BCC Minutes 02/10/2009 R
February 10,2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 10, 2009
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:
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the BCC
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
February 10th, 2009
9:00 AM
Donna Fiala, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Vice- Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
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 PRESENT A TION 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."
February 10,2009
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
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. January 7, 2009 - Value Adjustment Board Hearings with Special Magistrate
Scott Watson
C. January 8, 2009 - BCC/EDC Workshop
D. January 9,2009 - Value Adjustment Board Regular Meeting
E. January 13,2009 - BCC/Regular Meeting
F. January 16,2009 - BCC/CRA Annual Report Workshop
G. January 20,2009 - BCC/TDC Workshop
February 10,2009
Page 2
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service A wards
1) 5 Years - Stephen A. Harrison - County Government Productivity
Committee
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating February as Scouting Anniversary Month. To be
accepted by William Kocses.
B. Proclamation recognizing Collier County's Code Enforcement Blight
Prevention Program. To be accepted by Michelle Scavone and Kimberly
Brandes.
C. Proclamation designating February 10, 2009 as Shirlee Barcic Day. To be
accepted by Shirlee Barcic.
D. Proclamation recognizing The Humane Society Naples for their
contributions to Collier County. To be accepted by Michael Simonik,
Executive Director, The Humane Society Naples.
E. Proclamation designating the week of February 16 - 23, 2009 as Engineers
Week in Collier County. To be accepted by Dan Waters, PE, Calusa Chapter
President; Marlene Messam, PE, Calusa Chapter Vice-President; Alison
Huber, PE, Calusa Chapter Treasurer; Allyson Swanson, PE, Director,
Calusa Chapter Way & Means Cmte., and Ralph Verrastro, PE, Chair,
Calusa Chapter Membership Cmte.
F. Proclamation designating February 26, 2009 as 1. Dudley Goodlette Day. To
be accepted by Jeffrey Allbritten, President, Edison State College Collier
Campus.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Robert Dennison, Plant Mechanic,
Wastewater Department, as Employee of the Month for January 2009.
February 10, 2009
Page 3
B. Presentation by Kraft Construction on the Construction status of the new
Courthouse Annex.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
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 by Commission members. CU-2006-AR-10925,
Basil Street Partners, LLC, represented by Clay Brooker, Esq., of Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson, LLP, requesting a Conditional Use (CU) for
a passive recreational use in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, as specified
in Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC).
The subject property, consisting of 4.32 acres, is located at 10 III and 10 121
Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2008-AR-12930,
Collier County Coastal Zone Management represented by Laura DeJohn of
Johnson Engineering, Inc., requesting a Rezone from the RMF-6
(Residential Multi-family) and C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) to CF
(Community Facility) to provide a parking lot for the Bayview Park boat
launch. The subject property is located in Section 23, Township 50 South
and Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2007-AR-12026
Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee for SJL Realty II Trust, represented by Heidi
Williams, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester,
P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to
the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a
project to be known as the Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of
a maximum of20 townhouse, single-family attached or single-family
February 10,2009
Page 4
detached dwelling units. The subject 6.81 acre property is located on the
south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately one half mile west of
Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Immoka1ee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency.
D. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Policy
Advisory Board.
F. Consideration of the request by the Productivity Committee (7-3) that the
Board of County Commissioners reconsider their directive that Productivity
Committee Meetings be relocated. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Request that the Board of County Commissioners adopts the Collier County
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study (Study) dated December 2008 and
directs staff to bring back an Ordinance amending Schedule One of
Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance)
providing for the incorporation by reference of the Study. Also, that the
BCC reviews the fiscal analysis and additional data requested during the
January 13, 2009 regular meeting agenda Item # 1 O-C and directs staff to
adopt the appropriate impact fee rate schedule and payment schedule.
(Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
B. Recommendation to approve Funding Agreement No. 4600001684 in the
amount of$I,500,000.00 with the South Florida Water Management District
February 10,2009
Page 5
to provide assistance with the construction of three (3) Stormwater
Improvement Projects: (1) Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project; (2)
Freedom Park; and (3) Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvement Project.
(Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
C. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to deny the
petitioners request for a reduction of the storage for the two northbound left
turn lanes to Business Circle South in order to provide storage for a single
left turn lane southbound for access into the main gate of Forest Glen,
Project 60001. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves the
Wetland Mitigation and Panther Habitat Unit Option Agreement with the
Barron Collier Companies and authorizes the Chairman to sign the
document. Project #60044. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services
Administrator)
E. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve the
award of Bid #09-5169 to the lowest qualified and responsive bidder BCBE
Construction Co., Inc. for the construction contract of the Goodland Boat
Park Project #80611.1 for a lump sum price of$l ,690,020.28. (Marla
Ramsey, Public Services Administrator)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
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.
February 10, 2009
Page 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
having staff advertise and return for the Board's consideration at a
future meeting the Litter, Weed and Exotic Control Ordinance
(Ordinance Number 05-44) to clarify the requirements for the Special
Magistrates role in the imposition of nuisance abatement liens and to
incorporate the Board's prior direction as reflected on the attached
proposed amended ordinance.
2) 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. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Copper Cove Preserve, Unit
Two.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Veronawalk Phase 3A
(Winding Cypress PUD) with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained.
4) A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
to extend the term of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review
Committee.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #09-5144 - 11lth Avenue at 8th Street
Intersection Improvements (Project #600741/F.M. No. 415543-1) to
Better Roads, Inc., in the amount of$148,660.60 with 10%
contingency of $15,000.00 for a total of$163,660.60.
2) Recommendation that the Board approve the donation of plants from
the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(M.S.T.V.) to the Naples Botanical Garden (NBG).
February 10, 2009
Page 7
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Landscape Maintenance Agreement between Collier County,
Florida and Pine Air Lakes Development District for landscaping
within the right-of-way on Naples Boulevard.
4) Recommendation to approve a work order in the amount of $223,990
to URS for project management and oversight for the Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) Lely Main Canal (East -
West) Phase under Contract #05-3657 Project Management and
Oversight Services.
5) Recommendation to approve award of Contract #08-5132 to
American Traffic Solutions for provision of a Red Light Running
Camera Enforcement System.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Contract ITB#08-5075, Collection Agency
Service for Collier County to United Adjustment Corporation.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, five (5) lien agreements for
deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for owner-occupied
affordable housing dwelling units located in Collier County.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, eight (8) Developer lien
agreements for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for
owner-occupied affordable housing units located in Collier County.
Present to the Board of County Commissioners a summary of Impact
Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY09,
including total number of Agreements approved, total dollar amount
deferred and balance remaining for additional deferrals in FY09.
Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners to
replace Page 2 of 10 due to a scrivener's error on the FDEP Cost
February 10, 2009
Page 8
Share Contract #05COI for the City of Naples/Collier County Beach
Re-nourishment Project.
5) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign revised Use Agreement No. U-0344
between Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of
the State of Florida and Collier County for access to Delnor- Wiggins
State Park for Wiggins Pass dredging.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Eden
Gardens Apartments Limited Partnership State Housing Initiatives
Program (SHIP) for (55) Fifty-Five Multi-Family Rental Units
Subrecipient Loan approved on November 13,2007 (Item #16D27)
for $442,000.00 This amendment will allow for a time extension,
budget change and payments to be made to Eden Gardens Apartment
LLP as reimbursement for expenses incurred for eligible costs
associated with the Agreement even though leasing of the units is not
complete.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign an agreement between Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on
Aging of Southwest Florida and approve budget amendments to
reflect the actual grant award for the Older Americans Act program.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Big Cypress
Housing Corporation Community Development Block Grant Program
(CDBG) for (55) Fifty-Five Multi-Family Rental Units Subrecipient
Agreement approved on July 24, 2007 (Item #16D12) for $192,000.00
This amendment will allow for time extension and final payments to
be made to Big Cypress as reimbursement for expenses incurred for
eligible costs associated with the Agreement even though leasing of
the units is not complete.
