourselves to a lifetime of maintenance costs, and those maintenance
Page 73
December 2-3,2008
costs are huge.
Now, that's not to say that any of us are against landscaping
because we believe it does make our community more beautiful, but
we have been, for the last two years, warning the residents of Collier
County that the vote to restrict our fundraising abilities on a local
business will severely impact your quality of life and it will adversely
impact the value of the property you earn -- you own. That is a fact,
and we've been saying that consistently for two years.
So it should come as no surprise now that you're going to see
some degradation in the maintenance of our community. It is going to
occur, and there's nothing we can do about it.
We have limited funds and we're trying to use them in the best
way we possibly can. And we as a commission must make a policy
about landscaping. We either must scale back the level of landscaping
that we're willing to provide and certainly begin to evaluate the
xeriscaping concept so that the maintenance is substantially lower than
it is now, and residents are not going to like that.
But, nevertheless, we don't have any other options and we really
need to start tackling that problem pretty quickly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go to our public speakers.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Michael Soadeh. He'll be
followed by Paul Feuer.
MR. SOADEH: Good morning, Commissioners. First of all, I'd
like to make a couple comments, and then I agree with Commissioner
Coyle on the principal of spreading the budget and looking to do all
three medians versus just one location.
But just a little history on that. We developed the Vineyards
starting in 1986, and at the time there was no landscaping anywhere in
Collier County.
We built the north/south corridor, which is, by far, the most
prestigious north/south corridor in Collier County, which is Vineyards
Boulevard, and we didn't gate that boulevard. That was a public road,
Page 74
December 2-3, 2008
continues to be a public road, and we do spend, out of the developer's
fund and the residents of the Vineyards, upwards of a million dollars a
year to maintain that property that's enjoyed by every citizen of
Collier County.
So in answer to some comments, there is no free lunch is right.
We've been picking up the tab for lunch for a lot of people for a long
time.
As well, when Pine Ridge Road was expanded, there was no
Items for the county to landscape any medians. So we were the
pioneers. We were the first community to step up by basically
developer funds only, went in and landscaped Pine Ridge Road two
medians east of 1-75 and maintained them for a period of 10 years
before we turned them over to the county. So that was another
commitment that was done by our residents and our community and
our developer before anyone else done anything in Collier County on
any median.
Having said that, the one -- couple more points I'd like to make
is, when the project of widening Vanderbilt Beach Road was
undertaken by the county, had that project been on schedule and
completed on time, we wouldn't be having this discussion today
because the budget at that time allotted money to landscape Vanderbilt
at the same caliber as they did Livingston, among other roads, and
Airport and the like.
So the fact that the road was delayed should not be a burden for
the residents of our community along with others along Vanderbilt
Beach Road to be punished for that.
And the last point we'll make is, we -- there is -- I make a couple
suggestions. We have a landscape architect on staff. We've had him
-- we've had that position for years. We will be happy to offer his
services to join with county staff who are very capable of landscaping
some things. You can definitely influence the amount of money you
spend on maintenance by what design you put in.
Page 75
December 2-3,2008
And very simply put from a layman who doesn't have any
experience in landscape architecture, once you eliminate most of the
areas that you grass, you don't require mowing once a week. That's
your biggest expense is having to block lanes and open lanes, and it
takes more time to block these things and mow than other things.
You can place a lot of quality landscaping that does not require
weekly maintenance. A lot of the trees, you can trim them twice a
year and that's it. A lot of the medians, if you just put some
heavy-grade mulch and some plantings that don't require trimming,
regular trimming -- I can give you a list of that -- that will reduce your
cost immensely. So there's some issues that you can take that will,
you know, soften the situation.
One last comment, please. We are not opposed if you spread the
budget over three medians and cover all areas, but we will be
definitely opposed if Vanderbilt Beach Road landscaping was cut out
of the budget for some reason or abandoned for some reason. Thank
you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Paul Feuer. Did you--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Norm Feder has a burning
desire to say something, and I hope he's going to say he's not going to
put grass in the medians.
MR. FEDER: No. What I'm going to tell you, we've already
moved to a lot of those same principles, pulling out grass, putting in
more mulch. And by all means, we'd love to take Michael up on his
offer. And as we look at our designs and go out to bid as
recommended by the board, we'd love to do some value engineering
with him, and we'll do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Feuer will be followed by
Henry Nardone.
MR. FEUER: A lot of what I was going to say has already been
said by the previous speaker, which I thought were excellent points
Page 76
December 2-3,2008
that he did make.
My biggest concern with regard to the Board of Commissioners
is that any decision that you do make is made in good faith and also
fairness.
And one of the things you have to do is look around and see Pine
Ridge, Goodlette-Frank, look at Golden Gate, look at Livingston
Road. They've all been taken care of very nicely, and recently
Immokalee.
Vanderbilt Beach Road has been going on now for four years,
and I thank the Board of Commissioners and Norm Feder and his staff
for finally getting the road open a few weeks ago; however, it's not
complete; the landscaping is not there.
We do believe that in all good faith, we were entitled to it, and to
be penalized because a contractor failed to perform properly because
the plans that they were working with were inaccurate and we had to
suffer for another year and a half of having poor quality of life, I think
we're entitled to be given due consideration based on fairness and
good faith.
I thank you, and hopefully you'll consider that.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Henry Nardone. He'll be
followed by Diane Ebert who has waived her time and given it to
Gene Mayberry.
MR. NARDONE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow
commissioners. My name is Henry Nardone. I live on Island Walk,
which is Vanderbilt Beach Road, and everything I was going to say
has to be changed now because of what's been said previously.
I would -- we would simply ask you from Island Walk not to
ignore Vanderbilt Beach Road any longer. It's been delayed almost
two years. It's not our fault. We also know it's not your fault either,
but we know that you are the only people that can save us from any
further hardship.
I'd ask that you take Michael's suggestion and work with him and
Page 77
December 2-3, 2008
see if he has any good ideas, and then hopefully this will be the last
time you have to see me talking about Vanderbilt Beach Road. You'll
probably be glad not to hear Vanderbilt Beach Road spoken again.
And when it's done and it's landscaped, I'll only come back one
more time and that would be to thank you. And I thank you for your
time today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next -- the final speaker is Gene Mayberry.
MR. MAYBERRY: Good morning. My name is Gene
Mayberry, and I represent Olde Cypress.
First comment is to Norm. I think it's a good idea also to put the
three projects together and go for a bid, along with the other
comments that have been made. But we would also note that in
today's market, you're probably not going to get your best price with
the first round of bids, that the contractors will come in at the last
minute with their last round -- their best and final offers.
The other point I clearly want to make, and I would preface it
with a comment that's already made, that the Vanderbilt project was
scheduled to be complete before Goodlette and the -- Immokalee west
ofl-75. And I underscore west ofl-75.
If the table was turned and Vanderbilt was complete today, 1.4
million out of this project, and the Goodlette-Frank Road had not been
completed, would your attitude be the same?
Specifically what I'm getting to is you may be creating a
perception problem, and that is the haves and the have-nots.
Specifically east of 1-75 is getting to be not the real Naples.
As the real Naples residents would say, they are in paradise. We
don't have landscaping east ofl-75. It's in Naples.
As one of the gentlemen noted earlier at the -- I guess at the last
meeting, there are over 15,000 of your constituents in the area of these
projects, and our region represents the future growth of Naples.
By postponing or putting off or whatever of landscaping east of
Page 78
December 2-3,2008
1-75, you commissioners will be garnering resentment. Us folks really
resent driving from our communities and driving into your districts
and watching our tax dollars at work. We sincerely request equal
treatment.
These comments are made constructively and by no way are they
personal. We respectfully request your earnest consideration to make
the right decision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I feel compelled to address
this issue. There is no discrimination of one part of Collier County
against the other, and everything west ofI-75 is not Naples. Naples is
a small city of20,000 people. Has nothing to do with Naples.
As a matter of fact, most of the money being spent on a capital
basis is being spent east of 1- 7 5. So the districts beyond that are the
ones that are getting the priority from us. The road improvements and
the landscaping, by the way.
Our problem is that we developed these projects at a time when
we had money. We don't have money now, so we're trying to do the
best we can with the money we have available.
And I resent the implication that any member of this board is
discriminating against other parts of Collier County merely because
you're not getting the landscaping you think you need.
MR. MAYBERRY: Sir, two quick --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nope. Mr. Mayberry, you've had
your time. You stepped away from the podium, I'm sorry. Be fair to
everybody.
Anyways, I think the recommendations are good. I'm not sure the
results of it.
What's the time frame when you think you might come back to
the board?
MR. FEDER: We will work two things. First, we'll start
Page 79
December 2-3,2008
working with Steve Carnell in how we'd set up the bid package.
Offhand, I think what I'm doing is just asking for a bid for all three,
would bid alternates for each one, and then a provision that if that bid
comes in, exceeds 1.8, what they would recommend to modify to
bring it in at 1.8.
We'll also work with Mr. Saudeh and his landscape architect and
do some value engineering before we actually put the bid out on the
street.
Those two things are probably going to take me a couple of
months. I will bring that back as soon as we can do that, get it out to
bid and get you results, and you will then be able to give me direction
based on those specifics and we'll let you know what it would cost
based on the designs as they've been modified through some value
engineering, what was recommended for modification to bring it into
1.8 based on what we get from the bid process itself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So--
MR. FEDER: So we're coming back to you in any event and tell
you what we have and get your go-ahead one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So three months, you're saying?
MR. FEDER: Probably at least that, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. FEDER: Which is about right because we wouldn't do
landscaping during the season anyway. We always start our
landscaping projects at the end of season.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
Any further discussion on the motion?
MR. MUDD: Just one piece. I want to make sure it's clarified. I
heard bids and I heard bid. I heard a plural and I heard a singular.
I believe the board's intent is to bundle all three landscape
projects into one bid so that you get economies to sales and you get
some economies as far as your cost is concerned.
If you bid them out individually, it will cost you more than it
Page 80
December 2-3, 2008
would be if you bundled them together for one bid.
MR. FEDER: And it may be my error. I meant bid with bid
alternates on each one of them as part of that bid, and then we'll also
ask for a further alternate if you had to pull back.
MR. MUDD: Just want to make sure.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And can we waive the local
preference as a part of that motion so we want the value of it, not so
much the local preference?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be happy to support that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see us get rid of local
preference totally.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's -- we already made that
decision, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm having a problem with that.
Could I -- I'd like to withdraw my second and someone else can make
it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make the second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by -- motion by Commissioner Coyle, 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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1.
Page 81
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: IfI may, I'd like the record to
show my objection has to do with the removal of the local preference.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, yep.
Item #9C
RECONSIDER THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DIRECTION FOR THE EAC AND THE CCPC TO HOLD A
JOINT WORKSHOP TO HEAR THE RLSA PHASE II REPORT-
MOTION TO HAVE EACH ADVISORY GROUP REVIEW
SEPARATELY AND INSTRUCT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD
WITHOUT DELAY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our 1:30 (sic),
which is 9C, I believe.
MS. FILSON: 11:30.
MR. MUDD: And that is, this Item to be heard at 11 :30 a.m. to
reconsider the Board of County Commissioners' direction for the EAC
and the CCPC to hold a joint workshop to hear the RLSA Phase II
report.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I put this on the agenda. It's--
you know, the agenda Item's pretty clear.
After the board gave that direction, it was my understanding
through this joint workshop that those committees could not give
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners, and that definitely
wasn't the intent. It would just be a waste of people's time if they
could not give recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
But being that said, Commissioner Fiala rallied a bunch of
people. If she had some other thoughts about this besides
reconsidering it and having a regular meeting of the presentation from
the EAC, to the EAC, and then Planning Commission, please let me
know.
Page 82
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just wanted to see it go
through the proper -- proper vetting process. Rather than go to a
workshop where they really can't make decisions and so forth, I want
to see it go to the EAC, they discuss it, and go to the CCPC, and then
when they have their recommendations, come to us, because then it's
handled the way we handle everything else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's -- that was my intent.
Commissioner Fiala made the motion, and then seconded by
Commissioner Coletta to give directions and -- under the
reconsideration.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess I would prefer to listen to
the public. We've got four speakers.
MS. FILSON: Nine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nine? Nine speakers. I guess I
would like to hear what the public has to say about it before I make up
my mind.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep, okay.
MS. FILSON: You ready?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Nino Spagna. He'll be followed by Nicole Ryan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Ryan, can you go to the other
podium so we can try to stay on schedule.
MS. FILSON: And following Ms. Ryan will be Chris Straton.
MR. SPAGNA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Nino Spagna. I'm the vice-chairman of the Rural Land Stewardship
Study Committee.
And I just wanted to emphasize the fact that we've done a lot of
work up till this point, a lot of people have participated, made good
suggestions which have been incorporated into our work so far. And I
just wanted to say that the committee feels that they have reached a
Page 83
December 2-3, 2008
point where the -- they feel that it's time to get the recommendations
and suggestions and the way that the board would like us to proceed
from this point on.
And I think you all have received a letter from Ron Hammel, our
chairman, indicating certain procedures that can be followed.
So I don't have anything more to say than that except that we are
here. We don't want to overlook any procedures that are necessary,
but we feel it's up to the board to decide how they would like for the
committee to proceed from this point forward. So we're awaiting your
decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr.-- Nino, Commissioner Halas has
a question for you.
MR. SPAGNA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Sir, all your meetings were
conducted in the sunshine; is that correct? Did you advertise these
meetings?
MR. SPAGNA: Every meeting was conducted in the sunshine. I
believe there were some 27 meetings. Nineteen of them dealt
specifically with the part II.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And were these meetings well
attended by the public?
MR. SPAGNA: Yes, they were.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So there was an open
forum, the public was there at all of these meetings so they could
express their concerns or question you in regards to the process that
was taking place; is that correct?
MR. SPAGNA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Ryan?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Nicole Ryan. She'll be followed
by Chris Straton, who will be followed by Michael Soey (sic), or Seef.
I can't tell.
Page 84
December 2-3,2008
MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the
Conservancy very much appreciates your reconsideration of this issue.
It exemplifies your commitment to a full public review of the
RLSA, including review by and recommendations from your EAC and
Planning Commission.
We ask that you reconsider the direction given for an EAC,
Planning Commission, joint informational workshop and restore the
full public review at the individual advisory boards during advertised
public hearings where action by these boards can be taken.
This was the process specified in the project management plan
and it was also the process that the advisory boards and the public
were assured would be followed.
There are significant benefits to following this process. First, it
strengthens the review process by allowing your advisory boards to
vote on specific recommendations for your consideration. Second, it
clearly establishes the public's ability to participate, something that is
not as clearly established in a workshop format. Third, it allows these
advisory boards to function efficiently in providing you with their
input and recommendations.
These boards have differing roles and responsibilities, and
separate meetings will allow them to focus on review based on their
specific responsibilities.
Why is it so important to have this review go through the EAC
and Planning Commission separately? First is the integrity of the
process. The project management plans clearly established that both
the Phase I and the Phase II reports would be heard before the EAC
and Planning Commission before they came to you for your
consideration.
In addition, considerable time was taken at the May 1 st Planning
Commission meeting to ensure that the full public review of the Phase
II report would happen, which includes the fundamentals of the
Page 85
December 2-3, 2008
program and also possibly recommendations for GMP amendments.
It was important to the Planning Commission that they receive
this assurance because this broad-based review of the fundamentals
was not part of the Phase 1 report; thus the agreed upon process must
be followed in order to maintain the integrity of the process.
And going beyond the structure of the process is the very
magnitude of the RLSA and the five-year review. When adopted,
Collier County recognized the RLSA as a new and innovative tool, but
they also recognized that it was untested and would benefit from that
five-year review at that anniversary date.
This is the county's chance to assess the RLSA in its entirety,
looking at the fundamentals and what improvements could be made.
The RLSA committee has been working on this for over a year.
The Conservancy believes that the EAC and Planning
Commission deserve at least their own separate meeting in a public
hearing format in order to take an official vote.
You're not going to get an opportunity of this magnitude again to
have a five-year thorough review. It's too important to rush and we,
therefore, request that you restore the full public review process at the
individual advisory board levels. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Chris Straton, followed by
Michael Seef, followed by Judith Tryka.
MS. STRATON: Good morning. My name is Chris Straton, and
I'm the president of the League of Women Voters here in Collier
County, and I want to thank Chairman Henning for bringing this Item
onto the agenda and also making it time specific. Again, that is
consideration of the public.
And I want to thank Commissioner Fiala for her motion. We
would support that motion.
I'd also like to thank the commission. This is a commission that
has been unbelievably responsive to the public, and that's not the case
throughout the State of Florida.
Page 86
December 2-3,2008
In Collier County, you have provided the public with numerous
opportunities to weigh in and to be part of the process from everything
from the public petition process to having public time on each of your
meeting agendas to providing Internet access to your meetings to
having your programs, your meetings archived and accessible to the
public.
This is not the case in many counties where the public does not
have an opportunity, and that's why I am confident that this
commission, who has demonstrated historically the overwhelming
interest in making sure that the public has adequate opportunities to
participate in all of the processes, will support Commissioner Fiala's
motion.
This Item came to our attention at our November meeting when
we invited the chairs of what we thought were four of the most
important advisory boards to the Board of County Commissioners.
We had someone from development services, the EAC, the Planning
Commission, and also the Productivity Committee.
And when the chairs of the EAC and the Planning Commission
both spoke about things they were doing and brought to our attention
their concern that they did not feel that the public had had adequate
opportunity to participate in this process through the other committees
that would be involved with the decision making, we felt -- and our
members unanimously supported us writing the letter and adding our
voice to that of your Collier County Planning Commission and your
Environmental Advisory Committee, who have the responsibility of
reviewing that plan and providing you with their specific comments.
So that's why we're here. Commissioner Fiala, we support your
motion, and we would hope that this commission would continue its
tradition of going out of its way to make sure that the public has all the
opportunities to participate. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Michael Seef.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me just a minute.
Page 87
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Chris?
MS. STRATON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Did -- obviously I asked the
first gentleman if the public was there. Did you go to any of these
particular meetings?
MS. STRA TON: I was at some of the meetings and we had
someone from the league at the meetings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you feel that it was an open
dialogue, that you could be -- address your concerns?
MS. STRATON: It's not -- it was not designed as an open
dialogue type of thing. There were opportunities for the public to
make comments, but you know, the decision making, the final
decision making will be coming before the Planning Commission and
the Environmental Advisory Committee. And the concern expressed
by them by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All I want to do is just make sure
that you had the opportunity to go to those meetings, that it was an
open forum --
MS. STRATON: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and that you could ask any
questions, any concern that you may have.
MS. STRATON: We had the opportunity to--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MS. STRATON: -- to voice, but we did not have an opportunity
to weigh in on decision making.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right.
MS. STRATON: Okay. And that's what's going to happen with
the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's why we had the group
together. They were part of the decision-making process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not --
Page 88
December 2-3, 2008
MS. FILSON: Michael Seef.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- quite sure where Commissioner
Halas --
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is going with this.
MS. FILSON: Oops, sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. I'm so sorry.
MS. FILSON: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the good thing about these
public forums that we -- that the RLSA committee had was, we have
those same things when it comes to any land development use. We
have neighborhood information meetings and we have a couple of
them where we invite people in, where the public can weigh in; and
then after all of the public input is received, it then goes to the EAC,
and it then goes to the CCPC, and then it comes to us with their
recommendations.
So I just -- I don't ever see why we would want to veer from our
process, but maybe Commissioner Halas wasn't saying that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, no. What it is, is I just
wanted to make sure the way that this was perceived was that maybe
there wasn't an open forum, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I wanted to make sure that --
what I did was to make sure that the arena was open for everyone, that
this wasn't a closed process, okay? Okay, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Okay. You ready?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MS. FILSON: Michael Seef.
MR. SEEF: Michael Seef. I live in North Naples, and I've been
following this process for the last year. I have interests that are
widespread, agriculture, environmental, and as a taxpayer.
And I don't think those meetings were all that open. Now, I
Page 89
December 2-3,2008
didn't get to go to too many for the Phase II, but there was a group of
12 very strong people of pretty strong opinions, and the discussions
were pretty much closed. Not that you couldn't say anything, but
there wasn't really a lot of time.
The inclination wasn't that we were like encouraged in any way.
But be that aside, I'm, first of all, concerned with some of the -- some
of the basics that are coming out of Phase II, namely the doubling of
developmental towns, the amount of acreage that's devoted going from
something like 20-some thousand to 33- or 44,000. That's like having
10 more Ave Marias out there.
The number of roads that are required to crisscross all that, and
both the county and, to some extent, federal expenses that we're going
to rely on to pay for that, not to mention other development things,
whether it's landscaping, like we heard before, and many other
expenses that I'm sure the county's going to be -- is going to be having
to pony up.
We're talking about a commission that was basically landowners,
mining interests, some environmental. We had somebody from
Audubon. But, you know, it was a committee basically of large
landowners.
And I guess where I stand, I'd like to get some emphasis for the
individual Collier County and United States person, and that's why I'm
here.
And to hear that you're not going to fully go through the Planning
Commission and EAC is very disturbing. I really am pleased about
Commissioner Fiala's input here.
So I urge you to continue that because we, as individuals, are
relying on EAC and the Planning Commission to take -- to take our
point of view, not the nine or so landowners, citrus growers, mining
interests, and so on.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I, again, hope that
we have a proper process. Thank you.
Page 90
December 2-3,2008
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judy -- Judith Tryka. She'll
be followed by Judy Hushon.
MS. TRYKA: It's the Judy show.
My name is Judith Tryka, and I have been a proud resident of
Collier County for eight years. My anniversary was yesterday. I
arrived here on December 1 st eight years ago.
I, first of all, want to thank the commissioners for reconsidering
this action, and I hope I don't get caught up in all these ABC, RLSAs,
and please forgive me if I do.
Public participation in the RLSA review is critical, as is
following the established process for EAC and Planning Commission
reVIew.
I support returning to the process that has been promised by
sending this through the EAC and Planning Commission separately.
The RLSA committee had one year to work on this. I, too,
attended. I must admit, I only attended one session. Public input was
only asked at the end of the session, and by that time I felt most of the
minds in the room maybe were made up.
So, again, I would support Commissioner Fiala's request today,
her motion, and it's -- I'm happy to be here today, and I thank you for
your time and consideration.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judy Hushon. She'll be
followed by Alan Keller, who will be followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. HUSHON: Good morning, Commissioners. As you know,
I sit on the EAC, and I have also been attending a large number -- I've
probably attended at least a majority, maybe 20 out of the 27 meetings
that have been held on the RLSAs, so I've been trying to keep up with
it because it's so complicated, and it also is so important because it
affects that part of the county where most of our growth is going to
occur in the next 10, 15, 20 years. And so if we don't get this right, we
really do think -- it can really hurt us in the future.
And the five-year review has resulted in a number of significant
Page 91
December 2-3, 2008
changes. This is not what you're -- what you are going to see as the
Phase II report does not bear a lot of resemblance to what was before.
So there's a lot to get up to speed on. There's a lot to learn. There
are a lot of changes. And we on the EAC felt strongly enough that we
-- that the process should be allowed to continue, as Commissioner
Fiala has moved, along its normal paths, that we sent a memo
unanimously to all of you from our last meeting requesting that you do
follow the normal process.
The normal process lets the public be more involved because you
have a TV audience for these meetings that you don't have to the
RLSA meetings. And, you know, that means that a lot of people are
going to learn what the RLSA process is and may want to weigh in on
it. They have that option.
And so at least they're more informed, and so I think that's a
really good thing for -- for going through the normal process.
Another thing I was going to say was, I think we really do need a
separate review from the CCPC, not that we don't get along with these
folks over here, the Mark Strains and others, but we have different
agendas. We have an environmental agenda. They have a planning
agenda.
We get our hands slapped when we deal with planning. They
may get their hands slapped when they deal with environmental.
This is going to cause us to go back and forth across the lines. If
you're having a discussion, when do you start and when do you stop
having a discussion? Therefore, that would have been very difficult.
Also, maybe the public couldn't have weighed in. Again, I don't
know whether it would have been televised. I don't know whether --
how much that would have happened.
And the workshop format does have its problems in what you can
accomplish out of a workshop versus having an open hearing.
We recommend that you proceed with the reviews of two sets of
separate reviews as originally proposed in the RLSA management
Page 92
December 2-3,2008
plan. And this is just too important to short circuit. This is our future
in Collier County and it's our future in eastern Collier County.
And I think Michael Seef just said it was 1 0 Ave Marias. I've
heard two Miami's. So this is scary, and we have to do it right, so
give us time to go ahead and do it.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have to
EAC. Thank you.
MS. PILSON: The next speaker is Alan Keller. He'll be followed
by Nancy Payton, who will be followed by your final speaker, Brad
Cornell.
MR. KELLER: Good morning. Alan Keller from Collier
County Audubon Society. For the record, celebrating my 62nd
anniversary of -- in Collier County. I look much younger, I hope.
Collier County Audubon Society has become aware of a number
of rumors and accusations that somehow the Rural Land Stewardship
Committee has attempted to subvert the public process and the
ongoing review of that program and in the generation of
recommendations to you for changes in the program.
Collier County Audubon, after looking at the procedures
carefully, has not detected any intended shortchanging of the public or
any skirting of important roles to be played by the EAC and the
Planning Commission; however, what is clear and unfortunate is that
the rumors and accusations to that effect have served to divert
attention from important substantive issues relating to the rural land
stewardship, which should be addressed sooner rather than later.
In the desire to get the process back on track, we support a
decision by the commissioners to initiate a special Growth
Management Plan amendment cycle, excuse me.
To contribute to that process, we support having the EAC and the
Planning Commission separately review the rural land stewardship
Phase II report and sending their comments and recommendations
back to the Rural Land Stewardship Committee for consolidation,
Page 93
December 2-3,2008
after which the report would be sent to you.
If you concur with the special amendment cycle, transmission
hearings would begin with EAC and the Planning Commission public
meetings followed by the transmission consideration by the board.
Surely this solution will give adequate and additional
opportunities for all interested parties to participate in the process;
however, should the commissioners not endorse that sequence, Collier
Audubon will support any sequence you do recommend which is
consistent with participation of the public, the EAC, and the Planning
Commission and will finally set everyone back on course to consider
the substantive issues relating to rural land stewardship.
Just one example of which is a point made by a gentleman earlier
that somehow the proposal is to expand entitlement in that area when,
in fact, we believe it will shrink current entitlement.
These are the issues where the attention should be, and we should
not get too much more bogged down in the procedural issues. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Couldn't find true green
paper, huh? It had to be lime green.
MS. PAYTON: That's Conservation Collier green.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I see.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation.
I have been following and participating in the RLSA Committee's
meetings on a regular basis, and it's unfortunate that some of the
people that have been critical of the process weren't there because it
was a very open process. The public was encouraged to bring forward
amendments, to provide comments, you could provide comments two
or three times on a policy. So I just want to say from a person who
was there, that it was a very open and inviting forum.
Page 94
December 2-3, 2008
I wanted to bring to your attention -- because there seems to be
some confusion that the RLSA Committee never intended or wanted
their product to go to the EAC and the Planning Commission for
review, and there also seems to be a blurring of a review cycle versus
a transmittal cycle. So I'm trying to sort this all out, and hopefully it
will help you.
On the overhead is an August 5th approved schedule from the
Rural Land Stewardship Committee. It was unanimously approved by
the committee, and there was no public opposition to this format. And
if you notice, under public vetting meetings, it includes the
Environmental Advisory Council and it includes the Planning
Commission, and it comes to the commissioners and then goes to the
Department of Community Affairs; and below it is the phase II format
which includes a cover letter, transmittal letter, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera.
And this is a transmittal package, and it always was intended to
be reviewed by the EAC and the Planning Commission, as they
always have been, and then come to the commission for your action in
transmittal to DCA. But somehow it's gotten confused that there
should be two times through these committees, and so I offered up for
your consideration -- I sent it yesterday -- a schedule that might
address all these concerns and keep this process moving forward and
protect the integrity of the RLSA committee's detailed report.
And I have been educated a bit since I did this, and so I have
scratched out 2009 special cycle and just said, establishing it as a
special cycle because it does need to stand alone because it is so
detailed.
And with that nod of a special cycle would allow staff to move
ahead with reviewing and looking at whatever they need to do to put it
in proper format.
And then the RLSA committee would meet -- and I have
workshop, but I understand now the nuance between workshop and
Page 95
December 2-3, 2008
meeting, so I would substitute a meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Brad--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to try to stay on schedule
here, sorry.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then we also -- Representative
Matt Hudson asked to speak to the board if the board will waive its
policies on Items coming before the board. I think it would be
appropriate, being who it is. Okay.
MR. CORNELL: I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here as a member of
the -- your Rural Land Stewardship Area Review Committee, which is
conducting the mandated five-year review of the Rural Land
Stewardship Program in Collier County.
I'm appearing here on behalf of the Rural Land Stewardship Area
Review Committee chairman, Ron Hammel, who was unable to attend
today's board meeting due to employment-related commitments.
The committee has spent approximately 19 meetings since April
1 st following the completion of the Phase I report, hearing from
experts, listening to all interested stakeholders, and reaching a
preliminary consensus on each of the approximately 77 policies
contained in the rural land stewardship area overlay of the Future
Land Use Element. And we heard from the public on every one of
those. Everybody had an opportunity on all 77 policies.
The committee spent as much as two hours to reach preliminary
decisions for possible amendments to some of the policies. On
December 11 th, the committee hopes to reach an overall consensus on
this Phase II report.
Chairman Hammel asked that his November 24th, 2008, letter be
entered into today's meeting record, and our staff liaison, Tom
Greenwood, would kindly distribute that to the board as well as to the
note taker.
Page 96
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does -- before we go on, the board
has to recognize entering stuff into the public record. Does anybody
have a problem with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please continue.
MR. CORNELL: The letter was drafted based upon the
November 10th direction of the review committee as is planned for
final consideration by the review committee at its December 11 th
meeting; however, Chairman Hammel felt it important to convey to
the board the general consensus of the committee, even though it has
not yet been officially approved by the committee.
A, the committee is asking the board to authorize a second
Growth Management Plan amendment cycle exclusively for the
amendments to the Future Land Use Element rural land stewardship
area overlay during the 2009 calendar year.
Two cycles are authorized by state statutes, but board policy is to
allow just one amendment cycle. Because of the complexity of the
rural land stewardship area overlay, the board may wish to make an
exception to this policy, which is what we recommend.
The board -- or the committee defers to the board as to whether
the board wishes the Phase II report of the committee to be reviewed
by the EAC and the Planning Commission prior to receipt by the
board for its further consideration and direction.
In closing, the Rural Land Stewardship Review Committee looks
forward to the board's direction regarding the possible amendments to
the Rural Land Stewardship Area overlay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Representative Matt Hudson.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: For the record, Matt Hudson.
Chairman, thank you. I apologize. I didn't know there was a policy,
so I apologize for that. So thank you for your indulgence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't have to apologize.
Page 97
December 2-3, 2008
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON : Well -- no, I do, because I
didn't know there was a policy. I apologize for that.
I just want to make a couple of quick comments. I was down in
my office kind of listening to your meeting as I normally do when I'm
in my office, and it struck me that this is a very public process.
And as I just took a moment and went to Colliergov.net, I found
that every single agenda and every single minute package for every
single meeting that was held on this matter was directly online, as
were a number of different links that were available for more research
and more information for those people that were interested in pursuing
that.
Collier County does a phenomenal job with their electronic
resources. And having served on a number of advisory boards before
taking on elected capacity, I understand the importance of public
participation.
I think the public has participated. I think it's been very-much
vetted. I think there's been ample opportunity on many different
fronts through public participation directly and also through the
electronic media that we provide to them.
So I would just -- I would just reaffirm that, yes, in fact, it's been
a very public process and that you guys should be commended for the
work that you do in making that public process.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Discussion? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. Thank you. I don't
think anybody objects to my motion here because it's been a very
public process, and this is our next step, and then following is the next
step, and I just think it's the way to go.
Let me -- let me suggest -- or not suggest. Let me comment
though. I would have loved to have mobilized everybody in the room,
and I thank you for the nice compliment, but actually I didn't. I did
Page 98
December 2-3, 2008
get a call from the Conservancy and I got a call from Nancy Payton.
Never even did talk to League of Women Voters. But if! could have,
I would have mobilized you, honest to goodness. Don't feel slighted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it wasn't -- it wasn't to say
anything negative about it. I thought maybe to help speed up the
process or get some direction from you. I apologize if you were
offended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In case they thought I did though.
Oh, no. I'm not offended. I just corrected that. It's not a problem. No
problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think -- I think we should
move ahead with this process. I support Commissioner Fiala's motion.
I believe that the Environmental Advisory Committee and the
Planning Commission both should have an opportunity to
independently review this process.
But we can't let it get bogged down. We would -- we should do
this as expeditiously as possible because whenever there is a deviation
that leaves the slightest question about whether things are being done
in the proper sequence or if the public is being left out, there will
always be allegations that something improper is being done.
Now, I think the RLSA committee has done a wonderful job. I
think it has been a public process. I believe there's been opportunities
for public input.
But here's the next opportunity to cause confusion and create
criticism. If we let this drag on into the spring and the summer when
many of the residents are no longer here, there's going to be the
allegation that we intentionally delayed it so they wouldn't have any
input. That is the standard criticism when we make any decisions
during the off season.
So what I would like for the board to do is to, of course, approve
Page 99
December 2-3, 2008
Commissioner Fiala's motion, but also to instruct staff to get this
moving ahead expeditiously so it can be done quickly, without further
delay, but not at the expense of doing it thoroughly, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a consensus of the board for
that kind of direction?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If Commissioner Fiala will
include it in her motion, I'll include it in my second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, sure. Why would we want to
-- nothing should be held up, you know. This is not a process where
we're trying to drag our feet. At the same time, this is going to be a
process that is going to affect our county forever, and a huge part of
our county, and we want to do it right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle,
I don't think, was through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wanted to add one
thing very briefly. This is not something that has to be done
sequentially. You don't have to -- in my opinion, you don't have to go
to the Environmental Advisory Committee first and then the next
month schedule it with the Planning Commission. You can schedule it
with both of them at the same month. In fact, you can schedule them
one day after the other, for that matter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a -- you know, why would
you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you know, why take all this
time? Why not get these things scheduled so they can be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because the economy is such that
we can build faster?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. It's just that there's no
good reason for delaying.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 100
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But do it thoroughly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Ijust think it's important
that we recognize that the committee, in the amount of time they put
into it and the report they put together, while we recognize that it's
quite a work of what they have assembled, that when it's reviewed by
the other committees, their report still stays whole, and its side notes
that go in there, so we can make comparisons and weigh a decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, like more or less of a
menu-type thing. So it's not a case that we're going to take and dash
the committee's reports to the rocks and say, that's it. It's all being
rewritten.
What it is, is the report stands whole, and then all the comments
from the EDC and the Planning Commission always follow, and
they're tremendous aides for us to be able to make our decisions with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a good suggestion. I'd
like to incorporate that into my motion, if I may.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's already done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What you just said?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, but I think what
Commissioner Coletta is saying, a lot of times when we see something
like Land Development Code amendments, it goes through the
process, and then it starts changing.
What Commissioner Coletta's saying is the RSLA (sic)
committee is -- their recommendations are their recommendations, the
EAC is their recommendations --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and the Planning Commission. So
you included it in both of your motions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's good.
Page 101
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg 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, and we
are a little bit late for our 12 o'clock time certain.
And at this time I'd like to give it over to our County Attorney for
the announcement.
Item #12A
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,
DECEMBER 2,2008, 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. KLA TZKOW, AND LITIGATION SECTION CHIEF
JACQUELINE HUBBARD WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE. THE
BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL DISCUSS: STRATEGY
SESSION RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE
Page 102
December 2-3, 2008
PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF
COURTS, CASE NO. 07-1056-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - CLOSED SESSION
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's just announcing that we're going to be
going into the shade session on the Clerk's case. We'll be
commencing shortly after we break here. It should take about a half
hour.
The people who will be attending will be Jacqueline Hubbard,
myself, and the board and Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're on lunch and a
closed-door session.
(A closed-door session was had, followed by a luncheon recess.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Coming back from closed-door session, now we go to Item 12B.
Item #12B
FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
REGARDING STRA TEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. DWIGHT E.
BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS, CASE NO. 07-1056-CA, NOW
PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. - DIRECT COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO CONSULT WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S
Page 103
December 2-3, 2008
OFFICE ON A NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS OF LAW BY THE
CLERK OF COURTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This Item to be heard at I p.m. for the Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney
regarding strategy related to the litigation expenditures in the pending
litigation case of the Board of County Commissioners versus Dwight
E. Brock, Clerk of Courts, case number 07-1056-CA, now pending in
the 20th Judicial Court -- the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the County Attorney's looking
for direction on this Item?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir, I am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What guidance are you looking
for?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm looking for the guidance of the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I make a motion that we
instruct the County Attorney to consult with the state's attorney
concerning a number of violations of the law by the Clerk of Courts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
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.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 104
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries, 4-1, Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Now we go to -- what do we got, a time -- a 2 o'clock time
certain?
MR. OCHS: 2:30 time certain.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 2:30.
MR. MUDD: -- we have a 2:30, I believe, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we go to 7?