9) Recommendation to approve application and Memorandum of
Understanding for a Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe
Exchange Grant in the amount of$350,000 from the United States
February 10, 2009
Page 9
Department of Justice and, if awarded, to serve as the Fiscal Agent
and to authorize staff to negotiate a sub-recipient agreement with
Child Advocacy Council (d/b/a Child Protection Team).
10) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement with Collier County
Child Advocacy Council d/b/a Child Protection Team to provide
supervised visitation services in Collier County. Services will be
reimbursed through a grant from the United States Department of
Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, which began September
1, 2007 and ends August 31, 2009.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve and execute a First Amendment to Lease
Agreements with George Vega, Tom Brown, Larry Martin and Jack
Stanley, AKA Palm Lake Investments, for temporary office space to
house the Office of the Public Defender during construction of the
new Courthouse Annex building at a monthly cost of $1 7,225.10,
Project #52004-1.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Mahlan Houghton and Paula Houghton for 2.73 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $44,000.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Monty D. Robinson for 2.27 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $36,800.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Theodore W. Romak for 1.14 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $18,700.
5) Approval of the Collier County Employee Benefit Plan and Flexible
Benefits Plan documents effective January 1,2009.
6) Recommendation to award Bid No. 09-5146, Handyman and Minor
Carpentry Services to BQ Concrete LLC; OneSource Construction
February 10, 2009
Page 10
Company and Builders, Inc.; Homescape Construction, Inc.; Spectrum
Contracting, Inc.; and Cali and Associates, Inc., for handyman and
minor carpentry services for an estimated annual amount of $70,000.
7) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
8) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Domenico and Maria LaGrasta for the continued use of
temporary warehouse/office space used by the Sheriffs Office at a first
years cost of $52,800.
9) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the first quarter FY 09.
10) Recommendation to amend the Purchasing Policy to allow staff to
solicit proposals from firms under CCNA Fixed Term Agreements.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the proposed recommended Ordinance authorizing the County
Manager to extend the opportunity for a Voluntary Separation
Incentive Program to eligible employees upon approval by the Board
of an enabling Resolution and authorize Staff to advertise said
Ordinance for approval at a future Board meeting.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its Chairman to execute a grant agreement with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the amount of
$187,150.00, and approve al1 necessary budget amendments, to
February 10,2009
Page 11
expand the aircraft parking apron at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize its Chairman to execute a grant agreement with the .
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in an amount of$101,741.00,
and approve all necessary budget amendments, for construction of the
aircraft apron (north) at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
to attend an event serving a valid public purpose. Attended the Annual
East Naples Civic Association Banquet on 1-26-09. $40.00 to be paid
out of Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the 59th Annual East Naples Civic Association Banquet on
January 26, 2009 at Naples Lakes Country Club in Naples, FL. $40.00
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.
Attended the Economic Development Council VIP Breakfast on
February 6, 2009 at Parker Hannifin in Naples, FL. $10.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Urban Land Institute of South West Florida's 12th
Annual Winter Institute on the Gulf, January 29,2009 at the Naples
Hilton. $50 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
participating as instructor and student at the 25th Annual Growth
Management, Energy, Climate Change, and Environment Short
Course, February 18-19,2009, at the Daytona Beach Hilton.
Registration $495; Hotel Accommodations $133; Parking: $34; Total
February 10, 2009
Page 12
of $662 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the 59th Annual East Naples Civic Association Banquet,
January 26, 2009. $40 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attending the Foundation for Developmentally Disabled Fundraiser
and Gala, February 21, 2009. $125.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
17,2009 through January 23,2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
24, 2009 through January 30, 2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve settlement prior to trial in the lawsuit
entitled Osvaldo Gayon v. Dennis Larson, et a!.; filed in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 06-340-
CA, for $9,500.00.
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $356,305 for Parcels 134 and 135 in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Ronen Graziani, et a!., Case No. 06-0548-CA (Santa
Barbara Boulevard Project, No. 62081). (Fiscal Impact $222,772.60)
February 10, 2009
Page 13
This is a companion item to Parcel 136, Item #16K3.
3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
136 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ronen Graziani, et aI.,
Case No. 06-548-CA and to purchase the remainder property located
on Santa Barbara Boulevard as part of the outstanding eminent
domain litigation settlement. Project No. 62081. (Fiscal Impact:
$637,780). This is a companion item to Parcels 134 and 135, Item
#16K2.
4) F or the Board of County Commissioners to approve the Filing of a
Foreclosure Action with the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit to recover three outstanding Code Enforcement Liens
presently totaling $517,662.48, regarding the Jerry Blocker and
Kimberlea Blocker property located at 1101 Alachua Street,
Immokalee Florida, a!k/a Shells Trailer Park Folio: #63864720000,
#63864680001, and #63864760002.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TlON 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 that the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to
authorization under Item #16F(2) on January 13,2009, adopt and enact a
duly noticed and published Ordinance dissolving fourteen (14) inactive
taxing authorities which are currently found on the Property Appraisers Ad
Valorem Property Tax Roll.
February 10,2009
Page 14
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
February 10, 2009
Page 15
February 10,2009
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And good
morning, everyone. Thank you for being here this morning on this
bright happy day that's warmed up a little bit. Isn't it nice?
Would you all please stand with me for the invocation, and then
we'll say the Pledge of Allegiance.
MR. MUDD: Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a
community thanking you for the blessings that you have so generously
provided. Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and members of the public who are here to help lead
this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you will guide and direct the decisions made here
today so that your -- so that your will for our county would always be
done.
These things we pray in your holy name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Would you -
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Agenda changes, board of County
Commissioners' meeting, February 10,2009.
The first item is continue Item 100 to February 24, 2009, BCC
meeting. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approves the wetland mitigation and panther habitat
Page 2
February 10,2009
unit option agreement with the Barron Collier Companies and
authorizes the chairman to sign the document. It's project number
60044. This item is being continued at staff's request.
The next item is to move Item 16A 1 to 1 OF. This item to be
heard at 4:30 p.m. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve having staff advertise and return to the
board's consideration at a future meeting the litter, weed, and exotic
control ordinance, ordinance number 05-44, to clarify the
requirements for the special magistrate's role in the imposition of
nuance, abatement liens, and to incorporate the board's prior direction
as reflected on the attached proposed amended ordinance. This item is
asked to be moved to the regular agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
The next item is Item 16D6. Under considerations, the sentence
that states, the clerk offices requested that the agreement be amended
to specifically allow for partial or progress payments with, and change
it to, the Housing and Human Services Department (HHS) is
requesting that the agreement be amended to specifically allow for
partial and progress payments. That clarification's at staff's request.
The next item is Item 1608. The title refers to a sub-recipient
agreement approved on July 24, 2007, and in the title and in the
executive summary it talks about Item 12D.
The correct item number for the July 24, 2007, meeting is item
number 16012, and that clarification's at staff's request.
The next item is to move Item 16K4 to 12A, that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the filing of a foreclosure action with
the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit to cover three
outstanding code enforcement liens presently totaling $517,662.48
regarding the Jerry Blocker and Kimberlea Blocker property located at
1101 Alachua Street, Immokalee, Florida, alk/a Shells Trailer Park,
folio number 63864720000, next folio number is 638646800001 (sic),
and the last folio number is 63864760002 (sic). This item is being
moved to the regular agenda at Commissioner Coletta's request.