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2008-350: SV-2008-AR-13374 NAPLES GRANDE
BEACH RESORT, REPRESENTED BY HUNTER HANSEN,
REQUESTING SEVEN VARIANCES. THE FIRST SIX
VARIANCES ARE FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(LDC) SECTION 5.06.04 C.I., WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM
SEPARATION OF 1,000 LINEAL FEET BETWEEN SIGNS, TO
ALLOW A SIGN SEPARATION OF 66 FEET, 40 FEET, 156
FEET, 66 FEET,71 FEET, AND 96 FEET. THE SEVENTH
VARIANCE IS FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.04 C.1., WHICH
PERMITS A MAXIMUM OF TWO POLE SIGNS PER STREET
FRONTAGE, TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF FOUR SIGNS
ALONG A STREET FRONTAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 475 SEAGATE DRIVE, IN SECTION 9,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - APPROVING SIGNS A. B & C - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 7 A, sir. This Item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
Page 105
December 2-3,2008
It's SZ -- excuse me -- SV-2008-AR-13374, Naples Grande
Beach Resort represented by Hunter Hansen, requesting seven
variances. The first six variances are from the Land Development
Code section 5.06.04 C.1, which requires a minimum separation of
1,000 lineal feet between signs to allow a sign separation of66--
okay, so it's 1,000 lineal feet by our Land Development Code between
signs. This variance is to allow a sign separation of 66 feet, 40 feet,
156 feet, 66 feet, 71 feet, and 96 feet.
The seventh variance is from the Land Development Code
section 5.06.04 C.1, which permits a maximum of two pole lines per
street frontage to permit a maximum of four signs along a street
frontage.
The subject property is located at 475 Seagate Drive in Section 9,
Township 49 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All wishing to participate in
this discussion, please rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by
the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication, starting
with Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you. I have no
disclosures for this Item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 7 A. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have no disclosures. I just rode by
to take a look at the area on which we will be discussing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Myself, I've talked to staff.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had some
correspondence, and I've also talked to staff in this particular -- on this
particular Item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I talked with staff, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala stated she has
Page 106
December 2-3, 2008
talked with staff on this Item.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence
opposing this variance, and I have also talked with staff, and I have a
staff report in my file.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got one other disclosure. Yes,
I've also had correspondence in regards to opposing the issue of the
sIgn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Before we get started, we have
several other sign variances coming up to the Board of
Commissioners, and just a clarification from County Attorney's
Office. On variances are they weighted on their own? Do they stand
on their own merits?
MR. KLATZKOW: Every case stands on its own merit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The petitioner for the
variance, please stand up and see if we can convince the board.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. But I don't have it here,
but I remember receiving an email also on this, and I just wanted to
state that for the record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Your name for the record, sir?
MR. HANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Hunter Hansen.
I'm the managing director of the Naples Grande Beach Resort.
Thank you for allowing me to speak today. These variances
really fall into two categories. One was a request for a new sign for a
restaurant called the Strip House Restaurant. Weare going to drop
that request, which is what the staff recommends and the Planning
Commission recommended.
So that may be new information to you, Mr. Chairman, and the
board, but we are going to drop that request. So we can set that aside.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Staff and Planning Commission
recommended what on -- what on that sign?
Page 107
December 2-3,2008
MR. HANSEN: Staff and Planning Commission concurred that
it was not appropriate to have a Strip House sign --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: -- at that location.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: Therefore, we're going to drop that request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. HANSEN: The other variances --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I -- upon the testimony by
Mr. Hansen, then I move that we approve the other variances because
all it is is basically changing from Naples -- it was Naples Grande to --
MR. HANSEN: It was the Registry to the Naples Grande.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The Registry to Naples Grande.
MR. HANSEN: It was an R to an N, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because those signs were there
basically, and as far as I'm concerned they're grandfathered in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and -- by
Commissioner Halas to approve the variance --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A, B, and C.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- A, B, and C --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- second by Commissioner Coyle.
Mr. Moss, do you have anything you need to put on the record?
MR. MOSS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: State your name for the record.
MR. MOSS: No, but thank you for asking.
MR. MUDD: State your name.
MR. MOSS: Oh, John David Moss for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- and I assume the resolution
will reflect the board's action? Okay.
Page 108
December 2-3, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. We will modify the resolution
accordingly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for asking.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg 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.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You made it easy.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- 7B was continued
indefinitely by the petitioner. That was on the change sheet from this
mornmg.
Item #7C
PETITION: ADA-2008-AR-13731 (AC) MONTE CARLO CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY
QUIN L. KURTH OF TURRELL, HALL AND ASSOCIATES,
INC., REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS OF A DECISION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 109
December 2-3, 2008
PLANNING COMMISSION IN RESOLUTION NO. 08-03
DENYING PETITION BD-2006-AR-9061 THAT REQUESTED A
15-FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM
20-FOOT PROTRUSION LIMIT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION
5.03.06 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A
35-FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY ACCOMMODATING 20
ADDITIONAL BOAT SLIPS FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK B OF BAKER-CARROLL POINT UNIT 2
SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (PART OF THE
MONTE CARLO CLUB CONDOMINIUM) - MOTION TO
UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS - FAILS;
MOTION TO REMAND THIS ITEM BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WITH A REQUEST FOR FORMAL
INTERPRETATION AND REASONS FOR INITIAL DENIAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC - APPROVED
Brings us to 7C. 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-13731, (AC), Monte Carlo Club Condominium
Association, Inc., represented by Quin L. Kurth of Turrell, Hall &
Associates, Inc., requesting an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals
of a decision of the Collier County Planning Commission in resolution
number 08-03 denying petition BD-2006-AR-9061 that requested a
15-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion
limit as provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to
allow a 35-foot boat dock facility accommodating 20 additional boat
slips for property described as Lots 1 and 2, Block B of Baker-Carroll
Point Unit 2 Subdivision in Section 29, Township 48 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida, and it's part of the Monte Carlo Club
Condominium.
Page 110
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, did you want to
say something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just wanted to ask a question
of the County Attorney in an attempt to maybe clarify and expedite
disposition of this Item.
County Attorney, the concern in my mind is that you advised the
CCPC that they did not have to adhere to the criteria established in the
ordinance for the approval or disapproval of this request for extension.
If you could enlighten us as to what actually transpired and why that is
the case, it would be helpful for me.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. This will take about two minutes to
go through my analysis, and I'll use the visualizer with Mr. Mudd's
help.
The first piece of the ordinance that's relevant is that you're only
allowed a 20-foot dock or boat protrusion into the canal, okay. So we
have ourselves an LDC requirement that if you're on a lot that is 100
feet or greater -- now, this could be 200 feet, 400 feet, 1,000 feet, it
doesn't make any difference, okay -- what we said is that your dock
and boat combination cannot protrude more than 20 feet into the
waterway, okay.
We then give an ability for a form, of what is really a variance to
this. If Mr. Mudd could put this on.
MR. MUDD: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it's really in two parts. Now, if all we
wanted the Planning Commission to look at was the primary criteria
and the second criteria, there'd be one sentence, and that sentence
would read, if an applicant can demonstrate at least four of the five
primary criteria or four of the secondary criteria would be met, then he
would be entitled to an extension, but we don't say that.
What the ordinance says is something different. It breaks it down
into two parts. It says, an additional protrusion of a dock facility into
any waterway beyond the limits established in subsection 5.05.06.E,
Page III
December 2-3, 2008
which is the 20 feet, may be considered appropriate under certain
circumstances. So it's the exception rather than the rule, and there's a
period there, okay.
It then goes on to say, in order for the Planning Commission to
approve the boat dock extension, then you've got to at least meet these
criteria, four out of five or -- of the primary, and four out of six -- at
least four out of six of the secondary.
So the Planning Commission really looks at two things. They
say, is this boat dock extension request appropriate given the
circumstances? And these circumstances could be many and varied.
And again, the general rule is you only get 20 feet irrespective of the
size of the canal, all right, but you are entitled to a form of a variance
if there are certain circumstances you can demonstrate.
These circumstances conclude, for example, that it's too shallow
near shore, so you have to go out in order to put your boat down,
okay. But in order for the Planning Commission now, once they've
found the special circumstances exist to actually give it to you, then
these criteria kick in and they have to say, well, okay, we think you're
allowed to do that.
In addition to that, you meet at least four of the six primary and
you meet at least four of the six -- four of the five, four of the six
secondary, all right. So it's a two-part analysis by the Planning
Commission.
And again, if you wanted to limit the Planning Commission to
just the one- analysis where all they looked at was the criteria, then
you'd have one sentence and you tell the Planning Commission, if the
applicant meets four out of five or four out of six, then he gets. But
we don't say that. We broke it down into two different steps.
Now, this particular provision in some form goes back to at least
1965. And we've gone through the legislative history, and I cannot
tell you why we even have this, okay. It goes back to at least an outfit
called NAZAC (phonetic), which we're assuming is Naples zoning --
Page 112
December 2-3, 2008
some sort of Naples zoning group, who recommended this be the
standard through the county. But the report wasn't -- isn't in our
record.
So I don't know what the public purpose of limiting 20 feet is. I
don't know if we want smaller boats in the waterways, which is why
we had this 20 feet, or if we simply wanted to be able to increase the
navigation throughout the canals. But since we don't differentiate
between 100 feet and 200 feet and 400 feet and 800 feet, all right, my
inclination is that what we're really trying to do is keep the size of the
boats down. That's just hazarding a guess though.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
That's very helpful. And here's my -- I don't think it's a dilemma, but
it leads me to at least a recommendation, but I am going to let the
position of the commissioner in whose district this lies really take the
lead on this, but I just want to get this out so it can be considered.
If you are correct in this interpretation, then there is no basis for
this appeal that we have before us today because the appeal presumes
that the Planning Commission had to use the criteria that were
established in the ordinance. But if your guidance is that they do not
have to use that criteria, then the appeal is baseless because a majority
of the Planning Commission members voted against it.
Now, if we assume that the criteria in the ordinance should have
been used, your guidance to them resulted in them not naming,
perhaps, all the criteria that they otherwise would have named had
they believed that they had to use that criteria.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. They listed their reasons.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They did not list all of them,
perhaps. Some listed four reasons, some in category one, or criteria
one and criteria two, some only listed one reason in one of the criteria,
but they voted against it.
So in order for us to make a decision today about what should
have been done there, we would have to be reading the minds of the
Page 113
December 2-3, 2008
people at the Planning Commission.
Did your guidance encourage them to ignore the ordinance, or
did they really name all of the reasons that they felt were appropriate
when they denied it?
So, I guess I've come to this conclusion, either we conclude that
your guidance is correct and there, therefore, is no basis for this
appeal, or, secondly, we remand it to the Planning Commission with
instructions to use the ordinance and to specify all of their reasons for
refusing this boat dock extension request.
MR. KLATZKOW: That is certainly within your purview to do.
I do think you have enough of a record before you as to the entirety of
the situation that you can make your own determination of whether or
not the permit should be -- or the extension should be granted.
It's not a recommendation by the CCPC, and it's simply their
decision. It's been appealed. It now comes to you. If you look at the
evidence that was presented and whatever additional evidence may be
presented here and you believe that the extension is warranted, you
can certainly go in that direction. You're not bound by the Planning
Commission. Or you can send it back to the Planning Commission for
further guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's all I'm going to say
on this issue because this is something that's in someone else's district,
and I just wanted to get that thought on the record, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I have some questions about the
process, if you can put that back up. But first of all I want to go to
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Thank you very much,
Chairman. I feel that we charged the Planning Commission to sit
down and make some good judgments because we rely heavily on
them. I believe that from what has been in my agenda package, that
this was very well vented (sic) at the Planning Commission, and I
believe that they did a lot of soul searching on this, and I have to agree
Page 114
December 2-3,2008
with the outcome of the Planning Commission, and so, therefore, I'd
like to make a motion that --
MR. KLA TZKOW: You really should listen to the appellate
here, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're saying that the Planning
Commission could base their decision upon the established primary
and secondary conditions under the ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that you look at the
circumstances surrounding that area where you want the dock
extension, and if you think it's appropriate, okay, they can grant that
extension; but in order for them to do it, it has to meet those criteria, at
least four out of the five and four of the six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: So it's a two-step analysis. First they say,
yes, we think it's appropriate that you get this extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Based upon the criteria?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. Based upon the circumstances
surrounding where your dock is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, with that said, it's my
understanding we cannot delegate our authority unless we have
specific criteria -- these damn braces, boy, they can really kill you on
some of these words -- otherwise, the action is null and void.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you can delegate this type of
inaction towards the Planning Commission. It's not legislative. Just
like you could, if you wanted to, appoint hearing officers for all of
your zoning matters. You could -- you don't necessarily have to hear
them as the BZA. You could appoint the special hearing examiner to
do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it's based upon legislation, and
Page 115
December 2-3,2008
the criteria is the legislation.
MR. KLATZKOW: But it's like a variance though, sir. It's--
you look at things, but there's always -- whether or not there's a
hardship, for example, which there's no real criteria there, but it's a
feel for a body that's done something for a while.
I mean, should we allow, you know, somebody not to have to put
a fence over here? And after a while you get people with the feel that,
yes, it's appropriate here but it's not appropriate there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we can delegate our
authority based upon feelings?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You can delegate your authority on
these quasi-judicial matters to the Planning Commission or anyone
else you wish.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I just wanted to ask, weren't we
supposed to swear in and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We're supposed to do all that.
We haven't even got to that point yet. And, you know, based upon
that, I had a conversation with Mr. Klatzkow about the -- today's
proceedings, and it's his understanding that we're not limited to just
the discussion at the Planning Commission, this appeal, that we can
listen to public speakers and any other evidence that is introduced.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's the board's policy on -- that's the
board's written policy on this, that you will listen to public speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So with that, at this time if there's
anybody wanting to speak on this that hasn't signed a speaker slip,
please do so. But in the meantime, we're going to ask the court
reporter for everybody to rise that wants to speak on this Item, raise
your right hand, and she will swear you in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communications, starting out
with Commissioner Coletta.
Page 116
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I met with Mr.
Y ovanovich, Mr. Kurth, Mr. Scofield on 1211. On Sunday, in order to
get a clearer idea of where the Planning Commission was coming, I
took it upon myself to call Mark Strain, the Chairperson of the Collier
County Planning Commission, talked to him, and I also talked to staff
and the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also met with Rich
Y ovanovich, Quin Kurth, Rocky Scofield, and I also called Mark
Strain and I also talked to staff members about this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I spoke to Rocky Scofield on this
Item.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had correspondence,
emails, and I have phone calls, and I've talked to a couple of people
that are on the Planning Commission and those are Mark Strain and
Donna Caron.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence
concerning this Item, and I also had a meeting with Rich Y ovanovich
where we discussed this briefly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Henning, I have
four piece of correspondence as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today I have Rocky
Scofield of Turrell, Hall & Associates and Quin Kurth of Turrell, Hall
& Associates, as well as some of the unit owners within the Monte
Carlo Club Condominium Association, or condominium.
I think I'll go first to the issue that Commissioner Coyle raised
regarding what are the boat dock extension rules.
And I will tell you that your staff, and in particular Susan Istenes,
Page 117
December 2-3,2008
has issued her opinion and interpretation of what the Land
Development Code says. And her interpretation -- and I'm sure she
can correct me if I don't get it accurately -- is that the criteria in that --
in the section that Mr. Klatzkow referred you to -- and I believe is still
on the visualizer -- is that you look at the listed criteria, the primary
and the secondary criteria. And then if you meet four out of the five
primary and four out of the six secondary, you are entitled to a boat
dock extension.
I believe under the Land Development Code, it is Ms. Murray's
job to provide that interpretation and that someone can apply for an
official interpretation if they agree with that interpretation, and I
believe you availed yourselves of that in the past, and most recently it
involved provisions in the Land Development Code.
And I don't recall any official interpretation being requested or
rendered by -- or any interpretation being provided or requested of
Ms. Murray of which that can then be appealed.
But be that as it may, I've read a lot of law cases, I've discussed
this with many colleagues and been to many seminars, and I have
never seen a case that says that you got to pass a does-it-feel-right test
before you get into the actual criteria.
And I think what that language -- the reference language that Mr.
Klatzkow was saying is the first part of the test is simply to send you
to which section you are to request an extension from, and it sends
you to the section that says, you get 20 feet, and if you want more,
you've got to meet the following criteria.
And I think I'm right in that interpretation, and I provided you all
of the backup in the appeal that takes you through the legislative
history of these criteria. And in particular, the legislative history
specifically says that when the ordinance was adopted in 2002, it says
that the Planning Commission is to base its decision for approval or --
approval with conditions or denial on an evaluation of the following
primary and secondary criteria.
Page 118
December 2-3, 2008
And then again in '06 there was another revision to the Land
Development Code, and the staff explained why we were making this
revision to the Land Development Code. And it says under the
reason, it says, the language provides a necessary tool in evaluating
criteria submitted for a boat dock extension, will assist staff and the
Planning Commission in determining approval or denial of boat dock
petitions.
So that criteria is there to determine whether you should get one
or whether you should be denied a boat dock extension; otherwise,
you have no rules. It's essentially whatever the Planning Commission
feels is right, that will be upheld. It would be arbitrary. There would
be -- I could never advise a client as to what they have to satisfy in
order to be given a boat dock extension.
I'd have to say, you've got to pass the feel-good test first, and if!
can get you past the feel-good test -- and I don't know what those rules
are to get past the feel-good test -- then if you can meet the four out of
five and the four out of six, you'd be entitled to it. The law doesn't
support that interpretation.
Your regulations have to be clear and property owners have to
know what the rules of the game are to be entitled to get either a boat
dock extension or any other petition that comes before you. There
have to be specific rules. It cannot be arbitrary.
And I believe what the County Attorney is advising at this point
is an arbitrary application of the boat dock extension.
I also disagree that this is not a variance. This is a different
petition. It's an extension. It doesn't say anywhere in this document
that you have to show some kind of a hardship to get it. You meet
different -- if you meet certain criteria, you can go beyond the 20 feet
that the code automatically gives you. The code automatically gives
you 20 feet. And if you want to go beyond that, you've got to satisfy
certain criteria.
So we believe that we have satisfied that criteria and that based
Page 119
December 2-3, 2008
upon the information in front of the Planning Commission and in front
of you today, that the only interpretation can be to grant the boat dock
extension.
The Monte Carlo is a 54-unit condominium project. There are 14
existing boats on seven piers that exist. The request before the
Planning Commission and before you today is for an additional 20
boats on 10 finger piers. The request is for a 15- foot extension, and
Rocky will get into greater detail as to how we meet all the criteria.
And if! understand --I'm going to show you stuff that's in the
record. But if I understand the direction is that we can introduce new
evidence today, and I want to make sure that that's okay, because I
wasn't prepared to do that, but I certainly would do that if that's going
to be allowed.
This is -- this is the existing situation of the property. The blue
line that I'm showing you is the actual property line. When the
original 14 boats were approved --
MR. MUDD: Did you say the blue line?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The blue line. It is blue, isn't it?
MR. MUDD: I'm tracing it with my pen right now because it's
hard to see.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you have a non-colorized version in
your backup.
The blue line is the existing property line for the property. When
those 14 boats or the slips for those boats were approved in 1988, the
code read that you measured the 20 feet from the property line. So
there was no -- those are 30-foot piers. So there was no requirement
to get a boat dock extension back when these were approved. They
were approved simply by a building permit because that was the code
requirement.
In 1991, there was a change to the code that said, we now
measure from the more restrictive. And in this case, the more -- it's
either going to be the property line, mean high-water line, or a
Page 120
December 2-3, 2008
seawall. In this case the more restrictive would be the seawall.
So you lost 10 feet because the property line is where the
property line is. And we used to use that as a measuring point. So
prior to 1991, you could go -- on this particular case you could go 30
feet out on the water. Now you can only go 20 feet out on the water.
So from a practical standpoint, you're only talking about a
five-foot extension from what's already there.
Turrell, Hall & associates, through Quin and others in the firm,
prepared the petition to request an additional -- the boat dock
extension. Hopefully this shows up a little bit better because it's white.
This was the request for 10 additional finger piers that would
extend a total of35 feet out into the water. As Rocky, who will-- in
the petition says, the property to the north extends 35 feet out into the
water. So we're certainly not inconsistent with the property to the
north, as the petition indicates.
So we're requesting to go out a total of35 feet, which under the
new rules is a 15-foot extension.
The information in your packet and in your backup and as agreed
to by your staff indicates that we satisfy the primary criteria as well as
the secondary criteria.
There was one person who spoke at the Planning Commission
hearing, and that individual said -- and this is also in your backup
material from me. I don't want to repeat myself too much -- but it was
a Mr. Schmidt who testified that -- and this was a quote, we're not so
much concerned about how far the dock goes out in the water. It's
what size boat can be put on a 35-foot dock. And then he made
references that we were going to put a 40-foot boat out there, which is
not the case because it can only go 35 feet.
And then he started talking about the actual boat draft. And
when we got into the draft, the Manatee Protection Plan says, you can
only have a boat draft of 3 feet. We're subject to the Manatee
Protection Plan, so whatever the length of the boat is, it cannot have
Page 121
December 2-3,2008
more than a 3- foot draft. So we meet that criteria. So as far as the
draft issue goes, we satisfy that requirement under the Manatee
Protection Plan.
And he started getting into, you know, well, that's not a true draft.
You know, the draft changes depending on whether you've got people
onboard, you've got fuel onboard. But the boat draft is 3 feet, and
that's the requirement. And we will meet that, just like everybody
who has to meet that requirement.
He was then asked -- and there was some talk about, hey, you
know, the waterways are getting crowded. Kind of like streets. You
know, you've got too many boats out there yet there's no study to
support that, and he advocates a study to determine whether or not
there are too many boats out there, but we don't have such a study to
say there are too many boats out there.
And what I found interesting in response to a question that he
was asked was, would you prefer to have more -- because he was
asked a question, if we were limited to the 20-foot, we could have
more than the 34 boats that we're requesting. And he said he preferred
to have more boats versus the 34 boats. So I don't think it's really an
issue of the waterways are too clogged with too many boats. So I think
that argument's got to go away.
We meet the draft requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan,
and we meet all the other requirements of the Land Development
Code.
Then he was asked, did he do any of this research himself, and he
said, no, I didn't do any of the research. I was just reporting what
others had done. So he really didn't provide any testimony based upon
his own individual knowledge. And I don't know whoever provided
the information, whether they're qualified to provide that information
or not. I guess if they speak today we'll find out if they're actually
qualified to provide that information.
But the whole information dealt with too many boats and the
Page 122
December 2-3,2008
draft of the boat. Didn't really get into any of the primary or
secondary criteria that you find in your code that we are -- we believe
are the only criteria you're supposed to look at in determining whether
to approve or deny.
I think that the Planning Commission, if you look at what they
stated their reasons to be, stated their reasons -- because there was a
lot of discussion -- if you read the transcript, there was a lot of
discussion about what should we say, should we state our reasons, and
they were -- said, yes, state your reasons, all of your reasons. So 1
think they stated all of their reasons. But if you don't want to look at
that, you can weigh the evidence yourself.
But if they've stated all their reasons, you will find that the vote
should have been flip-flopped because only, I believe, two of them
found that the requisite number of primary or secondary criteria were
not satisfied. The remainder either didn't support the motion to deny
or didn't state reasons based on the criteria or enough reasons based on
the criteria to support a denial under the rules.
I'm going to ask Rocky to come up here and go through the
extension petition and show you how we meet the criteria in the Land
Development Code. After he does that, I think you'll agree, or I hope
you'll agree, because your staff agreed, that we satisfied the criteria
under the boat -- under the Land Development Code.
Your staff agrees, and we agree with your staff, as far as the
application of the Land Development Code, and I think the legislative
history supports that interpretation.
After that, we're available to answer any questions you might
have regarding our appeal, the basis of our appeal or the petition itself
for the boat dock extension, unless you want to ask questions now.
That's certainly your purview. But I propose to turn it over to Rocky
to have him take you through the boat dock petition and go from there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody have any questions for Mr.
Y ovanovich?
Page 123
December 2-3,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Scofield?
MR. SCOFIELD: Good afternoon. Rocky Scofield, representing
Monte Carlo Club. I'm with Turrell, Hall & Associates.
What I'll do is I'll briefly go through some of the things. If you
have questions -- you have the packet in front of you and staffs
comments, recommendations on all the criteria, so that is there.
There's no sense in me reading all through those. If you have a
question about any of the particular criteria, I'll be glad to answer that.
This drawing is the overview of the whole project. To the north
you have the existing seven boat slips -- excuse me -- finger piers, 14
slips that are there. Below that to the south are the proposed 10-,
30-foot, 35-foot finger piers.
Again, Rich said, we are here today, what we proposed, a 15-foot
extension to the 20-foot allowed. This is 35 feet. Thirty-five feet is
absolute as far as extending out. You can't tie up anything longer than
the protrusion of that dock.
And what a lot of people don't understand is that basically if
we're in here for a 35-foot total protrusion, 15-foot extension, boats
are sold and footages -- whatever that footage is, is you buy a 30-foot
boat, it may have an overall length of 34 feet. I know there's some
28-foot boats that have an additional 5 feet, up to 33 feet of overall
length.
So you cannot put a 35-foot boat at a 35-foot dock without being
out of compliance and in violation of the code and the boat dock
extension.
So the owners are aware of -- the owners are aware of these
things, and they put into -- all the ones that I've represented of the
condominiums, they've put into their bylaws the draft of the boat.
We're not allowed to have a draft of over 3 feet. So if that goes in
there, the people who have boats have to comply with what the boat
dock extension was granted for. If their boats are longer, they have to
Page 124
December 2-3,2008
go, but they have to comply to that, and they're made aware of that.
So I just want to -- you know, you can't put anything bigger than
-- you know, if it's a pontoon boat and it's squared off at each end,
maybe you could put a 33-foot boat in there, but you've got to stay a
foot to a foot and a half off of the seawall. There's some play in there
from the tides if it's not on a lift.
But basically you're pretty much restricted in the -- in the
extreme case to a 30-foot boat at a 35-foot extension for a total
protrusion.
And if you look at the drawing that's on the overhead, the -- the
criteria from the state and the county requires that you keep 50 percent
of the navigable waterway open to navigation. As you can see in here,
that there is -- the waterway at the narrowest point is 214 feet wide.
That's from seawall to seawall.
When you come out with our proposed docks and the dock across
the waterway, which protrudes out almost 40 feet into the waterway
on the residential lot on the east side of the canal -- of the waterway,
then your -- we're down to 139 feet of open navigable waterway,
which exceeds the 50 percent that's required at a minimum. So there's
plenty of space to navigate through this area.
Weare -- we are proposing to do dredging in here, the area that
the new docks are proposed. It's very shoaled in. We have to dredge
in order to get any boats in there, no matter what configuration it is.
So -- and these boats are shown, you know, as -- on the overhead
as bow in, and we will -- we usually dredge down at an angle from the
seawall. And so it's a little bit shallower at the seawall, then it goes
down. So there's -- there's no problem, but that area has to be dredged
in order for the boats to get in there.
The -- the bridge. The bridge is just north of this property, the
Vanderbilt -- the Bluebill Bridge, and the open channel underneath
that bridge is 60 feet wide. That's what people have to navigate
through there. And again, we're back to 139 feet at this point at the
Page 125
December 2-3,2008
narrowest spot.
That's just an overview of the dredged area which is also in your
packet, and we have -- the cross-sections are also in your packets of
that. It has to be taken out of there.
At this point usually -- usually the questions that come up from
people that are opposed to these is the navigation problem, which I
just went through with you. That's probably the biggest thing. And
there is just -- there's no -- there's no reason for that, as I've shown
you.
And ifthere's -- the other thing is the length of the boats, which
we just went through. So ifthere's any -- if you have questions, I
mean, I can go through these criteria, but you have it in front of you in
the staff recommendations, so if! can answer any questions, I will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You stated that the boats have
3-foot drafts. What's a 40-foot boat have?
MR. SCOFIELD: I just happen to have that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. SCOFIELD: According to the powerboat guide, the 2007
summary, a 40-foot boat, boats -- this is an average. Boats size 31 to
40 feet draw 3 feet of water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You put 10 people in the
boat, how much is the draft then, how much water does it draft then?
MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry? Say it again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you have 10 people aboard a
40-foot boat, what's draft at that point?
MR. SCOFIELD: I don't know the displacement figures. Each
boat's different, but it does displace more.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you have to agree that the
manufacturer, when he tells you it's got a 3-foot draft, that's dry
weight. That's not fully loaded with --
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, no. When they do that, that's usually
Page 126
December 2-3, 2008
fuel, and the boat in the water in the idle speed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With two people onboard.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So here we are. You have a
holding tank on there and you've probably got 50 gallons of water, and
that's about 8 pounds, and then you've got the 3- or 400 -- maybe 200
gallons of fuel onboard, that's about six points a gallon, so therefore --
and I think one of the big concerns is is that there's a waterway just
north of that bridge, and I believe that channel is 3 feet or less,
especially at low tide. At high tide, you're just a little over 3 feet.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a 21-foot boat, and it has a
draft of 3 feet, and I have to be careful going through there. So I think
that's one of the big concerns. And then that waterway actually is part
of the outstanding water -- Florida waterways.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I think that's some of the
concerns that the people up there in North Naples area have is the
regards that they're trying to make sure that those outstanding Florida
waters are protected.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that's one of the big
concerns in regards to the length of the boats or the length of the dock.
Let's take the length of the boat right out of it. Let's just -- the length
of the docks.
I think in most of the cases where the Planning Commission has
made variances or allowed dock extensions has to deal with the
surrounding waters, such as shoaling, mangroves. And basically --
you basically said that. You plan to do some dredging. So that means
that there's no reason to extend those docks out because of hazards to
navigation or anything, that you've pretty much taken care of that and
that you did say that there was a slope from the seawall down.
Page 127
December 2-3, 2008
I have -- my boat is parked the same way, and it's -- it was --
there was soil removed underneath it so that it would -- I could lower
it or raise it, whatever, at any particular tide.
But I think that's the big concern is, when you start looking at
larger docks, it automatically has a reflection, and I think that's the
concern that a lot of people have in regards to, why do we need to
extend these docks when there's really no need for it, and I think that's
why the Planning Commission came up with the scenario that they
did.
Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. I'd -- okay. I'd like to respond to that.
The -- a 30-foot boat is average of about two-and-a-half feet of draft.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three foot.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. So there -- and these boats that are
going in there, that would be the largest boat. There's many boats in
the Vanderbilt area that are of 30 feet, and the ones that go through
these areas all the way to the very southern end is the commercial
boats, which are even bigger boats, so there's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which ones are those?
MR. SCOFIELD: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What commercial boats are you
talking about that go through there?
MR. SCOFIELD: The boats, the fishing boats that take people
out fishing at the southern end.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Most of those are about 24 to 26
foot.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, there's -- they're up to 30 feet also, the
open fishing boats.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The ones I saw were only 26 foot.
And I live on that waterway, and I use it quite a bit.
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. But anyway, the -- you know, the boats
that they're proposing for this are the standard boats that are most of
Page 128
December 2-3, 2008
them in there. They're between 20 and 30 feet. They can't be any
longer than 30 feet--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then 30-foot dock.
MR. SCOFIELD: Because I explained that. A 30-foot -- a
28-foot boat may be 33 feet in overall length, and the overall length is
what we're concerned about here. You have to stay a foot or foot and
a half off of the seawall, and that places us out, and then we'd need the
extra 5 feet for the boat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Most boats that I've seen at the
present time, the overall length is measured from the bow pulpit all the
way to the swim platform. Used to be they were measured from the
bow --
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to the stern.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now with the boats being
an integral part, the whole shell, the actual overall length is -- the inter
dimensions of the boat are shorter, but the overall length is longer.
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, if you look at boat specs, it will tell you
the LAO. It says it right in there. It says, this is a 20 -- a Wellcraft 22,
LOA is 24 or 25 feet that this -- that is still the specs in the boats and
how they're sold. And I've got several gentlemen here today that can
attest that their boats are 3 to 4 feet longer than what the boat is sold at
as a 21 or 22- foot boat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not necessarily. But most of the
boats now, when they're sold, they basically -- that's the overall length
from the bow pulpit or the bow to the very end of the swim platform.
MR. SCOFIELD: Then it will list that as the LOA in there, but
the boats are -- they are sold as the 22s or 25s, not including that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not now.
Page 129
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The -- Rich, let's go over the
Planning Commission's individual commissioners that voted for the
motion to deny, I guess, in the minutes. And let's go over each one of
them, because I mean, I have a problem not using the criteria.
So I want to give the planning commissioners the benefit of the
doubt. And Mr. Kolflat -- Commissioner Kolflat voted for the motion
to deny; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually I should turn on that last
page.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if you want to save
some time, I have those votes tabulated by name and by criteria if you
want like for me to provide a summary of those.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you could, and if you could
reference the pages to help me move along, I would appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to Page 5 and 6 of the
executive summary, start with primary criteria. We'll start with
primary criteria number A, and Tor Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein said that
was one of the reasons that they cited. And for 1B, Tor Kolflat, Mr.
Midney, Commissioner Caron, Commissioner Strain, and
Commissioner Adelstein cited that one as reasons they voted against
it. And for primary criteria 1, paragraph C, Commissioner Strain cited
that as a reason for voting against it.
And then if we'll go to secondary criteria, Commissioners
Midney, Caron, and Strain cited 2A as a reason for voting against it.
And under secondary criteria number B, Commissioner Caron cited
that as a reason for voting against it.
And then under -- on Page 6 under subparagraph D, Tor Kolflat
identified that as a reason he voted against it. So that's the complete
compilation of all of the votes against the petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I know that Mr.
Y ovanovich says, no, we don't agree with that, but I'd like to hear
Page 130
December 2-3, 2008
from our staff just on those one, two, three primary and three
secondary on why they don't agree with staff, okay.
Do we want to start out with a staff presentation or just go to
questions to staff?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have some questions of staff, if
you wanted to go that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you get into it, maybe you
could just listen to my questions and then you could respond --
respond to those votes.
But just as an introductory comment, there are a number of
statements in the executive summary by staffthat I believe are
incorrect, and so I'd like for you to listen to what I have to say about
those, and then if you can clarify that issue, go through your
description of why you disagree with them, then that would be helpful.
There's a statement that says there are no provisions in the code
to limit the maximum protrusion that they can be granted for a boat
dock extension petition. That is untrue. There are maximum
protrusions specified with respect to a percentage of the waterway, the
width of the waterway.
The applicant does not need to prove a hardship exists in order to
be granted an extension. That is not true because if we look under
primary criteria B, 1 B, it cites water depth as an issue, that someone
would have to justify that it is too shallow for the docks that are
available.
We can also go to secondary criteria A which says that there are
special conditions that the petitioner must specify, so there are
hardship requirements that must be met in order to get approval.
So as you -- as you go through that process, I would appreciate it
if you'd try to explain why your conclusions in the executive summary
are in variance to the criteria listed in our ordinance.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. For the record, Ashley Caserta,
Page 131
December 2-3,2008
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Primary criteria B, or number two, and secondary criteria 1, or A,
as you just listed are not seen to be hardships. They're seen to be
criteria that are to be met.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if the water is too shallow to
moor the boat that you have in mind and you're asking for an
extension of a boat dock so you can put the boat there, that is a
hardship. The water isn't deep enough to let me put my boat there so,
thereby, I have to get a longer dock, and I'm asking for the longer
dock because the water is too shallow. That's a physical condition that
is, in fact, a hardship.
And the -- but in this particular condition, this particular
situation, that hardship is being mitigated by dredging. So alleging
that you need a longer dock because the water is too shallow is not an
acceptable justification because you have a dredging permit to make
the water deep enough.
So I hope that explains why I believe that that is a hardship. And
it's also repeated under special conditions. If you have special
conditions that prohibit you from using your property the way you'd
like to use it, you know, that's hardship.
And so I just want to make sure that in -- that we have a good
understanding ofthe arguments against the Planning Commission's
decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if that requires a
response.
MS. CASERTA: Staff has no further presentation. I'm here to
try and answer any ofthe questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The question, according to
Commissioner Coyle, about why the Planning Commission members
denied it, on the primary criteria A, some members denied it based
upon that criteria. And you disagree with that. Can you tell us why?
MS. CASERTA: You're asking about primary criteria letter A?
Page 132
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. Primary criteria 1 has to do with the
number of slips and whether it's appropriate in relation to waterfront
length, and also it should be appropriate and use no more than two
slips -- excuse me -- one slip per dwelling unit in multifamily cases.
We have 54 units here, so 34 would be appropriate according to the
criteria.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's criteria 1A; is that
correct?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That you're citing?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then 1B, whether the water depth as
proposed is too shallow for the vessel to -- for the general length and
type of draft described by the petitioner's application.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. 1B -- excuse me. 1B, the criteria states
that the vessel of a general length, type, and draft as described in the
petitioner's application should be able to launch at mean low tide.
And in the petitioner's application, they stated that they would need to
dredge and to be able to protrude out in able -- for their vessels to be
able to moor at this site.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When they do an application, do they
say the average size of vessels?
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And Mr. Scofield testified it
was 30 foot; is that what was on the application?
MS. CASERTA: The application states that there would be 34
vessels up to 35 feet in length.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thirty-five feet?
MR. SCOFIELD: Overall length.
MS. CASERTA: Length overall, Rocky's saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That goes back to
Page 133
December 2-3, 2008
Commissioner Halas' measurement. So you could get a 35-foot
pontoon boat out there. Whether the proposed -- 1 C, some of the
planning commissioners determined that it didn't fit the primary
criteria 1 C, and you disagree with that?
MR. MUDD: The question was, did you -- some of the planning
commissioners basically disagreed with criteria 1 C or used 1 C as a
reason for denial, and the commissioner just asked you, and you don't
believe that 1 C is a reason to deny, and he was looking for some kind
of an explanation.
MS. CASERTA: Okay. It was staffs opinion that although it
does protrude 35 feet out into the water, that the proposed facility
would not have an adverse impact on navigation since there would be
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two hundred feet of waterway in
between.
MS. CASERTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, they have to meet all the
prImary --
MS. CASERTA: No. It would be four out of five that they
would need to meet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And they have to -- on the
secondary criteria, they'd have to meet how many out of the secondary
criteria?
MS. CASERTA: Four out of six applicable. In this case, the
single-family letter 2C was not applicable for the multifamily facility.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then I'd have to, I guess, go to
criteria 2A. Why do you disagree with the Planning Commission's
findings on 2A?
MS.ISTENES: Commissioner, Susan Istenes for the record.
We're looking -- we're basically talking right from the staff report that
was provided to the Planning Commission. So I mean -- and all I'm
asking Ashley to do is just basically explain her analysis. Is that
Page 134
December 2-3, 2008
basically covering your question? Because I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this particular question is very
important because --
MS.ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- because Mr. Scofield says they are
going to dredge around there, and this criteria is whether the special
conditions involving the depth of water is related to the subject
property or waterway.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. The applicant -- depending on the type
of boat the applicant plans on putting there and depending on the
conditions of the site will determine whether or not he has to dredge.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they said they're going to dredge.
MS. ISTENES: Right, because the site conditions are too
shallow to accommodate the types of boats they want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But if a -- and it was said by
one of my colleagues that you're going to dredge anyways so, you
know, why do you need the boat extension? That doesn't -- I think
what they're saying is, it doesn't meet that criteria, but you disagreed
with it, and I just want to find out why.
MS.ISTENES: Essentially we rely on what -- Rocky's going to
have to explain his side of that. We rely on what the petitioner tells us.
In other words, they're saying, according to the surveys that they
submit to us, the water depth is too shallow to accommodate the
vessels, and they're going to have to dredge to do that.
We rely on data that they provide to us, depending on the type of
boat they want and the survey they did. And according to the data
they provided, we agreed with them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
MS.ISTENES: Am I getting there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I -- could I interject something
here? It says in secondary criteria A, there must be at least one special
condition related to the property not involving water depth, okay.
Page 135
December 2-3,2008
These may include the type of shoreline reinforcement, the shoreline
configuration, the mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.
There is no evidence that there is a special condition related to
this property not associated with water depth that was presented to the
Planning Commission nor has it been presented to us.
Let's go back to primary criteria number 1 which deals with
water depth, lB. The petitioner's application and survey should
establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and
mooring of the vessels described without an extension. They want to
have a vessel with a draft of 3 feet. They have provided you a
dredging chart that shows they're going to dredge it to 4 feet. So they
have plenty of water to launch or to moor a 30-foot vessel or 35-foot
vessel with a draft of 3 foot.
So they're -- they have not established that the water depth is too
shallow. They have actually provided you with a dredging chart that
shows there's plenty of water there for the size of vessel that they
intend to moor.
So these are the reasons we're confused about why you took such
a strong position against the decision of the Planning Commission
because it flies in the face of the criteria themselves. And I don't want
to belabor it and I'm not being critical. I know that these are difficult
things to evaluate. But, you know, we've got to sort this out some
way.
MS. ISTENES: I understand. And Commissioner, I just -- I
want to make it clear that this is an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision. We provided our professional recommendation
to the Planning Commission, and they denied the petition. The
executive summary before you is essentially a summary of the
applicant's arguments against the Planning Commission's decision.
I apologize if that came across as staffs position. Our position
and our analysis is outlaid in the staff report that was present to the
Planning Commission.
Page 136
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you actually have a
point-by-point rebuttal of the --
MS. ISTENES: Understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- staffs response here to the
Planning Commission. When you've got a point-by-point rebuttal of
their decisions, it's important to us to be able to decide, how did you
make those determinations?
When you go to primary criteria lA, that's a very general -- that's
a judgment call, whether the dock facilities are appropriate in relation
to the location.
MS. ISTENES: You're exactly right, and those are -- and some
of the criteria in primary and secondary are pretty straightforward. I
mean, you either retain 50 percent of the waterway width or you don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: There is the subjectivity that is in this process is
the evaluation of the criteria itself, not whether you met four out of the
five. I mean, that's just a straight fact.
So I mean, our analysis was presented to the Planning
Commission and they obviously didn't agree with that.
But I just wanted to point out, that's wherein the subjectivity lies,
not -- you know, I respectfully disagree with Jeffs opening statement
about the interpretation of how to apply the code. Subjectivity lies
within the criteria itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, I want to get back to my
questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I agree that the criteria of depth
is in question in my mind, but getting to the last one, whether the
proposed facility would have a major impact on water views of
neighboring waterfront property owners. I don't agree with whoever
on the Planning Commission feels that way based upon what's in front
Page 13 7
December 2-3, 2008
of us today. So really the only thing in my mind that's a question is, is
about the water depth.
And I know that the petitioner wants to extend the dock so he can
get a larger boat there. I understand that. But is that really part of the
criteria?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I was -- one of the questions
I want to ask the County Attorney. I believe that when this was before
the Planning Commission, they were wrestling with this because they
understood that there was not any real hardship, and so I believe you
gave them some guidance in regards to how they could address this.
Was the guidance proper? Because obviously there's some great
differences here between the information that obviously you gave to
the Planning Commission and then what staff says, because it says
here, it is staffs opinion that the boat dock extension petition meets
the required minimum criteria for the approval set forth by the CCP
(sic) staff report.
And then it goes on to say in this appeal application, therefore
staff recommends the Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals
overturn the Planning Commission denial.
So I'm trying to weigh where the information -- when they asked
you for your opinion, being you're the County Attorney -- and the
direction that they could go on this, and why is staff now saying that
they were totally in error?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why staff is saying the
Planning Commission's totally in error. To me there's a lot of
judgment that goes into these things, and there's a lot of close calls
going into these things.
Now, I've just read the transcript, so I know exactly what I told
the Planning Commission. What I told the Planning Commission is,
just concentrate on the criteria but it's not a scoring system, all right.
What I also told the Planning Commission, when you make your
Page 138
December 2-3,2008
motion, give the reasons, which criteria you're relying on, your
motion, if you're going to vote or deny.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they did that.
MR. KLATZKOW: And they did that. That's what I told them.
Now what I'm telling you is -- and I didn't tell them this -- because I
just read through this, okay. I didn't tell them that you can go beyond
the criteria. I think you can. I think this is a form of a variance. I
think this is very similar to 9.04.03A where it requires special
conditions and circumstances before you go in for a variance, all right;
otherwise, if you want -- if you want this as of right, the LDC should
say, if you meet four out of five, you get this as of right, period, all
right. It doesn't say that, all right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, interestingly enough, we've had
many discussions with the Planning Commission in the past where
they wondered why they were even hearing boat dock petitions
because they felt that the Items were just a checklist.
And if the petitioner met each of the four out of the five of the
primary and four out of the six of the secondary, that they get
approval. And many -- many times we have talked about it just being
simply an administrative approval, but they never asked us to do it
that, and neither did you, so we have this same process. And that's the
way we've been operating since this was amended.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And I, frankly, agree with Susan on this. If
you want this as of right, if you just meet four out of five or four out of
six, make this an administrative approval because the Planning
Commission's not doing very much. And if anybody wants to appeal
it, then it can come to you anyway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, let me go first.
The other variances still come to the Board of Commissioners.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the only one that doesn't come
Page 139
December 2-3, 2008
to the board unless it's denied.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because sometime in the past you decided
that, for whatever reason, it's just not important enough to come to the
board initially.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We made that decision about four
years ago.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, if the reason was because it's mostly
administrative, well, keep it administrative. Just say that if you make
four out of six, or whatever the criteria is, you get it as of right. And
then if you don't get it from an administrative standpoint, they could
appeal it to you. We can do that way.
But the Planning Commission has expressed many times its
dismay having to go through one of these after the other because most
of these are based on the fact that you're too shallow and you have to
go out; otherwise you'll never get launched.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the point I was going to
make is that most generally when those come before the Planning
Commission, it's very clear that there's some impediments that they
can't make it work at 20 feet. There's either mangroves or there's
underwater sea life that they're going to disturb or seagrasses or
whatever else.
This one here is pretty clear that there's none of those particular
problems, but the real problem is that they're going to do the dredging,
so I don't see why there should be any doubt in anybody's mind. I feel
that the Planning Commission did the right thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does anybody have any
further questions of staff or the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In could, just a couple of
things. Explain to me once again what the issue is with dredging.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There is no issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is no issue. What the petitioner
Page 140
December 2-3,2008
said is, they were going to dredge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But is that one of the
things you're not supposed to do under our rules and regulations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then, I kind of lost that.
And I think we brought up one good point here that I found very
interesting. We took something that could have been administratively
done that was supposed to deal just with the rules and regulations that
took place and we turned it over to the Planning Commission.
Now the Planning Commission is supposed to go in there and
decipher whether those particular criterias enter into it. But if that's
the only thing they're supposed to do, we should just keep it
administratively (sic) in the future. I mean, I'm just looking at this
objectively trying to see how we can avoid these kind of --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe I can help the
commISSIOner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to -- they got the permit
to dredge which means that there is no hardship for bringing the vessel
in to the seawall so they can use -- accommodate a 20- foot dock,
okay.
So they've got that provision already to dredge because it is
shallow. That was brought up in the testimony.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It removes the hardship.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It removes that hardship.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand. Thank you
very much for clarifying that.
MR. SCOFIELD: May I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
Page 141
December 2-3, 2008
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. The dredging has nothing to -- you
know, this was brought up at the Planning Commission, and I just -- I,
for the life of me, cannot follow this line of logic.
If I wanted -- if we wanted to put a l2- foot boat in front of this
seawall, we would have to dredge. You have a cross-section. There's
a cross-section showing it -- lO to l2 feet out from the seawall or
further you have a half a foot of water at low tide. You have to dredge
here. If it's a l2-foot boat, ifit's a 20-foot, if it's a 30-foot boat we
have to dredge in order to put boats in here.
The dredging has nothing to do with this -- the extension that's
requesting. You're mixing up apples and oranges here. Yeah, we
come before the Planning Commission lots of times and because we're
in mangrove area or areas in -- they're in OFW that are not allowed
dredging or aquatic preserves. Then we have -- if we have a big
enough waterway, we go way out into the waterway.
Ifwe weren't allowed to dredge here, we'd be in here requesting
for the maximum protrusion, which may be 50 feet that we could get
into this waterway. But we're not.
We're dredging. And it says in your packets, we're dredging in
order to keep this in further. Because some people want to have a 27-,
a 28-, a 29 foot, maybe even a 30. But -- and again, that's not the LO
-- the LOA is based on the 35.
When you take a foot off that you have to keep your boat away
from the seawall, now you're down to a 34-foot length overall, so it's a
30-foot boat. But the dredging is mixed up. I don't care if you wanted
to put a rowboat in here, you would have to dredge or it would be
sitting on the bottom, or if it's in a lift, we couldn't launch on a lift. So
did I clear that up on the dredging?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand fine. I don't have a
problem. I -- do we have speakers, too, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: We have eight.
Page 142
December 2-3,2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One quick comment. Let's just assume
that we have adequate water depth, for purposes of argument, so we
don't meet that criteria. Your code says I have to meet four out of the
five. So I'm not -- I don't -- I think we meet the criteria, but let's just
say we didn't. We have to meet the four out of the other five, and I
don't think there's any question on the four out ofthe other five from
your -- from your staffs perspective as far as, you know, what Rocky
-- what I'm hearing you say is, you know, protrude further out, and
then you've met number -- you've met the first criteria about water
depth, but you're going to be punished for dredging to minimize the
length you need to protrude out, but that's okay.
But let's just say I missed that criteria. As long as I meet four out
of the five others I get to go forward, and I meet four out of the six
secondary, I get to go forward. So that's why I said, you don't have to
meet a hardship because you can -- that one criteria, I would agree, is
a hardship criteria. But I don't have to meet that criteria to get
approval. I could fail that one and pass the others.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I totally agree with that. That
wasn't why I was having my question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. I just wanted to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: While -- the response was contrary to
why I was asking the question. I just wanted to find out what the
Planning Commission -- and why staff feels, you know, they were
wrong. I find that it doesn't meet one of the criteria, okay?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before we leave that issue, I think
it's important to understand it under criteria -- the secondary criteria.
If we're going to continue to use this for anybody's good purpose, we
can't continue to use it the way it's set up there. You have one criteria
there that is applicable only to single-family dock facilities.
So when you're talking about meeting four of the six criteria,
does that mean a multifamily development automatically meets that
Page 143
December 2-3, 2008
particular criteria, or is that criteria to be ignored? So you really have
to clean that process up because it doesn't make sense to include that
in there.
So it's -- for multifamily dock facilities, we should either say,
you've got to meet three of the five or four of the five; and for
single-family dock facilities, you've got to meet four of the six. But,
you know, this is not a good criteria to use.
And let me very briefly state that I disagree very strongly with
the fact that this has nothing to do with the dredging. Of course it has
something to do with the dredging. It clearly states here that the
petition's application and survey should establish that the water depth
is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel described
without a dock extension, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where you at so I can follow you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's on Page 5. It's primary
criteria lB. It's the last sentence of that paragraph lB. I'll read it
again. The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the
water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the
vessels described without an extension.
Now, your vessel draft is 3 feet. You're already dredging to 4
feet. You cannot demonstrate that the water depth is too shallow. So
it is a very appropriate criteria for making this decision. So whether
you agree with it or not, it is there, and it's very clear. So I've beaten
this horse to death.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Let's see if we can get some
public to help us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is John Boyer.
MR. BOYER: I would like to cede my time to my colleague,
Mr. Burton. Oh, I'm sorry. Lou Schmidt.
MS. FILSON: The second speaker is Lew Schmidt. Did he say
he wanted him to go first?
Page 144
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wanted to cede his time.
MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. After Mr. Schmidt is William Eline.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Mr. Mudd,
Mr. Y ovanovich. I'm Lew Schmidt, and I did testify at the Planning
Commission hearings. And I have to first tell you that Mr.
Y ovanovich's characterization of my presentation was not very
flattering and I don't think it was accurate and I'm not sure he was
there.
That aside, to address the question of my qualifications to talk to
this subject. I'm the former owner and operator of a marine
transportation company that was based in the port of Chicago. We
operated tug boats and barges on the connecting waters and the Great
Lakes.
I am very familiar with restricted waters because we operated
these vessels on the Chicago sanitary and ship canal and county Met
Sag. (phonetic) channel.
I could go into further details, but I also owned a 38-foot Chris
Craft cabin cruiser. I think I am qualified to talk to boat operations in
restricted waters, and that's exactly what I did with the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Halas has made the point, and I would emphasize
it. The waterway from Bluebill Bridge to Wiggins Pass is marked as
having a 3-foot depth at the low mean tide. We know, in fact, that the
depth in parts of it is less because the cut through Turkey Water Bay,
by observation of people that were there and a measurement by Fish
and Wildlife, Florida Fish and Wildlife some two years ago -- and I
can't give you the exact date. But some two years ago they found
Water Turkey Bay, the cut-through there was something between l8
and 24 inches.
So 3-foot draft is important. We -- I did talk about draft. Draft is
shown in a book, the draft of a boat, and we talked about the average
draft on a 3l- to 40- foot boat as being 3 foot, but the draft does vary.
Page 145
December 2-3, 2008
The draft -- the operating draft also is different. The operating
draft depends upon how much weight you put in and the displacement
of the vessel which was mentioned by the engineer.
Passing through that channel with a boat of the size we're talking
about, because of draft, is challenging, and seasoned operators are able
to handle it. But when we have a proliferation of 35-foot vessels, are
all those operators going to be seasoned? I suggest they will not.
And you will have serious problems. You will also be called
upon to dredge and maintain that channel. If you respond to that,
who's going to pay for it? How often is it going to happen? These are
problems you are going to be faced with.
I think the Planning Commission -- and thanks to your County
Attorney -- used good judgment, and it wasn't just how they felt -- in
denying this application. And their judgment was, in measuring the
overall effect of putting these docks and big boats into that small area
and setting a precedent for others to come in was going to create a
hazard in that waterway -- restricted waterway.
I asked them and encouraged them to support the Land
Development Code, and I did say to them that I felt there was a reason
for the Land Development Code restricting the dock length to 20 feet,
and the reason has to be apparent to us now. It's to prevent people
from putting boats that are too big for the waterway on those docks
and attempting to operate them on the waterway.
There was an intention, and thankfully there's an option for the
commissioners, per our County Attorney, to see that and to deny the
permit to extend them to that length.
That was what I said. That's what I stand by. I think it is
important for you to also consider the overall concerns. I don't think
that this decision can be made administratively, because
administratively, I'm not sure that our staff is familiar with the
waterways.
We would be glad -- and we invite staff to come visit with us and
Page 146
December 2-3, 2008
talk with us anytime and we will give them a ride on the waterway,
but the criteria, if you go strictly to these ll, I think, different ideas or
concerns that are expressed as criteria, would have to be amended to
take into consideration all of the practical problems of navigating that
restricted waterway and the dangers and hazards of allowing too many
big boats to exist and operate on that waterway.
I thank you for your attention, and I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Eline. He'll be
followed by Kathleen Robbins.
MR. ELINE: My name is William Eline. I live in the
condominium north of the property we're talking about. We put our
additional slips in in 1995, approximately. I don't know who
measured them at 30 feet because they're 20.
At the time when we went for our permit to the state, they asked
us to keep it at 20 and not to have boats more than 30 feet, and we
went along with this because we have the state park next to us, and
people bring their little boats in, and they go out into Turkey Bay.
And if you have big boats out there, you know, you've got families in
these little boats. So we went along. We said, we understand.
And I don't understand why anybody wouldn't support that. We
shouldn't have longer docks and bigger boats. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Kathleen Robbins?
MS. ROBBINS: I cede my time to Bruce Burkhard.
MS. FILSON: Gina Downs.
MS. DOWNS: I cede my time to Bruce Burkhard.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard. He'll be followed by Joseph
Sivo.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Burkhard, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association. And with all the ceded time, I guess we can stay here till
about six o'clock, ifthat's okay.
Page 147
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You might be here till six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We're going to take a break, so
just go ahead and talk, and we're going to --
MR. BURKHARD: Gotcha, okay.
On August the 7th of this year, the CCPC, as you well know, was
deg. -- is the designated final authority on all matters relating to docks.
And they heard and considered the application, and they made a solid
decision 6-3 to deny the application.
They're experienced, they know what they're doing, they spent a
lot of time wrestling with the issue, and that was their considered
opinion, and I think we, as an association, value and agree with that
OpInIOn.
In the LDC, 5.03.05 El, it clearly states that on a canal or
waterway lOO feet or greater in width, no dock facility boat
combination shall protrude more than 20 feet into the waterway.
E2 of the same section goes on to address narrower waterways
and is more restrictive into setting the 25 percent or 20-foot standard.
It couldn't be clearer that the standard dock protrusion contemplated in
the LDC is 20 feet.
Section H talks about dock facility extensions. It says, they may
be considered appropriate under certain circumstances. In order for
the CCPC to approve the extension request, it must be determined that
four out of the five primary criteria and at least four out of the six
secondary criteria have been met.
I see no place in the code where the CCPC is required to approve
extensions. In fact, there's a very strict requirement that virtually all
of the criteria be met before the CCPC can even consider approving.
The LDC most assuredly does not say that these so-called criteria
must be used in the same manner in order to deny an extension. And
Mr. Klatzkow stated that during the CCPC hearing.
He indicated that Chairman Strain's approach for denying is the
proper approach, that, quote, if you're going to be voting in the
Page 148
December 2-3, 2008
negative, that you should state your reasons for the record why you're
voting in the negative and then take your vote, and that's what
happened.
The VBRA believed that the CCPC did make the right call in a
strong decision to deny the extensions. The first and foremost
conclusion from the testimony given by personal observation by
driving my boat right up to the seawall is that there really is no
compelling reason to grant an extension.
And I'll emphasize that again. I've had my boat right up to that
seawall. So the assertion that there's extremely shallow water here, in
my opinion, doesn't fly.
This is merely a case of a landowner group saying that we want
35 feet. No doubt they have reasons such as increasing their property
value by offering out-sized docks or, perhaps, making their condo
units easier to sell as competition with people who followed the code
and built 20-foot docks, for example.
In 5.03.06 E, standards for dock facilities, the LDC says that a
criteria for lots on waterways lOO feet or greater in width is that the
dock and boat combination shall not protrude more than 20 feet into
the waterway.
A standard applies to any definite rule, a principle or a measure
established by authority, and that's what we have. It's a desired
configuration.
Common sense says that all this standard -- that this standard
should be adhered to unless there's a valid reason, then an exception
should be made, i.e., the granting of an extension.
We completely disagree with appellant and staffs tortious
reasons for appeal, the most egregious of which is to malign Lew
Schmidt who is a citizen living in the area who is expressing his
opinions. It was quite clear from reading the transcript that Mr.
Schmidt's words were not used to justify the denial.
By discrediting citizen witnesses by name, we are on a slippery
Page 149
December 2-3,2008
slope of putting a chill or a damper on well-meaning input from local
citizens. It's a very bad precedent.
By granting a batch of lO dock extensions, permitting 20 to
35-foot boats sets a new, quote, standard in the county and in our
neighborhood. There's no demonstrated need for an extension. After
all, the Monte Carlo has a dredging permit, as has been alluded to, and
we don't think that shallow water is that serious a problem, and that
certainly can be overcome, as Commissioner Coyle indicated, with the
dredging.
We ask you to uphold the extension denial by your CCCP (sic)
and reasonably interpret your own LDC. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joseph Sivo?
MR. SIVO: Sivo.
MS. FILSON: Sivo. He'll be followed by Donald Koman.
MR. SIVO: My name is Joe Sivo. I reside at Monte Carlo. I'm a
boat owner. I have a boat slip. Currently I have a 20 -- what is called
a 23-foot hurricane, which is about 25 and a half feet long because of
the forward protrusions and the aft protrusions. And I sit on a dock
that's 30 feet long. In fact, there are right now l4 slips all 30 feet long
at the Monte Carlo. So we are already protruding into the waterway
30 feet.
The additional docks that are being proposed follow the same
pattern that we currently have with a request for 5 feet longer than we
currently have, which does not violate the waterway in any way. And
unfortunately, the issue of how deep the water is at low tide has been
misconstrued.
I happen to have -- my condo overlooks the corner of the -- at
that corner of the waterway. And this morning, there was ground
showing all the way along that up to about halfway to my boat. There
was actually ground showing at the -- at the seawall. So there is a
problem with shallow water, but that's really not the issue.
We keep talking about all these big boats that we're going to have
Page 150
December 2-3, 2008
traversing Turkey Bay. And Turkey Bay has only got a 3-foot
allowance. If you sit in that waterway and watch the boats that come
from the canals along the waterway where there are no restrictions on
boat size and you see a 50-foot cruiser go by, you say, gee, ifhe can
make it through Turkey Bay, I should not have a problem with a
30-foot boat. And that, in fact, is the case.
Turkey Bay depth is not an issue with the boats we're talking
about because the boats require that we stay within the 3-foot draft.
That's a requirement that we're obliged to meet. Ifwe fail to meet that
requirement, they will make us take the boat off the water.
So why is everyone making such an issue about boat depths
through the waterway? It just -- it puzzles me. I listen to all the talk
that we've had and I listen to the requirements that you impose on
people who want to make petitions to this board, and it seems to me
that we jumped through all the hoops that were required. We met the
criteria that were required to be met and yet the petition was denied.
And I hear all the discussion about all of -- I'll be done in a
second -- of all the things that have been brought up, but never once
have we sat down and said, did we meet the requirements that are
obliged to be met to get an extension? And I contend, in fact, we did.
609Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Donald Koman.
MR. KOMAN: I defer to my partner here.
MR. SIVO: I've had enough.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
MR. KOMAN: He covered my ground.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: On the visualizer is your staff report for
the LDC amendment that added that last sentence to the Land
Development Code because it was omitted. And if you read what it
says regarding the reasons why that language was added back in, both
under the reasons and the fiscal impact, it clearly says that that
Page 151
December 2-3, 2008
language was added back in to address the approval or denial of a boat
dock extension.
So that's what that language means because that's what you saw
when you voted to put that language back in. So that's the legislative
history of what that last sentence means. It's for both approval or
denial.
Now -- so we go back to, do we meet four out ofthe five primary
criteria and four out of six of the secondary criteria? So if you want to
-- if you -- again, the water depth issue, if you want to say, you don't
meet the water depth issue because you're going to dredge, do we
meet four of the other five primary criteria? And I think we meet all
of the four remaining criteria.
And if you go -- and then the issue was, okay -- and I don't think
the -- there's any subjectivity on, is it an appropriate amount of boat
docks, boats there because the Manatee Protection Plan says we would
be eligible for 7l boat slips on this property based upon the length of
the waterfront. We have 54 units.
And your code says that it's acceptable to have one slip per unit
so we -- it would be acceptable to ask for 54. We're asking for 34. So
I don't think there's any subjectivity in meeting that criteria. And the
other ones, I don't think there was any argument about meeting those
criteria.
And you go over to the secondary criteria, and we have to meet
four out of six. If you want to throwaway the one that deals with
special circumstances other than water, we meet the remaining ones.
So we would satisfy that as well.
What the speakers are talking about, this proliferation of 35- foot
vessels -- and I don't know what they mean by proliferation. There
was no number. They didn't say that 20's okay, l5's okay, lO's okay.
I don't know the answer to that, because who knows what proliferation
is, and there's been no study done to show that any more -- what the
limits should be. And I think that they've agreed that there needs to be
Page 152
December 2-3, 2008
a study done to determine those issues.
The -- they're ignoring -- right now we could parallel park. Ifwe
dredge, we can parallel park and meet the 20 foot, so that would get
lO more 35-footers if we parallel park versus perpendicular. So we're
really just talking about lO extra strips related to this extension from a
numbers standpoint.
I think I heard -- and I could be corrected -- the concern was with
3l feet and above boats would be a draft potentially greater than the 3
feet. So if it was 30 feet or less, I don't think there was an issue about
that. And the testimony from the one public speaker all dealt with 35-
to 40- foot boats.
And I think, Commissioner Halas, you said early on, how about
limiting it to 30 feet. That's what's there today. It has not been a
problem for the community to have 30 foot -- a total protrusion of 30
feet. I think that would provide the assurance regarding draft. It's
consistent with what's there today. It's consistent with what's around
us, and it's consistent with how the rules were originally applied to this
property .
So if it would be -- if it would give additional assurance to the
community to reduce the request to a protrusion of 30 feet, we would
do that. And we would -- hopefully at that point people would say,
that's what's out there today. There have been no issues with boats on
that 30 feet right now, so 30-foot total protrusion, as Rocky has
explained, you won't get the full 30-foot boat because you've got to be
a little bit away from the seawall.
But assuming you got a 30-foot boat in there, that's the total you
could have, whether -- however you measure it. The 23 feet really is
25 feet, you know. Whatever it is, we would agree to limit the boat
dock extension request to what's already out there for a total of 30
feet, which is how it used to be applied to this property in the first
place, and consistent with what's around us at this point.
We think we've met all the criteria. Weare -- I guess we'll make
Page 153
December 2-3, 2008
that revision here on the floor if that's acceptable to Commissioner
Halas. I believe it was consistent with an earlier statement that you
made about limiting it to 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. I didn't make that statement. I
didn't make that statement that I was going to limit it to 30 feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. You said, how about 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I did not.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can go back, but--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think I did.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Our request would be to be consistent
with what's already out there and consistent with how the rules are
already applied.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't pick on my commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that the findings
by the Planning Commission stand as such. Do I have a second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second to Commissioner Halas'
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never got to speak yet, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it for discussion, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second for discussion. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry I've waited all
this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know you do, and that's
good.
And I was acting -- I was just going to act upon what
Commissioner Halas had said earlier in the meeting, and I thought,
let's go for a compromise because it seemed that the 30-foot dock
Page 154
December 2-3, 2008
would -- they can build 20 foot as it is, they can build 20 foot, and
their property line is lO foot out into the water. And so it would make
all of the docks on that one side equal, which would be all 30 feet, and
so I was just going to follow Commissioner Halas' suggestion, and
offer that.
And then I was to add a second thing. As long as this becomes a
real problem -- and it is. It seems that boat traffic and boat congestion
and boat size and so forth has really become a problem, and my
goodness, it will further be a problem -- that we ought to do something
-- and this is more to staff than anything else.
From here on in, anytime there's something like this that comes
along, we should have some kind of a study about the impact on the
waterway and the impact on the congestion in that waterway and what
size boats could do to that, you know, just so that we can go in there
with more information to support whatever -- whatever issue we are
talking about at the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to Commissioner Halas.
We have done that through the Manatee Protection Plan, and that lays
out the criteria for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the impact?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, for the different waterways.
They study all of -- all the way -- well, from the Lee County line all
the way down to Everglades City, I believe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was talking about congestion.
They were talking about boats and the bigger boats and the congestion
on the waterway. Does that address the congestion in the waterway? I
don't know that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A specific waterway where you've
got a narrow channel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you -- maybe it's time to
Page 155
December 2-3,2008
take a break and our court reporter could go back and find that where I
made that statement. I would like to have it. I know I'm getting old
and there's a possibility that I did say that statement, but I -- I'd like to
have clarification on that, if you could for me, where I said I would
compromise with 30 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't use the word
compromise. I put that word in.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that I said I was going to--
that I was willing to give them 30 feet, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think what you said was, how about 30
feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you find that statement for
me? Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take l5 minutes, and then
hopefully Terri can get a little bit of time to do it.
(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.
I believe you're still on Item 7C, which has to do with the boat
dock extension.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 7C, and we have a motion and second
to uphold the Planning Commission's findings, but we asked the court
reporter to find something in the record, and from what I understand,
the statement alleged to be made by Commissioner Halas was not
made.
THE COURT REPORTER: It was not found. I didn't find it
anywhere.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You didn't find it, could not find it,
so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I swear I'm not going nuts, honest to
Page 156
December 2-3,2008
goodness.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Anyway, I'd like to say a few
words before we take our vote. I'm sure that's what we're at at the
present time -- is obviously we have a Land Development Code that
most of the residents up there adhere to, and that is that the docks
should stay at 20-foot or -- yeah, 20-foot length unless, of course,
there's some impediment whereby they can't have that.
I would hope that my fellow commissioners would realize that
the area up there is very confining in the sense with all the docks that
are on the canals. There's going to be more development up in that
area, and that also we have to the north of where these docks are going
to be located is an outstanding Florida waterways.
And I think that we, as citizens, have to respect not only the
ability for people to have boats -- I don't think that's even -- has been
questioned. The Planning Commission made it very clear that they
had nothing -- they didn't find anything confining about the boats.
The -- there was an issue brought up about the number of boats.
To me the real issue is making sure that we don't set a precedent
whereby everybody can come in and say I want to extend everything
another 5 feet or, in this case, lO feet, that the code is there unless
there is some type of hardship or impediment in regards to addressing
this issue.
So I would just hope that as there was testimony by Mr. Schmitt
in regards to the drafts that -- or the depth of water that is to the north
of us, north of Bluebill Bridge -- and I think that's our biggest concern,
that we want to make sure that we protect that and also protect smaller
people or young kids that are out in kayaks into that particular
waterway.
So we're not here to take away the ability of anybody having
boats. It's the idea of encouraging larger docks which then encourages
other conditions that will cause a problem for the public and for
people in -- and the county in the future, so that's all I have to say.
Page 157
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask Commissioner
Halas a question. The seven docks that are there that are already 30
feet, are there many -- are there a lot of others, or are those the only
seven that are 30 feet long protruding into the water?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You know, Commissioner Fiala, I
can't answer that. But as was brought up in the testimony, that
originally when those docks were put in, there was lO feet that was
basically given because there were -- that was where the property line
had extended out into the water.
So actually from that lO feet they were out 20 feet. Well, then of
course they move the property line not from in -- not in the waterway
but back to where it should be, and that's the seawall. So those people
are grandfathered in because those docks were put in prior to the code
being what it is today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my last question is, so what the
-- one of the things that -- you just want to protect the integrity of
20-foot docks according to the Land Development Code; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right, Ms. Fiala; yes,
it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I, as the seconder of the
motion, I would like to say that I would feel more comfortable
remanding this to the Planning Commission. I don't know that the
result will be any different. But for the integrity of the process, I
cannot -- still cannot reconcile the differences in position between the
County Manager (sic), our county staff, and the Planning
Commission. And I would like to bring all that together and get it
resolved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you mean County Attorney?
Page 158
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I meant County Attorney, yes. Did
I say something -- County Manager?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Manager.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, County Attorney. Ijust
can't rationalize all those. There's too much confusion and
misunderstanding about what criteria should be used. And if we don't
clear that up, I know there are going to be questions raised about
fairness.
And Ijust would feel more comfortable if we took that step and
ran it back through the Planning Commission with a very clear
statement of guidance that they should specify all of their reasons for
voting against this petition in accordance with our ordinance and then
to specify any other criteria which they think should have been
applied and influenced their decision making, and that they've covered
both bases.
The County Attorney did advise them to do that. But reading the
transcripts, I can easily see how they took his advice and said, I don't
have to abide by this criteria so I'm not going to list everything. I'm
not even going to try. And so -- then they went ahead and voted.
So I would like to clarify that. I would like to get it cleaned up.
But I do respect Commissioner Halas' position to do whatever he
thinks is necessary to protect his constituents, but I would ask that we
consider that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, once again, do
you believe that the criteria that the Planning Commission asked you
-- this is in regards to some of the questions that Commissioner Coyle
has in regards to this.
Do you believe that the Planning Commission acted based on the
information you gave them, and do you think that the information that
was given to them and their judgment clearly identified what their
concerns were, and did they, do you feel, list everything as far as the
Page 159
December 2-3,2008
primary and secondary criteria?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the Planning Commission's decision
is legally justifiable in every respect. If, however, it's the view of this
board to send this back to the Planning Commission, I would ask that
you ask Susan to render an official interpretation on this so we can put
this issue to bed.
If there's an official interpretation on this issue, then we'll know
exactly what this provision's meant for, and we'll be done for it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you saying the criteria, the
provisions?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The criteria under --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- under the Land Development Code
for asking for a boat dock extension?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. If we're going to send it back to the
Planning Commission, we may as well sent it back with a firm
decision by Susan on, you know, this is what you look at, you know,
this is how it's done. This is what it means.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I really think we're just
putting more work into this whole project for no reason. We've done
this before on other things. It just went back and they just emphasized
on their original vote. They just gave it a little more, what do you
want to call it, put a little more English spin on the ball, and then send
it back to us. There was never really a change of the whole thing. So
do we really want to put everybody through this another time? Food
for thought.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think what's being suggested
is probably try to be fair to everybody and get the official
interpretation on the request for a boat dock extension. I could tell
Page 160
December 2-3, 2008
you, my opinion is, you got the criteria there and you can't deviate
from the criteria.
And from what Commissioner Coyle said, the reasons for, you
know, denying it, was based upon the criteria. And of course, again,
he's reading in -- something into it. Myself, I can't -- I could only find
one reason that it doesn't meet the criteria, and that is on the primary,
lB, and then the secondary, just one of them and the same thing is,
you know, the depth of the waterway.
So, you know, I find personally that the Planning Commission
was in error for turning it down. I can't support the motion, although
the reprimanding (sic) it down again to the Planning Commission
would be fair to all with an official interpretation.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I don't know how that's -- the
official interpretation is going to resolve the problem. Clearly the
planning department feels that the criteria are locked in concrete and
you just merely go down the checklist and decide. That's completely
at variance with the advice of the County Attorney.
So if we -- if we approach it that way and we're merely going to
have an official interpretation, then that means that the staff really is
making a decision. And if that's the way it should go, that's the way it
should go, I guess.
But I believe that, particularly in the case of Commissioner
Schiffer, he gave no reason that is consistent with the ordinance and
any of the criteria but yet he voted against it. A number of the others
voted against it but didn't give enough reasons to comply with the
ordinance.
The only reason I can think that they did that was they were
influenced by the County Attorney's advice, which was, you don't
have to do that. If we send it back to them, they'll have to do that, and
then they can specify reasons, it will clean it all up, and hopefully we
can get this process cleaned up afterwards. I mean, get the ordinance
Page 161
December 2-3,2008
and these criteria cleaned up because they certainly are not proper
criteria.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, he makes a really good
point. Because we're talking now about setting a precedent. And if
we vote one way, then we're going to change the way we read the law.
If we vote the other, we will not. And -- but we've got to decide now
which way the law really reads.
So I -- you know, I -- I believe -- I agree with Commissioner
Coyle about sending it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we have a motion and a
second on the floor.