Page 3
February 10,2009
Commissioners, you have three time-certain items today. 9E, to
be heard at four p.m., appointment of members to the Emergency
Medical Service Policy Advisory Board. That time certain was
requested by Commissioner Henning.
The next time certain is Item 10C to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a
recommendation to deny the petitioner's request for a reduction of the
storage for the two northbound left turn lanes to Business Circle South
in order to provide storage for a single left turn lane southbound for
access into the main gate of Forest Glen, project number 60001.
The next time-certain item is Item 10F to be heard at 4:30, and on
this change sheet I previously read that particular summary of the
item.
And that's all I have, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Do you have
anything for us, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
And now, Commissioners, do you have any changes, corrections,
additions to the agenda or any declarations for the consent or summary
agendas? We'll start with you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Chairman
Fiala.
I have no changes to the regular agenda. As far as the consent
agenda, I have no -- nothing to declare on that, and the summary
agenda, I have no disclosures for that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes to today's
agenda, I have no ex parte for the consent agenda, and we didn't have
anything on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 4
February 10, 2009
And Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I, as well, have no changes,
no corrections, nothing to declare on consent or summary.
And so with that, commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
to approve today's agenda as amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second? I don't hear a
second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion. Can you tell me
what the amended is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The amendment is --
MR. MUDD: Changes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the errata sheet, change sheet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning
voted to -- or motioned to accept the agenda as amended, seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 10. 2009
Continue Item 100 to the February 24. 2009 BCC meetina: Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approves the Wetland Mitigation and Panther Habitat Unit Option
Agreement with the Barron Collier Companies and authorizes the Chairman to sign the document.
Project #60044. (Staffs request.)
Move Item 16A1 to 10F: This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approve having staff advertise and return for the Board's consideration at
a future meeting the Litter, Weed and Exotic Control Ordinance (Ordinance Number 05-44) to
clarify the requirements for the Special Magistrates role in the imposition of nuisance abatement
liens and to incorporate the Board's prior direction as reflected on the attached proposed
amended ordinance. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 1606: Under Considerations, the sentence that states: "The Clerks Office has requested
that the Agreement be amended to specifically allow for partial or progress payments" with:
"The Housing and Human Services Department (HHS) is requesting that the Agreement be
amended to specifically allow for partial or progress payments." (Staffs request.)
Item 1608: The title refers to a Subrecipient Agreement approved on July 24, 2007 (Item 120).
The correct item number is 16012. (Staffs request.)
Move Item 16K4 to 12A: For the Board of County Commissioners to approve the Filing of a
Foreclosure Action with the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit to recover three
outstanding Code Enforcement Liens presently totaling $517,662.48, regarding the Jerry Blocker
and Kimberlea Blocker property located at 1101 Alachua Street, Immokalee, Florida, a/kIa/ Shells
Trailer Park Folio Nos. 63864720000, 63864680001 and 63864760002. (Commissioner Coletta's
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9E to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services
Policy Advisory Board. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 10C to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to deny the petitioner's request for a
reduction of the storage for the two northbound left turn lanes to Business Circle South in order
to provide storage for a single left turn lane southbound for access into the main gate of Forest
Glen, Project 60001.
Item 10F to be heard at 4:30 p.m. (Originally 16A1. See above.)
2/10/20098:38 AM
February 10, 2009
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F and #2G
MINUTES FROM JANUARY 7, 2009 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD HEARINGS WITH SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SCOTT
WATSON; JANUARY 8, 2009 - BCC/EDC WORKSHOP;
JANUARY 9, 2009 - VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD REGULAR
MEETING; JANUARY 13,2009 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING;
JANUARY 16,2009 - BCC/CRA ANNUAL REPORT WORKSHOP
AND JANUARY 20, 2009 - BCC/TDC WORKSHOP-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve the January 7, 2009, Value Adjustment Board hearing
with Special Master Scott Watson, and also January 8,2009,
BCC/EDC workshop and January 9, 2009, Value Adjustment Board
regular meeting and January 13,2009, BCC regular meeting, in
addition to January 16, 2009 BCC/CRA annual workshop, and final,
January 20, 2009, BCC/EDC workshop.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning and a Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Page 6
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Move to service awards.
Item #3A
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE AWARDS: 5 YEAR
RECIPIENT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we have one advisory committee
service award today, and it's, indeed, my pleasure to ask Mr. Steven
A. Harrison to come forward for -- he is a five-year recipient and he's
worked on the county government Productivity Committee.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Steve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was fun working with you last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for five years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Steve, would you come over here. I have
a pin for you. You get to wear this, and we need to take a picture.
Thank you.
MR. HARRISON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY AS SCOUTING
ANNIVERSARY MONTH. ACCEPTED BY WILLIAM KOCSES-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to the
proclamations section. Today the first proclamation is designating
February as Scout (sic) Anniversary Month to be accepted by William
Kocses.
Page 7
~""~-"-''''-~-'--''~-'- ,..
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Good morning.
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America have been in the forefront
of installing (sic) timeless values in youth since its founding in 1910;
and,
Whereas, this national youth movement has made serving others
through its value-based program its mission; and,
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America is committed to helping
millions of youths succeed by providing the support, friendship, and
mentoring necessary to live a happy and fulfilling life; and,
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America, Southwest Florida Council
and its cub scout packs, boy scout troops and venturing crews, are
celebrating scouting's 99th anniversary in America and the 102nd
anniversary of scouting internationally with the theme, 100 Years of
Scouting Where Tradition Meets Tomorrow; and,
Whereas, there are more than 170 community organizations,
3,800 dedicated volunteers that make scouting available for more than
39,000 youth members in our area who participate in the scouting
program as a means of character building, citizenship training, and
personal fitness; and,
Whereas, the Boy Scouts of America is the largest organization
in Collier County providing youth leadership training with over 3,100
youths and 700 adults volunteering, participating; and --
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County express their
appreciation to the Southwest Florida Council and the Boy Scouts of
America for their interest in and dedication to America's youth.
And now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that February be
designated as Scouting Anniversary Month.
Done and ordered this, the 10th day of February, 2009, and
signed by our chairperson, Donna Fiala.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 8
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion for approval and a couple
seconds here. We'll give Commissioner Halas that second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have anybody in the audience
here?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, absolutely. First we need to take a
picture.
MR. KOCSES: Thank you. I'djust like to thank--
MR. MUDD: Right there.
MR. KOCSES: Right here?
MR. MUDD: Either one.
MR. KOCSES: Either one. On behalf of Alligator District,
which is Collier County, and the Southwest Florida Council, I want to
thank the county commission and all our guests here today for
recognizing this proclamation, Boy Scouts of America. We were
chartered in February 8, 1910, and this is our 99th year. Next year
will be a very special year. It will be a hundred years, and there's
some big plans going on throughout the United States, throughout our
state, and throughout our county for some big things going on. We're
hoping for a real big camporee out at the Seminole Indian reservation
this next year.
Page 9
February 10,2009
Scouting is really made up of about 300 kids here in Collier
County and about 600 adult volunteers. We like calling them
scouters. And not only the county, but the county employees and the
parents that help -- this is such a wonderful program for young men to
learn not only leadership, but also leadership with values. So it is a
wonderful program. We appreciate your support.
I'd like to take a minute to recognize the fact Commissioner
Coletta is an eagle scout. He's a past scout master, and the
scoutmaster of his troops was for special needs scouts. And he's also
currently sitting on Alligator District board helping us today, and I
know he's real proud of having a grandson that just joined and started
in cub scouting.
A lot of the members, including myself, are appreciative of the
people we work for here in the county. They really promote us. I
work for Jennifer Edwards, the Honorable Jennifer Edwards at the
elections office, and she really promotes all of our -- us employees, to
get out in the community and serve in a lot of capacities, and I'm
thankful for that.
Again, I'd like to thank the county commission for this
proclamation and their support of Boy Scouts.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING COLLIER COUNTY'S CODE
ENFORCEMENT BLIGHT PREVENTION PROGRAM.
ACCEPTED BY MICHELLE SCAVONE AND KIMBERLY
BRANDES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next proclamation is
recognizing Collier County Code Enforcement Blight Prevention
Program to be accepted by Michelle Scavone and Kimberly Brandes.
Page 10
February 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe we have several
employees from code enforcement. I think it's fitting to have all up
here. And also the -- we have some -- trying to say -- not community
organizers, but task force, community task force members, if you
would come up also.
Whereas, Collier County is the second in the United States with
property in foreclosure process ranking 11 th in the state for
foreclosure action, and foreclosure filings in Collier County have
increased l18 percent from last year; and,
Whereas, Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight
Prevention Program was implemented to address health, safety, and
welfare issues, stabilizing property values and property tax revenues;
and blight -- or prevention (sic) blight in the community; and,
Whereas, the Blight Prevention Program combined efforts and
resources from five community task force teams, including the
Immokalee Task Force, North Naples Task Force, Golden Gate City
Task Force, Golden Gate Estates Task Force, and East Naples Task
Force, along with several community task force members, including
but not limited to code enforcement, utility enforcement department
and environmental protection, solid waste, North Naples Fire
Department, East Naples Fire Department, Immokalee fire, pollution
control, Domestic Animal Service, Fish and Wildlife, civic
association, homeowners' association, Naples Utility, Collier County
Health Department, and Naples Chamber of Commerce, and the
Collier County Task Force; and,
Whereas, the outreach by code enforcement has provided
volunteer compliance without enforcement in the efforts of combating
blight in the area during these difficult economic times; and --
Whereas, Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight
Prevention Program is responsible to constituent and community
concerns on foreclosed homes and taking a proactive approach to
provide resources for citizens in need of assistance in the efforts of
Page 11
February 10, 2009
maintaining homeownership and keeping properties maintained in an
orderly fashion to assist stabling property values.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
that the Collier County Code Enforcement to be (sic) congratulated
and commended for their exemplary efforts in stabilizing property
values by volunteer code enforcement compliance in the Blight
Prevention Program.
Done in this order, 10th day of February, 2009.
Madam Chair, I make a proud motion to approve this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that motion.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: These folks have done so much to help us
improve our community, and we're all really, really indebted to them
for a tough job that they do so willingly, and with a smile on their
face. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would somebody like to say a
few words?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, good morning. Diane Flagg, for
the record. Commissioners, Commissioner Henning, we'd like to
thank you for recognizing our department members and also the
members of the five community task forces. We're dedicated to
preventing blight from taking hold of our community and greatly
appreciate the support you have extended to the code enforcement
Page 12
February 10, 2009
department and also to the valuable members of the five community
task force teams here represented by members of the Golden Gate City
task force.
The agencies of the task force teams includes not only the
Sheriffs Office, fire deputies, but also numerous county departments
and civic and homeowners associations, and we really appreciate your
support, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good job. Keep up the good
work.
CHAlRMAN FIALA: As the audience can tell, we truly
appreciate all the hard work that our code enforcement people do
within our community. It's not an easy job, and they do it so willingly
and with a smile, and we're all grateful and indebted to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, this is a result of
a public petition from a member of our community, concerns about
foreclosures in Collier County and the blight that it brings with it.
And our code enforcement reached out to, you know, the banking
community and exceeded my expectations about cleaning up
properties. So it's a good day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for bringing that to our
attention, Commissioner Henning.
Yes, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I just -- I don't think people
realize the reason why we're so excited up here over our code
enforcement. We have some of the most compassionate people in
Collier County Government working in code enforcement. They have
come around over the years being an organization that's looking for
compliance rather than enforcement.
And I have seen cases where they personally went in and helped
to repair damage to elderly peoples' houses to bring them up to code to
Page 13
February 10,2009
be able to step in and make the necessary corrections, even on their
own. It's a very compassionate group of people, and we appreciate it
so much that they work with the public in a meaningful way.
Thank you very much.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 10,2009 AS
SHIRLEE BARCIC DAY. ACCEPTED BY SHIRLEE BARCIC-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that brings us to our next
proclamation, which is designating February IO, 2009, as Shirlee
Barcic Day, to be accepted by Shirlee Barcic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Shirlee, would
you come up here, please.
I know it's embarrassing, but you have to face the audience.
MS. BARCIC: They're gone.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Whereas, Shirlee Barcic moved to Marco
Island 35 years ago in 1974. She has dedicated an unprecedented
amount of those years to volunteerism, giving so much of herself to
the community of Marco Island and Collier County; and,
Whereas, 15 years ago, Shirlee Barcic became a founding
member of the Marco Kiwanis Club and has served three terms as
president; and,
Whereas, Shirlee Barcic was the founding member of the
Naples/Marco Philharmonic, which would later become the nationally
renowned Naples Philharmonic Center for the Arts when it started
back in 1982; and,
Whereas, Shirlee Barcic has organized various fundraising events
for the past 10 years to benefit the Pace Center for Girls in
Immokalee, Marco Island Charter Middle School, YMCA, and
Page 14
February 10,2009
Guadalupe after school and summer programs; and,
Whereas, Shirlee Barcic is also on the board of directors of the
Marco Island Civic Association, Physicians Regional Healthcare
System board of trustees, and the United Arts Council; and,
Whereas, Shirlee Barcic has recently -- was recently presented
the Jefferson Award by the Naples Daily News and the Scripps
Southwest Florida group for her outstanding volunteerism. The
Jefferson A ward is presented both locally and nationally and was
established in 1972 to create a Nobel Prize for exemplary community
and public service.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that February 10, 2009 be
designated as Shirlee Barcic Day.
Done and ordered this 10th day of February, 2009, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
And, Commissioners, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. All those in favor, signifY by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Shirlee, thank you so much
for all that you do for our community.
(Applause.)
MS. BARCIC: I went to your stone crab fest.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know when it is, but I think it's in
Page 15
February 10,2009
April.
Shirlee, we're going to take a picture with you, and then we'd like
to have your family members and people that nominated you to come
up as well and take another picture with them.
MS. FILSON: She needs the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Shirlee, sorry.
Good. Family members and people who nominated her, please
come up.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to say a few words?
MS. BARCIC: Sure. Just to thank the Board of County
Commissioners. This is quite a surprise and quite an honor. And
whenever you're doing volunteer work, it's never done by yourself.
And ifI didn't have my family, my daughter and my son, my husband,
my friends, and the man that recommended me for the Jefferson
Award, Van Gates and his lovely wife, Jean -- it's just been such an
incredible month that -- you don't go into volunteerism for this type of
thing, but it's sure nice when you get it.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE HUMANE SOCIETY
NAPLES FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO COLLIER
COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY MICHAEL SIMONIK, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR. THE HUMANE SOCIETY NAPLES - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next
proclamation. It's recognizing the Humane Society of Naples for their
Page 16
February 10,2009
contribution to Collier County, to be accepted by Michael Simonik,
the executive director of the Humane Society of Naples. There were
some puppies and kitties and stuff, I thought.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's absolutely perfect.
MR. SIMONIK: We have extras that need to be held.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Look at these cute little things.