Do you have any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails unanimously.
Is there a subsequent motion by the board? Reprimand (sic) it
down to the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll give Commissioner Halas the
first shot at that, if you'd like to do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let's send this back to the
Planning Commission with guidance so that we can get this thing
taken care of once and for all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second it and ask that it be
Page 162
December 2-3, 2008
made clear to them that they should not only list the criteria they used
in accordance with our ordinance, but list any other criteria which they
think is -- was important in their decision; is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. And I'd like to -- that vote,
that last vote we took, I'm in -- I was in favor of that. I was just
sleeping at the switch, okay. So that's a positive vote for me in
regards to holding up the findings of the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now, you're saying based
upon other criteria besides what's in the Land Development Code?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. And I'm not suggesting that
that has to be prevailing, but that would be consistent not only with
the advice of the County Attorney, but it would be consistent with the
position of our staff. So -- and then if -- having spelled that out, if the
petitioner wants to take issue with it, then they come back in and
appeal it, and that way you'll have a complete set of reasons why the
decision was made. Right now we don't have it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I -- that isn't my understanding
on staffs interpretation of why you should deny or approve a boat
dock extension. It's -- my understanding is, use the criteria within the
Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand that. But the
County Attorney has opined that if you have a good reason -- I mean,
they're not potted plants. If you have a good reason for voting against
something, then specify it. Ifthere is a reason for appealing that
decision because their logic is flawed, then you can come back and
we'll have something to deal with.
But right now we're trying to read minds here because I don't
think we got a complete download from them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the problem that I still have is,
if they go beyond the criteria in the Land Development Code, the
primary and the secondary, we have delegated our authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We delegate our authority all the
Page 163
December 2-3, 2008
time to the Planning Commission and other boards to make decisions.
I mean, this is not a big issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is because by law we're not allowed
to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the point is, we do it and we
have to do it to get our job done. We delegate authority to the County
Manager to make decisions. He makes emergency decisions in our
absence and we ratify them after the fact. We, all the time, do these
things and it is not a variance from our normal practice.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know. You have to ask the
chairman.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question just
to understand the motion so I know the framework of, if there's --
going to come back in front of the commission or not.
Commissioner Coyle, are you -- I hate to give hypotheticals, but I
think that's the only way I can explain it. Let's just say they come
back with the very same reasons that they gave, okay, which, if you
added up the numbers on each of them, would not be enough under
the applying the criteria, and they just said, you know, we feel that
there's too much boat traffic out there. Do I get an approval at the
Planning Commission or do I get a denial at the Planning Commission
based upon -- what's the standard that they're supposed to apply is the
only thing I'm trying to figure -- I'm trying to figure out when we go
back and we -- and I agree with you, I think there was confusion. I
didn't make the presentation but I was in the room. I did listen to it.
And I could see how they could maybe have not listed all the reasons
or listed all the reasons. So remanding it, I think, would be a good
idea to find out.
But let's just say it comes back in the same way. Do they have to
apply the four out of five and the four out of six, or do they apply the
four out of five, four out of six and then any circumstances when they
Page 164
December 2-3,2008
vote on the motion to approve or not approve. I'm just --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The answer is yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So -- the answer's yes to -- they
apply all of them?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever it is you said.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I believe it is to the latter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to clarify.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I mean, I'm trying to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right now we do not have
complete knowledge of the reasons for refusing to approve this
petition from the Planning Commission. If we use the ordinance, it
clearly says you've got to meet four out of the five of the first criteria,
primary criteria --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Four out of six --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- four out of six of the second
criteria. Many of the Planning Commission members did not do that.
So they didn't comply with the ordinance, but they also didn't comply
with the guidance from the County Manager -- or County Attorney
because they didn't say, oh, and by the way, here are my other reasons
that are not in the ordinance why I voted against this.
So I think we need to make sure they understand that according
to the ordinance, they have to identify those things that they think are
wrong here, and they should vote against it if you don't meet the
specified number.
If there are overriding considerations of another nature, we
should understand that. And if it comes back to us -- if you appeal
whatever decision they get and it comes back to us, then we will make
a decision on how we judge this particular petition.
Does that help a little bit?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, yeah. I think it does, so let me just
say it one other time so I make sure I'm on the same page. Let's just,
Page 165
December 2-3,2008
hypothetical, Planning Commissioner says, I think they meet all five
out of five of primary and all six out of six, but I think there's this
overriding concern, so I vote no anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if that overriding concern is
important to the neighborhood and important to boating safety, I might
very well be inclined to accept that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. That's -- I just wanted to
understand what I -- what the -- okay. I think I understand what your
direction is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's a motion and a second to
reprimand (sic) it down to the Planning Commission.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg 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.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8A, which used to
be l7 -- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a time certain that was
supposed to be at 2:30.
Item #lOF
Page 166
December 2-3, 2008
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF DELASOL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK - MOTION
TO APPROVE OPTION #2 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have a time certain. It's lOF.
It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
provide direction to staff for the disposal of the Delasol (sic) Park.
Commissioner, I will tell you, just from a perusal of my emails,
which I did -- I was trying to chomp down a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich -- there is still a, dialogue going on between attorneys on the
Delasol (sic) Park --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Delasol.
MR. MUDD: -- Delasol Park between the people that -- the
attorney that represents -- I guess it's Mr. --
MS. ASHTON: It's resolved.
MR. MUDD: It's resolved? Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a motion --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Mr. Chairman? Could I make a
motion that we approve option number 2 of the staffs
recommendations? That would save us some money on having to
amend the PUD, and it's the least costly and probably the fastest way
to get this done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is to accept the Centex
dedication -- Centex shall be entitled to the impact fee credit? No,
that's not it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Option 2.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, here it is. Here it is.
MS. ASHTON: Commissioners, in may, for the record, Heidi
Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. We do have a few changes to the
Page 167
December 2-3,2008
deed that is enclosed in your package, which I'd like to read into the
record and distribute for purposes of the record.
I've just distributed a page of your warranty deed, and the red
language -- for purposes of time, I won't read it in, and I'll just ask that
it be distributed. It is some language to add to your recitals. It sets
forth the history as to how we got here today.
And there is one other change to the deed, which is, the middle of
the quitclaim deed it says, this property may only be used for, and the
remaining part of that sentence is stricken and replaced with private
recreation, open space, and nature preserves.
And we've met with the homeowners association, and I'm
recommending that the county proceed with that language in the deed
in place of what was in your package.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle makes a
motion for -- to accept option 2.
Is there a second to the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know that I can second
it. Does option 2 then take into consideration the new wording?
MR. WILLIAMS: It would, yes; yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And second the motion.
I guess from here we should go to questions. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then myself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Barry, if you would be
so kind. This was the park that was agreed upon to be built for county
residents, and we all seem to be in agreement with the fact that
because of the fact you would have to have a special boardwalk and in
it's the middle of a gated community, that it might not be the most
optional place for a park. But the original -- the reason for this park
was to offer recreation for residents at large, not just the community
Page 168
December 2-3,2008
that it resides within; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I believe that was the initial
intent with the developer's agreement to allow for a park to be built
that would give public access. But part of the developer agreement
also stipulated that it would protect -- it granted the right that Delasol
was going to be a gated community, that public access wouldn't
necessarily go through Delasol or on their private roads, but the park
would basically straddle this private gated community and allow for
public access.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. But the thing was, it was
supposed to be a public-access park. It was supposed to be part of a
larger master plan to provide X number of acres of parkland for our
residents of Collier County. Am I wrong?
MS. WILLIAMS: Well, it's -- neighborhood parks, as you're
aware, are not included in the inventory and not part of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: But yes, that's correct what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But there's still a--
there's still a demand out there in certain places, a limited demand, but
there's still a demand we can't fulfill because of the fact of budget
constraints and the lack of money to be able to go forward for
neighborhood parks, or am I wrong?
What I'm getting at is the fact that we have an asset here that
we're just about ready to turn over for absolutely zero dollars in
compensation when, you know, I would assume that we should be
getting something to be able to compensate for use someplace else.
If you think about it, sidewalks. Quite often we have a
community come to us or a church or whatever and they say -- it's
absolutely crazy for you to have to put in a sidewalk. There is no need
for the sidewalk here. There's -- it doesn't connect to anything. It will
just be a section of sidewalk in front of one residence or a couple
residences or a commercial building, and that's the end of it, and it
Page 169
December 2-3, 2008
might never -- 20, 30 years from now it still might not connect to
anything.
So we say, yeah, you're right. We'll let you be able to take that
money you'd normally put in a sidewalk and we'll apply it someplace
else. We did that as a matter of course.
I kind of wonder if we're really doing the public at large justice
by just signing this park over and saying, well, that's it. It's no longer
part of it, part of the master plan, not part of the needs of the county.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, one point I would make is just
that part of the dedication agreement allowed for a 39,000-plus impact
fee credit to the developer, Centex. Part ofthe packet, what we
present to you is that that impact fee was never paid or that credit was
never given to Centex.
And so Centex is agreeing to waive receiving that impact fee
credit. So there is some consideration given for the acre or so of land
in that impact fee credit not being provided to Centex.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is this physical money that we
can apply someplace else?
MR. WILLIAMS: I would say no, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who was next, Commissioner Halas,
or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Commissioners, I hope you
realize that we've had some park -- other park issues in District 2
where land was set aside and people said they didn't want parks. If
my memory serves me correctly, I wasn't serving on the Board of
County Commissioners when this PUD came forth. Some of you may
have been on the board.
But I believe that the surrounding residents before this was
developed were concerned that they wanted to make sure that there
was going to be a park in that general area.
As this development started to be built, what took place is that
Page 170
December 2-3, 2008
there was a fence put up to basically separate this from the rest of the
residents.
And then, of course, we've gone through this exercise where
we're now going to -- anyway, let me backtrack a bit. When the
residents from that sounding area, Willoughby Acres, basically said
they'd like to have a park, that was put into the PUD.
Then, of course, as the development got built out, there was a
fence put up so that that piece of property was no longer really
available.
And now we're going to turn this piece of property back over to
the homeowner's association, and -- for actually nothing. And it kind
of amazes me that when we try to go out and buy property, we're
pretty much at the will of the people. They want to make sure they get
maximum value out of it.
It's up to the board what they want to do, but I have some
concerns about turning this thing over for zero, and just turn it over to
them, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Williams, you said that the
impact fee credits were never applied, so we did collect 39,000 of
impact fees?
MR. WILLIAMS: We -- there was credit given to Centex for the
acre parcel provided to us. Centex paid in full their impact fees. They
never received that credit in exchange for the one acre that we got.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And that's actually what my
question was, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: I believe so. I'm not sure in answered it
though.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, you did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And the question by
Commissioner Coletta, can that money be applied to something else?
And I believe you said no.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we don't collect impact fees for
Page 171
December 2-3,2008
neighborhood parks. This is kind of a unique situation for us. The
impact fees that were collected for Centex were certainly applied to
other aspects of infrastructure. But the agreement that Centex came to
was to allow for, again, this acre for this impact fee credit of 39,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But they never received it?
MR. WILLIAMS: They never received it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: If it were a park impact fee, perhaps that
would be something we would get consideration for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we did collect park impact fees.
MR. WILLIAMS: We did not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We did not?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I think I'm misspeaking of that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't have --
MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- impact fees for neighborhood
parks.
MR. WILLIAMS: We do not, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. We do not, but they paid their
other --
MR. WILLIAMS: They paid their other impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- impact fees --
MR. WILLIAMS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- regional impact fees, community
center impact fees for parks.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They paid all those?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, could we use those monies that
we collected for other things?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
Page 172
December 2-3,2008
MR. WILLIAMS: I got a yes from my left.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can use it for regional parks and
we can use it for community parks?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But we can't use it for roads?
MS. RAMSEY: No, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that was the answer.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, public services
administrator. Again, remember, we collect regional park fees as well
as community park fees, and each of them will be utilized in their
designated areas, regional versus community. We do not use impact
fees to build neighborhood parks. We use ad valorem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, okay. Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry to make this so
difficult. We've got a real $39,000 that was paid by the developer?
No. They paid $39,000 to us?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They didn't pay it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We gave them a credit for
$39,000?
MR. WILLIAMS: We did not give them the credit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We didn't give them the credit
and we didn't accept any money --
MR. MUDD: Yes, you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- however, we got $39,000 to
spend.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is wonderful.
MR. MUDD: No, hang on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what it is, is each house that
was built in Delasol paid a park impact fee.
Page 173
December 2-3,2008
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they did not get a credit for
$39,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So--
MR. WILLIAMS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that kind of clear it up?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No?
MR. WILLIAMS: So confusing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It did for me.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You owe them, the developer,
$39,000, okay. Now, if we turn this property over to this homeowners
association, we don't have to pay that $39,000, okay?
MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we've essentially been paid
$39,000 for this property. And it's an acre.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We collected impact
fees, normal park impact fees, that they would have been exempt
from?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They would have had a credit for,
and we've already spent that money probably on parks somewhere
else sometime in the distant past.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, you got that property for
nothing. That's what it boils down to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We got it for nothing.
MR. KLATZKOW: You got it for nothing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're giving it back for
nothing.
MR. KLATZKOW: For nothing.
Page 174
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's kind of a wash, isn't it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where in the hell do they get
$39,000 in the bank account? The recession is now over. Help me
with this a little bit.
MR. KLATZKOW: We were supposed to pay for the park, in
essence, by an impact fee credit to the develop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: The developer never cashed that chit in,
okay? So in essence, we got the park for nothing. The developer has
agreed to waive any claim he has on that 39,000. We are not going to
give that park to the homeowners association, again, for nothing.
So the only money we're out is the developmental money we put
in to create a park out of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the 39,000 that we
collected from the homeowners --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- if we never had a park there,
we never would have collected that money?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, you would. Commissioners, again, for the
record, Marla Ramsey. For each house that's built, we collect regional
park fees as well as community park fees for each house that's built. It
has nothing to do with the acreage that we're talking about today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MS. RAMSEY: As part of purchasing that, the agreement that
we made with the developer is that we would buy it at the cost that he
paid for it when he purchased the land originally, which was $39,000
an acre.
We said that we would give him a credit on his -- on his impact
fees to pay for that one acre, $39,000. We have not paid or given him
the credit. He did not seek it when he -- when he stopped -- when he
finished the housing. The houses though pay for them on an
Page 175
December 2-3, 2008
individual basis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that $39,000 we never
collected or we --
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, we did collect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We collected.
MS. RAMSEY: We collected them by houses, each house.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we normally do collect it
by houses, regardless.
MS. RAMSEY: We collect them by houses, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we were going to pay the
developer for this land which we're not going to get now, so we're
going to give him a $39,000 --
MS. RAMSEY: No. We are going to give him nothing and he is
not going to expect us to give him anything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He got nothing and we're giving
nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's called a zero.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you -- can you shed a little
light on the fiscal impact? It says there has been a total of $36,342.50
spent to date on the development of the Delasol neighborhood park.
There has been no payment of impact fee credits to Centex for the
acceptance of this parcel.
It's anticipated if the PUD were amended by parks and rec., the
department -- an additional $l2,500 would be spent on fees associated
with the CDES to accomplish this task along with costs associated
with CDES staff of approximately $3,000.
There is a $2,000 easement vacation application fee that would
be applied should it be required. So we did -- we have spent some
money on this?
MR. WILLIAMS: We have spent money --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thirty-six thousand dollars; is that
Page 176
December 2-3, 2008
correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so we're going to just
abolish that and they're not paying us anything on this?
MR. WILLIAMS: They're not giving any consideration for that
money that we spent on design.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have three. Are you ready?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Mark Adamczyk?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: James Culkar. And he'll be followed by Barb
Black.
MR. ADAMCZYK: For the record, Mark Adamczyk. Good
afternoon, Commissioners. I agree with Commissioner Coyle's
motion and the notion that it is zero in and zero out. The costs raised
by Commissioner Halas were not agreed to by the association, and
those were not known to be incurred, and the agreement for the
dedication does not require the association to chip in for that.
And let it be known for the record that the association is willing
to contribute $l,200 towards the PUD amendment should it be
required for the notice for that PUD amendment.
And again, we went and thankfully got the developer to release
the impact fee credit so that there would be no fiscal impact for the
dedication. And, you know, there's also a benefit to the county for
getting a retained access easement which really should go back and be
relinquished in giving the park parcel back to the association.
The county, as part of this executive summary, is getting an
access easement to access other public parcels which is also a benefit,
and that's over the association's property. So there's a number of
benefits.
And, again, we agree with Commissioner Coyle. Thank you.
Page 177
December 2-3,2008
MS. FILSON: James Culkar. He'll be followed by Barb Black.
MR. CULKAR: Thank you. For the record, Jim Culkar,
president of the Delasol Homeowners Association.
I agree with Commissioner Coyle's motion, and the community
supports that. We've been working on this now for in excess of lO
months with various county staffs to try and reach a suitable
agreement that we could come to you and say that we both support.
Addressing some of the points that were made. We talk about
neighborhood parks. They are not inventoried. This was a
conversation we had last January when the decision and the vote was
taken not to build this park. Willoughby Acres has a neighborhood
park in their community. This was a park that was proposed to be in
Delasol with a boardwalk access some 650 feet to Willoughby Acres.
The vote was taken. We were not going to build the park.
Just to clarify. Centex did not receive the 39,000 credit, $39,720,
I believe. In fact, that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to
receive it. And I was the one that negotiated with them the release of
that credit, and they fully believe that they still have the right to
receive that should they choose to want to receive that, but they are
really willing to relinquish that.
So in fact, that's a credit that the county would be paying to
Centex that the county now does not have to pay, and that was judged
at the time to be the value of the property that Centex acquired for the
community. So in fact, you are receiving your consideration back.
Now, there's conversation about the $36,000 of costs that the
county expended in the preparation of the plans for the park. In fact,
some l5, l6 months ago when we first met with the county regarding
this, the community told county staff, please don't spend any money
on this because we sense the community is opposed to the preliminary
plan.
We emphasized that on a number of occasions in meetings with
the county. They proceeded to spend the money on a more robust
Page 178
December 2-3, 2008
plan, which was very similar to the preliminary plan.
So while I understand the county has expended money, if
someone would come to the community and say, you need to
contribute toward that, I would respectfully decline the generous offer
because we've told the county on numerous occasions, don't spend
county assets when you don't know if the community supports it, and
we sensed they did not.
In fact, they did not. We covered this last January. The votes
were compelling. We took three different votes on this. The ratio of
no's against the county park as proposed went more than II to one
against the park proposal, and we had that vote.
So I don't want to -- I don't want to traipse over the ground again
and again, but the reality is, we agree with Commissioner Coyle's
recommendation. We think, based on the work we've done with staff
over the last lO months, that we have something that the staff and the
community can come forward, and we both agree on it.
And I also have to point out one final point, that we are relying
on the dedication agreement which the county executed which states
that if the county isn't building the park, that the park land has to
revert. So that's our point.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Barb Black.
MS. BLACK: Good afternoon, again. I'm Barb Black. I
appreciate you allowing the time for me to speak.
I want to remind you of where we were lO months ago when I
stood before you going over the very same points that I will reiterate
one more time. When this process began, your staff took it upon
themselves to begin developing a community, a park, a neighborhood
park. The one thing they forgot to do is to talk to the neighborhood
about the park.
Commissioner Coletta, Willoughby Acres has a neighborhood
park. To try to provide public access into another community for
Page 179
December 2-3, 2008
another neighborhood park for the adjacent community that already
has one, I believe, is not only redundant but costly for a county that's
looking for money at the time to replace.
Weare very supportive of public parks. In fact, we've provided
recreation equipment within our own community. And we have a
wonderful regional park less than a mile down the road.
Weare firm believers in community parks and neighborhood
parks, but this was for our neighborhood because our adjoining
community already has one that you provided. So it is not that this
community is against neighborhood parks.
Number two, in your own -- in your own documents about the
definitions of neighborhood parks, you made and approved these
documents that it has to be minimum of three acres and no more than
five. This doesn't meet that criteria.
Another thing is it -- the area that's with l.5 -- a l.5-mile radius
of the park location, we already have a park within the l.5-mile
location.
The other thing I want to bring up is this county commission
board gave direction last time, if I was to understand the vote about
where we were going with this park, and for the last lO-and-a-half
months, we have gone back and forth with your representatives who
should be following your direction.
And there are some personal agendas getting in the way of this.
And, frankly, your citizens are tiring of this. We should not be here
rehashing this because there are individuals that want this done and
want this public access to a gated community, and individuals who are
your staff who have other reasons behind that. I'm growing tired of it
and so are your citizens.
You're representing us. You're our elected officials. All we're
asking is consideration when you start opening up a gated community
with a public park and you come and spend our money in the
beginning. We're getting it both ways. We're spending it up front for
Page 180
December 2-3, 2008
$36,000 worth of work that nobody bothered to come to us about, and
when they did, we asked them not to do it, and now you're asking us
to pay again.
You are getting remuneration. You're getting the credit. You
don't have to pay Centex. You're asking us then to foot the bill one
more time because you put this time and money into a park and we
didn't have the input.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. BLACK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, did have you
something?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, may I -- I know it may be
unusual for me to ask permission to respond to some of what was said,
but in may, I would like to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I don't know if it's really
necessary. I mean, I was a little offended by the comments, but we've
got other work to do.
MR. MUDD: Barry, sit down.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, none of these things are in the
staffs recommendation, and the only thing that -- and I will be honest
with you -- and I've had this conversation with Mr. Culkar, and I
understand his frustration. I've had lots of those conversations
between them.
The remaining easement that's going to -- that's going to sunset in
five years, okay. There was some comments that were made that
there's an existing easement with the Devisse property, which is a
Conservation Collier property that you might purchase that's on the
list. We cannot find that easement. Okay. It is not recorded, okay.
And they have not been able to show it to us, and we're not willing to
spend the monies to go find something that they say they already
have, nor are they.
Page 181
December 2-3,2008
So instead of giving up that easement that exists that goes to this
park, okay, that we're going to give back, we got -- and we made an
agreement that says, it will be lO-foot short so that nobody could ever
get into their property, you know, legally, and touch their borders, but
it would still give you enough space and length.
If the Devisse property is what the board wants to acquire with
Conservation Collier, there is a way to get into that park, okay. One
of the -- one of the options that we're given is, well, we'll give you up
to lO-foot or 20-foot from the boundary into the Devisse property,
okay, which was a long way away from this track U.
Well, that would have put us in a wetland, okay. And I said,
well, that's great. Now I have to build a bridge if we want to get into
the Devisse property in order to use it for passive recreation, and that
-- and that turned out to be a non-start.
So I believe the last piece of this was the easement, and I believe
we've got an amiable agreement as -- that's concerned. And if you
don't buy the Devisse property, then we need to evacuate that
easement sooner than five years. And there's no reason to keep it. But
that's why it's there, and I wanted to make sure that you understand
that, because the last month and a half, that was a sore point, and
we've got it resolved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3-2. Commissioner
Page 182
December 2-3, 2008
Halas and Commissioner Coletta dissenting on the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we go back to our regular
agenda, right?
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2008-65: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REPEALS AND
REPLACES ORDINANCE NO. 74-7, THROUGH ADOPTION OF
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING UNAUTHORIZED CAMPING
IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That would bring us to 8A, which used to
be l7B, and that's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners repeals and re -- recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners repeals and replaces ordinance number 74-7
through adoption of an ordinance prohibiting unauthorized camping in
the unincorporated areas of Collier County.
The Item was moved at Commissioner Coletta's request.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In may, I can cut right to the
chase on it. In the end, I'm actually going to vote for it, but I want to
make sure that we understand what we're up against with this
particular one.
First, we're absolutely correct. This does not have anything to do
with camping in the national parks or the Big Cypress Preserve,
absolutely zero. We can remove that from the equation, because there
was numerous people that came back very excited about this. This has
nothing to do with people camping on their own property?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing to do with that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing at all. The thing that
concerns me; we have to be aware of the ordinance. Originally when
Page 183
December 2-3, 2008
this came to us some time ago, the history of it, we tried to move this
forward. At that point in time, we came up with an ordinance and the
Sheriffs Department couldn't enforce it because there was no way to
be able -- this is going back about six years ago, seven years ago.
They couldn't enforce it because there was no place to be able to move
the recipients or the people that lived on these particular properties.
There was no place to go.
So Don Hunter got together with Reverend Mallory and they
came up with quite an elaborate plan to come up with a camping area
within Reverend Mallory's property; however, that's gone by the
wayside. That no longer exists. Time comes and people change their
mind.
So we're -- the Sheriffs Department -- it was brought back one
more time. The Sheriffs Department had some objections to it. Once,
again, for the same reason. Where are you going to be able to put
these people?
So now we have to realize the limitations of this particular
ordinance. I don't want people to think because we passed this and
they got homeless people living in tents on the neighboring properties
this is going to guarantee them the fact they're going to be able to
move them off there. It's not going to happen.
This ordinance has a clause in it that plainly states, if a bed is not
available, then this ordinance is not to be enforced, and that bed would
be probably St. Matthew's House for the most part and possibly
Friendship House in Immokalee.
They have very limited amounts of beds, and they have a very
limited time that they accept people. I asked if somebody from St.
Matthew's could be here to explain that further, but I don't think they
are. No, they're not.
But I just wanted to give this to my fellow commissioners so that
we don't leave the public with some idea that we solved the problem
that's out there. All we did is we put a small Band-Aid on it and --
Page 184
December 2-3,2008
well, as someone would say here, we've got another tool in the
toolbox, but the tool's a mighty small tool to begin with.
With that, I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
I have some questions on this. This ordinance is applied in the
unincorporated area. Why won't it be applied on state or federal
lands? I mean, Commissioner Coletta stated it won't be applied in the
Big Cypress.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Big Cypress and the Everglades
National Park --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Picayune and Fakahatchee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Fakahatchee and of course,
the other one --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Wherever you have the right to -- wherever
you have the right to camp, this ordinance is not going to apply. You
have the right to camp there. It's only when you're, in essence,
trespassing on someone else's property.
The problem with the trespass laws we've had is that the land has
to get posted. We've run into problems with some of the homeless
taking down the "no trespassing" signs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But state land, such as the
lO,OOO Islands, is really the people's land. And if they don't get
written permission, are they in violation of this ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if you are trespassing on
land, no matter where it is, okay, you could be violating this
ordinance. But you'd already be violating the state trespass laws.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, this is camping. This has to
do --
MR. KLATZKOW: This is anti-camping.
Page 185
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- with camping, not so much
trespassing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Trespassing is the act of being on someone
else's property without their permission which is, in essence, what this
IS.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we do that every day.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, people --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- there are people who trespass every day,
but they don't necessarily set up tents and they don't necessarily set up
cooking areas and stay there for months on end.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this going to be enforced in the
lO,OOO Islands?
MR. KLATZKOW: You'd have to ask the sheriff, sir. It's not
the intent of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sheriff representative?
MARK WILLIAMS: Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, thank you
all. Mike Williams, Sheriffs Office, for the record.
The issue's going to be if it's private property and the owner calls
the Sheriffs Office and expresses that there's someone on their
property camping they don't want on their property, then we would, as
we would anywhere in the county, be responsible for enforcing that.
If it's public lands that's in the lO,OOO Islands, that, too, would
fall under the statute, this ordinance. So we would be, again, for
enforcing that.
In the end, we have to show that the person does not have the
right to be on that land. It's just like with trespassing. So we have to
demonstrate when we get there and we see somebody camping, that
this person does not have the permission of the property owner to be
on that land.
Now, that's a difficultly in and of itself, but it still requires us to
do that.
Page 186
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So the burden of proof is on
the Sheriffs Department?
MARK WILLIAMS: As with any arrest, it's up to us to
determine whether there's probable cause. Part of determining
probable cause is to believe, is there probable cause to believe this
person is on the land without permission of the owner? So that would
be on us to establish that he doesn't have permission of the owner.
They may say, I have permission of the owner, but legally, we
still have to have probable cause to think that they're trespassing. So
we have to establish that they don't have permission. We can't just
shift the burden on them and say, okay, well, if you can't prove it, if
you don't have a written piece of paper, then you're going to go to jail.
We still have to establish probable cause.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now, the issue with the -- if
there's no beds available, available to a shelter. Would that include
the jail?
MARK WILLIAMS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MARK WILLIAMS: There's going to have to be a public shelter
available they can go to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Like St. Matthew's House or --
MARK WILLIAMS: Correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Well, there sure was a lot
of confusion on that. I'm glad we got that straightened out.
Is there any further questions? Is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 187
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner--
oh, Commissioner Halas is here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm in favor of.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next Item?
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2008-35l: RE-APPOINTING ROBERT MULHERE
(W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS), GEORGE H. HERMANSON,
DALAS D. DISNEY (W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMITS), WILLIAM
J. VARIAN AND DAVID DUNNAVANT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: That would bring us to 9A, appointment of
members to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think I could interrupt for
just one moment?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See that guy that just walked in the
room, Nick Casalanguida? Today is his birthday. I think we ought to
sing happy birthday to Nick.
(Happy birthday was sung in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: How embarrassing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hey, Nick. Your face is red.
MS. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next Item is appoint members to
Development Service Advisory Committee. Is there a motion?
Page 188
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to agree with the
committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to --
MS. FILSON: And that's also to waive the two-term limit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's also to waive -- pardon?
MS. FILSON: That's to waive the two-term limit for Mr.
Mulhere and Mr. Disney.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. That's in my motion.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve committee's recommendation, 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 #9B
RESOLUTION 2008-352:RE-APPOINTING THOMAS DECKER
AND JOSEPH LANGKA WEL TO THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next Item is 9B, appointment
of members to the Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Page 189
December 2-3,2008
Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
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.
Next Item?
Item #lOA
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDING AN ANNUAL UPDATE AND
COMPARISON OF THE LOCAL AREA HOUSING MARKET
AND THE STATUS OF CURRENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PROGRAMS, FUNDING AMOUNTS AND ASSISTANCE
STRA TEGIES - MOTION TO ACCEPT PRESENT A TION -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring you to lOA. The
item was continued from the November l8th, 2008, BCC meeting. It's
a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners to provide an
annual update and comparison to the local area housing market and
the status of current affordable housing programs, funding amounts
Page 190
December 2-3, 2008
and assistance strategies.
And Ms. Marcy Krumbine, your Housing and Human Services
Director, will present.
MS. KRUMBINE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Marcy
Krumbine for the record. I'm trying to figure out how to use the new
system here.
MR. MUDD: Leave it alone and come on down to the bottom. It
used to be on the left-hand side. Now it's over to the right-hand side.
MS. KRUMBINE: Oh, these.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, hit that.
MS. KRUMBINE: There we go. Cool. Thank you.
Commissioners, back in March of 2008 we came before you and
did an affordable housing workshop, and at that time and several times
after that, I have offered to come back, since the market has changed
so considerably over the past year, and update you as to the state of
housing in Collier County and how we utilize our program. So we're
going to just take a few minutes to run through this.
The first slide is about the Wells Fargo housing opportunity
index. When we saw you in March, 23.6 percent of the homes sold in
Collier County during the fourth quarter of 2007 were affordable to a
family earning local area median income of 69,2-.
To date in the second quarter of 2008, that figure has gone up to
36.4 percent, which means, of course, that more houses are affordable
to families earning that.
And on the bottom of that is that little graph that shows that it
went all the way down in 2003 or '4, and it's going back up again to
become more affordable.
Of course, housing has been in the news again. If this was three
years ago, the headlines would have said, area median price up to
500,000. People can't afford homes, et cetera, et cetera. And now the
headlines are showing all the foreclosures, the bailouts, and the
different areas that are being plagued with foreclosures. So certainly
Page 191
December 2-3, 2008
times have changed the last three years.
We are tracking, with the help of real estate services, the area
median listing price. In October of2007, that was $4l9,000, almost
420-. A year later it's dropped down to $350,000.
And then on for the median sales price. Again, last year, 362,4-.
Dropping down by $l20,000 down to $246,500, the median sales
pnce.
We also notice that there are more homes that are listed for sale.
And again, we're comparing this in the red to figures that we showed
you in March as opposed to the figures that are now current, or current
as of October.
And you see that there are more homes listed under lOO,OOO,
between lOO- and l50,000, l50- and 200,000. As a matter of fact, in
every category but 200- to 300- there has been an increase in homes
listed in the more affordable category.
Same thing with condominiums for sale and also with available
rental units. If you notice that last year when we -- well, when we met
in March, there -- we tracked 9,lOO inventory available apartments,
and there were l,400 available for rent, and now there are even more
available for rent at l,600.
One of the other things that we're tracking now is the number of
bank-owned properties, the foreclosed properties. And we have
tracked these. These are by zip code. And we actually needed to bring
this information together for the action plan that you just approved in
the last agenda for the neighborhood stabilization program.
And it shows that the three areas that have the most foreclosures
are 34112, which is East Naples; 34l20, which is Golden Gate
Estates; and 34l16, which is Golden Gate City.
And then you see the number of list pen dings (sic) filed has also
gone up, with October of 2008 being the peak of 924 homes listed.
And that, of course, is the proceeding of foreclosure. So they file it
first, and then it takes usually up to a year before the property is
Page 192
December 2-3, 2008
foreclosed on.
So we've had a number of closed sales between -- under 300,000
between March and October, and those were ll6 closed sales. But
these closed sales are to income-qualified people.
But what I want to show you is that the total number of closed
sales in Collier County was l,688, and so that means that l,6l2 were
available to the general public rather than income-qualified
individuals.
And I want to just bring that to your attention because even
though the homes are more affordable, it doesn't mean that
income-qualified families are going into them. It just means that the
market is now more affordable.
So the ll6 -- or the 116 that we have taken care of that we know
went into homes that we could assist. And so that's about 2 percent
that we had helped over the course of that time.
Another thing that we have spoken about the last couple of
months was the SHIP program, State Housing Initiative Partnership.
And we had a policy change where we started to give -- we decreased
the amount of down payment or closing cost assistance.
And what we did after the board recommendation is we matched
the amount of money that they had as a down payment as a
three-to-one match. So if somebody came in with $500 and they
qualified for the down payment, we would give them 1,500, and we
would do it, a match up to 4 percent.
So our average down payment for the people that we've served
since then has been l,027. And so then their average down payment
assistance has been just under $3, lOO.
Now, if we had not done the match, if we had just done it at 4
percent, which was our original proposal, then we would be giving up
to 56- or almost $5,700 per person for the down payment.
We've done about 15 files since we made this change. Ten of
those files have been habitat and five none, non-Habitat, and six have
Page 193
December 2-3, 2008
been very low income people, under 50 percent. And we had about 10
files that fell through because they didn't have any down payment to
give to the program.
And then, Commissioners, I just want to review our funding
sources, and I want to show that we are using funding per your
direction with the State Housing Initiative Partnership. We get about
$2.9 million. We use that for down payment assistance, residential
rehab, homebuyer's education, acquisition and rehab, specifically of
foreclosed properties, and we are not funding new construction per
your recommendation.
Also, the Community Development Block Grant program, that's
our federal funds, we are just now getting ready for an application
cycle with that with $2.3 million. Again, we have eliminated any kind
of new construction or infrastructure for new construction per your
direction, doing demolition, public service activities, residential rehab,
and acquisition of properties.
The same thing for the HOME investments partnership program,
eliminating the new construction and going on with CHODO
activities, residential rehab, and tenant-based rental assistance.
American down dream -- dream down payment, down payment
assistance, emergency shelter grant support of housing and homeless
prevention, and continuing with our disaster recovery initiative with
hurricane hardening and mitigation.
Our impact fee deferral program this year is at October 1. We
went from -- since there was significant decrease in building activity,
that meant that we had a significantly less amount of money that we
could use for deferrals of impact fees. So we're down to l.4 million.
And every time on the agenda we do those, you're seeing how that
money is spent. I believe we're probably about 50 or 60 percent spent
on the impact fee deferrals to date.
We do have the affordable housing trust fund where there is
actually now $l90,000, and the initiatives that you've approved
Page 194
December 2-3,2008
through that are down payment assistance, impact fee deferrals, land
acquisition, construction loans, community land trust, homebuyer's
education, and disaster recovery; however, when we did this program,
this was at a time when the market was the highest, and so we have
those initiatives assisting people up to l50 percent of the median
income, which is probably not really necessary at this point, so we
haven't come to you to touch that money at all.
And then you did approve the action plan for the neighborhood
stabilization program. We expect to get $7.3 million come February
to -- for the purchase, the rehab of foreclosed properties, direct
assistance, homebuyer's education for people buying those kinds of
properties, demolition, and land banking.
In addition to our programs and the affordable housing, just the
market, you also asked us to look at the issue of oversaturation, and
I'm going to defer now to Joe Schmitt who's going to take the last
three slides because he did that part of the presentation.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay, Marcy. Thank you.
For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community
development.
One of the things you asked us to look at was this topic called
oversaturation. It's been discussed by the board. And I want to note
that in goal 1, policy 1.4 of the housing element, it does state that
affordable housing should be distributed, at least affordable housing
distributed equally throughout the county.
Now, as they point out in the executive summary, there's
programs that are incentive based and then there's programs that
establish limits and policies.
The incentive-based programs. Probably the most common is the
inclusionary zoning. That's one that requires that every development
have some kind of an affordable housing element, and that's an
incentive based or basically a mandatory, by policy, that establishes
that housing will be distributed throughout the county.
Page 195
December 2-3, 2008
I brought that in, or at least introduced that concept just to
delineate between what is sort of an incentive versus a mandatory
where we establish a percentage. And as an example -- and I want to
point out that this was only an example. I took an area down the East
Trail basically looking at an area from Rattlesnake all the way down
to Greenway Road and any development that abutted or was adjacent
to U.S. 41.
I do apologize. Reflection Lakes on this slide is shown twice,
612 units. What I note here, these are zoned. These are not actually
built units. These are what these PUDs and some other neighborhoods
that are not PUDs but straight zoning, that we would -- we could best
determine, at least by the allowed zoning or by address numbers, that
we determined how many units existed in that area.
And let me go to the next slide. And this is an overview. If you
look at -- you're basically standing here. This is the intersection of
95l and 4l. Kind of drew, I guess, about a five-mile circle and listed
the number of units.
All I did here is, this is nothing more than an example. It was not
meant to be a scientific analysis. It was just based on an estimate of
what homes -- the preponderance of the homes that exist in those
communities were selling under $200,000, and then those
communities certainly that had the preponderance of homes selling
above the 200,000.
What we looked at here was basically looking at this portion of
the county. And the ones identified in red would be deemed
affordable housing units; about 19 percent of that part of the county
would be in affordable housing.
And I want to clarify again, these are zoned units. If I looked at
existing units, Sabal Bay, there are no homes built. Treviso Bay,
probably less than 50. Fiddler's Creek, 2,000. And if we look at what
existed today, it would probably be somewhere around 40 percent at --
when you're looking at existing versus what is actually zoned.
Page 196
December 2-3, 2008
Now, the other point I want to make also, this does not delineate
in any way affordable housing as approved by the board. There are
certain affordable housing that is approved through affordable housing
density bonuses or other qualifying affordable housing. And if I were
to limit to just that, it would be the four Habitat communities; Trail
Ridge, Victoria Falls, Charlie Estates, and Regal Acres. Regal Acres
is under development. And then, of course, the other one would be
Whistler's Cove. So the percentage would be much less.
But the point of this exercise was nothing more than to try and
layout what -- if we were to apply some kind of an oversaturation
rule, how would we apply it, what would be the limit, and how would
we define the geographical areas. Would it be planning districts?
There are planning districts that have been long-established districts in
the county. Would as to be commissioner districts, fire districts, zip
codes, and would we establish some kind of a policy that limits the
number of affordable housings, sets a cap, and then nobody could
exceed that cap.
Again, that would be something we would need from you as to
what the cap would be, how would we apply such a rule, how would it
be set up geographically, and then, of course, would it put us in a
position of possibly being challenged as a violation of the Fair
Housing Act or restriction on private property rights or other things.
So that was nothing more than an example just to display. This
concept called oversaturation, how would it be applied, the
geographical area that would be used to establish that policy, and
establishing a limit, our policy questions would have to be deferred to
the board.
That concludes my portion of the presentation. I'm open to any
questions, and hopefully Marcy is here as well. There you are. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions. Commissioner Halas, and
then I want to ask a question.
Page 197
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe tried to look at this in a
geographical area, it might be somewhat difficult because depending
on what areas talking about land costs, I think, are a contributing
factor.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, absolutely. The reason why --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Talking about housing, Joe, is
because what you have is, some areas the land costs are a lot higher.
If we look at where -- for instance, where Sam Durso builds, he
basically looks at what it costs him to purchase the land and to build
the home and what it's -- the overall cost is going to be to provide a
home for people that are less fortunate than ourselves.
So maybe the geographical areas will change now since -- that
we've had a downturn. But in the past, basically it's been out in
Immokalee or it's been along Immokalee Road, across the street from
Heritage Bay, or in this case, down along U.S. 4l, the East Trail. And
so --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, absolutely. The draw for the affordable
housing was certainly based on the value of property and where
property was available, and it was available at a competitive price.
There are other areas, Wolfe Road, some other areas up along,
off of Immokalee where Habitat is already building, and certainly a
large swath of land out in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm afraid to put some kind of
a cap on that because I think that we might be heading on a slippery
slope, and I sure don't want to be challenged by federal government,
and that wouldn't be good. So I'm not sure how we can address this
Issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess the question I should ask of
my colleagues, since we see what the market has done to the
affordability of the house, housing in Collier County, do you -- is
there any reluctancy to pull back on those impact fee deferrals?
I mean, where I come from is, I mean, we're competing with
Page 198
December 2-3, 2008
what is already on the market. Why don't we try to get some of those
products off the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The impact fee deferrals are only
for new construction, and I think what's going to take place is, before
people are going to look at new construction for affordable housing,
they're going to buy what's out there on the open market, what already
has been paid for by impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we wouldn't have impact fee
deferrals on our agenda every other week then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that was for stuff that
was already in the framework of things that were already put in, I
mean, sometime down the road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That's an interesting
concept. I didn't think about that before.
But Marcy, this is funds that we've dedicated, what, 3 percent of
our total impact fees for impact fee deferrals?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The homes that are out there --
the impact fee deferrals apply to homes that what, people that have
income under 50 percent of the average; is it?
MS. KRUMBINE: It's under 80 percent of the median income.
And the only ones that we're doing right now are Habitat for
Humanity. And Habitat is still building and they're still selling their
homes, and in addition to that, they are doing the purchasing and
rehabbing of foreclosure properties as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With the impact fees?
MS. KRUMBINE: No. You don't need impact fees for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: They're using the federal grants for that.
Page 199
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back to the impact fees
and Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity meets that need if a
person is, what, 50 percent and below?
MS. KRUMBINE: They're doing 80 percent and below. A
number of them are 50 percent, but they can do 80 percent and below.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Maybe somewheres
along the line, if it gets to the point -- because we're going to see a --
diminishing returns on these impact fees, we might want to rethink
that as far as what it's used for, because we can't supply housing
regardless for those people that are 50 percent and below. I mean, the
market that's out there, the way it's fallen off, hasn't met that 50
percent or below need; has it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking about homes for
sale.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, no -- well, for Habitat it will be
because they hold the mortgages. But for--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go back to existing homes.
We're talking about homes that already exist out there, because I just
want to make sure --
MS. KRUMBINE: No, and that's what I'd answered. If Habitat
is going to purchase those homes and hold the mortgage, then it's fine.
But for people that have to go out and get a mortgage, it's still not low
enough for them to go get another mortgage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So generally the people that are
80 percent, there's a surplus of homes out there for them to pick with.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but maybe you can guide me with this.
At one time it was -- even when the people were lOO percent or
at par with the average income, that was very few homes available for
them, but now those people that are 80 percent, is -- we have homes
out there going for like $70,000 in the Estates.
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct. But they're -- they also need a
Page 200
December 2-3, 2008
significant amount of rehab.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I think what the
direction this commission's talking about, we're trying to maximize
our dollars towards taking existing homes out of inventory, but then
meanwhile, we don't want to do something to endanger those people
of low incomes that have every right to be able to have some avenue
to home ownership.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, what I would suggest, Commissioners,
because I'm looking at your -- the report that we do for you every
board meeting on the impact fee deferrals, is let's, for the first meeting
in January, kind of expand this report and include how many very low
income we're doing and low end, and then, just like we did last year,
we'll come up with a Chinese-menu option. Do you want to continue
the same way, is it working, do you want to divert your funds to 60
percent or below for the remainder of the year? Let's look at it and see
how it's working and if we need to change it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, Commissioner
Henning brought up an interesting point. You need to look at
everything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm okay with that direction, myself.
Okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to accept the report?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'm okay with it too. I think
it's great. I wanted to ask a question. I thought that was very
interesting. That would certainly help get some of this stock that's
sitting on the market off the market. It would preserve, to a great
extent, our existing impact fee deferral program, and that's a good
thing.
I want to know, for people -- now, I was out with John Barlow
the other day, and we were looking at houses for 50,000, 70,000,
Page 201
December 2-3,2008
75,000. Now, say, for instance, I'm just Marcy Krumbine and I'm
looking for a $75,000 home, and I find it. Yeah, I need some rehab on
it, and somehow I'm going to have to find out that you exist.
Can I go to you for down payment assistance and rehab
assistance? I'm just a single guy. I don't have any affiliation with
anything. Can we get that through the county?
MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. And the first -- the first problem is
that you might not be able to get bank financing if that house is not
livable, and that -- that is why our CDBG program and the NSP
program that we're going to get ready to start is so critical, because it
prepares those homes so that somebody could get financing, and not
everybody has the wherewithal to provide a down payment and then
have enough money in escrow to then rehab their house.
Because if the -- there is no AC unit, there are no appliances, and
there is no flooring, the bank won't lend on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we just--
MS. KRUMBINE: So that's the first problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- happened to maybe see some
good ones, because most cases, maybe they needed some new
appliances because they were -- you know, they could have been
better. But for the most part, you know, they were pretty
decent-looking housing, just mostly cleanup.
So, okay, back to Marcy Krumbine --
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and she finds her 75,000, can she
get down payment assistance? I, being that -- you know, if! can find
a bank to finance me, would you give her down payment assistance?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, I couldn't because then that would be a
conflict of interest, and I can't benefit from my own program. But for
our person who is income qualified, we will be able to either give
them down payment assistance, or once they own the home, help them
with rehabilitation money.
Page 202
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then they get both?
MS. KRUMBINE: They have to -- no. They can't. And the
rehabilitation program that exists right now that is under your
ordinance is, you have to have owned the home for a year, twelve
months of payments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So maybe we need to adjust that
then. I mean, if we -- if we pull out the impact fee deferral program to
encourage more people to buy up some of these homes that are right
now sitting vacant, repossessed, or in some cases, really bad shape,
maybe there's a way that we can adjust the program to encourage more
people to be able to buy these homes or help them to buy it, rehab
them, or whatever.
MS. KRUMBINE: We're going to be doing a lot of that with the
NSP program. What I'd like to try to do is, when that -- that $7.3
million that we are obligated to spend in a year and a half. So what I'd
like to do is use that money to focus just on those things exactly,
Commissioner. And then if as we go along we see that we need more
resources, then we'll come back and we'd have to amend the LHAP
and your ordinance to change the rehab program.
But let's focus on the big money rather than a little pot of
$200,000 for rehab; $7.3 million can go a long way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's -- I mean, I was thinking
of spreading it out, but I was just asking individual questions. Maybe
you need our help to put something in place to help you with that
somehow. You know, I mean, whether it be -- if you say you can't
rehab them for a year, maybe you need us to set policy to change that
before they buy it so that the bank will give them a loan or something
like that.
MS. KRUMBINE: Absolutely. See, so I'm sure there are ways
we can work together to make this program to work for us and for the
whole community.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers?
Page 203
December 2-3,2008
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to accept
presentation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #lOB
RESOLUTION 2008-353: AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
LAND AND EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM FOUR LANES TO SIX LANES
FROM GREEN BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD, INCLUDING PORTIONS EAST ON WHITE
BOULEVARD AND WEST ON PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to lOB, which is a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation
of land and easements necessary for the construction of roadway,
drainage, and utility improvements required for the expansion of the
Page 204
December 2-3,2008
Collier Boulevard from four lanes to six lanes from Green Boulevard
to Golden Gate Boulevard, including portions east on White
Boulevard and west on Pine Ridge, project number 68056, estimated
fiscal impact, $13,052,361.
And Jay Ahmad, your director of engineering for transportation,
will present. And Mr. Ahmad does have to put some things on the
record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Put them on the record, please.
MR. AHMAD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Jay Ahmad for the record. I'm your director of transportation
. .
engmeenng.
This is a condemnation resolution for Collier Boulevard from
Golden Gate -- from Green to Golden Gate. As you know, the project
from Golden Gate to Immokalee has been concluded and finished. It's
open to traffic. Also the project south, Collier south from U.S. 4l to
Davis is currently under construction and will be completed next year.
This project will -- essentially continues that expansion of Collier
Boulevard from Green to Golden Gate Boulevard. And this is a
condemnation resolution to acquire land and easements and -- required
for this project.
The -- in order to obtain the order of taking, this commission
must consider several factors. They must consider alternatives that
have been considered for this project, environmental impacts, public
health and safety and welfare, and long-range transportation planning,
as well as costs for this project.
There is a memorandum and a report in -- attached to your
executive summary that was prepared by our consultants that
addressed all these conditions, and I hope you had a chance to have
looked at it and consider it before your adoption of this resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
Page 205
December 2-3,2008
approve the resolution or adopt the resolution, second by
Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 4-1 (sic),
Commissioner -- 4-0. Commissioner Fiala not present.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #lOC
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE PROPOSAL REGARDING
THE EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC - MOTION TO
HAVE MIKE SHEFFIELD WORK WITH THE BOARD OFFICE
WHILE CONTINUING TO CARRY OUT HIS DUTIES IN THE
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE; EXECUTIVE MANAGER SUE
FILSON WILL RELOCATE TO THE BUDGET OFFICE BUT
WILL RETAIN BOARD SPECIFIED DUTIES, INCLUDING
ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS AND AS BCC MEETING
SECRETARY - APPROVED
The next item is lOC, and that's a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal regarding the
Page 206
December 2-3,2008
Executive Manager to the BCC, and this is a -- I'll present, I believe,
and Mr. Klatzkow will help.
The Board of County Commissioners directed the County
Manager and the County Attorney to meet with the Executive
Manager for the BCC to come up with an option based on their
direction, the board's direction, on October l4th, 2008.
We basically did that. We met with Ms. Filson at least twice, and
I have met with Ms. Filson separate from the County Attorney at least
two more times after that.
We came up with some options that basically said, leave the
situation the same as it sits right now in the executive office, leave the
situation the same but attain a professional mentor to work with the
Executive Manager to help her to strengthen her managerial and
leadership skills, and also, while that's transpiring, to work on goals
for the office for -- on an annual basis.
Then two other options that come, and there's some permutations
and combinations of those. The County Manager takes over the
oversight of the section (sic) and/or the County Attorney takes over
oversight of the selection.
I've listed on the executive summary on the first page some pros
and some cons to the particular Item.
And then we gave -- I gave a recommendation -- the County
Attorney and I gave a recommendation that basically doesn't really
follow any of the particular issues, but it is a combination and a
permutation of what's there.
First would be to -- and I'm not going to read it over. There's five
Items. I have had conversations with all the commissioners on this
particular Item separately. I've went and seen every one of you.
There are at least three commissioners on the board that have issues,
may it be slight and some, may they be major, on the particular
recommendations that are there.
And so we're looking for some direction in this particular Item.
Page 207
December 2-3,2008
Jeff, do you want to add anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I think you've covered it pretty well,
Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As I stated to you, Mr. Mudd,
one of the things I don't think I ever have the time for is to manage my
own aide, especially when I'm in meetings all day or I'm on Marco
Island all day. I can't be there for that aide. I just feel they need some
-- they need an office manager. They need somebody at the helm.
I know also when we're on break in the summertime, there's got
to be somebody there. Not only that, I need a go-to person. I need to
go say, I can't find so and so and this. Could you find it for me? Or,
you know, can you help my aide? Like, for instance, it said here, it
suggested anyway, the new chairman or the chairman's aide would
take over and kind of like act as that liaison for the board members.
Well, my aide is, what, five months old on the job. I don't know that
he would be able to do that.
And so I have a suggestion, and that is -- and I mentioned this to
you, Mr. Mudd -- if indeed we need to move Sue to another
department, what about Mike Sheffield coming up to our department
and being an office manager up there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's an idea.
Anybody else? Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I've made my arguments
before and I'm not going to engage in a debate about this issue, but
this is, perhaps, the most asinine proposal I have ever seen in my life.
It is a formula for the destruction of administrative support for county
commISSIoners.
To try to rotate the management of this office among five
employees who have limited, if any, management expertise, is
absolute lunacy. I don't know how you guys came up with this, but I'll
tell you who I'm going to hold responsible when the administrative
Page 208
December 2-3, 2008
support disintegrates in the board of Collier County Manager's Office.
You've stuck your head in the sands, you haven't identified the
problem, and you haven't come up with a solution.
So you are going to destroy the support that we have to service
our constituents. And I don't know that there is anything that I can say
that will deter majority of commissioners from taking this action. I
have a feeling most of the commissioners understand why this is
happening but nobody's going to stand up and do anything about it.
And the County Manager and the County Attorney, in making
this recommendation, is aiding and abetting a vendetta to find a
scapegoat for a problem that you haven't even defined. So that's all
I've got to say about this.
But I will be the first to tell you, I told you so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your solution?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that maybe a suggestion that
Commissioner Fiala came up with might be a start in resolving the
problem that is up there.
I think we all know what the problem is. And this person was
told a couple of years ago that she needed to change probably her
ways of management, and maybe it hasn't fully sunk in, so -- in
corporate life, sometimes all you do is just switch two people in
management and that solves the problem. So I think it's worth a try.
And I have to go along with what Commissioner Fiala said, that
we have some people up there that have not had any managerial
experience, and to put them in that particular position, I think, could
result in situations that wouldn't be good.
So if that's an option that is open for us to have Mike Sheffield be
there as a supervisor, I think Mike would make a good one. That
might be an opportunity for us to see how things work out that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have to be honest with
Page 209
December 2-3, 2008
you. I wasn't at all intrigued with the idea of having one aide take the
responsibility for any given year. I don't think that would really work.
I think that would be a -- be a disservice to everyone.
And I am agreeable that we do need to have a different figure in
there for leadership. The only thing is about Mike Sheffield -- and I
like Mike a lot. I've seen him down there. I haven't seen him in a
leadership position. I've seen him in the County Manager Office. I
don't know if we really would want to do it, number one. Number
two, there are other people within the County Manager's Office or
other parts of the government that might be more in tune with this.
I'm not saying Mike isn't the right person, but I almost think it would
behoove us maybe to have two or three people.
Maybe Mike might not look at this as a reward. He might look at
it as some sort of punishment, you know; what did I do to deserve this.
That's a little bit of a concern. So I think we have to give that a little
bit of thought and move forward.
I do think that there's some merit in the future when we look at
new aides coming in, that a commissioner get to weigh in on that
decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's very important. I also
think that the commissioner or -- excuse me -- the aide should work at
the whims of the commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've had 36 years of
business experience. I probably have hired some 500 some people
over the years. None of them work for me now for one reason or
another. But 1-- if that opportunity ever presented itself -- and I don't
know if it would, you know. At this moment in time I have an aide
that's doing a pretty good job for me. I can tell you that I'd welcome
the opportunity to be able to weigh in on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the direction of the board? I
don't even --
Page 210
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sounds to me like the direction of
the board, Chair, is that somebody of the caliber of Mike or somebody
who has leadership capability and has managerial capabilities fill in
that office and that Sue be sent to another area. And not saying that
she's a failure or anything of this nature, but that we just need a
change, and I think that that change might be in the right area, and I'm
sure that there's people in the county that can fulfill that responsibility.
And I think we just need to move on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Can we clarify about Sue?
I think we need to be a little more exact about it, as far as the term
move on. I think moving on within county government because --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what she's saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because she's served some very
useful purposes and I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All we're doing is just rotating her
to another area within the -- within county government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. But let's go a little bit with
duties. I mean, we have a person that's been doing our -- the advisory
boards, managing that, managing different parts of the office very,
very effectively. It may be something that we might want to retain, at
least for the time being, those particular services.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if she's moved from that
particular area, I think there was some suggesting that she was going
to possibly be moved down to the budget manager's office whereby
there would be the duties that she presently has with the boards and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Advisory boards.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Advisory boards -- that she would
Page 211
December 2-3,2008
continue on at that duty.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And also as a secretary
to the commission when we have our meetings? I'm not too sure how
that would work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that's something that
needs to be worked out by staff. But, yeah, that -- either that or the
new person sit there in regards to taking care of the meetings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, that's some of the -- there's
got to be some responsibilities that the person that's going to be sitting
there is going to take up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's for sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're not going to pay somebody
a wage for being a supervisor and not doing anything, and there's
responsibilities that a supervisor's got to take on, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And were you agreeable
also, sir, to the idea of us weighing in on the hiring of any new
personnel?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, definitely. I think that's
important.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion? All in favor --
MR. MUDD: I need to ask one more question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. MUDD: I want to -- I want to make sure, if you want -- for
instance, I've had this conversation with Mr. Sheffield, okay, and I've
had the conversation with a couple other of my aides, okay, some of
which have said, heck no. And Mike said, you know, I wouldn't mind
going up there supervising the particular office but I'd still like to do
the things that I'm doing down there and make sure that the aides are
going, and then Sue would have the advisory boards and the secretary
Page 212
December 2-3, 2008
to the Board of County Commissioners as described under this
particular Item and Mike would make sure that your aides are working
and those things are handled in that particular case.
If what I just described to you isn't of your liking and you want
someone to sit there full time, then I will tell you Mr. Sheffield doesn't
want to do that. So at that juncture I would go out in an internal
search in the county for folks that would like to do that, and we'll
come up with a job description in order to put that down and get that
laid out and put a new person in the particular office where Ms. Filson
is, and Ms. Filson would work down in OMB and would work through
that process until we make some kind of transition.
Would you like that particular person that comes in -- and we can
open up to interviews with the board and -- or you can delegate
someone on the board to do the interviews with the County Manager
or the County Attorney or whatever, and get an appropriate person and
then bring -- and present that person to the board for ratification of
that selection and have that particular manager work for the board
under a contract for you specifically? And we'll work through the
transition side of the house so that you would still have an Executive
Manager in the office that will be accountable to the Board of County
Commissioners in that particular regard.
And that doesn't necessarily mean they could either be under
contract or they could work for you as they would any other
employee, and they can work at the will of the Board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's two questions--
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that you just asked.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And let's get one of them answered
first, and then that will answer your second question.
I'm okay with Mike Sheffield supervising and also carrying on
Page 213
December 2-3, 2008
the duties of the County Manager. Are you okay with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, if -- would he be in our
office?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He would be there part of the
time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, he would be
there so that we could ask him questions? Especially when we're gone.
I know Jim Coletta and I are gone a lot because we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whoa.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we -- I mean, not together.
You're in Immokalee and I'm in Marco.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, that's better. My wife
wouldn't understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then in the summertime when
we're all gone, we really need somebody there that our aides can refer
to, can -- you know, can turn to. And so I think we would need
somebody there at least, you know, half the time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. That's one option. The other option is
to go with an Executive Manager, and we'll do an internal search in
the county and then come up with a list of folks, and if you want to
delegate a commissioner to do the interviews with me and the County
Attorney, or whatever you'd like, then we'll present to you the top pick
and let the board -- and if you want them to come talk to each one of
the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's just stay with that one
thing about Mike Sheffield and the duties that you just described and
try to get a consensus of that, and ifnot, again, it will answer your
question, or we could get into the other topic, if you don't mind, sir.
MR. MUDD: No. No problem, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MUDD: Just trying to get some guidance.
Page 214
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could look at Mike
Sheffield as possibly a long-time solution, but at least a short-term one
where we can try to bridge what's taken place to see what happens.
I have no problems. It would probably keep our costs down by
using Michael in a dual capacity. I don't know if it will work or not.
But then again, too, then we can go to plan B, which would be to take
on a full-time manager if it becomes too overburden for Michael or he
can't quite fill the position.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I'm not going to
try to tell you how to set the thing up, but I'll tell you what I'm going
to expect. I'm going to expect someone to be there to respond
immediately to any concerns I have about my aide being absent. If
they're absent, if they're on vacation, if they're on sick leave, I don't
want to go chasing around Collier County Government trying to find
the person who is supposed to be filling in for them.
I want them to be there immediately, I want them to understand
what they have to do, and I want them to be doing it.
Whenever I have a request that can't be satisfied by my aide, I
want somebody on the job getting the information for me. There's
some things that aides just can't do and don't have the experience to
do.
I want to make sure somebody is monitoring my mail and my
email at all times so ifthere's something of high importance, that I am
notified by telephone immediately if I don't happen to be at my
computer.
That's the kind of service I get right now, and I've been getting it
for as long as I've been here, and it's been excellent. I'm not going to
expect anything less than that, and I don't want to start chasing around
county government looking for a person to do that because that is
essential to proper support of my constituents, and that's just the tip of
the iceberg.
Page 215
December 2-3, 2008
And I'll tell you that Sue Filson has filled in doing those things
more than I can mention, and she's done it at a very high level of
efficiency. She hasn't missed a beat. So you find me someone who
can do that, and I'll be happy. You don't do that, and I'm going to be
really unhappy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, as far as
direction --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- there's two questions. Can we have
Mike Sheffield oversee or supervise the office and also do --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: His responsibilities?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- his responsibilities? You're okay
with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that answer your question? I
mean, I got a consensus that we're okay with Mike doing that. We
also want him available, and I'm sure he has a cell phone, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ifhe doesn't, he will. I believe he does.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And would that be an
opportunity to -- for a commissioner to track down Mike Sheffield to
respond to needs or to respond to a question?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll add to that, so say, for
instance, one of the aides is sick, they need to be able to call
somebody and tell them, I'm sick, I'm not coming in today or, you
know -- well, I'll be off for a week, so that that person then can either
make sure that they're filling in, that they're working together. We
need somebody at the helm. We need somebody -- we don't have time
to do that here, the five of us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The nice part about Michael we
-- I haven't given thought to before is the fact that he's connected to
the County Manager's Office and other parts of the county so that if
Page 216
December 2-3, 2008
some severe shortage came up, like we had two people on vacation
and someone got sick, he could probably draw some emergency help
in for a short time to be able to keep everything flowing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You okay?
MR. MUDD: I'm okay. And I believe that Commissioner Coyle
has some expectations, and if we can't meet them based on the
Sheffield issue, then I'll come right back to the Board of County
Commissioners. And I know Commissioner Coyle will, and he'll tell
us about it, and we'll get it -- we'll get it resolved.
Now, I'm going to tell you right now, Ms. Filson is not going
away. She'll be down in -- my plan is to put her down in office of
management and budget and to make sure that we have a seamless
transition here, so to speak, as far as supervising the particular aides in
order to get those done.
And I will meet with Mr. Klatzkow and we will talk about -- I
also heard at least two commissioners talk to me about having the
aides -- their aide work for them. And if that's also the board's desire,
then we will come up with either a protocol, so to speak, and or a -- an
employee contract, mini -- I won't call it a contract, but I will call it
expectation so that they know that they will be an at-will employee
and layout those particular procedures.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I would like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I would, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I've got -- I've got a question
to ask you.
I have -- I am aware of some aides in the past who have left the
office, not recently, but sometime in the past, who came near to
assaulting another aide. How are we going to resolve those things if
each of the commissioners is going to hire their aide?
You're going to have only one commissioner responsible for
Page 217
December 2-3, 2008
deciding who works in this office, or are you going to recognize the
fact that when you have five people working in the same office, there
has to be some kind of resolution of disputes ofthat nature?
You can't do that very well when you give a single commissioner
unilateral authority to hire and fire because that commissioner will
say, I am not going to fire this aide because I like the work she's
doing, and I don't really care if she's causing disruption in the office.
So you've got a big problem here, and I don't think you
understand the issue. I really don't. But I hope you come up with
some ideas about how you deal with problems like that. How are you
going to deal with differences in evaluation and salary reviews?
What are you going to do when you've got two aides who believe
that they both are doing an excellent job but one gets a far greater
salary increase than the other? You're going to cause jealousy.
They're going to know what each other's making after awhile.
It's going to be a very difficult situation to deal with, but it's not
my problem anymore. It's your problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a policies -- the County
Manager has a policies and procedures, and I don't remember anybody
saying that those policies and procedures would not apply. That
would -- that would take care of, you know, all those -- all those issues
about the conduct of an employee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't think it will. If you --
if the commissioner has the unilateral right to hire and/or fire his aide,
there's nothing about that statement that says the County Manager has
the right to arbitrate that. So either somebody can arbitrate that issue
and try to establish consistent and fair evaluations and salary increases
for aides in the office, or it's going to be done independently by five
different commissioners to different standards with different results
and with a substantial amount of friction created within the office.
So if you want to define it the way you'd like to have it done and
if you're amenable to doing that, that certainly is a step in the right
Page 218
December 2-3,2008
direction. But the way it is currently defined, that's not going to
happen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the County Manager and I had
talks about this. The employees need to have KRAs. The evaluation
-- fill out the KRAs -- needs to be defined of different categories, and
we can do that -- we can delegate that to HR and allow the county
commissioners to grade those.
And there is a high and a low salary of an aide. And, you know,
they're not equal because they all haven't put in the time or their
previous KRAs hasn't come up to previous performance standards. I
don't think that's going to change.
And the fact is -- Jeff, correct me ifI'm wrong -- you can put in
the policies and procedures of the County Manager so it -- they also
have a grievance procedure also.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, your -- you have adopted the County
Manager's administrative plans, which cuts both ways. If what you
want is the ability to have an at-will employee, then you cannot have
-- you have to be out from under the County Manager's program. It's
one or the other.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we're going to have to
do something about that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You're talking about hiring
employees. I'm going to just tell you today, or this week -- now, say,
for instance, my employee had left. I don't know who's going to place
the ad. Am I capable of doing that? I don't know. IfI can find the
time, I would try and get it in there. Now people are going to call. I'm
not in the office today. I'm here. Yesterday all day long I was in
meetings every half hour all day long, and Thursday I'm going to be
on Marco Island all day long. Friday I have appointments again. So I
don't have the time then to interview anybody, much less putting
Page 219
December 2-3, 2008
together this stuff. So, what happens to my aide?
Or say, for instance, somebody quits and I just happen to be on
vacation, so there's nobody here to do any of that -- I'm only back a
week in July and then I'm gone again. I think that that's going to be
problematic where we're supposed to hire the people.
I liked the way Sue did where she would do the ad, advertising,
she would bring the people in, and at least, you know, visit with them,
and then we could meet them after that. But our time is just so
limited.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, we could leave it
as an optional thing. The way I look at it is, is that HR would
probably send over two or three applicants, and if you didn't want to
interview them, you would have them pick out what you think is the
most likable candidate.
To be honest with you, let's see, I've had, I think four or five
aides since I've been here, and I've never got to weigh in on who got
hired. They gave you a privilege I didn't have, if you got to meet them
beforehand.
So I would welcome the opportunity personally to be able to
weigh in on the process. IfI -- for some reason at that point in time, if
I'm not in town, which isn't that frequently anymore -- I seem to be all
the time here -- I could always receive the applications by email, do an
evaluation by phone, and make my recommendations from the two or
three people that they would recommend. That's my thoughts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you're saying a joint process?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In other words, if for
some reason you don't feel comfortable doing it, you could leave it up
to HR to be able to do it for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're not going to solve that
issue today --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, we're not.
Page 220
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- about that, and we need some
guidance on, you know, the at-will contract and the HR policies and
about the input about hiring --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We'll-- I'll come back to the board on
that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- employees.
MR. MUDD: -- particular Item, and I'll see every one of the
commissioners, get some of their ideas, try to get them down on a
piece of paper with the help of the County Attorney, and we'll come
back to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-l, Commissioner
Coy Ie dissenting.
It is just about six o'clock, and I don't know how far the board
wants to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's do the Conservation Collier
thing. We've got --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we want to continue on until we're
complete, or do we want to have a certain time?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How long do you estimate it
will be, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be a long time.
Page 221
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, it's going to be a while.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we do the -- just a
suggestion -- Conservation Collier. Hopefully that won't take that
long, and then we can maybe address the Economic Development
Council's thing and we'll call it an evening.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll buy that one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That sound fair enough?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That sounds great.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next Item is--
MS. FILSON: I also have a speaker on lOG, if that makes any
difference, and two under public comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's see what lOG is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the EDC --
MR. MUDD: lOG is -- has to do with--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's what Commissioner
Halas said about doing lOG and lOE. Do you have any other speakers
on --
MS. FILSON: I have -- for WE I have three speakers, for lOG I
have one speaker, for public comment I have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're not going to be able to
get public -
Item #lOE
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR
HIS DESIGNEE WITH GUIDANCE ON WHETHER
REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
PROGRAM FROM OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS FOR
PANTHER HABITAT UNIT MITIGATION CREDITS AT THE
Page 222
December 2-3, 2008
STARNES PROPERTY IS APPROPRIATE, AND IF
APPROPRIA TE, GUIDANCE ON THE AMOUNT OF THE
REIMBURSEMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION #2 -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next Item is recommend the Board of
Commissioners provide to the County Manager or designee guidance
on whether to reimburse to the county -- Collier County Conservation
program to other county departments for panther habitat mitigation
unit credits and the Starnes property and appropriate -- and if
appropriate, guidance to the amount of reimbursement.
MS. HENNIG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Melissa Hennig will present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this your sister?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, my cousin. It's spelled different.
MS. HENNIG: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
Melissa Hennig, Principal Environmental Specialist for the
Conservation Collier program.
Weare here today for your direction regarding the cost for
internal transfer of panther habitat unit mitigation credits, or PHUs,
between Conservation Collier and other county departments.
Some background for you. At the June 26th, 2007, meeting, the
board directed staff to seek the ability to receive mitigation credits
from lands acquired through the Conservation Collier program. We
have done so for panther habitat units and have nearly reached an
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that will secure just
over 2,000 PHUs at the Conservation Collier Starnes property.
These PHUs will be available to any county department in need
of panther mitigation for capital projects. At the county's current
contract price of$l,500 per PHU, the Starnes PHUs would cost about
3 -- $3.l million.
Now, before the details of the Starnes mitigation were worked
Page 223
December 2-3,2008
out, there may have been an assumption that any mitigation secured
through Conservation Collier properties would be free to the county.
After discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this is not
the reality.
There are costs above and beyond typical Conservation Collier
program expenses that have and will continue to be incurred by
Conservation Collier as a result of other county departments using the
Starnes property for mitigation.
The question before you today is, which section of the county
should pay these costs, Conservation Collier or the departments that
will be using the mitigation?
While researching this Item, staff contacted other counties in
Florida with similar conservation land programs. Of the programs
surveyed that allow county mitigation on their lands, levels of
reimbursement differ, but all the programs charge the department
benefiting from mitigation all the costs that are associated with
obtaining the credits, and some programs include land acquisition
costs.
In the executive summary for this Item, I've outlined the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services requirements for securing PHUs. Among
these requirements, the cost to draft the written agreements and the
cost to contract out the vegetation on wildlife monitoring are not
typical Conservation Collier expenditures.
Additionally, any typical land management activities at the
Starnes property that are also requirements of mitigation are now
ineligible for the state and federal grant programs that regularly fund
Conservation Collier projects.
For these two reasons, Conservation Collier staff would
recommend option number two as the most appropriate for -- of the
three listed.
Option number one would require no reimbursement by other
county departments for the use of PH Us from the Starnes property.
Page 224
December 2-3, 2008
Option number two would require a reimbursement of $372.54
per PHU to the Conservation Collier program. That's a total of
$722,000. This would save other county departments a total of$2.3
million, which is 75 percent off the current PHU contract price, while
still reimbursing Conservation Collier for the cost of activities that are
only required because the county is using the Starnes property for
PHUs and reimbursing Conservation Collier for the loss of possible
land management grant opportunities.
Finally, option number three would require a reimbursement of
$2,992 per PHU, a total of$6.2 million. This is the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee's recommendation and
takes into account the total costs of both acquiring and managing the
Starnes property.
Again, Commissioners, of those presented here, option number
two is Conservation Collier staffs recommendation and we are asking
for your direction on this Item. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve option two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd also like to point out, and I
believe this is correct, and County Manager can correct me, but we
don't have a contract for Starnes panther habitat units at the present
time at $1,500 each as it says on the top of this slide.
You're saying that what we pay to the panther mitigation bank
under our current contract is $l,500?
MS. HENNIG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that not correct?
MR. MUDD: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the reason I bring that up
is I want to -- I want to draw the public's attention to option three. It is
the recommendation of the Conser- -- Collier Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee, they're proposing that we charge taxpayers
twice as much for a panther habitat unit located on property that the
Page 225
December 2-3,2008
taxpayers have already purchased as some panther mitigation --
private panther mitigation unit in another county is charging us. So I
think that's an unreasonable recommendation, and that's why I have
discarded it. I think option two is the right option to go with.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you had my second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have three--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's okay. Go to the
public speakers. I'll ask questions afterwards.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Three public speakers. Amber Crooks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Jennifer Hecker, who will
be followed by Brad Cornell.
MS. HECKER: Good evening. Jennifer Hecker speaking on
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 6,000
members.
Citizens of Collier County voted in 2006 with an approval rate of
82 percent for the Conservation Collier program. The charge of the
program is to acquire and manage environmentally sensitive lands for
the protection of water resources, wildlife habitat and public open
space, not for their mitigation values; however, the Conservancy
would support utilization of the mitigation credits by other
departments within the county as an additional benefit only if the costs
are fairly reimbursed to the Conservation Collier program at the fair
market value.
We have reviewed the staff summary and believe that the fair
market value would include, as staff has recommended, staff time,
monitoring and management. We'd also recommend that it would
include some portion of land acquisition.
Page 226
December 2-3,2008
Our first proposal would be a variation of option two that you
had discussed which would be staff time and monitoring, lOO percent
of the management, because there is significant additional
management burdens when you have PHU credits awarded, and also
they would be a loss of grant opportunities as they already explained.