I got to read the proclamation. I wouldn't be able to do both at
the same time. How are you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got one about that size,
potty trained?
COMMlSSIONER COLETTA: I'd love to, but I got to hold the
proclamation. I'll go ahead with this now.
Whereas, the Humane Society Naples is Collier County's premier
no-kill pet shelter, adoption center, humane animal clinic, and
professional dog training program; and,
Whereas, it is one of Collier County's oldest private charities that
takes in over 1,500 orphaned pets each year and has found loving
homes for more than l,500 pets last year and more than 77,000
companion animals since its incorporation in 1960; and,
Whereas, it serves as a network resource for pet owners and other
area pet rescues as well as promoting responsible pet ownership and
pet education, while working to reduce pet population by sterilizing
more than 2,000 pets each year; and,
Whereas, the Humane Society helps low-income pet owners by
providing their pets with low-cost veterinarian service and thoroughly
enjoys and appreciates the support of more than 300 volunteers; and.
Whereas, the Humane Society is building a 6,000-square-foot
addition and renovating their current 6,000-square-feet (sic) facility
where they plan to ultimately house approximately 80 cats and 40
dogs; and,
Whereas, this new facility will not only increase the
organization's capacity to house surrendered pets but will enable the
Page 17
February 10,2009
Humane Society Naples to welcome more pets and people into a
comfortable and appealing environment, thus increasing adoption;
and,
Whereas, the Humane Society is planning a groundbreaking
ceremony February 26, 2009.
And now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, the Humane Society Naples
be recognized for their contribution to the Collier County residents
and their pets with -- and with the organization's continued success in
providing wonderful services to our community.
Done in this -- done and ordered this day, the 10th day of
February, 2009. Signed by our chairperson, Commissioner Donna
Fiala.
And I make a motion for approval, and give me one of the pets.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow.
(Applause.)
MR. SIMONIK: Good morning, Madam Chairperson and
County Commissioners, my name is Michael Simonik. I'm the
Executive Director of the Humane Society Naples. On behalf of our
board of directors, our wonderful volunteers, many of whom are here
today, our donors, our staff, anyone who has ever adopted a pet,
anyone who wants to adopt a pet, we appreciate the recognition of
Page 18
February 10,2009
what we do for the homeless pets in Collier County and for the
families of Collier County.
This is what we do. This is a litter of puppies that were born in a
shelter, and we brought them in. They're in a foster home. Patty
Dunker is the foster mom, the one with two in her arms.
They're a mix of Australian cattle dog and Australian shepherd,
and we don't know who the dad is. But they'll be available for
adoption in three weeks. They're five weeks old today.
We also have a little kitten. We get lots of litters of kittens.
Kitten season is just about ready to start, and we'll see hundreds of
them come in. So we're looking for lots of homes. That's Marky
Mark, the little kitten there. He's about ten weeks old.
We are a nonprofit, private, no-kill animal shelter, which means
we do not receive any money from local, state, or federal government.
It is all through private donations of our donors, members, and
anyone who supports the Humane Society.
We definitely invite all the commissioners personally to come to
our groundbreaking on Thursday, February 26th at 5:30. We'll have
some golden shovels for you or golden sledge hammers, because we're
going to take down the 48-year-old building that's there and put up a
state-of-the-art isolation intake ward and quarantine ward for the
animals.
As a no-kill shelter, we take care of all the animals whether they
have medical concerns or not, and everybody stays at the shelter or in
a foster home until they find a pertinent loving home. So that we do
as a no-kill shelter, and we're proud to be here in Collier County
helping with everything you all do, too, with Domestic Animal
Services, as well as all the other shelters that work in Collier County,
like Friends of Gummy and For the Love of Cats and other people
who take care of the animals that are homeless. So we have a lot of
organizations in town, but we're still not enough -- helping enough
because we still have lots more animals that need homes.
Page 19
February 10,2009
And one of the last things I want to say is, please make sure that
everyone spays and neuters their pets. While these are cute, we don't
need any more.
Thank you very much, and definitely appreciate your
proclamation today.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Who has the proclamation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, right here. There you go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY
16 - 23, 2009 AS ENGINEERS WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY DAN WATERS, PE, CALUSA CHAPTER
PRESIDENT; MARLENE MESSAM, PE, CALUSA CHAPTER
VICE-PRESIDENT; ALISON HUBER, PE, CALUSA CHAPTER
TREASURER; ALL YSON SWANSON, PE, DIRECTOR, CALUSA
CHAPTER WAY & MEANS CMTE., AND RALPH VERRASTRO,
PE, CHAIR, CALUSA CHAPTER MEMBERSHIP CMTE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioners, I don't know how we're
going to top that one, but the next proclamation is designating the
week of February 16th through the 23rd, 2009 as Engineers Week in
Collier County, to be accepted by Dan Waters, PE, Calusa Chapter
President; Marlene Messam, PE, Calusa Chapter Vice-president;
Alison Huber, PE, Calusa chapter treasurer; Allyson Swanson, PE,
Director, Calusa chapter Ways & Means Committee; Ralph Verrastro,
PE, Chair, Calusa Chapter Membership Committee.
Did I get everyone?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, ladies and
Page 20
February 10,2009
gentlemen. It's a pleasure to read this proclamation.
Whereas, engineers help to design, construct, and maintain the
infrastructure and facilities that contribute to the quality of life for all
residents in Collier County; and,
Whereas, maintaining the quality of life in Collier County during
periods of substantial growth depends on engineers developing
innovative, creative, and high-quality solutions to technical problems;
and,
Whereas, engineers, above all else, in the practice of their
profession, hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the
public; and,
Whereas, through the celebration of Engineers Week each year,
the Florida Engineering Society and its Calusa Chapter are dedicated
to sustaining and growing a dynamic engineering profession by
ensuring a diverse and well-educated future engineering workforce
and raising public understanding and appreciation of engineering
contributions to society; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wish to recognize
and honor those individuals who work and live in Collier County and
who practice the profession of engineering in an honorable,
responsible, ethical, and competent manner and to recognize and
honor these students who have chosen to be educated to follow a
career path in -- career path in the field of engineering.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February
16 through February 23, 2009, be designated as Engineers Week in
Collier County.
Done and ordered this 10th day of February, 2009, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Donna Fiala is the
chair.
And Chairman, I'd like to move this proclamation forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 21
February 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve and a second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That and a buck and a half will
get you a cup of coffee. Keep up the good work. Things are going to
get better hopefully soon.
MS. MESSAM: Madam Chairperson, Commissioners, my name
is Marlene Messam, and I'm the Vice-president of the Calusa Chapter
of the Florida Engineering Society, and I'm also a county employee.
And the people you see here with me, of course, Mr. Mudd has
said, are members of our board, and we are especially honored to
receive this proclamation in recognition of Engineers Week.
Thank you again for bringing attention to the many contributions
engineers of the past, present and future have made on the
development of our infrastructure and quality of life.
Indeed, this is one of the highlights of our year, and we are
grateful to be so recognized. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 26, 2009 AS J.