And we also would suggest that there -- it would be fair to have
lO percent of the land acquisition reimbursed to the program, as that is
part of getting mitigation credit traditionally.
This would total about $854. An alternative scenario would be
the same thing, including staff time, monitoring, full management, and
no land acquisition reimbursement. That would be about $597.
Either way, these between 597 to $854 per PHU represents a
tremendous savings to the county, who has been paying approximately
two to three times this to date; therefore, we respectively ask for your
vote that PHUs be awarded from the Conservation Collier lands only
if the fair market value, as we have mentioned, is imbursed to the
program, which would provide a substantial savings to the county but
also adopt a fair policy for reimbursement to the program and set a
good precedent going forward.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon -- good evening,
Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell and I'm here on behalf of Collier
Audubon Society.
And I want to frame what I say in the context of, what you're
talking about here for the Starnes property really could be applied to
other Conservation Collier properties, and I think we all have that in
mind. And I'd like us to think of that in that context.
I also do want to remind you that there was an understanding
back in 2002 when we originally passed the Conservation Collier
referendum and then subsequently again in 2006 that the acquisition
Page 227
December 2-3,2008
would be in addition to already existing obligations for mitigation, that
other departments, transportation, utilities, whatever, would have. And
that was definitely understood by the voters who approved that, and I
think that is an important point in considering what option we're going
to go forward with in mitigation.
I think it is fair, Collier Audubon certainly supports the idea that
there would be a savings to taxpayers through Conservation Collier
land being used for mitigation, but there is a very appropriate amount
of reimbursement that should be considered.
And we concur with what Jennifer had just suggested, which is a
per PHU reimbursement of $854, which is based on the staffs
calculation of staff time, monitoring, management, and lO percent of
the acquisition cost of that parcel, or whatever parcel we're talking
about for other mitigation.
I think it's especially important to think of -- to include the
management costs because management is a very important part. You
need lift. They call it lift when you actually restore or manage habitat
for mitigation purposes, and also a component of mitigation is always
acquisition of that land.
So those two components, we advocate be included, the
management at 100 percent and the 10 percent of the land acquisition
cost reimbursed, and that comes to, again, the total of $854. This
would allow Conservation Collier to buy that much more land
elsewhere for conservation, and that is certainly something that we
think that the voters very strongly supported in 2002 and 2006. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to be honest with you,
I'm not going to support option two. I'd support option one, and let me
Page 228
December 2-3,2008
tell you why.
We just got through with some interesting discussions today
about the lack of revenues and how money's fallen off, and dedicated
quite a bit of money for additional beautification of our highways,
money over and above what's been spent in the past. Now we're going
to have to cover that cost in future years.
The taxpayers of Collier County paid once for this land. Now
we've got a way to be able to -- possibly be able to hold the line on
some other Items as far as roads go. We're going to have diminishing
revenues coming in to build the necessary infrastructure and to
maintain it.
So I think that the people of Collier County are well served if we
go ahead and we just stick with option number one and go forward
from there and recognize the fact that we have needs out there that
exceed, you know, additional land for Conservation Collier. That's
my own opmIOn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The problem with that is that if you
go with option one and you don't have the other departments
reimburse Conservation Collier anything, you are, in effect,
transferring Conservation Collier money to the transportation
department, and that was never anticipated by the voters when they
voted on this, because what you -- what you do when you get a
panther habitation (sic) unit, habitat unit, you are imposing additional
management requirements on Conservation Collier, additional
reporting and monitoring requirements, and you're requiring that they
absorb those additional costs which they wouldn't have to absorb
otherwise, and that is, in effect, a transfer of money from Conservation
Collier to transportation or utilities or whoever needs these panther
units.
So I think that would be unfair and probably deceptive. I think
option two is a good compromise, and I'm not sure that $372.54 is the
Page 229
December 2-3, 2008
right -- is the right answer.
We might want to make sure that we monitor the costs, and if
there are any excess costs to Conservation Collier, that we adjust that
price. And I think that would only be fair. But we're not paying for
any land acquisition costs; is that not right, Alex?
MS. SULECKI: Right now the option two does not include land
acquisition. And can I just clarify something in defense of the
committee's recommendation? They didn't recommend that we pay --
we charge more for panther habitat units than we're getting in the open
market. What they recommended was that we include the fair market
value of the land in the equation. And when we added it up, that's
what it came to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, certainly they must have
recognized that that price is almost twice what we're paying through
some private firm --
MS. SULECKI: They did not know that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They did not know that.
MS. SULECKI: So that's my defense of that. They did not make
a recommendation to you to charge more than we pay on the open
market.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, let me address that
just a moment. We're talking about taxpayers. We're not talking
about Collier County government right now. The taxpayers have
already purchased this land.
To even consider that we should have taxpayers pay another
amount of money for the same land to get a panther mitigation unit is
unfair to the taxpayers, particularly in today's financial climate. I
think it's important to us that we try to maximize the taxpayers'
contribution to Collier County Government every way we can, and
certainly I do not think that paying twice for the same piece of
property ever would have occurred to the people who voted to support
Conservation Collier.
Page 230
December 2-3, 2008
So I think option two is the right thing. I would be perfectly
happy to include a caveat to my motion that would say, if costs are
higher than that, then we should reimburse them. Any additional cost
incurred by Conservation Collier through the purchase of a mitigation
-- panther mitigation unit should be reimbursed to Conservation
Collier. And if it's $372.54 or if it's $500.24, you know, we should
pay it, whatever it is. But let's start out with 372.54, monitor the costs,
see what happens, and if we have to adjust it, we adjust it. That would
be my motion if the second buys it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second still stands.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're asking for, and including in to
your motion, a fair -- a fair -- for staff to come back on an analysis of
the cost to manage these PHUs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm suggesting we start off
with the 372.54 but we monitor the costs as we go forward to see if
that cost is fair and accurate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a part of your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And is that a part of your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I would like to get some
insight from Norm Feder, who's standing there with his hands folded
in front of him at the moment to see ifhe has anything to offer that
might offer us a little different insight into this.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. I'll be very brief.
I think you have your motion on the floor. We agree that ifthere
are actually costs that exceed what would normally be done -- the only
Page 231
December 2-3,2008
thing I'd ask you to consider in your recommendation is that it be
looked at, what is the level of maintenance -- since Conservation
Collier was not only to purchase land but was also to manage it for
land and habitat, that my concern is, what level of maintenance are we
assuming when we assume that difference in cost? What level of
reporting and management are we assuming?
But that difference above what we should reasonably assume, I
believe, is what you're referring to, and I think that's viable because
the program wasn't set up to cover that.
But I still question, what is our level of management that we're
going into on this issue when we say that we purchase -- not only to
purchase the property but to manage it for wildlife as well as for water
resources.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could respond to that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Fish and Wildlife Service
specifies the reporting and monitoring requirements for being
considered as panther habitation -- habitat unit, and certainly our
existing Conservation Collier management plan will specify the level
they normally would expect to maintain, and the cost difference
associated with it, too, is what we have to pick up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. 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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Page 232
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1; Commissioner
Coletta dissenting in the majority.
Item #lOG - Discussed Dec. 2, 2008 and continued to Dec. 3, 2008
RECOMMENDA TION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO
THE LIST OF COLLIER COUNTY 2009 STATE LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES AS PROPOSED BY THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AT THE JOINT BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLLIER COUNTY
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PRE 2009 LEGISLATIVE
SESSION WORKSHOP HELD ON NOVEMBER l4, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next Item is lOG, and it's a
recommendation to review and approve the proposed addition of
economic development to the list of Collier County 2009 state and
legislative priorities as proposed by the Economic Development
Council at the joint Board of County Commissioners in Collier
County legislative delegation pre-2009 legislative session workshop
held on November l4th, 2008; and Ms. Debbie Wight, assistant to the
County Manager, will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good evening, Commissioners. The Economic
Development Council requested at the legislative workshop to include
economic development on your list of state legislative priorities as it
states on your executive summary.
There also -- when they submitted the language, there's three
paragraphs that you probably have reviewed, and I brought to your
attention some of the language. And Tammie Nemecek is here to
answer questions on that language if you have questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Commissioner Halas?
Page 233
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In the third paragraph it says,
this is an opportunity to change the culture of the community and to
build a sustainable innovation -- innovation (sic) economy in order to
provide the level of service to which Collier citizens have been
accustomed. Collier County needs to diversify its economy, explore
alternative revenue sources.
Could you be more specific on what you had in mind as far as
alternative revenue sources?
MS. NEMECEK: I think with regards to that, over the last
number of years we've talked about the rising cost of impact fees and
how we can possibly look at alternative revenue sources with regards
to that.
At the end of the day though, I don't know that it really has to do
with impact fees per se.
When we have been examining -- and we're going to be coming
to you in January at the workshop -- how we're funding ourselves here
in Collier County and the dependence that we have on residential
property taxes, ultimately when we talk about economic development,
we talk about creating a better business climate, helping existing
businesses expand, helping new businesses come into the community,
which diversifies that tax base from being so dependent on residential
taxes to having more balance with commercial taxes, because those
taxes actually cost less in services than our residential taxes.
So when we talk about looking at alternative revenue sources, I
think you -- at the end of the day you could take a couple of
opportunities with regards to that in looking at how we're generating
revenue here in Collier County holistically and trying to find a better
way in order to balance that tax structure to be able to provide the
services that we need here in the community.
And I think a larger base of businesses here is a start to that, and
then out of that can come looking at other sources of revenue in order
to balance that discussion.
Page 234
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't you think that other revenue
sources, that would fall in the confines of the legislature up in
Tallahassee?
MS. NEMECEK: No, because what you're talking about, right
now we have about 85 percent of our taxes are collected as -- from
residential property taxes, and what we're talking about is having a
larger proportion of that coming from the business community, having
more businesses here.
So I think that's a base of this discussion that we're talking about.
We don't have enough businesses in this community that are helping
to sustain us, that we're very dependent on residential population
growth, and that we need to change that culture is what we're talking
about and support the diversification of the economy, have a bigger
business base here that balances out that revenue generation that we're
trying to get to in order to be able to provide these services.
After we have that discussion and decide, yes, we need to have
better -- a better structure of businesses in the community, then we can
have the discussion of what those alternative revenue sources might
entail. Some are existing already. But I would contend that if we had
a larger business community here paying taxes, that you would
probably solve a portion of the problem of having to charge large
amounts of impact fees in order to pay for the types of things that we
have to build here in Collier County.
So a portion of the solution comes from the diversification of the
economy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I just felt -- feel that the
taxation budget reform commission didn't do their homework, and I
think that where you're going with this is that we wanted to have equal
taxation for not only the commercial aspect, but also the residents that
live here in the State of Florida, and I don't think they really addressed
that.
And I'm not sure if you're looking at -- I've read some
Page 235
December 2-3, 2008
preliminary information that you've -- that the EDC has put out, and
that is, a one-cent sales tax increase. And if that's part of the revenue
source --
MS. NEMECEK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- I'm not going to jump on that
bandwagon. And maybe the EDC and the Chamber of Commerce
needs to jump on that, but I'm sure not going to.
MS. NEMECEK: I think -- I think the statement here that needs
to be made is that a better business climate in Collier County can
produce additional revenues for the community through property taxes
that you're going to collect from those businesses that don't cost an
equal amount of services in order -- they're a moneymaker for you.
For every dollar that you're going to collect from a commercial entity,
it only costs you 75 cents to service them. They are a revenue
generator for you.
And right now our collections of residential property taxes to
commercial property taxes are 1 0-1. We're overly dependent on
residential property taxes. I think to start with, we need to focus on
that and address that issue, then we can talk about, okay, what's the --
what's the additional deficit then that we have to deal with and how
are we going to be able to deal with that from a sustainable way
instead of maybe things that are based on population growth.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you, but what we've
got to do is figure out other networks of transportation so that we can
entice larger boxes to come to this area that build widgets, then they
can --
MS. NEMECEK: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- send a finished product out.
MS. NEMECEK: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that we're lacking in
some of those areas.
MS. NEMECEK: Exactly. I think we're saying the same thing.
Page 236
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I like staffs recommendation
that -- maybe that sentence should actual read, the economic
development would support a diversified economy of new and
innovative industries to remain competitive and secure a prosperous
future.
MS. NEMECEK: I think there's the -- if! might -- if! may. I
would -- I think that there's value in putting some statement in there to
talk about sustainability from a -- not only just a business standpoint
but from a community standpoint in there as well as the regulatory
process.
Keep in mind that these are your recommendations to the State of
Florida. And I think an opportunity right now, because of the budget
shortfalls that I know that the state is looking at is, how do we
streamline state regulatory processes, because they're part of the
problem in trying to get things permitted through the state.
And I know there's a lot of forward momentum along that lines in
order to break down the silos amongst the state agencies, look at them
and see if we can streamline their permitting process that can benefit
us here locally.
So I would highly recommend that you encourage the state to
look at the state agencies and streamline permitting at that level.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
MS. NEMECEK: Ifwe can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Tammie, I hope you
understand that I have been a strong supporter of this economic
development process. I think I was probably the only commissioner
who recommended that you get your $850,000 for that purposes in
this year's budget.
I want to take you back a few years when David Ellis was at the
CBIA, had a very close working relationship with the government.
Page 237
December 2-3, 2008
We worked together as a team, he had great involvement in our
advisory committees and lobbied for the building industry quite
effectively.
And then upon David's departure, the building industry decided
that the government was the problem and they started working in
Tallahassee to try to undermine our local authority. They tried to
eliminate impact fees as if that was a problem for them at that time,
and it was not. To the point now where I believe that, unfortunately,
we are seen not as a partner but as the enemy again.
I would hate to see the EDC fall into that pattern. And you've got
here a request for a legislative priority that specifically relates to our
home rule responsibilities of permitting and zoning. That, along with
some other things that the -- that the Collier County Chamber of
Commerce has done in Tallahassee or has failed to do in Tallahassee,
leads me to believe that we're going down that track, and that's a very
dangerous track to go down, and you're going to lose my support if we
go down that track.
What we need from the EDC and the Chamber of Commerce
here in Collier County is a united front that emphasizes home rule.
We know more about what zoning changes we need to make than the
people in Tallahassee do. We know more about what it's going to take
to attract people to Collier County than the people in Tallahassee do.
So I'm wondering if -- why this is being requested as a legislative
priority rather than having it as one of our local priorities. And I
thought we already had this as one of our local priorities.
I am working with you on a committee that is taking a look at,
how do we streamline the zoning processes and the permitting
processes, and how do we make it easier.
So this troubles me tremendously. And I'm not going to support
this today until I find out what is really driving this. And I hope I
don't find out that it's another attempt by the business community to
bypass local government and go to Tallahassee and have them impose
Page 238
December 2-3, 2008
what they think are solutions for our local problems.
Now, if you want to really rejuvenate our economy, how about
helping us do something about property insurance rates? How about
helping us do some things about state permitting and specifically
specify, state permitting, okay.
MS. NEMECEK: That actually, sir --I'm sorry, but that actually
is the point of this, because this is going on the state, and it was
probably worded incorrectly, but we're talking about state permitting,
not local permitting in this legislative priority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And help us do something
with the $77 million we have to spend every year on illegal
immigrants. I'd like to see the business community stop pretending
that there is no problem there. That's $77 million we can provide for
infrastructure here in Collier County to attract more business if we can
get people to do anything about it. It'd be nice if we got some help
from you to get those kinds of things done, okay.
So that's -- I'm -- I'm going to have to see this again worded
differently before I'm going to support it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the -- is there a motion to put this
on the board's priority for the upcoming legislation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I'd feel more 'comfortable
continuing this Item until it can be addressed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We don't have that opportunity.
MS. NEMECEK: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we do -- yes.
MS. NEMECEK: May I make a suggestion? Because Debbie
and I were talking about the language. And if we took the language as
you had -- as you had it -- pardon me? Yeah.
Go to your recommendation, but I would -- again, I would stress
and concur with Commissioner Coyle over the regulatory process at
the state level. I would suggest that there be something in there that
addresses the state level regulatory process and a legislative Item that
Page 239
December 2-3,2008
supports that streamlining of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support that too if you
would also emphasize the need to strengthen local home rule authority
because we're the only ones who understand what we need. Nobody
from Tallahassee is going to be able to contribute to that unless they
send the money, and I don't think they're going to be sending any
money.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My question is is, how does--
I mean, we all believe in local home rule, but how does that tie in with
economic development?
MS. NEMECEK: May I make a suggestion that says, support
economic development in a diversified economy of new and
innovative industries to remain competitive and secure a prosperous
future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: While enhancing and strengthening
MS. NEMECEK: Right, while enhancing and strengthening the
state --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MS. NEMECEK: -- the local --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Home rule authority.
MS. NEMECEK: I have a hard time with home rule because I
don't have my board to approve that. If you want to put home rule in
there, that would -- that would be up to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or local control.
MS. NEMECEK: Local control. Yeah, I would say,
streamlining of state level permitting and empowering local -- the
local -- the local --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Decision making.
MS. NEMECEK: Decision makers, right, to support economic
development activities. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: Here's what I know -- and Jim Mudd again. Here's
Page 240
December 2-3,2008
what we know on Page 1. What you have in black is what your EDC
council approved as the priority based on the board's desire to add an
EDC Item to your local delegation priority list.
It's important that we get this resolved. You're either going to put
it on or you're not, because on the 10th of December, your chairman is
going to have to give the priority list to that delegation that's going to
be sitting on this very dais, and if you -- this isn't one of these that
comes back to this board.
If you decide you don't want to do it, then that's fine. I would say
to you -- and I'm not too sure how all this plays out, but I will tell you
the part I personally have an issue with -- and I have mentioned this to
no one except Debbie and Leo -- is the last sentence on Page 1, okay?
That causes me immense heartburn, and nor does that support really
your economic -- the staffs recommendation that's on the second page
that's in bold in that process.
And if we're going to sit there and mince this, I would say that
we just delete the last sentence on the first page, and we can add that
underneath of, as justification on economic development, support a
diversified economy of new and innovative industries to remain
competitive and secure a prosperous future, and then it's backed up
with the forecast of difficulties and whatnot that's there that was
approved by your EDC council.
CHAIRMAN HENNfNG: Well, why don't we -- why don't we
continue this on to tomorrow morning's discussion.
MS. NEMECEK: And I can bring back a language.
CHAIRMAN HENNfNG: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just make a suggestion?
MS. NEMECEK: Or -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The one thing that you haven't
done that the state government can do is give us some money and
some help. They have some funds for economic development. If
we're really serious about this, why don't we ask them for some of that
Page 241
December 2-3,2008
money? Why don't we tell our delegation, we want part of that money
to help Collier County --
MS. NEMECEK: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and hold their feet to the fire so
that maybe we can get some of it.
MS. NEMECEK: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They can't do anything about -- we
don't want them to do anything about local policies of zoning and all
that sort of stuff.
MS. NEMECEK: No. That wasn't the intent of that. I apologize
for the misconception on that, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So maybe you could write that same
suggestion into --
MS. NEMECEK: Yeah. I'll bring it back tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the wording for tomorrow?
MS. NEMECEK: I'll bring it back tomorrow morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bring it back tomorrow morning.
MS. NEMECEK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we recess, bit of news I found
out last night. North Naples Fire Department has a delegation priority
of entering in a shell bill to go to the residents about consolidation. I
haven't seen it. I don't think the County Attorney has seen it. We
have a workshop with them on Monday.
I -- we want to ask the County Attorney to -- or the County
Manager to put that on a talking point, and we want that information
well in advance of this workshop on Monday, okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I comment on this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure that we're talking
about the same thing. But the North Naples Fire Department did
produce something about three or four weeks ago, and the County
Attorney and I have talked about that one, and the County Attorney
Page 242
December 2-3, 2008
opined that that one probably would not fly because there were some
legislative requirements there.
And, Jeff, I thought you were talking with them, or did that break
down?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding from their attorney was
they were not going to go forward, so this is news to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, yeah. Okay. So maybe
they've resurrected it and they're going forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's on the delegation's calendar.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we have one public speaker.
Do you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. You want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you mind?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Actually I have two, but I think the other one left.
Philip Penzo and someone has, in the meantime, registered for Item
101.
MR. PENZO: Thank you, Commissioners, for staying an extra
three minutes. I'm Philip Penzo. I live at 201 Majorca Circle on
Marco.
In yesterday's Naples Daily News there was an article about the
new south library and how the board had to come up with funds for
books and staff. I think it's important for you to know that in almost
three months since I was last before you and was given the
opportunity to bid on the furniture needed for the library, there has
only been one bid, RFQ5149R, for 255 stack chairs.
But these weren't ordinary stack chairs. They were see-through
Page 243
December 2-3,2008
mesh. We bid a hard plastic stack chair similar to the ones recently
purchased for the new Golden Gate Library. Our bid was thrown out
because we refused to bid the high-end mesh chair, even though we
were the low bidder with a savings to the county of over $21,000.
It was you, the Board of County Commissioners, that gave
purchasing the instructions at the September 9th meeting to include
HON value-oriented products and discontinue the practice of buying
high-end furniture. How much higher end can you get than $141 stack
chair that we were told would be put in the closet for most of its life
and seldom used?
We took our concerns to the purchasing, and they sent us an
emailletter from their expert who claimed our chair didn't have the
same support bar. As you can see from this picture, the support bar is
in there. The only difference is, one is mesh and it costs almost three
times more.
Weare still waiting for bids to be released for the other desks and
chairs needed for the library staff. If purchasing would have honored
our low bid, the county would have an extra 21,000 for the books it
needs.
Since the September 9th meeting, we have only been allowed to
bid on two Items. The first was the stack chairs, the second
opportunity was for RPQ5155. It was issued for 56 small work
stations for the EOC building. The low bidder was not awarded the
order on this bid either. Purchasing awarded the job to the third low
bidder, coincidentally the same vendor that purchasing has been using
all along. The choice cost the county over $7,000.
As the second lowest bidder, we were told our bid was thrown
out because purchasing was unclear as to what product we were
bidding; however, on the same day, an hour earlier, purchasing
emailed us to inform us our product was acceptable and equal for
another bid for the same EOC building.
Why is it acceptable for the purchasing department to award bids
Page 244
December 2-3,2008
at their discretion without a board approval? The bid was awarded at
over $53,000.
I thought it was important for you to know that in the first two
bids we have participated in, the purchasing department did not go
with the low bidder in either case and that taxpayers of Collier County
paid 33 percent more than they needed to.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. It was my understanding when
we talked about this whole furniture that you wasn't going to -- you
were going to include HON in the bid process.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNfNG: And is that decision going to come to
the Board of Commissioners?
MR. MUDD: I'll have to talk to -- I'm listening to it and I'm
hearing it the first time, just like you are.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your administrator's here.
MS. PRICE: The award for the furniture will be on the next
agenda. The stack chairs, I'll have to give you an answer as to
whether or not that was awarded, and I am unaware of any other EOC
furniture that's actually been awarded at this point. We've been--
we've been evaluating, and those Items will come to you on the 16th,
December 16th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And the guidance from the
County Manager -- actually what he told the Board of Commissioners,
that HON will be included in these; is that a true statement? They
were?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, what we did was we took the
specifications to an architect to determine what was equivalent, where
it was equivalent, and where things weren't. We divided our goods
into several different types, case goods, chairs, and systems furniture.
And each of the three Items will be awarded separately based on
what an architect determined to be of equal quality based on the type
Page 245
December 2-3, 2008
of use that the furniture was going to receive, and we'll have those
reports for you as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine and dandy, but can you
answer the question?
MR. MUDD: But in every one of those cases, HON furniture
was offered the opportunity to bid based on the specifications; is that
correct?
MS. PRICE: I'm not certain --
MR. MUDD: If that is not the case, then that was not the board's
direction. So I will go back and get that -- I will get clarification on
that particular issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I believe when we spoke of this
library furniture, there was -- when we -- and please correct me if I'm
wrong, but what we said was, the library furniture that couldn't be
ordered locally anyway because they were shelves and so forth are
those that were planned for the design of the building, were all things
that would fall under the state contract.
MS. PRICE: Right, and that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Things like the stacking chairs
which could be bought locally, would be -- would be bid locally,
because that isn't something that, you know, has anything to do with
the design, and --
MR. MUDD: And I believe even what the petitioner bas- -- or
what basically hap- -- you basically were able to bid on the particular
Items, and you didn't get selected based on criteria.
So the key is, I need to see what the criteria is as it comes back to
the board and figure out what staffs reason is. And ifMr. Penzo
would like to -- would like to -- what's the word I'm using? Before the
bid --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Protest.
MR. MUDD: -- basically protest the bid, I would ask him to do
Page 246
December 2-3,2008
so.
MR. PENZO: Well, we were told that we can't protest since it's
not a bid. They're buying off a state contract. We tried to do that and
they said, no, you can't protest this. It's not a bid. We're buying this
off of state contract.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And that --
MS. PRICE: Commissioners--
MR. PENZO: According to them, we can't protest this.
MR. MUDD: But the key here is, HON was a state contract and
that was part of the direction to include them in the bid based on their
state contract against somebody else's state contract in order to get the
cheapest price.
So again, tomorrow morning I'll get Mr. Carnell here in order to
provide you the information on these particular issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wouldn't it be nice to see a picture
of both of these chairs to see what the dif- --
MR. PENZO: I've got it right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bring some chairs in. We'll sit down
on them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, bring the chairs in.
MR. PENZO: And that's the funny thing is, we brought our
chairs to show them, and they don't have this chair. It's never been
bought before.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Penzo, we're going to--
MR. PENZO: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we're going to handle this. Provide
the minutes, because I think there's some more understanding about
the particular kind of furniture besides the other understanding that
HON will be included in it. Also, you know, tell us from Mr. Carnell
what -- what happened, or better yet, why don't you wait till the next
meeting. It's going to be on the agenda anyway.
Page 247
December 2-3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But get us all that information in
advance, okay.
You guys want to be back at 9 o'clock or earlier or later or what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not earlier.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nine's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nine's okay with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're in recess until 9 a.m.
Wednesday morning. That will be December 3rd.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
*******
The meeting was adjourned until 9 a.m. on December 3, 2008, by
order of the Chair at 6:30 p.m. on December 2,2008.
Page 248
December 2-3, 2008
December 3 at 9:00 a.m. (Day 2)
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 2-3,2008
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 Coyle
Frank Halas (absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page 249
December 2-3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is a continuation of the board's
regular meeting of December 2nd, today being the 3rd. And the first
item is?
Item # 1 OG - Continued discussion from December 2, 2008
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE
PROPOSED ADDITION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO
THE LIST OF COLLIER COUNTY 2009 STATE LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES PROPOSED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL AT THE JOINT BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND COLLIER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE
DELEGATION PRE 2009 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WORKSHOP
HELD ON NOVEMBER 14,2008 - MOTION TO APPROVE AS
MODIFIED - APPROVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
MR. MUDD: We're going to finish up on lOG. You continued it
until today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That was the -- that was the
EDC --
MR. MUDD: Addition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- addition to the board's legislative
priorities.
The commissioners received an email from Tammie Nemecek.
Does everybody have that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here. Oh, we have it on the
viewfinder.
MR. MUDD: And it basically says, Dear Commissioners, thank
Page 250
December 2-3, 2008
you for agreeing to include economic development as a priority in the
2009 legislative agenda. Per discussion tonight -- last night at the
Board of County Commissioners, please accept this revised language
for discussion tomorrow morning. Support -- and the language now
follows: Supports economic development initiatives as a way to build
and create a sustainable and diverse economy. These initiatives
include a more coordinated and streamlined regulatory process within
state level agencies while supporting local governments and their
ability and flexibility to make decisions at the local level that enhance
economic development opportunities.
And the second bullet, develop sustainable sources of funding for
economic diversification programs that allows for full participation by
Collier County and state-level funding for economic development
projects.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
add on the economic incentives to the BCC's legislation priorities,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MUDD: As modified in this email.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As modified in Tammie Nemecek's
email.
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?
(No response.)
Page 251
December 2-3,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO OBTAIN DIRECTION FROM THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO AMEND THE
APPROPRIATE PORTIONS OF THE LITTER, WEED AND
EXOTICS CONTROL ORDINANCE FOUND IN THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
SPECIFICALL Y RELATING TO THE ABATEMENT OF WEED,
GRASS AND OTHER SIMILAR OVERGROWTH IN EXCESS OF
18 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT THAT
PRESENTL Y EXEMPT ESTATES ZONED LOTS BE REQUIRED
TO HAVE A 30-FOOT AREA AROUND ANY PERMITTED
STRUCTURE ON THE LOT MOWED TO A LENGTH OF LESS
THAN 6 INCHES IN HEIGHT - APPROVED
RECOMMENDATIONS ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10H, which used
to be 16AIO, and that reads, it's a recommendation to obtain direction
from the Board of County Commissioners to amend the appropriate
portions of the litter, weed, and exotics control ordinance found in the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances specifically relating to
the abatement of weed, grass, and other similar overgrowth in excess
of 18 inches in height to include a requirement that presently exempts
estate-zoned lots be required to have a 30-foot area around any
permitted structure on the lot mowed to a length of less than 6 inches
in height.
This Item was asked to be moved to the regular agenda by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If! can, I mean, this is a
Page 252
December 2-3,2008
very much needed ordinance at this point in time due to the amount of
foreclosed homes and abandoned homes that we have throughout
Golden Gate Estates. And the concern is, is that if these lots aren't
maintained, that the grass and the brush will grow up to the point that
the houses that are there will become in danger of being lost to the
forest fires that take place there every year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: However, with that said, the
issue is unintended consequences I need to talk to you a little bit
about.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It mentions such things as 30
foot around any permitted structure. In some cases, people have
decorative plantings and whatever else. They kind of merge the forest
into that, comes closer to the house. Are people going to be required
to remove these kind of plantings?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development, environmental services division.
To answer your question, no, it will not. This is going to be no
different than how it's applied throughout the rest of the county. It
merely gives code enforcement the authority to send a contractor out
to cut the grass like they would anywhere else in the county.
This was an issue raised by the Golden Gate Estates task force.
We know -- we do not have authority to go out and cut grass on a
foreclosed property in the Estates. So all this would be is to allow us
to cut what is deemed grass. We don't go out and cut or do any type
of trimming that involves landscaping.
So the 30 foot is merely to define how much grass we would cut.
We're not going to cut the entire two-and-a-half acres of property.
That is not the intent of this.
If it's two-and-a-half acres, for instance, ifthere's -- all we're
Page 253
December 2-3,2008
going to send is a contractor and say, here's how much grass you're
going to cut. It's nothing more than to try and keep --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The fire danger at a minimum.
MR. SCHMITT: Both the fire danger and kind of the broken
window theory. Ifit appears vacant and grass is growing, it's going to
invite vandalism or other types of activity. We're trying to make the
house appear that it's still maintained and it is still -- someone's still
living in the house.
We don't want it to run down the community, and that's what this
is all about. And we've been very, very successful in putting the
burden of this on the banks. And we're going to come back to you in
January with a report explaining how successful we've been in having
the banks pay for this -- pay for the lawn mowing and the type of --
for these foreclosed units.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So these efforts are going to be
directed towards those homes that are unoccupied, from what I
understand?
MR. SCHMITT: Most -- yes. In most cases they are. But it's
also applied in other areas of the county, sometimes in rentals, where
the renters do not cut the grass. We inform the homeowner, tell them
they have to go out and take care of the grass. If they do not and it
exceeds the 18 inches, we'll send a contractor out there, and then we'll
place a lien on the property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, what would
happen now is when code enforcement sees such a violation, the first
attempt will be, is to notify the owner of the property or the caretaker
of the property, sometimes the bank?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And then from there they would
take the action of mowing it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. It's just like we do everywhere else.
Again, the ordinance as it exists now prevented us or precluded us
Page 254
December 2-3,2008
from maintaining properties in the Estates. This was a
recommendation, like I said, that now would allow us to at least do
that, to deal primarily with the foreclosed units in the Estates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Diane Flagg and her task
force are to be commended for coming up with this particular
direction.
I make a motion for accepting that.
MR. SCHMITT: And we'll be back with the amendments, and
certainly you have an opportunity at that time to review the language
change and we can debate how to apply it at that time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion, but I just had
a question. I just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I have questions, too. So go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good. Okay.
I just wanted to say that we're going to be hiring outside people
to do this for us. I mean, our own staff doesn't go in. We will make
sure that they use some common sense when they do this?
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, sometimes they go in, and
then -- you know, just like Commissioner Coletta was saying, they
might have decorative plants or something. You don't want to just
mow everything down ifthere's no reason to.
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they will use some common
sense on this?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. They are licensed contractors,
licensed landscapers. We already have them under contract. You
have already approved those contracts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That doesn't mean they use common
sense though.
Page 255
December 2-3, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, well -- I mean, we manage it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no guarantees on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I -- the ordinance is clear. It
specifically says, litter, weed, and exotics.
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it --
MR. SCHMITT: We will -- the only time we'll even think about.
trimming any type of landscaping if it's grown up above the windows
and it's something just so the Sheriffs Department or somebody can
see inside the window to make sure that there's not--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Vagrants.
MR. SCHMITT: -- illegal activity or other type of things going
on inside of a vacant home. That's about the only time we'll even
attempt to even direct the contractor to trim some of the vegetation
around the house.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The present ordinance doesn't say that
for any other area of Collier County.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct, it does not, but we have trimmed
some vegetation when it becomes so overgrown that it obscures the
view of a house, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next thing -- I mean, I don't know
if the executive summary was written -- well, I can't believe if you
have 18-inch grass or weeds that it's going to cause a fire danger or
you would abate it by cutting it, because the grass is still there. If it's
going to burn at 18 inches, it's going to burn at 4 inches. And if you're
doing it because of foreclosures, I can understand that, but we're not
going to have that foreclosure problem forever.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I don't think -- I don't see how
that we can legally defend cutting it for fire hazard. So I hope you
Page 256
December 2-3,2008
would consider having a time frame on this because we know the
foreclosures are not going to happen in a reasonable time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I -- we have no idea how
long it's going to be. Rather than have it come back to us every six
months or year, we can be proactive. When we see that point in time
when the markets turned around, we can go back and alleviate this. At
that point in time the residents of Golden Gate Estates, through the
civic association and some of their other organizations, may start to
see a benefit from this and would wish to be -- may wish at that time --
and I can't say that will happen -- to be included in the same kind of
code and ordinances that exist for the rest of the county as far as the
maintenance of lawns. I don't know. But at least this is a beginning
point. So I'm not too concerned.
If we put six months on it, we'll be coming back every six months
to look at it probably for another two years or so. I'm sure we'll be
able to see it when it turns around.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I didn't recommend six
months.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I was just -- I
know you didn't, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, you don't -- when they cut the
grass, they don't vacuum it up. They don't have a grass catcher when
they do it, so it's going to cause more ofa problem if the consideration
is because of fire. That's all.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may offer to you, it's grass
cutting, I don't even think for -- fire reasons wasn't really the main
reason. It had to do with keeping an appearance that the place is being
used and up -- kept up and to be able to protect the property values, so
there's more than one reason.
But standing grass is a much bigger danger than grass that's been
cut and laying on the ground. It usually becomes moist and becomes
Page 257
December 2-3,2008
part of the soil in a short period of time. So there is -- there's
definitely an advantage as far as it is.
I don't see anybody from the fire departments here. They've got
no reason to be here. But it's an interesting thought that you have,
cutting it versus letting it stand. I think there's a difference.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, just reading the executive
summary, I just can't believe it's a fire hazard, we're doing it because
of fire hazard.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two points. One is, this just isn't
for foreclosed homes. It's for anybody --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- who fails to maintain their
property .
MR. SCHMITT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a directive that has been
applicable, as far as I know, to the rest of the county for decades.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I don't understand the confusion
here. It is for any unkempt lots. And secondly, from a fire danger, of
course it's a fire danger. Grass 18 inches high is three times the higher
danger than grass six inches high because there's more fuel standing
that is likely to be dry.
Commissioner Coletta is absolutely right, when you cut it, it soon
begins to decay and becomes part of the soil and does not burn as
well, does not bum as hot, does not spread as quickly. Fire
departments all over the nation recommend these kinds of measures to
protect structures.
So I don't know where why we're belaboring this point. It's been
used in the county for years. Why shouldn't it be used in the Estates?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does it say lots? Are we going to
apply it to lots --
Page 258
December 2-3, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or will it be improved properties?
MR. SCHMITT: These are improved properties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And we're also going to deal with the other
issue on this, and this has to do with the issue that was raised quite a
while ago regarding downed trees and downed vegetation, and some
of those issues we'll address and bring back as well where it required
for that type of vegetation or -- be removed from vacant lots.
I question a need for that, as certainly as Commissioner Henning,
you had, and we'll be addressing that one as well. But this will all
come back to be reviewed in the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, when it comes
back, would you have someone from one of the county fire
departments --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- who's an expert on this
particular subject matter, or possibly somebody from Diane Flagg's
tasks force to be here to also give us a little more detail and
information what led up to this point?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. This -- we'll have somebody from the
Golden Gate Estates Task Force, because that was the Golden Gate
Fire District that was most concerned about the fire hazard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 259
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just so you don't get taken by
surprise, the chairman asked me -- asked Mr. Ochs a question about
direction that the board gave that palm fronds being litter and
composting so it would -- you know, in those particular places where
it would be legal in Collier County. That direction was given by the
board almost a year ago.