DUDLEY GOODLETTE DAY. ACCEPTED BY JEFFREY
ALLBRITTEN, PRESIDENT, EDISON STATE COLLEGE
Page 22
February 10, 2009
COLLIER CAMPUS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the last proclamation is
designating February 26,2009, as 1. Dudley Goodlette Day, to be
accepted by Jeffrey Allbritten, President of the Edison State College
Collier Campus.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas -- whereas, Dudley
Goodlette has provided exceptional leadership, loyalty, and dedication
to the advancement of the community in education, healthcare, and the
arts; and,
Whereas, he has served in leadership, philanthropy, and
advocacy roles in educational endeavors, including the Edison State
College Board Of Trustees, Florida Gulf Coast Foundation Board of
Directors, and the Southern Strategy Group; and,
Whereas, J. Dudley Goodlette forged strong bonds with members
of the community by serving as president of the Greater Naples Area
Chamber of Commerce and the Collier County Bar Association,
chairman in Naples -- chairman of the Naples Community
Development Advisory Board and the Collier County Economic
Development Council; and,
Whereas, he has provided excellent legislative services as a
members of the House of Representatives and has served on
committees such as the 20th Judicial Circuit Judicial Nomination
Commission, Florida Bar Board of Directors, Civil Justice Committee,
Domestic Security Committee, and the Prekindergarten through 12
Committee; and,
Whereas, for his outstanding contributions and dedication for the
advancement of the youth, he has been inducted into the Southwest
Florida Junior Achievement Business Leadership Hall of Fame,
received the Man of the Year Award for the Boys & Girls Club, and
Southwest Florida Council to the Boy Scouts of America's
Distinguished Citizen of the Year Award; and,
Page 23
February 10,2009
Whereas, due to the tireless hard work, commitment, and
devotion, J. Dudley Goodlette received the Naples Daily News Citizen
of the Year Award, the Economic Development Council of Collier
County Outstanding Volunteer of the Year, David Lawrence Beautiful
Mind, Beautiful Heart Award, and the Gulfshore Life Men of the
Year; and,
Whereas, he currently serves on the Florida Chamber of
Commerce Board of Directors, is an active partner of the law firm
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich & Koester, P A; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners is pleased to offer
a special tribute to 1. Dudley Goodlette, whose vision and effort on
behalf of Collier County merit the recognition and gratitude of our
citizens.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Thursday, February
26,2009, be designated at 1. Dudley Goodlette Day.
Done and ordered this 10th day of February, 2009, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
Madam Chair, I make a motion we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and second. All
those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
(Applause.)
Page 24
February 10,2009
MR. ALLBRITTEN: Thank you, Commissioners. I'm glad I'm
not following the puppies.
While I appreciate you doing this for Dudley, we're going to be
honoring him this year at the Seventh Annual Edison State College
Holland T. Sally Life Award, which is a leadership in fostering
education. It's on the 26th of February, so we'd be presenting him that
day and honoring all the work he's done in advancing education in this
community.
Thank you very much for this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty-sixth is going to be a busy day.
MR. ALLBRITTEN: It's going to be a busy day. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE ROBERT DENNISON,
PLANT MECHANIC, WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT, AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2009-
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our presentation
portion of the agenda. The first presentation is a recommendation to
recognize Robert Dennison, Plant Mechanic, Wastewater Department,
as Employee of the Month for January 2009.
Robert, could you come forward, please.
Robert Dennison, Plant Mechanic, has been nominated as
Employee of the Month for January, 2009.
Robert has been an employee of Collier County and the
wastewater department since 1989. He is an instrumental team
member at the South County Water Reclamation Center who
contributes greatly to its efficient operation and maintenance.
Page 25
February 10,2009
Robert is a top performer when it comes to productivity at the
facility. He makes sure to get the job done right the first time. Robert
uses his years of experience in the wastewater maintenance and
operation field to know what works and what doesn't. He makes
decisions that reduce equipment down time as well as operational and
maintenance costs.
He is often able to complete jobs in-house instead of using
outside vendors. There are many examples of this over the years.
Some of these include designing and building a baffle system for the
mixing tubes and the chlorine tanks and building a cleaning device for
the floors of the tanks. This device is able to clean the floors without
taking the tanks out of service. It also limits the needs for harsh and
expensive chemicals.
These are just a couple of instances where Robert has gone above
and beyond for his department. He is truly deserving of this award.
Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you
Mr. Robert Dennison, Plant Mechanic, Wastewater Department,
Employee of the Month of January, 2009.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Robert, here's a plaque from the county to
you. Please put it up proudly. We have a little check for you and a
little note from me.
Thank you very much for all your service. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep up the good work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your time and
effort.
MR. DENNlSON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. DENNISON: I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: That's okay. And that didn't hurt a bit.
Page 26
February 10,2009
Item #5B
PRESENT A TION BY KRAFT CONSTRUCTION ON THE
CONSTRUCTION STATUS OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE
ANNEX - PRESENTED BY PETER TUFFO
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next presentation is by Kraft
Construction on the construction status of the new courthouse annex.
MR. JONES: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,
Commissioners. For the record, Hank Jones, Department of Facilities
Management.
It's my pleasure this morning to introduce Mr. Pete Tuffo,
Vice-president of Kraft Construction. He's going to give you a brief
update on the status of the new courthouse annex.
Peter?
MR. TUFFO: Thank you, Hank. Good morning,
Commissioners.
Today I'd like to talk to you about the last 21 months of my
staffs life in building the courthouse annex that you see outside your
window.
First off, the first slide is going to show the project staff, and I
can tell you they are currently working nights and weekends as we do
the turnover and tie-in to the existing facility to make sure that we do
not interrupt the court functions. To date we have had minimal
complaints, and it's going very well as far as the court dates between
the buildings.
March of 2007, as you can see, we have taken down the old
atrium. We've cleared the site, we have relocated a bunch of existing
utilities, put together a survey so the next time this happens we'll know
exactly where everything is.
So the first open space, we moved the utilities -- the first quarter,
moving utilities, getting the atrium docked, and getting ready to go
Page 27
February 10,2009
vertical.
This next slide takes you to June. As can you see, the pilings are
in the ground, the pile caps are nearing completion, and the first floor
columns, which were substantial -- I believe they're 19 feet floor to
deck. The first floor columns are going up and we're beginning to go
vertical.
Next it takes us to September of2007. As you can see, we are
now pouring the second portion of the third floor deck. We are
basically pouring a floor about a month (sic), but we have a pour
every seven to eight days, pouring the building out in thirds. And the
project is moving along at a very good pace.
In December, we had met our goal. Our goal was always to have
the building topped out by December of2007. We did meet our goal.
I believe on the picture we're showing there we are getting ready to
pour the last portion. That is the roof deck now, the seventh floor
deck.
The tower crane is in place. We have begun the MEP overhead
rough-ins on floors two through seven and basically getting the
interior process as we're closing out the structure.
In March of 2008, you can see the precast along the building is
nearing its completion. On the back side it's not complete, but we
have started putting the precast up. We have also started putting in
some of the windows, getting ready to dry-in the building. And on the
back side, I believe -- it's not shown in the photo -- we are also
working on the atrium, starting to put the new structural steel up there.
In June of2008, we are beginning to install the glass, the dry-in
process is in place, we had already replaced the existing roof of -- the
roof on the existing courthouse. Weare starting the roof process on
the courthouse and, again, moving along as scheduled.
Window frames are going in, as well as interior metal framing
basically determining the spaces on each floor.
In September of 2008, as you can see, the precast is actually
Page 28
February 10, 2009
complete. The glass is nearing its completion. The glass was an issue,
but we did overcome that issue.
The HM stairway or stairway was installed. That was a key
milestone for the job as far as moving the atrium forward. That was
actually met, and we have also started tying in the two buildings doing
some interior demolition. Nights and weekends, again, to make sure
we do not interrupt court functions.
In January of2009, as you can see, it's -- this picture, I believe, is
actually three weeks old. Glass is installed. You have the sun shades
along the exterior. The interior finishes of the building on floors two
through seven are nearing their completion. We're actually in the
punch-out process, working with your staff as well as the architect in
making sure that the building meets the level of quality that we're
accustomed to.
That basically takes us through where we are now. Just some
interesting facts on the job.
Hank, if you could click over.
Interesting facts on the job. To date -- and this is something we
track as a company for productivity and then making sure that we can
meet schedules. But to date, we have had 330,2l9 manhours worked
on the project over the past 20 months. We average roughly,
depending on the phase of construction, anywhere from 70 to 120
employees a day going in and out of campus. And, again, I believe
the safety and security and keeping our people separate from your
staff has worked out very well over the past two years.
Again, 510 tons of reinforcing steel in the deck and roughly
4,000 cubic yards in the structure itself.
Just, most importantly, the project is on schedule and it is within
budget. Weare scheduled to have substantial completion the month
of March, and I believe you are beginning to move in the month of
April.
A few interior photos. Here's the ticket counter for ticket
Page 29
February 10,2009
collecting. Basically the cashiers and work stations area. The next
picture, that's a typical floor. Once you get above the third floor,
typical floor open. As you can see, the interior walls are radius, so it
does create a very nice atmosphere for the property.
The last picture is the brick pavers actually just outside the front
entry . We're working right now to finalize the last bit of site work,
and landscaping will begin so we can be out of here in the next 30
days.
Also, that's the front portion of the building. Working there to
put the bus station, get landscaping in, get that cleaned up and make it
look presentable. We are also working on finalizing all the work that
needs to take place on the road between the courthouse and the
parking garage. That will take place in the next two weeks.
That is a picture -- I believe that picture's probably a couple days
old. That is the current walkway going into the new atrium. Very
nice space.
With that, I'd like to turn it over to any questions that you guys
may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that your firm
has done an outstanding job in building this thing, this annex to the
courthouse. I'm looking forward to the day that we cut the ribbon, and
I hope that there's an open house so that the citizens of the county can
go down here and get an idea of what we've accomplished here.
And I'm sure that the new occupants, the judges that are going to
be here in residence, I hope they appreciate all the time and effort that
your corporation has put into this. I know that I'm very proud of
what's been accomplished here in the short period of time that the --
when you started.
And I've been in there once, and I'm looking forward to going
back in there when it's getting close to being finished. Thank you.
MR. TUFFO: Thank you.
Page 30
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Coy le?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to add my
thanks for ajob well done. Adding a building of this size and in the
middle of a government complex without disrupting our operations is
a -- is a very difficult task, and Kraft Construction has handled it in a
very efficient and professional manner.
I appreciate what you've done. It's a credit to you and your
organization. Of course, I have to say it's not unusual where Kraft is
involved. Almost all the projects you've done for us have been on
budget and on schedule. Thank you very much.
MR. TUFFO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'd like to emphasize that this
building has kept a lot of people working in these times when times
are tough. And why? Because it was built with impact fees. Had we
not been collecting impact fees, we wouldn't have been able to build
this building. Just like to emphasize that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's build another one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's build another one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we're running out of impact fees.
MR. TUFFO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2009-32: APPOINTING GEORGE J. WILDER,
JEREMY STERK AND THOMAS SOBEZAK TO THE LAND
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that will bring us to Board of
County Commissioners paragraph, Paragraph 9. Appointment of
Page 31
February 10,2009
members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve committee's
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve the
committee recommendation and a -- by Commissioner Henning, and a
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2009-33: APPOINTING MARTIN F.
KLINGENBERG (AS THE ALTERNATE), ROBERT F.
KAUFMAN (CURRENT ALTERNATE TO REGULAR), RE-
APPOINTING GERALD 1. LEFEBVRE AND RE-APPOINTING
LARRY DEAN MIESZCAK TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, 9B,
appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Were these positions
advertised? I see that one member wants to be appointed to a full-time
Page 32
February 10,2009
member, not an alternate.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. They were advertised, and he submitted an
application to become a regular member. If he becomes a regular
member, then the other -- the Klingenberg applicant would have to be
appointed as the alternate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What would you like to approve,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- that -- the person that is
requesting to be full time --
MS. FILSON: Robert Kaufman.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- who is now temporary to be put
on this full time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that's Mr. Kaufman?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second. I presume that
also means that Mr. Klingenberg will be the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The alternate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the alternate.
MS. FILSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And did you also want to confirm
Gerald Lefebvre and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and Larry Dean?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
So I have a motion to approve, and I just outlined what it is, so I
don't have to repeat it. That's Commissioner Halas, a second by
Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion.
Page 33
February 10,2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSlONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2009-34: APPOINTING MICHAEL F ACUNDO
AND JAMES I. WALL (TO FULFILL REMAINDER OF THE
VACANT TERMS EXPIRING ON APRIL 4, 2011) AND
EDWARD "SKI" OLESKY (W/WAIVING SIMULTANEOUS
SERVICE ON MORE THAN TWO COUNTY BOARDS) TO
FULFILL THE REMAINDER OF A VACANT TERM PLUS A 4
YEAR TERM EXPIRING ON APRIL 4, 20 l3 TO THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9C, appointment
of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
committee recommendation of Michael Facundo.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR. KLATZKOW: You need a waiver for Mr. Olesky.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Ski Olesky is a waiver,
and James Wall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Page 34
February 10,2009
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2009-35: APPOINTING PAMELA 1. BROWN TO
THE IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 90, appointment
of a member to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Pamela
Brown.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve Pam Brown, second --
by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Page 35
February 10, 2009
Item #9F
CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST BY THE
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE (7-3) THAT THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RECONSIDER THEIR DIRECTIVE
THAT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE MEETINGS BE
RELOCATED - MOTION FOR MEETINGS TO REMAIN IN THE
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND NOT BE TELEVISED-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, Item 9E is time certain, four p.m.
Brings us to 9F, consideration of the request by the Productivity
Committee, 7-3, Board of County Commissioners reconsider their
directive that the Productivity Committee be relocated. Commissioner
-- and this is Commissioner Coyle's.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, as the liaison to the
Productivity Committee, the Productivity Committee has asked that I
bring this up for your consideration. The committee has -- the
Productivity Committee feels that having the meetings, having their
meetings televised will inhibit their free flow of ideas and will not
result in the most efficient use of their meeting time.
So they would ask that the board reconsider the directive that the
Productivity Committee meetings be relocated to another room,
another meeting area, so that it could be televised.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you know, in these tough
economic times, boy, it should be nice to emphasize what the
Productivity Committee is doing by having it on TV. I thought it was
prudent direction at our last meeting. That's my only opinion. But
whatever the majority wants to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
Page 36
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I agree with the
recommendations of the -- I'll tell you why, with the Productivity
Committee. They're an independent group of people that volunteer
their time. We can't force them to do anything, but their services to
this county have been absolutely remarkable and guided us along the
way.
These are people that are not politically motivated. They're not
looking for the limelight, and that -- I go along with their
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do I hear a motion? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would prefer not to make a
motion because I promised the Productivity Committee that I would
bring it to the Board of County Commissioners to get a sense of the
county commissioners' position.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll make the motion then
that the board of -- or the Productivity Committee remain as it is at the
present time where the -- we will not televise their proceedings, and I
guess they can -- they would like to move to another room; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, they don't -- I don't think they
want to move to another room.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically what you're saying is
they want to stay status quo where they are right at the present time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's essentially what they're
saying they would like to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's my motion. Stay
status quo.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be happy to second that
Page 37
February 10,2009
motion and also mention the fact that their meetings are open to the
public, and anyone that wants to attend can.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Halas to keep the Productivity Committee meeting in the same place
that they have been meeting, and I have a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That is a 4-1 vote. Thank you.