Through investigation, we've got draft copies of ordinances that
have been done. It was getting staffed, and for some strange reason it
died there between different agencies.
So when we come back and do this litter, weed piece, we will
also incorporate that guidance that the board gave us on that particular
item.
So Chairman, thanks for bringing it to our attention, and yeah, I
got to see drafts and everything else. I said, and? And it just kind of
died.
So we've got the drafts re-circulating, and so we'll move that
particular --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was in hesitation for this new
update of the ordinance.
MR. MUDD: I don't think so. I think staff -- the drafts were
done. The ordinances were there. I mean, I'm -- I don't know. I don't
have an explanation, but we'll get it resolved.
Item #101
TO REQUEST THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(BCC) APPROVE A SINGLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Page 260
December 2-3, 2008
(LDC) AMENDMENT CYCLE FOR THE 2009 CALENDAR
YEAR TO CONSIDER A LIMITED SCOPE OF AMENDMENTS
TO THE LDC AS FOLLOWS: TO REMOVE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FROM THE LDC AND
ESTABLISH A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; TO
CONSIDER THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
(EAR) BASED ENVIRONMENTAL AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE CONTINUED BY THE BCC FROM THE 2008 CYCLE 1;
TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE SCHOOL BOARD
REVIEW PROCESS AS REQUIRED BY ADOPTION OF THE
2008 GMP AMENDMENTS; TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT
TO THE NONCONFORMITIES SECTION OF THE LDC
CONTINUED FROM THE 2008 CYCLE 1; TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DEVIATION PROCESS
FOR IMMOKALEE AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BCC; TO
CONSIDER THE AMENDMENTS TO THE WELLFIELD
PROTECTION REGULATIONS AS DIRECTED BY THE BCC;
TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFY HOW TO
CALCULATE SHORELINES SUBJECT TO CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS OR THE LIKE WHEN CALCULATING THE
NUMBER OF BOAT SLIPS PER THE MANATEE PROTECTION
PLAN, AS DIRECTED BY THE BCC; AND TO CONSIDER ANY
AMENDMENTS TO THE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA
(SRA) IF THERE ARE ANY AT THAT TIME - MOTION TO
APPROVE TO ADD AMENDMENTS TO THE V ANDERBIL T
BEACH OVERLAY TO THE LDC CYCLE - APPROVED THE
ADDITION ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
The next Item is Item 101, and that used to be 16A8. And it's to
request that the Board of County Commissioners, BCC, approve a
single Land Development Code amendment cycle for the 2009
calendar year to consider a limited scope of amendments to the Land
Page 261
December 2-3, 2008
Development Code.
And I mentioned it yesterday when I did the change sheet, and all
of those particular Items are listed.
Now, in your -- in your agenda packet -- and I believe that we
have a speaker, at least one speaker on this particular Item. You did
have a 16G 1 and 16G2 yesterday which had to do with an update to
the overlay of the CRA. You approved that, and the update would be
included ifthere was this cycle.
So I just want to make sure that you know that there's -- that Item
is also attached to this list, and that was as of an action that the board
did yesterday.
Now, you didn't approve that that would automatically happen in
the cycle. You still have to make a decision if you want the cycle, but
I just -- I wanted to bring that to your attention.
This Item was asked for, to be brought forward, at Commissioner
Halas' request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: I can -- Susan Istenes, zoning record for the
record. I can guess why he did, and that's probably because Patrick
White is here to make a request of you, I believe.
So unless you have questions of me at this point, I'll just stand
and wait for direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that's your understanding
of Commissioner Halas'.
MS. ISTENES: That was my understanding. Okay. Yeah, thank
you, Joe.
MR.OCHS: Yeah, I can confirm it.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Ochs could confirm that based on his
one-on-one discussions with the commissioner prior to the BCC
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. White?
Page 262
December 2-3,2008
MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Patrick White, firm
of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, the Naples office.
Commissioners, I had to change my notes. It said good evening.
Thank you for having this Item pulled. It is Commissioner Halas'
request to do so, and my understanding is he was unable to attend, but
I want to thank him publicly for doing so.
I'm here today representing the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association. Their desire is to have one Item added to the list that you
presently have, and that is with respect to section 2.03.07L, which you
probably know more commonly as the Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay.
So like the 16G 12s that the county manager mentioned, the belief
of the residents association is that there would be a public benefit to
some further amendments of that overlay, and they would like to have
direction to staff to allow to include an amendment for those purposes.
I believe that that would serve a valid public purpose and benefit
the residents in the area, and I also believe that, although you
rightfully are looking to limit the number of cycles next year and the
scope of those amendments, that your concerns expressed back in June
of this year about having too many cycles and amendments isn't
affected by this being added to the list. It won't add any new
meetings. The actual drafting of the provisions is something that will
be handled by the residents group through our office, and we will
work with staff so that their task load is as minimal as possible.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to address them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Fiala?
MR. WHITE: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this amendment would allow
them to make amendments to their --
MR. WHITE: No, ma'am. We simply would look to propose
some amendments to the existing overlay itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will we see those amendments?
MR. WHITE: Absolutely, ma'am, absolutely. We propose to
Page 263
December 2-3,2008
have them probably -- I think the tentative schedule was sometime
maybe in March, so that we'd be working as early as possible with
your staff to assure that there would be the minimum amount of task
load for them and facilitate drafting the appropriate types of
prOVIsIOns.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So we're just -- we're just
approving you, allowing you to make up some amendments --
MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to add to this thing, but we don't
know what they're going to be yet?
MR. WHITE: Yes, ma'am. Same as all of the others. You have
an idea of what the scope of them may be, but the actual provisions
are yet to be drafted.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you asking for a fee waiver?
MR. WHITE: Our expectation is that it would serve a public
benefit. There hasn't been a discussion by the association board to my
knowledge about that subject. It is something that I thought we could,
after their meeting -- which is scheduled for, I believe, this Friday --
have some direction from the client on that. And if that is this board's
policy choice and direction, certainly that is what would have to be
done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you're not asking at this
time?
MR. WHITE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next question is, you're being
very vague about this valid public purpose. Can you be more specific
what you're asking?
MR. WHITE: Yes. I think that the client's direction and the
discussions we've had on the scope of work would look to have the
amendments pertain to implementing aspects of a recent settlement
agreement that the association believes may not have been
Page 264
December 2-3, 2008
implemented as they intended, and other experiences of a recent
nature that similarly have led to outcomes that I believe they may not
have anticipated were likely.
The thing about the RT -- VB RTO overlay is that it was drafted
now I believe some four or five years ago. There's been an
opportunity for any number of projects to come through, and this
would essentially be a truing up of what was originally intended by
some more precise and appropriate provisions to reflect what the
overlay was, I believe, originally intended to achieve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, can you enlighten the
board of any proposed amendments to the R TO overlay for Vanderbilt
Beach?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is the first I've heard of these.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But we still don't know what it
is?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm guessing they didn't like the result in
what is now Moraya Bay. That's what I'm taking from this.
MR. WHITE: I would suggest that that is one of, perhaps, a
number of at least three things that we've had discussions about that
are part of what it is that are of concern to the residents association.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like a little bit more
information.
MR. WHITE: Well, having not yet drafted the provision, it's
hard to say, but I would think that it pertained to the Items of height,
some of the projections for balconies, concerns about yards. I know
that you are having a meeting at the staff level this week about the
subject of Moraya Bay, but that is not certainly the entirety of the
scope.
It is similarly a concern about the prior settlement agreement
that, itself, I think, serves as an example where, what was intended
under that agreement, when it came time to be actually constructed,
something different came out than what was understood by the
Page 265
December 2-3,2008
residents association as part of that agreement.
So I think what they're simply looking to do is to true up their
understanding and intention and put that into the fabric of the
regulations.
You're obviously going to have the ability to review those, to
work -- we'll work with your staff and do our best to take direction.
But I believe that more detail than that is really not something that
anyone could provide today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I could say he's a good dancer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, yeah.
MS. ISTENES: Mr. Chairman, I do need to make a clarification.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only problem is he stopped
dancing for a while.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have an observation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How many of these other requests
for amendments do we have detailed specifications for?
MS. ISTENES: Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Bayshore and Immokalee.
MS.ISTENES: Technically none, but some of them you have
seen in the previous cycle that you directed to come back for revision,
so I can't say you haven't ever seen them or don't know what the topic
IS.
But we also have, for example -- and I'll take the opportunity to
make my correction here now. In the title and also in the -- under the
staff recommendation under number four, it says, the proposed
architectural design deviation process for Immokalee. That's one you
obviously haven't seen, but I also need to clarify that I would remove
the two words "architectural design" and just say "deviation".
And I believe you're aware of that because Bob Mulheremade a
presentation to you a couple of meetings back about a proposal to
Page 266
December 2-3,2008
come forward with some LDC amendments for Immokalee, but
obviously you haven't seen them yet.
And so -- this wouldn't be the only one you haven't seen yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's my point. You know,
why are we applying different standards to a request by Vanderbilt
Beach Homeowners Association than we're applying for all the other
Items that we've already approved for this cycle?
We haven't asked for specificity on these other Items, so why are
we asking for specificity on this one? The point is, it comes to us and
we get the specificity before we approve it as an approved change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me answer your question,
Commissioner Coyle. It's because of waiver of fees. That is the
reason. The public -- the county is not charged a fee. The private
sector is. And when we waive the fees, or even consider waiving the
fees, I would like some more specifics of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What governmental agency
is proposing the architectural design deviation process for Immokalee?
MS. ISTENES: That would be the Immokalee CRA.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: CRA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And we have a homeowners
association, right? Here, in this case --
MS. ISTENES: It's my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that is asking for similar
treatment. I don't see the distinction, quite frankly.
MR. WHITE: If it helps --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's your opinion, that's fine. I
mean, I think there's a huge distinction there. The CRA overlay is an
arm of Collier County. Association is a residents association of the
county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the Vanderbilt Beach overlay
is something that we as a county have approved in the past.
MS. ISTENES: Right. It exists.
Page 267
December 2-3, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We asked the homeowners
association to develop the overlay for us, which they did, and we
accepted it, and now you're telling me we want to charge them a fee if
we decide to change it. That's ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that isn't my recollection,
Commissioner Coyle. Is they hired somebody, or we hired somebody
on their request. Those amendments came through upon their -- that
request, and we had plenty of public input prior to even putting it into
the cycle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the government hired somebody
to do it. Well, that's what he said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I don't know why this is
such an adversarial conversation.
MS. ISTENES: The CRAs are expected --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was just asking questions.
Obviously I offended you, and I apologize.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you didn't offend me. I just
don't -- I think you're discriminating against one petitioner to do these
things and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I was just curious.
That's why I was asking the question. I didn't go into any big depth or
anything. I was just curious.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then why don't you vote on it?
You know, either you approve it or you don't approve it. Let's not sit
around and pick at it for 30 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. To be honest with you, I
kind of wonder if we couldn't put this off for one meeting when
Commissioner Halas is here, since he's the one that originally brought
this up. Would it be appropriate to ask for a continuance or --
MR. WHITE: I had advised the client last evening that because
of the commissioner's absence, that may occur, but if! can, perhaps,
Page 268
December 2-3, 2008
help try to address the chairman's concern.
When we proposed the scope of work to the client, we included
the cost of the -- what may be considered by the county -- private
petition. I'm just not authorized to make that commitment today
because their board is not going to meet and discuss this subject until
this Friday.
What I would suggest is that -- I'd prefer, if the board's otherwise
comfortable moving forward so you don't have to bring it back, that
you put whatever condition in there about the petition, the private
petition fee, that you think is appropriate.
And my understanding is that when you have other agencies
requesting amendments, I don't know whether the fee is paid or
waived for them. But if that also is some information that may help in
your decision making, I'd ask if Susan could -- or the county manager
could inform you about that.
MS.ISTENES: They will be expected to pay, both CRAs.
MR. MUDD: CRAspay.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MR. MUDD: They always have paid. They have a different
fund than what funds the particular organization and do the reviews.
MS. ISTENES: You might want to think about it -- I mean, if
you were directing amendments to the VB RTO, I think that would be
more of a weight to consider a fee waiver, but this is essentially a
private amendment initiated by the interested citizens of the VB RTO,
and it only affects them.
I personally don't see any reason for a fee waiver, and if it was to
come back, my recommendation at this point would be to deny such a
request.
MR. WHITE: And I don't -- members of the board, Mr.
Chairman, I don't see that as a deal breaker for the residents
association and their consideration of what we proposed as a scope of
work.
Page 269
December 2-3,2008
I'm just, as I said, not authorized to commit to it today. So if
that's your direction, then I'm certain they'll follow it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Approve what?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. What -- can you elaborate on
your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that he be allowed
to submit a Growth Management Plan change --
MS. ISTENES: LDC.
MR. WHITE: LDC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- LDC change for this cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that -- is that also to approve
16A9, which is 10I now?
MS. ISTENES: 16A8.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eight.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Which is 101.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sixteen, yeah, correct.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, we're leaving it
open on the idea of who pays the fee?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. The payment of fee has never
been an issue.
MR. MUDD: The payment of fee if not -- is not part of the
recommendation at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Is has never been an
Issue --
MR. MUDD: That's something that they'll come back to you if
they need a waiver from fee, and they will ask the board's guidance
and recommendation or approval on this particular time.
But right now fees are not involved in this particular
Page 270
December 2-3,2008
recommendation. It's, you have a special cycle, what do you want to
hear on the special cycle. The listing's been added, been there in front
of the board as far as 101 is concerned, in the executive summary, and
Mr. White is asking that one Item be added, and that's changes to the
Vanderbilt Beach overlay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I liked Commissioner
Coletta's suggestion before. Maybe -- maybe the commissioner who
pulled this and wanted to put this on here would like to be here as part
of this conversation, being that it's his concern?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I've got a feeling that
we're going to address his concerns, now that I'm listening to the
discussion and hearing the motion maker and the second. I got no
problem with approval. The only thing I got reservations is that we're
going to waste some time over a discussion of fee sometime in the
future.
MR. WHITE: There may be no discussion at all, Commissioner
Coletta, because if what ends up happening on Friday is the board
votes based on your discussion today and kind of infers your direction,
then I believe that they'll take the action to pay the petition.
If they believe that they want the waiver, then they may come
back and ask it, as the county manager suggested would the process
for anyone who'd like it. We're just asking for a direction today for
staff to be able to have the amendments made.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The only other question
I've got is, Leo, when you sat in with Commissioner Halas, where
we're going with this now would be his way that he would be looking
for us to do?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. It's consistent with what he wanted to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 271
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #1 OJ
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD DIRECT STAFF TO BRING
BACK AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-37, AS
AMENDED, CLARIFYING THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THAT
ORDINANCE TO STATE THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, DOES NOT APPLY TO
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, TO SEPARATE THE
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK INTO TWO
SEP ARA TE HANDBOOKS CONSISTING OF THE 2008
VERSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
HANDBOOK FOR WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND A NEW 2008
COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY HANDBOOK, AND TO
AUTHORIZE FUTURE REVISIONS TO EACH HANDBOOK TO
BE MADE SEPARATELY AND BY RESOLUTION APPROVED
Page 272
December 2-3, 2008
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - MOTION
TO CONTINUE - APPROVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, next Item is 10J, and that used to
be 16B2, and that reads -- it is a request that the board direct staff to
bring back an amendment to ordinance number 23-37 as amended
clarifying the purpose section of that ordinance to state that the Collier
County Land Development Code as amended does not apply to the
county transportation projects to separate the Construction Standards
Handbook into two separate handbooks consisting of the 2008
versions of the Construction Standards Handbook for work within the
public right-of-way, Collier County, Florida, and a new 2008 Collier
County landscape and irrigation specifications for beautification
improvements within the public right-of-way handbook, and to
authorize future revisions to each handbook to be made separately by
resolution approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
This Item was asked to be moved from the consent to the regular
agenda by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll just jump right in and let you
know what my concerns were. In this paragraph right above fiscal
impact where it states that the purpose of the section is to state that the
Collier County Land Development Code does not apply to Collier
County transportation projects and related amenities. And I'm
thinking, that could -- in my opinion anyway, that could have -- could
be problematic. In other words, the Land Development Code applies
to everybody else, but not transportation?
So if Jim DeLony says, you know, I really want to build
something and I want to do this, and why should the Land
Development Code not apply to them but it does apply to me? I need
it to be waivered so and so, or say, for instance, Mr. Developer says,
I'm building roads into my development, and why does it -- why does
it apply to me and not to them?
Page 273
December 2-3, 2008
So I wanted to -- I wanted to tighten that up so that it doesn't look
like only they don't have to apply with the Land Development Code
that applies to everybody else in Collier County but them, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes, if! could. First of all, I appreciate the
commissioner bringing this to our attention. We did discuss it briefly
on Monday.
And as I noted here, the intent -- and I did hand out a modified
write-up that actually I see now, and I appreciate, Commissioner, it
also needs to also have the reference at the end of that portion that was
just read that says, public roadways, add the clause, within road
right-of-way, as has been done with the header and in the
recommendations section I gave out to you today as a modification to
the summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it should read then, does not
apply to Collier County transportation road right-of-way projects?
MR. FEDER: Road projects and regular amenities requires a
component of the public roadways within road right-of-way, just as
we've changed it in the other two areas. Add the road projects and
within road right-of-way.
And that's very important, Commissioner, because the point that
you raise is, how does this apply, where else is it going to go? The
fact of the matter is, Florida Statutes clearly indicates that in the
definition of development, that they specifically exclude public
activities within transportation activities, and actually railroad, but
within right-of-way.
When you look at the issue of right-of-way -- and I know the
concern from Susan; I'm sure she'd like to speak to you as well -- is
that you have zoning classifications. I will submit to you that if defies
logic. You create a situation of diverting funds from their intended
use, sort oflike we talked about with Conservation Collier yesterday.
You create duplication of efforts all with no value to the taxpayer
Page 274
December 2-3,2008
to make the assumption other than what the statute says, and that is
that it doesn't -- development -- the Land Development Code regulates
development. Development is not and is exempted within the road
right-of-way for road projects.
As we discussed, we are not exempted from our bus depot, from
our maintenance facility, from my transportation offices. Obviously
those are not in road rights-of-way. They're all regulated, as are the
others that you mentioned that might come forward before you that are
not in the roads rights-of-way.
The ordinance that's being referred to, and the only reason this is
being raised, is making it clear to anyone that is looking to modify
within the road rights-of-way what the requirements are going to be,
and those have to come back to you in ordinance -- and we're going to
come with two separate handbooks as we said -- but it makes it clear
that they're meeting that right-of-way ordinance, not necessarily their
own zoning code or zoning regulations.
There's an overlap there that makes no sense. If you assume that
the zoning code, as I'm told, goes out to the middle or center of the
street, the logic doesn't hold. What is my setback, road setback from
the roadway? What is my floor area cover ratio? Do I get
two-and-a-half story? What do I do on a 10-mile 5-mile, I-mile
stretch when my zoning classification changes?
So it's like a PUD, it's like an overlay where the road corridor
itself is not subject to the Land Development Code. It's subject to all
the other issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then who writes the
Construction Standards Handbook? And does that ever go -- does that
go to anybody's approval? Do you write that and then--
MR. FEDER: We write it. We go through all your committees,
and finally it has to be accepted and adopted by this board, just like
your Land Development Code, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we don't read it that thoroughly,
Page 275
December 2-3,2008
so we don't know. Yeah, I think --
MR. FEDER: You're welcome to, and I think some folks do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think of the church over there on
County Barn Road where we pretty well crippled them, wouldn't
allow them to move forward, wouldn't allow them to build their
carambarium (sic), what do they -- columbarium? What is that called
where they bury ashes and so forth?
We wouldn't let them move forward at all until they complied
with some of our things and then, of course, we didn't build the road
anyway, but they -- it cost them thousands and thousands and
thousands of dollars.
(Commissioner Coyle left the meeting room.)
MR. FEDER: They want --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looks like we've lost Commissioner
Halas -- or Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At least we got three of us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that's good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And so I'm just concerned
that, you know, that we -- you know, that we don't make it tough on
other people yet we make it simple for ourselves. I just want a fair
playing field. That's what I'm talking about.
MR. FEDER: And Commissioner, let me assure you, we don't
make it simple on ourselves. Within the right-of-way, what we're
referring to here, is if it's us either doing maintenance or
improvements within that right-of-way that's not defined as
development even in Florida Statutes, I have to go through all the
permitting agencies.
All the agencies are involved, including CDES, and all their
planning provides a lot of the data that I use for my long-range
planning where I'm going to make improvements.
The other agencies are all involved through all the permitting I
Page 276
December 2-3,2008
have to get through water management district, all those reviews. A
lot of those refer back. Also, all the Corps. All my permits from the
federal agencies go through the Corps permit.
So the environmental concerns have been raised as to why
shouldn't the Land Development Code apply are addressed through a
process. So there's not a simple process. It's only a statement that
logic doesn't hold that I change my zoning all the way through, and
those issues, and that anyone that comes in and wants to -- or is
required to -- put in an acceleration/deceleration lane, a turn lane, that
they have to do it consistent with the standard for the portion of the
right-of-way. Outside the right-of-way, it doesn't exempt them from
anything in the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'd like to hear from Susan,
please.
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, zoning director. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just going over here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Shall I wait or -- oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. He's still in the room.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm still right here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's still in the room.
MS. ISTENES: I wasn't aware this was coming forward to you
today, so I just had the opportunity to review it last night.
I agree with Norman in that there's an inherent illogical situation
when you look at road right-of-way and zoning; nevertheless, you
have a Land Development Code and a zoning map that says every
property in the county has a zoning designation on it.
And I'll hold that thought aside for just a second and point out a
couple of the issues that come to the top of my head that we've had in
trying to deal with development in the road right-of-way.
Page 277
December 2-3, 2008
First is things that you might not think of, like the installation of
benches or bus shelters. Those typically go in the road right-of-way,
and it's been questioned as to how we apply the Land Development
Code in light of the fact that the Land Development Code doesn't
exclude road right-of-way, and that each road right-of-way property
has a zoning designation on it, and the boundaries of the zoning
districts are actually reliant on center lines of roads for example.
So the other issue we have is the installation of, quote, noise
walls which the transportation departments says are not subject to the
Land Development Code, yet there's no definition of a noise wall in
the Land Development Code or in any other document, including the
state statutes that I've been able to obtain.
The -- one of the problems we're having is that transportation is
placing easements over property and classifying them as road
right-of-way and then installing walls and saying that they're noise
walls and not subject to the landscaping requirements.
So what you're getting is, along Santa Barbara Boulevard, for
example -- and I don't know if that's the specific case, if it's actually in
the right-of-way or it's a road right-of-way easement, you're going to
-- you're getting long stretches of concrete walls with no landscaping
because they believe it's not required because it's in the road
right-of-way, and I respectfully disagree with that.
But my point is -- and those were two examples that I just wanted
to give you that you need to think about because it's just not pavement
that's going in road right-of-ways. You've got structures, which -- and
you've got landscaping and you've got benches, and I mean, all sorts
of structures. So think about that.
But the other point I wanted to make was, if this gets passed --
and I understand this is just a request for you to direct staff to come
back with a change -- this will cause a conflict with the Land
Development Code, in my opinion. And you need -- then we'll need
to modify the Land Development Code.
Page 278
December 2-3,2008
I'm not saying we need to resolve these inconsistencies. I don't
think this is the way to do it. I think both need to either go hand in
hand or we just need to amend the Land Development Code to clarify
where the development standards apply and where they don't in
relation to road right-of-way. That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Norm, before you start, I asked the
county -- County Attorney gave me the Florida Statutes, and if you
want to take a look at J, it says, once it stops moving --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm trying to get -- I wanted to try to get
to J, and -- you're looking at A. I'm sorry.
MR. FEDER: Oh, you're looking at J, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. I just can't see it because it's
too small. If you could blow it up, I could tell you what it says.
MR. MUDD: How we doing?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, it says 3, not 1.
MR. MUDD: There we go. I was looking for J and I couldn't
find it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It says, the following operations or
uses shall not apply -- shall not be taken for the purpose of the chapter
involved in development defined in this section.
And Mr. Feder is absolutely right, it says, highways, road
rights-of-way, and the word is shall not. It doesn't say may not. It
says shall not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But you see, it didn't say that
in here when I pulled that. It never mentioned road right-of-way at all
in this entire thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, he mentioned it in the top
here, but he still didn't mention it down here, and then I thought there
should have been a stronger definition to road right-of-way because.it
does cause some concerns for other projects. Maybe we should just
ask them to go back and modify this a little bit so that it reads better.
Page 279
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The executive summary?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The whole thing, I think, so that it --
it says -- Norm is saying what he really -- you know, he's got some
really good points here, because we don't want to hold up building our
roads and we don't want to spend a lot of extra money when maybe
there's something simple that doesn't even need to be addressed. So
he's got some good points. I just think this thing needs to read better
so it says what he's trying to tell us.
MR. FEDER: And, Commissioner, what I would say to you, the
one that I handed out to you today with the change in the header and
the recommendation and with the change in that paragraph right
before the fiscal section, as we discussed on the record today, I think
does that.
I'll also note to you that while it doesn't apply, Land
Development Code doesn't apply, the issues that have been brought up
-- first of all, the issue of the benches, even though we didn't feel it
applies, we went through and have subjected ourselves or gone
through the permitting process.
I will tell you we had some delay. We didn't have major change.
It was found that our standards were actually higher or greater than
what's required under hurricane and other issues, and we're actually
doing our own inspection on it, even having paid the permits.
On the other one, on the wall, we agreed with CDES and came to
you not too long ago when we were doing a wall along The Shores
where it was within the transportation project a requirement to build
the road where the wall was necessary.
We built that, but we also had their desire to go beyond that with
the wall, which wouldn't meet your LDC because it's too high a wall
to begin with, and we brought it to you for exception and made it clear
that if it's not required as part of the road to be able to build the road
itself, we're not in that process. It has to go through CDES, and if it's
going to be a noise wall, which is typically bigger then -- and it's not
Page 280
December 2-3, 2008
even in the LDC, as Susan pointed out -- there's going to have to be an
exception granted by the board. It's not our issue.
I only will build the sections specifically required to be able to
build the roadway. At least that's the guidance I've been given by the
board in the past.
So we're still working with issues. We're not saying that we don't
address them. But the shelter issue, the concern was zoning. Can you
have a bench within that zoning. Within that right-of-way, we should
be able to have a bench where we need it to serve the public.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not going to--
MS. ISTENES: I don't want to debate, but I want to make sure
you understand that bulldozing your way through by putting language
in an ordinance like this is going to cause conflict in the LDC. I don't
care what the state statutes say. It just is.
So please be prepared, because this is going to cause us to come
back to you and amend the LDC because there'll be a conflict.
Whatever you want. I just want to make sure you understand that,
because I don't think you do.
CHAIRMAN HENNfNG: Is the Florida Statutes a higher or
equal or lower law than the Land Development Code?
MS. ISTENES: It depends, Commissioner, and--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask the County Attorney.
MS. ISTENES: And maybe you should ask the attorney, but my
point is, regardless of what the Florida Statute says, our LDC conflicts
with that and this. So it needs to be directed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. A couple of things, and Norman's
going to be happy with some of this and unhappy, and Susan's going
to be happy with some of this and unhappy.
If you look at our definition of development -- and I think one of
the things that the commissioner gave you was that, okay, in the LDC,
okay.
Page 281
December 2-3, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The page under that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The page under that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Under that.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. That definition came out of the
Florida Statutes. It is virtually word-for-word identical to the statute
that was up there before. So we took the Florida definition of
development into our code, all right.
Now, the Florida definition of development -- and Mr. Mudd, if
you can put on the other one, please.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It specifically excludes work by a highway
or road agency for the maintenance or improvement of a road, all
right. Now, I don't know that bus shelters are for the maintenance or
improvement of a road. I don't know that a bench is for the
maintenance or improvement of the road.
In my mind this statute is when Norm is building Immokalee
Road, you know, 10 miles, 15 miles, that straight line of cement that
just goes straight up, okay, he's exempt from the LDC; and he has to
be, because you're going to have multiple zoning districts throughout
it, you're going to have -- just -- it makes no sense. You just need a
continuous band of concrete just connecting point A to point B.
But when we start putting in bus shelters, when we start putting
in benches, that starts to drift away from this concept of
maintenance/improvement of a road. And, you know -- so they're
both right.
Now, does the sound wall fall within that? I don't know. Is that
really part of the road project when you put up a side -- when we put
up a sound wall? It might be. In which case it's exempted. But I'll
tell you that your LDC puts a limitation of walls at 6 feet. Norm's
building a lot higher than 6 feet here for a lot of these things.
And so what you have here is an animal that I don't really think is
contemplated by the LDC.
Page 282
December 2-3, 2008
MS. ISTENES: It's not, Jeff. I would agree with that. And also,
Norm misspoke. I have the ability to administratively approve walls
higher than 6 feet for public safety and other reasons.
I've offered the transportation department to do a blanket
approval for all of their noise walls if they were part of a road project,
and they never took me up on it. I said, one application, give me all
the locations of walls and their height and I'll be happy to work with
you on it, just to at least overcome that conflict in the LDC that Jeff
mentioned about noise walls.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, this is far from
interesting. I think we're spending a little more time on this than we
need to.
I make -- well, I'm going to give Commissioner Fiala the chance
to make the motion for approval, denial, or a continuance. But I
believe we're going past the point where we're getting anything done
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. As -- I think because
of that -- and we can see that there are some things that need to be
adjusted a little bit. We agree with some things, we agree with other
things. I think we -- and mainly I was just pulling this because I didn't
like the wording as it came to us.
Why don't we go back, modify the words just a little bit so it
explains more clearly. We want to make sure that your process is
streamlined, at the same time we want to make sure that it still
continues on with the ambiance that we have in our community.
And so, would you come back to us with this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you're asking for a
continuance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. FEDER: Be happy to, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
Page 283
December 2-3, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3-0.
Item # 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item -- brings us
to 11.
Ms. Filson, any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: I had Kenneth Thompson yesterday, but I don't
believe he returned today, so no.
Item #12C
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
A TTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AGAINST PAUL R. PRANSKY, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $54,316.72 - APPROVED ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to the County
Attorney's Report, which is 12C, and Item 16K4 was asked to be
Page 284
December 2-3, 2008
moved to the regular agenda. And 16 -- and that was during the
beginning of the meeting.
I believe Commissioner Fiala asked for that Item to be moved,
and it reads, it's a recommendation to authorize the County Attorney
to file a lawsuit on behalf of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners against Paul R. Pransky in the Circuit Court of the
20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover
damages in the amount of$54,316.72.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: I believe the County Attorney, Bill Mountford, is
here to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Bill, do you want to say
anything or should I just say that you've answered my questions and
resolved this issue to my satisfaction, so I motion to approve.
MR. MOUNTFORD: That was brilliant enough, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
And we go to communication.
Item #3A (Continued from December 2, 2008)
SERVICE AWARDS: 10 YEAR ATTENDEE: FLOYD CREWS-
10 YEARS ON THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
Page 285
December 2-3, 2008
DECEMBER 16,2008 BCC MEETING - APPROVED TO
CONTINUE ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, which I, for some strange reason, got
truncated off the sheet. I've been looking for paragraph 15. I'm going,
where did it go? But that's traditional.
But before we go there, Commissioner, I need for you to close an
Item. Yesterday under 3A, we were going to give Floyd Crews a
presentation for the 10-year award for the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency, and Mr. Crews, for some strange reason, was
absent. You kept it continued and open. We just need to close it, and
ifMr. Crews can show up at a -- go ahead, Sue.
MS. FILSON: We called him. He's going to come in at the next
meeting.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And if we could just continue that
presentation to next meeting, that would be great.
MS. FILSON: An emergency Item came up, so--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to continue 3A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #15
Page 286
December 2-3, 2008
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS -
DISCUSSED ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
MR. MUDD: Okay. Brings us to communications and board
communications. I have two Items.
Number one, let's take the easy one first. I believe we're going to
need to do another voluntary separation incentive program, as we did
last year, whereby 49 employees chose to take a three-year paid
medical in order to leave the employ of Collier County.
I don't see -- and again, my crystal ball isn't very good, but I don't
see it getting better. The projections that I'm getting from the state
seem to say anywhere from a 6 percent to 10 percent cut on the
revenue stream from the state, and I'm assuming we'll see something
of that nature as far as a lessening of property values in Collier County
as we go into FYI0.
And so I'd like to set us up for success and minimize the
ramifications of that particular lessening of your tax role, your tax
proceeds, your revenues by starting with that program, and I'm
planning on bringing that Item to the Board of County Commissioners
on the 16th of December for your approval.
I just wanted to make sure we did it as a one-time. It was very
successful. It saved money -- it saved the county about two-and-a-half
million dollars into '09. And if we get the same kind of turnout -- we
have about 140 employees that are eligible. I don't know how many
will take it. Again, it's voluntary. We're not asking to do anything
more than we did last year as far as the medical payment. We're not
talking about tenure or anything else like they did in Lee County.
I believe it's quite reasonable, and I believe it gives us good
results and saves us money in the long run. I just wanted to make sure
you're aware of that so unexpectedly it shows up and you go, what's
this. I just want to let you know, and I'm still trying to gather more
information from the state in their revenue conference that they had
Page 287
December 2-3,2008
and get the specifics down.
The next Item is in reference to a subject that we discussed
yesterday, and I don't want to belabor the point. It was 10C. You
basically made a recommendation as a board basically to go get Mike
Sheffield and put him in the office, as Mike had talked about being the
staff manager.
After the discussion from the dais yesterday and some of the
expectations that were stated by board members, Mr. Sheffield said,
you don't need me as a part-time manager. You need a full-time
manager in your office, and those expectations that were relayed
basically said -- he said he's not interested.
So I think we've gone from A to going out and trying to get, out
of the county employees, opening it up and getting three or so
candidates from the staff for the board to consider, and then the board
can do an interview process, and then Mr. Klatzkow and I will discuss
the process to make sure we don't violate any sunshine issues and get
that done as fast as we can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In the interim, let's talk
about the interim. We've already taken some directions as --
MR. MUDD: In the interim, I will get Mr. Sheffield up there as
a part-time in order to get that done, and we will do this the best way
we can until we can get you a full-fledged manager--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- in the particular office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And our expectations until that
point in time should remain reasonable until we have a full-time --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Sheffield will have a phone number and a cell
phone. He'll be able to be called, but we need to work together to get
over this temporary period, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I can understand his
position. After what I heard yesterday, I wouldn't have taken the job
Page 288
December 2-3,2008
either.
MR. MUDD: Well, that's exactly what Commissioner Coyle told
me as he was leaving the room today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's interesting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you need a vote or --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. MUDD: I think I have direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have a couple things. One of
them is just an idea that has been swirling around in my head, and I
might have mentioned it at a meeting, but I wanted to mention it one
more time just to make sure.
We've been talking about economic hardships and what we can
do to help, and in -- you know, inspire our economy just a little bit.
And a thought that has been coming to me -- and we've talked about it
quite a bit here as far as -- we've mentioned impact fees and we've also
mentioned existing -- now I'm specifically talking businesses. I'm not
talking about homes.
We've talked about businesses, and hopefully we can try and
attract them. EDC wants to do that, and I'd like to see them coming
into some of these buildings that we have sitting vacant. The ones that
are brand new still have an impact fee that has to go with them
because none's been paid.
But those that are older that have been there and have been
vacated, abandoned, boarded up or whatever, even though they've had
a different use, I would suggest to you that maybe we could consider it
Page 289
December 2-3,2008
so -- you know, some -- soon, not having them pay an impact fee.
One impact fee's been paid. It might not have been the same type
of an impact fee as another business going in, but maybe that would
encourage business. Already, when it's closed up, they're going to
have expenses to remodel it, update it, bring it up to code anyway.
Maybe by not having to pay an impact fee, they -- it would then be an
attractive incentive to occupy that empty building and maybe, you
know, invite them to be a part of our community. So I wanted to
throw that idea out for you guys to consider.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It'd have to come to the Board of
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- impact fee waiver. Do you
understand what Commissioner Fiala's saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think what the commissioner's saying is,
let's say we have a vacant building -- and they've all paid impact fees
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- because they pay it on building permit.
And let's say you have another tenant, let's make it medical because
it's a high use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that high use would require additional
impact fees because of the intensification, because of the economic
cycle, we would have a temporary ordinance, I take it, until things get
better so that you could have a waiver.
Now, I don't know this -- would you want this on a case-by-case
basis or as of right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I would think any building that
has already paid its impact fees and that is empty and a new business
wants to come in would not have to pay an impact fee. They have
already got to bring it up to code and they've already got to remodel it
Page 290
December 2-3, 2008
and update it, and maybe that would be a draw.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think what she's trying to
say, it's by right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You could do that if you want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it doesn't have to come to each
individual --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and come to the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, yes.
MR. MUDD: The only piece that I would ask for some
clarification on that particular -- I believe we should -- if you're going
to direct us, we come back for discussion with a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- full board so we talk about it before we change
any kind of an ordinance, and it has to do with -- for every action,
there's always an unanticipated consequence, okay. Some -- there's
always an exception to the rule.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Action, reaction.
MR. MUDD: I mean, there's just something that falls through
the cracks or we didn't think about it or we just didn't know about it at
the time.
If you go carte blanch by right, I'm going to come in as an
unscrupulous developer, okay. I'm not a developer but -- and I'm not
unscrupulous. But in this particular example I am. I'm going to come
in and I'm going to get the least use I possibly can on the building to
build it, okay, I'm going to pay the least amount of impact fees I can
for my commercial development, and then I'm going to sell my
building to somebody that has a higher use than what I did an impact
fee. And overnight, just like we did real estate in the morning and the
afternoon in 2005 and made a million bucks, that's exactly what you're
going to get --
Page 291
December 2-3,2008
MR. KLA TZKOW: But this is just for existing buildings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just for existing buildings.
MR. MUDD: Yes. Well, what I am talking about is I built an
existing building --
MR. KLATZKOW: And you can't rent it out. It's vacant.
MR. MUDD: I don't care. You're not asking me to tell me if!
can rent it out. I'm going to sell the business instantaneously to
somebody that has a higher use, and by right, based on this discussion,
I get to use the lower impact fee and I'm done, and I could save at least
a million dollars, depending on the type building that I have, in order
to get that done.
So I believe the unintended consequences that determine, Jeff, a
year. If it's been vacant and it's been built for a three-year period of
time or something light and they want to do it, then it's fine, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: We've lost our quorum.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's still listening to us through a
speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, so he's right with us. He just
told me, he said, I'm listening to the whole thing and, of course, we're
not voting on anything now. We're just discussing something.
But what I would like to say is, not any new buildings, because
most of them haven't paid an impact fee anyway for whatever business
is moving into a lot of these things.
I'm talking about existing older buildings. And that is -- you
know, I'm throwing the idea out for you to modify.
MR. MUDD: No, no, ma'am. I'm not arguing the idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that.
MR. MUDD: I'm just trying to get an -- if you're going to do it
by right, you have to set a time period of how long the building has
been around.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exactly. That was my next thing
Page 292
December 2-3,2008
was, this is only a temporary measure while we're trying to attract
business here.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and I'll tell you, I could
have -- I could have benefited back about a year or so ago if this was
in place, but I can't -- I can't see how I can justify it.
I mean, I had a building at the time that was empty, and it's
rented now. But at the time we had a tenant come forward that was
very, very interested. It was -- in fact, I think you're familiar with
them. They were girls gymnastic --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They came to me and we -- of
course, I did what I always do, I told them to go down and talk to
them down at code enforcement, make sure their business would be
applicable to the building because I have a lot of other people who
wanted to use it, such as churches or whatever, and I knew it wouldn't
work because of the parking situation. You can't park on the street,
and they couldn't contain enough cars on the lot to make it work.
In this case they went down and the word came back that
everything was fine with code but it had to be an initial impact fee.
The additional impact fee was something like $30,000.
Now, of course I was upset with the fact that this tenant wasn't
going to be able to move in. There was no way I could take a
three-year lease and even a five-year lease and write $30,000 off.
There's no way it would be able to absorb it, but I understand how the
whole structure is.
And the minute you relax something -- we haven't done it for
affordable housing other than to waive it for that moment, or defer it
to some point in time in the future to be paid. You have to have a
legal nexus that's fair to everybody across the whole board. In spite of
the fact that I would have benefited from it, I would have had a hard
time justifying it without -- you know, how do you make special
Page 293
December 2-3, 2008
exceptions for this?
Maybe there's something that we could look at whereby we could
recognize a time period that that is going to be and they'd be paying
the impact fees in relation to like a five-year period or six-year period
or something that would be able to allow everything to keep going
forward over a period of time.
I don't know what the answer is, but I'm sure there's a better
answer than we've got right now. And so I'm not opposed at all to
bring it back. As far as for giving the fees, I'm not at all excited about
that because I can see repercussions all the way down the line for
everything that's out -- is out there to be asking for some sort of equal
consideration.
Now, you know, you're going to say, I have new people that are
going to -- or new buildings that haven't been rented yet or sold yet,
they're going to want to know why they haven't got that consideration.
And the new buildings that will come after them that haven't
even been planned, they're going to say, well, this is unfair. We can't
compete with those people our there to get this special advantage. But
it doesn't mean something can't be done that will still give us that
revenue stream so we can protect ourselves as far as the whole system
collapsing around us. .
I don't have any problem bringing it back for discussion. None
whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You know, isn't that funny,
that same group, they've been trying to find one place or another, but
the impact fees have prevented them from going anyplace. So
somebody doesn't get to rent their building, they don't get to start their
new business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I have to tell you, I was
very, very unhappy with the way it was approached from the angle of
the possible tenant. They knew what the problem was, and I almost
felt like they singled me out as a sitting commissioner to see if I was
Page 294
December 2-3, 2008
going to override it. And, of course, I would not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I sent them to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm just kidding. I'm just trying to get
you to laugh about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know where you live. Wait for
next Halloween.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was cute. Okay. So would it
be all right with you if --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think it's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if we at least discussed it at some
point in time, yeah, and only for a certain time limit. I don't know that
we'd ever need it more than two years. You know, we're just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll just pull up all the
possibilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My second one was, we had
heard a petition from somebody who wanted their impact fees, their
water and sewer impact fees refunded because they're never going to
have any water/sewer there, but right now the line says that they have
to pay impact fees regardless.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Crazy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Shouldn't we address that and
maybe redraw that line to where we are, you know, where -- you
know, redraw that line around where we're never going to have water
and sewer so that people who are building in that area don't have to
pay for something and wait 10 years to get it back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Where did we leave off
with that petition? I can't remember the end result of it.
MR. MUDD: The end result was it stayed as it is because it's
basically a state special act.
MR. DeLONY: Statute.
MR. MUDD: Statute that put that in. And what Commissioner
Page 295
December 2-3, 2008
Fiala's addressing right now is, well, you can't change the special state
statute without getting a legislative change, but you can redraw the
boundaries of the water/sewer district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bingo.
MR. MUDD: And that's within the board's -- within the board's
powers to do so, but it does take time in order to do that.
MR. DeLONY: Yeah. If! may, Mr. Mudd. Thank you. For the
record, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator.
Mr. Mudd is on mark. If you desire to change the boundary
conditions of the water/sewer district, as we did in 2003, we can do
that. We can certainly do that at your direction.
We'll change -- then the cascading effect will be a rewrite of the
master plans and readjustment of our capital investment program that
looks out 20, 30 years with regard to that.
If! may, just as a background of why they're kind of -- these
things kind of make sense even in the current context, is to take a look
at Cape Coral. When it was made -- a public policy was made that we
wanted to -- that they wanted to water and sewer their districts, the
city, they went through that tough reallocation of resources on the
back end of development instead of on the front end of development
for those centralized water and sewer services.
And so the statute's set up to kind of set conditions early in the
process when the -- at the beginning of the development period when
-- for example, for a residential property, these fees could be wired
into a mortgage instead of a one-time 16-, 17,000, maybe $20,000
one-time expense, you know, 20 years, 10 years after you've been
living in the home.
So there's a trade-off as to why these things make sense, and
maybe now they don't. But certainly, ma'am, if you want to change
the conditions of the way we plan our central sewer and water, we
certainly could do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it would have to be
Page 296
December 2-3,2008
re-drawn that far in. It probably won't make a huge difference to your
department, but it probably will to those people who will never have
water and sewer but have to pay for it. I just thought maybe you'd like
to bring it back for discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask you this, Mr.
DeLony. The costs that get to that point in time and the amount of
time, just off the top of your head.
MR. DeLONY: With regard to water and sewer, we need to kind
of go back just a minute, if I may. Water and sewer services are
growth responsive, not growth inducing. If growth occurs in those
sewer -- to-be-sewered and to-be-watered areas that are currently in
our district, those services are going to come online on a demand
basis. The way that those services come online is through the
financing of those services or those pipes and those plants through
impact fees that are going to serve those new customers.
lfwe choose as a policy -- you choose as a policy that we're not
going to offer from the water/sewer district sewer/water services in
these certain areas of the county, we can certainly do that. That's the
fundamental decision.
I mean -- and if we want to back up and say, you know, we're just
not going to be in the central water and sewer business in this part of
the county even though in 2003 we thought, we can do that. I mean,
that's really more of the decision and the discussion.
Because if they are in the district, in theory, or in practicality at
one time if growth occurs, those services will become available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we've already had outcry
from Golden Gate Estates to stop the consideration of them. We know
about that.
MR. DeLONY: We took care of that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do know that the lots can be
maintained providing clean drinking water and also will be able to
dispense the waste from the sanitary septic tanks that are on the
Page 297
December 2-3, 2008
location.
Now, we're talking about the location of Delate Drive, which has
been included by some reason that I could never quite figure into the
water/sewer district, a place that's an agricultural land with homes well
spread apart on limerock roads in a very rural part of the county.
I mean, at some point in time in the distant future they wanted to
go into that, I mean, a couple generations removed, that's their
business. That will be that generation's concerns, and they'll be paying
impact fees in proportion to what it is to be able to get on it.
And so I don't see what the problem is. Unless there's an
exorbitant cost on the part of the county to be able to remedy this
situation and it's going to take an exorbitant length of time, that's about
the only considerations I would give for not going forward with it.
MR. DeLONY: I've always tried to give you the long view for
the development of infrastructure of water and sewer. I always talk to
you in terms of20 years, 30 years because of the time it takes to retire
the debt, develop the infrastructure, the permits, and all that.
So I've always been looking forward and saying, okay, what is
the to-be condition in how we want this county. In the area that the
county water/sewer district to -- expanded to in 2000 through (sic),
whereas, outside the platted Estates that looked at to-be conditions for
large compacted development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but we've got to be honest
about this. Other than Delate Drive and, of course, the gated
communities or the places like Orangetree that aren't gated, I can't
picture of any other entities in eastern Collier County that are part of
this master plan where they have to collect impact fees now other than
that area around Delate Drive. Is there another area that's similar to
this?
MR. DeLONY: Again, I could bring you the maps and show you
exactly what we decided and -- what was decided in 2003 and what
were the conditions that were around that at that time, certainly six
Page 298
December 2-3, 2008
years later have changed to some degree. And I'll promise you that in
six years from now they'll change again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Undoubtedly it will, but I mean,
meanwhile we've got a -- we're sitting on people's funds that were
collected in good faith at the time for sewer and water that have no
reasonable expectation to be able to enjoy this commodity for at least
a decade to come, if not longer. I mean, it's going to be forever before
it gets to that point.
MR. DeLONY: And if it's beyond 10 years, we refund those
momes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not good enough.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I understand. I'm not making a case to
support or defend. I'm just trying to layout some facts associated to
how this has to piece together.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me suggest this. Let me talk
to Mr. DeLony on my own and take it to the next level, and then
maybe we can bring a report back to the commission and take some
direction, because we could have this discussion going for another
hour, and it's a little premature.
MR. MUDD: And the one -- there's another issue that's
outstanding out there that we don't know about. I was approached by
-- I always get -- which side of the Collier family --
MR. DeLONY: Enterprises.
MR. MUDD: -- by enterprises, to take a look at water/sewer
going into Big Cypress, okay, that township there, instead of them
come online with the package plant. If that, indeed, is going to be a
desire and it's doable by us, we will have to adjust the water/sewer
district boundary, so that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, and you'll be fought tooth
and nail if it's going to include anything else out in the Estates area or
in the agriculture area. So before you pursue that, make sure you talk
to some residents out there. Big Cypress by itself, fine.
Page 299
December 2-3,2008
Self-contained unit within their own district. But the minute you put it
outside and you're saying, well, we're going by these particular
neighborhoods and we're going to include them at a cost of, you know,
50- to $100,000 per house, forget it. It's not going to happen.
We're going to come to a dead standstill on it. We're going to
waste a lot of this commission's time discussing it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll bring that forward. I'm just
trying to give you an --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I know. And I just
wanted to be up front with you again.
MR. MUDD: I wasn't trying to get your ire. I was trying to let
you know that there's another possibility so when you're doing the
changes, if you're going to do the changes and include them, it would
be a great time to include this contraction so this road and the homes
around it aren't in the water/sewer district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And my apologies, Mr. Mudd. I
told them decaf coffee. They messed up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's enough.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I'm not going to go into it
too deeply, but Commissioner Halas and I both attended the Florida
Association of Counties legislative session. I was hoping that he
would be here and we'd go through it in a little more detail. But
basically the guiding principles, such as home rule and unfunded
mandates, community economic development that you've heard in the
past, were accepted as is, again to carry forward. The Florida
Association of Counties is taking the county commissions' videos on
many, many Items out there.
There was two Items that we brought forward to them that we
wanted to see if we can move them forward to this particular session
as far as one of the mandates that they were going to carry forward.
Page 300
December 2-3, 2008
We were moderately successful.
The one I got involved with was the ones that deal -- the one to
deal with the water management as far as being elected officials rather
than appointed by the governor, and there was a tremendous amount
of support there on the floor.
It was a very, very outspoken issue. The thing all of a sudden
brought the whole group together and everybody got very animated
and very vocal about the issue.
I made the motion that we include it, and Commissioner Halas
made the second. And then the discussion started, and they were
going forward. And I think Commissioner Halas might have had a
different read on it than I did, and he modified -- he wanted to modify
the motion there to be able to say send it back to committee rather
than get into a deeper discussion that might have led on for a long
time, and I reluctantly went along with him. I think we had enough
support to carry it forward.
So at this point in time, it's in committee. Water management's
very much away of the fact that we're less than satisfied with them.
What was the other issue? Halas handled that one and it was
moderately successful also and went to committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Alligator Alley.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, Alligator Alley, yes. The
discussion on that got to be convoluted as far as the -- how it was
going, and it was being modified so much that it just about lost its
stance. The problem we found out is that once you get past our home
grounds, they see it as a local issue. You couldn't impress upon them
that it was Alligator Alley today and it would be IlO or I4 tomorrow.
It just didn't seem to sink in. And we couldn't get that message across.
I think that's something that we're going to have to work more on
in the future if there is a future for that discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, my understanding
from Deb Wight, you were very successful up there.
Page 301
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we were on the other
Issues.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And got a lot of things done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did, we did. But on the two
issues -- those two issues were more of a disappointment than what I
would consider a success.
But I'm very happy with what we did. We reconnected with a lot
of people. We do have a very good network of commissioners
throughout the State of Florida that are willing to unite together
behind the efforts, and I hope that when we have our day in
Tallahassee this year that we can get a commitment from all
commissioners here to be here to make that united appeal to our
legislative delegations and other members of the legislative body in
Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. What else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for the report.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's about it at this point
in time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, I was just kidding
about the dance studio.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I know that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I received an email from the Boys
and Girls Club. They are going to request a grant from the Division of
Agricultural Affairs from the State of Florida. It's a $15,000 grant.
Their request for me was to write a letter of support.
I could only write it as District 3 commissioner unless I have the
approval of the Board of Commissioners to do it on behalf of the
board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for you to
write that letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. And I must tell you I also
-- I wrote one on behalf of just myself because they're located in my
Page 302
December 2-3,2008
district anyway, so -- but I'm happy to support that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, they're in my district. Boys and
Girls Club? Davis Boulevard?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Aren't they are on my side of
the street? No?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Sorry about that. Well,
they're in East Naples.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're in East Naples. So there's a
motion and a second for the chairman to write a letter of support for
the Boys and Girls Clubs -- Boys and Girls Club of Collier County for
a grant request.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimous.
The second thing, and I think the final thing, and I don't -- I don't
have an opinion on this, but I just want to -- if you pass that down. I
was asked to sign a document, and I don't know if I have the authority
to, so I just want to go over this.
Last year we approved a resolution acquisition of right-of-way
for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard. That's the resolution on
there.
Now, the second -- let's see. If you flip through four pages,
there's a warranty deed, and we purchased a parcel of property for
$160,050. So we have the property, and that was recorded October
30th, 2008.
Now, the next -- on the legal sheet, it's an indemnity agreement
and what is -- the previous owner is looking for is what is called an RS
Page 303
December 2-3,2008
1031 exchange, and that's so when you sell a piece of property, you
can buy another piece of property without paying the property gains,
okay?
Notice, the correspondence, what I have from the County
Attorney -- and if you go past the legal section, County Attorney
states in the resolution that I do have the authority to do so even
though the resolution does not state that I could sign an indemnity
agreement.
So if the board is in agreement with the County Attorney, I'll be
happy to sign it, or if the board wants me to sign it anyways because
it's not in the resolution, I'll sign it. I just don't think I have the
authority to sign it under the resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I thank you for asking, but I
think that that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll second Commissioner
Fiala's motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sign it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if I need a motion, just
direction. So the direction is for me to sign it; you find that that was --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a part of the resolution?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we all right with this, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It falls within the intent of the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So just nodding our head's
going to suffice for this, or should it be a motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you need a motion, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll sign it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But I do need a motion on the next
Item for the adjournment.
Page 304
December 2-3,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'd rather stay here for a
while longer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second, second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second to adjourn by
Commissioner Coletta.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. We're
adjourned.
****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following Items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR WALMART AT ARTESAPOINT-
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
Page 305
December 2-3, 2008
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR GRAND LEL Y DRIVE EXTENSION -
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEY ANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR OLE - W /RELEASE OF ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2008-342: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK PHASE 2A
(WINDING CYPRESS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2008-343: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK PHASE 2B
(WINDING CYPRESS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A6
Page 306
December 2-3,2008
RESOLUTION 2008-344: GRANT FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK PHASE 2C
(WINDING CYPRESS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A7
INCREASE THE TIME FRAME ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CONTRACT TO ALLOW FOR THE VAN BUSKIRK, RYFFEL &
ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDE THE LAND USE MODELING TO
BE UTILIZED BY AIM ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC.,
THE CONSULTANTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TO UPDATE TO THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN (LRTP) - EXTENDING THE CONTRACT BY 150 DAYS
OR UNTIL FEBRUARY 27, 2009
Item #16A8 - Moved to Item #101
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2008-345: BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING IN THE CAPACITY OF THE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (EZDA)
GOVERNING BOARD DESIGNATE PENNY PHILLIPPI, THE
IMMOKALEE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AS THE
OFFICIAL CONTACT PERSON FOR THE IMMOKALEE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THE
CURRENT OFFICIAL CONTACT PERSON FOR THE
IMMOKALEE EZDA IS RANDY COHEN, DIRECTOR OF
Page 307
December 2-3,2008
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING - WITH THE NECESSARY
CORRESPONDENCE BEING SENT TO BURT V AN HOFF IN
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, OFFICE OF
TOURSIM, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Item #16AI0 - Moved to Item #10H
Item #16Al1
BID #08-5103 DEMOLITION OF COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO CROSS ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., HONC MARINE CONTRACTING, INC. D/B/A
HONC DESTRUCTION, AND GRUELLE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
10 STRUCTURAL DEMOLITIONS WITH AN AVERAGE COST
OF $3,725 PER STRUCTURE - CODE ENFORCEMENT
ANTICIPATING THIRTY DEMOLITIONS IN FY09
Item #16Bl
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
TWO (2) RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $150.00
FOR OIL WELL ROAD A/K/A/ CR 858 FROM SR 29 TO
COUNTY LINE ROAD - WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS/HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
AS THE SPONSOR
Item # 16B2 - Moved to Item # 1 OJ
Item #16B3
TWO (2) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENTS WITH
FOUR (4) ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL
Page 308
December 2-3,2008
COST OF $300.00, FOR CR 92 A/KlA/ SAN MARCO ROAD AND
PINE RIDGE ROAD WEST OF 1-75, RESPECTIVELY - WITH
SPONSORS MA VCOR DISTRIBUTORS, ADOPTING SAN
MARCO ROAD AND AD EXPRESSIONS ADOPTING THE PINE
RIDGE ROAD SEGMENT
Item #16B4
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
TWO (2) RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $150.00
FOR COMMERCIAL DR., LINWOOD AVE., AND LINWOOD
WAY ROADWAYS - WITH ROD'S PERFORMANCE MARINE
Item #16B5
AN AGREEMENT FOR THE DONATION OF A .28 ACRE
PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE SIDEWALK AND ACCESS
EASEMENT ALONG GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y IN THE
GOLDEN GATE CITY AREA, PROJECT NO. 600831 - FOR A
BUS SHELTER PLANNED FOR THE TRANSIT SYSTEM
LOCATED JUST EAST OF 50TH STREET SW
Item # 16B6
BID #08-5095 FOR THE PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF
FUNGICIDES, HERBICIDES AND INSECTICIDES, TO AGRO
DISTRIBUTIONS LLC (DBA PRO SOURCE ONE), UAP
DISTRIBUTION, INC., HELENA CHEMICAL, RED RIVER
SPECIAL TIES, INC., LESCO, UNIV AR USA, INC., AND
DEANGELO BROTHERS INC. ALENZA - FOR AN ESTIMATED
ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $300,000
Page 309
December 2-3,2008
Item #16B7
CHANGE ORDER #4 TO THE CONTRACT WITH ASTALDI
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $965,869.67 FOR
ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE IMMOKALEE ROAD DESIGN
BUILD PROJECT FROM COLLIER BOULEVARD TO 1-75,
PROJECT #66045, CONTRACT #05-3770 AND APPROVE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B8
A WARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO AMERICAN
EARTH MOVERS, INC. FOR BID NO. 08-5135: BRIDGE
REPAIRS IN THE AMOUNT OF $720,000 - FOR THE REPAIR
OF THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) BRIDGES: CHOKOLOSKEE,
GOODLAND, GREEN BOULEVARD AND TWO (2) ON OIL
WELL ROAD
Item #16B9
AWARD BID #09-5111R "RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION
MSTD/MSTU ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE" TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $104,741.50 - FOR BASIC, SITE
SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE, GENERAL SERVICES AND
EMERGENCY LANDSCAPE SERVICES
Item #16BI0
RESOLUTION 2008-346: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT TO
ACCOMP ANY THE LOCALLY FUNDED AGREEMENT
Page 3 10
December 2-3, 2008
BETWEEN FDOT AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BRIDGE OVER THE
COCOHA TCHEE RIVER ON COUNTY ROAD 901
(V ANDERBIL T DRIVE) PREVIOUSL Y APPROVED ON
OCTOBER 28, 2008 AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE BOTH AGREEMENTS
Item #16Bll
A WARD RFP #08-5067 FOR REAL EST A TE APPRAISAL
SERVICES TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: AMERICAN
ACQUISITION GROUP; ANDERSON & CARR; APPRAISAL
GROUP OF CENTRAL FLORIDA; BOYD, SCHMIDT &
BRANNUM; CALLAWAY & PRICE; KENNETH C. EVANS;
KENNETH R. DEVOS; INTEGRA REALTY RESOURCES; REAL
ESTATE APPRAISAL & LITIGATION; RETECH; WILCOX
APPRAISAL SERVICES -TO ESTIMATE COMPENSATION FOR
POSSIBLE REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS BY THE COUNTY
FOR FUTURE LAND USE AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
Item #16B 12
AWARD BID #09-5141 "GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY & I-75
INTERCHANGE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE" TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, INC. IN THE
ESTIMA TED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE OF $55,000 - FOR
APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) MILE OF LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION
Item #16B13
Page 311
December 2-3, 2008
AWARD BID #09-5140 1-75 FOR "GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS" TO HANNULA
LANDSCAPING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,995.75 WITH
10% CONTINGENCY OF $9,799.58 FOR A TOTAL OF
$107,795.33 - UPON COMPLETION THESE FUNDS WILL BE
REIMBURSED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
Item #16B14
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO. 07-4176:
PURCHASE OF LIME ROCK AND FILL MATERIAL, FIXED
TERM CONTRACT FROM FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.
BY VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY - DUE TO THE 2007
ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES BY VULCAN
MATERIALS COMPANY
Item #16B15
STATE TRANSIT GRANT FOR THE ADDITION OF TRANSIT
SERVICE INTO LEE COUNTY AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO
WORK WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND LEETRAN STAFF ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM JOINT PAR TICIP A TION
AGREEMENT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B16
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES
LAKES COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Page 312
December 2-3,2008
INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, TO INSTALL A FENCE TO
SEP ARA TE PRIV A TE PROPERTY FROM A 99 ACRE
MITIGATION AREA - FOR THE INITIAL ONE YEAR
AGREEMENT FOR A COUNTY OWNED PASSIVE PARK
LOCATED OFF OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AS MITIGATION
FOR THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT (LASIP)
Item #16Cl
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,
EVERGLADES CITY, THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, AND
THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR DEBRIS REMOVAL OPERATIONS
IN THE AFTERMATH OF A SEVERE WEATHER EVENT OR
NATURAL DISASTER-FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1,2008
THROUGH MAY 31, 2009
Item # 16C2
AN INDEMNIFICATION, HOLD HARMLESS AND TEST
MONITORING WELL LICENSE AGREEMENT ON AN OFF-
ISLAND VACANT PARCEL OWNED BY THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND, AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, TO BE USED TO
PROVIDE DATA FOR FUTURE WELLFIELD ALIGNMENT
HYDROGEOLOGICAL TESTING, FOR THE SOUTHEAST
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT WELLFIELD
PROJECT #70900 - FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD FOR PROPERTY
LOCA TED OFF OF 92ND AVE. S. AND MILLER BOULEVARD
Item #16C3
Page 313
December 2-3,2008
AN AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN ELECTRONICS
RECYCLING TO PROVIDE ELECTRONIC COLLECTION AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILLS - FOR A ONE-YEAR
AGREEMENT AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY
Item #16C4
INCREASE WORK ORDER PG-FT-3972-07-02 TO DE LA
PARTE & GILBERT, P.A IN THE AMOUNT OF $61,000 FOR
LEGAL SERVICES UNDER CONTRACT #05-3792, FIXED
TERM PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES; ORANGE TREE,
PROJECT #75010 - FOR LEGAL SERVICES ASSOCIATED
WITH ONGOING CASE #07-2333-CA: ORANGETREE
UTILITIES VS. COLLIER COUNTY (EXCLUDING TRIAL
COSTS)
Item #16Dl
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RAUDEL GUTIERREZ AND
MAGNOLIA PIMENTEL (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
169, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D2
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH TOMAS E. P A YERO MADERA
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 168, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST
NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Page 314
December 2-3,2008
Item #16D3
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSEPH WILSON DORCELUS
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 173, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST
NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH OSIEL QUINT ANA AND
MAGDAL YS CAMEJO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
5, BLOCK 9, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $26,204.83 IN IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DAMIAN LUIZAGA AND MARIA
LUIZAGA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 57, TRAIL
RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT
FEES
Item #16D6
SUMMARY OF IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL AGREEMENTS
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY09, INCLUDING THE
TOT AL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS APPROVED, THE TOTAL
Page 315
December 2-3,2008
DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED AND THE BALANCE
REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL DEFERRALS IN FY09
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $566,377 TO ENSURE
CONTINUOUS FUNDING OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
GRANT IN THE SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM FOR
FY 09 - FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2009 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31, 2009
Item # 16D8
A PROJECT A WARE GRANT APPLICATION FOR ARTIFICIAL
REEF CLEANUPS AND PRODUCING AN ARTIFICIAL REEF
EDUCATIONAL VIDEO FOR THE COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN COLLABORATION WITH
UNIVERSITY EXTENSION, SEA GRANT AGENT, THAT, IF
A WARDED, WILL PROVIDE GRANT FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $10,000 - PROMOTING THE AWARENESS AND
STEWARDSHIP OF ARTIFICIAL REEF ENVIRONMENTS
THROUGH WEBSITE ENHANCEMENT AND INCREASING
THE NUMBER OF CLEAN-UP EVENTS
Item #16D9
A GRANT TO THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE AQUA TIC POND
RENOVATION AND EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TO CONTINUE AND EXPAND WATER CONSERVATION
EDUCATION THROUGH THE FLORIDA YARDS &
NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 316
December 2-3,2008
$56,000.00 - FOR A PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1,2009
AND ENDING DECEMENBER 31,2009 TO RENOVATE AN
EXISTING RETENTION POND AND DEVELOP ADDITIONAL
EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 2008-347: ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE
COUNTY'S TAX COLLECTOR, CLERK OF COURTS,
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS HAVE
DIRECTL Y ENTERED INTO LEASES FOR BRANCH OFFICES
AND/OR WAREHOUSE SPACE IN WHICH LIMITED COUNTY
BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECTUVIE SUMMARY
Item # 16E2
AMENDMENT A-I TO CONTRACT #08-5017 "ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR COUNTYWIDE EXOTIC VEGETATION
REMOVAL" WITH RESOURCE RESTORATION, INC., EARTH
BALANCE CORPORATION, ENVIRONMENTAL AQUATIC
CONTROL, INC., AND DEANGELO BROTHERS, INC. D/B/A
AQUAGENIX TO CORRECT COMPENSATION TERMS AND
CONDITIONS LANGUAGE IN THE CONTRACTS TO MATCH
LANGUAGE IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT
AWARDED THE CONTRACTS - PREVIOSUL Y APPROVED ON
MARCH 11, 2008 AS AGENDA ITEM #16B3
Item #16Fl
AN AMENDMENT TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL BYLAWS THAT CHANGES
Page 317
December 2-3,2008
THE FREQUENCY OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS FROM MONTHLY TO
QUARTERL Y - AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF THE BYLAWS
Item # 16F2
A STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM SUB GRANT
AGREEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY (DHS) AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO ESTABLISH A
COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CERT)
PROGRAM FOR THE TOWN OF AVE MARIA IN THE
AMOUNT OF $9,000 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F3
A SERIES OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO RESTRUCTURE
THE COURT IT FEE FUND (178) MOVING BUDGET FROM
GENERAL FUND (001) AND COURT ADMINISTRATION FUND
(681) INTO THE COURT IT FEE FUND (178) - TO IMPROVE
INTERNAL CONTROLS RELATIVE TO THE STATUTORILY
RESTRICTED $2 FEE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)
COSTS
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2008-348: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09
ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 318
December 2-3,2008
Item #16Gl
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INCLUDES AMENDMENTS TO
THE LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE FOR THE 2009 CALENDAR
YEAR AS SUBMITTED BY THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y
TRIANGLE CRA AND CONSIDER ANY AMENDMENT TO THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY IN
THE PROPOSED 2009 LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE - TO
UPDATE THE 10-YEAR OLD CRA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Item #16G2
REQUEST BY THE COLLIER COUNTY CRA BOARD THAT
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INCLUDE
AMENDMENTS TO THELDC AMENDMENT CYCLE FOR THE
2009 CALENDAR YEAR AS SUBMITTED BY THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA AND CONSIDER ANY
AMENDMENT TO THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
MIXED USE OVERLAY IN THE PROPOSED 2009 LDC
AMENDMENT CYCLE, AND THAT THE CRA MEET THE LDC
CYCLE SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS - AMENDMENTS WILL
BE SUBMITTED TO CDES STAFF AS PART OF THE
PROPOSED 2009 CYCLE
Item #16G3
CRA RESOLUTION 2008-349: COLLIER COUNTY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMEND THE COMMERCIAL
FAADE GRANT PROGRAM TO INCORPORATE AN
APPLICA TION, RECIPIENT AGREEMENT, LESSEE
Page 319
December 2-3, 2008
AGREEMENT, APPLICANT COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES,
PROJECT SUMMARY AND EVALUATION FORM, AND
PAYMENT REQUEST FORM INTO THE PROGRAM
DOCUMENTS PACKET FOR THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE KIWANIS GOVERNOR'S
DINNER ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2008 AT THE COLLIER
ATHLETIC CLUB IN NAPLES, FL; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
710 GOODLETTE ROAD N., NAPLES, FL
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND ROTARY
CLUB LUNCHEON ON NOVEMBER 6TH, 2008 AT THE
MARCO ISLAND YACHT CLUB ON MARCO ISLAND, FL;
$20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 1400 N. COLLIER BOULEVARD,
MARCO ISLAND, FL
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 320
December 2-3, 2008
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND A SALUTE TO BEN BOV A ON
JANUARY 25TH, 2009 AT THE NAPLES PHILHARMONIC IN
NAPLES, FL; $35.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5833 PELICAN
BAY BLVD., NAPLES, FL
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE MARCO ISLAND
FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS QUARTERLY LUNCHEON ON
NOVEMBER 7TH, 2008 AT THE MARCO ISLAND YACHT
CLUB ON MARCO ISLAND, FL; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
1400 N. COLLIER BLVD., MARCO ISLAND, FL
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED A COCKTAIL PARTY AND
SILENT AUCTION ON BEHALF OF GULFSHORE PLAYHOUSE
ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2008 AT ANGELINA'S RISTORANTE IN
BONITA SPRINGS, FL; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
24041 S. TAMIAMI TRAIL, BONITA SPRINGS, FL
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 321
December 2-3,2008
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE NAPLES EQUESTRIAN
CHALLENGE BOOTSTRAP BOOGIE BARN DANCE ON
NOVEMBER 15TH, 2008 AT THE NAPLES EQUESTRIAN
CHALLENGE IN NAPLES, FL; $150.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT 206
RIDGE DR., NAPLES, FL
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A V AUD PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE COLLIER CITIZEN OF THE
YEAR BANQUET ON NOVEMBER 21 ST, 2008 AT THE
NAPLES ELKS LODGE IN NAPLES, FL; $35.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 3950 RADIO RD., NAPLES, FL
Item #16H8
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE HOLIDAY FASHION
EXTRA V AGANZA FOR YOUTH HA VEN ON DECEMBER
12TH, 2008 AT THE NAPLES SAILING AND YACHT CLUB IN
NAPLES, FL; $100.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 896 RIVER POINT
DR., NAPLES, FL
Item #16H9
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 322
December 2-3,2008
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY
CLUB GOLF COURSE GRAND OPENING DINNER ON
NOVEMBER 1ST, 2008 AT THE NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY
CLUB IN NAPLES, FL; $55.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCA TED AT
4784 INVERNESS CLUB DR., NAPLES, FL
Item #16HI0
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE WINDSTAR CLUB
COCKTAIL RECEPTION BENEFITING THE BOYS AND GIRLS
CLUB ON NOVEMBER 22ND, 2008 AT WINDSTAR ON
NAPLES BAY IN NAPLES, FL; $75.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
4650 YACHT HARBOR DRIVE, NAPLES, FL
Item #16Hll
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE MARCO CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE CHRISTMAS GALA DECEMBER 7,2008 AT THE
ISLAND COUNTRY CLUB ON MARCO ISLAND, FL; $75.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- LOCATED AT 500 NASSAU RD., MARCO ISLAND, FL
Item #16I
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
Page 323
December 2-3,2008
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 324
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
December 2, 2008
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Airport Authori tv:
Minutes of September 8, 2008.
2) Bavshore/Gatewav Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board:
Minutes of October 7,2008; October 7, 2008 Goals & Objectives
Workshop for FY 2009.
3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of September 25, 2008.
4) Collier Count v Planning Commission:
Agenda of November 6, 2008 REVISED.
Minutes of September 18, 2008.
5) Development Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of October 8, 2008.
6) Environmental Advisorv Council:
Agenda of September 3, 2008; October I, 2008.
Minutes of September 3, 2008; October I, 2008.
7) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainage Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of October 8, 2008.
Minutes of June 11, 2008 No quorum; September 10, 2008.
8) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of September 17, 2008.
9) Immokalee Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of September 24, 2008,
Minutes of September 24,2008.
10) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of November II, 2008.
Minutes of October 13, 2008.
II) Pelican Bav Services Division Board:
A) Clam Bay Committee: Minutes of May 21, 2008.
12) Public Vehicle Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of October 6, 2008.
13) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of October 14, 2008; October 28,2008.
B. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of October 17, 2008.
December 2-3, 2008
Item # 1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 08, 2008
THROUGH NOVEMBER 14,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 1612
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 15, 2008
THROUGH NOVEMBER 21,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$57,000.00 FOR PARCEL 145RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN GODDARD, ET AL., CASE NO.
07-3111-CA (OIL WELL RD. PROJECT #60044) (FISCAL
IMPACT $41,470.00) - FOR A .454 ACRE ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY PARCEL LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT
NO. 64
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$51,900.00 FOR PARCELS 185RDUE AND 185TDRE IN THE
LA WSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RUPERT TERRY
DUPREE, A/K/A R. TERRY DUPREE, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-
3328-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT #60044) (FISCAL
IMPACT $9,970.00) - FOR A .124 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 64
Page 325
December 2-3,2008
Item #16K3
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT IN THE
LA WSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NAPLES
SUNRISE, INC., CASE NO. 08-2803-SC, FILED IN COUNTY
COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,102.03 - FOR THE REPAIR OF A COUNTY SIDEWALK DUE
TO THE DAMAGE OF UNDERGROUND SPRINKLERS AT 111
PALM DRIVE
Item #16K4 - Moved to Item #12C
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2008-64: PERTAINING TO THE STORAGE,
PARKING AND USE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
PURSUANT TO BOARD DIRECTION
Item # 1 7B - Moved to Item #8A
Page 326
December 2-3, 2008
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:30 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTR L
TOM HENNING Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. l3ROCI,<, CLERK
~ '. . .. , . . . ," .'~
,. ".,:"J
hJ: {hw" ~Orl-'
Attesi,1$ toht'l.~ .
. tgnaturt 011.". '. .
"
These minutes appJ:Oved by the Board on ,.. .;'
presented V or as corrected
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 327