Item # lOA
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ADOPTS THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY (STUDY) DATED DECEMBER
2008 AND DIRECTS STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMP ACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE
INCORPORA nON BY REFERENCE OF THE STUDY. ALSO,
THAT THE BCC REVIEWS THE FISCAL ANALYSIS AND
ADDITIONAL DATA REQUESTED DURING THE JANUARY
13,2009 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM #10C AND
DIRECTS STAFF TO ADOPT THE APPROPRIATE IMP ACT FEE
Page 38
February 10,2009
RATE SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE - MOTION TO
APPROVE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY, LESS THE TRIP
LENGTH STUDY, AND STAFF TO RETURN WITH REPORT ON
IMPACT FEE INDEXING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to the long-awaited
presentation by Mr. Norman Feder, and it's lOA. It's a request that the
Board of County Commissioners adopts the Collier County
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study, the study dated December,
2008, and direct staff to bring back an ordinance amending Schedule 1
of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance
providing for the incorporation by reference of the study, also that the
BCC reviews the fiscal analysis and additional data requested during
the January 13, 2009, regular meeting agenda, Item 10C, and direct
staff to adopt the appropriate impact fee rate schedule and payment
schedule.
Again -- Norman, you've changed. I'm sorry. Mr. Nick
Casalanguida, your Director of Transportation Planning, will present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you. Good morning. For the
record, Nick Casalanguida.
Commissioners, you brought up some good questions at the last
meeting regarding impact fees. You had us go through and meet with
the industry, review the fiscal analysis, and come back to you with
some ideas and some numbers to kind of give you a feel for what's
going on out there.
We've gone through our five-year eIE, and that's coming up to
you in March for review as well, too. We looked at our construction
cost estimates, our program, and determined what kind of fiscal
impact it would have if we adopted the Productivity Committee
recommendation.
You're looking anywhere between 5- and $6 million less
Page 39
February 10,2009
annually, and we've kind of outlined what that would mean in terms of
if you wanted to maintain the CIE, what it would do to the general
fund, or we would have to supplement that CIE funding to make that
happen.
We've looked at what's out there for units, pending invested, and
we've talked to some of the industry. As you can tell in the executive
summary, there's a significant amount of dollars that's committed to be
paid.
And then more importantly, you've asked us to kind of get with
the community, development community especially, and to determine
what could be done besides, you know, determining what the rate
would be, but how you pay that that might benefit them as well, too.
In that we found some interesting discussions.
I'm going to put on the viewer a couple of examples, and I would
like to walk you through them because the examples will tell you a lot.
I have copies for you individually if you'd like, or we can just kind of
use the viewer. If you want me to pass this out to you, I can. It's a
little easier to read.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You asked us two questions with
respect to impact fees. One of the questions was, if we adjusted the
payment schedule on the back end or talking to the development
community, what it would do to our program and what it would do as
a benefit to them, so we looked at them. What we found is that
typically in your payment plan right now they pay 50 percent down of
the then-anticipated impact fees on the plat and then pay the second 50
percent three years later.
What we're proposing is that we break that up into five equal
payments, and they are fixed payments. So if you look at the example
of a new project, a hundred-unit platted subdivision with a million
dollars of anticipated road impacts, upon approval of the plat, they
would put $200,000 down and provide surety for the next years'
Page 40
February 10,2009
payment.
With the five-year payment plan, it does not change if fees go up.
Currently they pay 50 percent down, which is a half a million dollars,
and then in the following three years, they would pay the then new
rate, which could be as much as $750,000. So there's a big disparity in
that -- in that third year as to what they propose to pay under the new
program and what they currently pay.
By breaking down the payments into four equal payments, they
get the surety of knowing what that number's going to be. It's fixed.
And then we can count on a five-year plan, because our CIE works on
a five-year system as well, too. In working on capital programs, we
look at a five-year window as well.
They would get a credit for any amount that they've built. In
other words, if they've built 30 homes in any given year, they would
get a credit for those impact fee credits that were paid so that if in the
next year they had a payment due, that credit might offset that
payment until the following year.
Then you have the problem of existing projects. And if you look
at the second page under existing projects, right here, under the
proposed environment as I've just discussed, they would pay the
second half plus any increases, so they could pay as much as $750,000
under that scenario.
What we're proposing now is that we take that same payment,
that five equal payments and go back to what they paid on the first
year, that -- in the first rate, which is the million, 10 percent over five
years, they would pay a hundred thousand dollars a year for five
years, and that would vest them as well, too.
Now, again, they would still get the credit for any homes that
they built in any given year because we're collecting those impact fees
as they come in. They would always pay the final given rate of the
impact fee upon building permit. That doesn't change, because that is
your GMP; growth pays for growth at the rate that we experience the
Page 41
_,. "~__,_, .'"'_.e~"_~..~_~_'__"'__"_ ,.-_.._____~,.____._,~.~,__.,.__.,._.__
February 10,2009
cost to build our roads. It's just how they pay as opposed to what they
pay.
And in talking to the industry, we talked to a couple of the
attorneys, a couple of the building groups, and a couple of the
engineers that do the planning for them, and they've all supported this
idea. We think it can work with our five-year CIE. The caution that
we have is it may back-end your program or it may cause you to
borrow the paper -- the commercial in advance if you wanted to keep
the projects on schedule, because you're pushing out those payments
more over time than the second half is due.
In the executive summary you saw that there was about $14
million outstanding. Some of these folks can't afford to pay the
second half right now as they sit, so we wouldn't be collecting those
funds as it sits right now.
Under both scenarios, they each get locked in and they're vested.
And in the scenario we're talking about right now, the proposed
scenario, at any point in time if they pay 100 percent of the impact
fees that were proposed upon day one, they would lock in their vesting
in perpetuity.
So we think it's fair with the development community, they've
supported it, and we think it's a way that we can work together to
offset the system that we have right now in terms of when they pay.
You've also asked, Commissioners, to look at, especially
Commissioner Coyle, what we could do on roads that have capacity.
As part of the executive summary, we made a couple notes on that. It
would be problematic to do because there's a lot of intangibles. When
you look at our current GMP, we have a 2 percent, 2 percent, 3
percent threshold requirement on impacts for transportation projects.
So you start trying to figure out what those impacts are on
projects on adjacent links that may have capacity, that don't have
capacity. You also run into a problem where a developer could, on a
road that has plenty of capacity, plat a large subdivision and not pay
Page 42
February 10,2009
anything up front and then lock in that capacity in that road.
So what I've kind of said in the executive summary is if you want
us to look into this farther, it's going to require a lot more detail and
sitting down with the development community and maybe even a
workshop with the board, because there's so many intangibles that the
logistics of doing something like that might be more difficult than
originally thought.
That said, you have in front of you a proposal for a five-year
payment plan, and we're recommending that you adopt the current rate
study. You had discussed the trip length study as something you'd
want to maybe consider for a later time. We think we've done a good
job with the trip length study, but we only had four data points, and
we could take more data points over time if that was the board's
direction.
With that, I'll answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I read the summary that was given
to us. I'm concerned, what obligations do we presently have for
development agreements to meet any criteria? Do we have any at this
point in time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: OCAs, developer contribution
agreements?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIOA: We do. We have several developer
contribution agreements, some for impact fee credits, some to pay
impact fees in advance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any that we have to
build roads for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. They're -- well, Oil Well
Road project. That would be the one. No other ones other than Oil
Well Road. We have projects where the developer would be building
the roads.
Page 43
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what is our obligation as far as
when this -- when is the start time for building this Oil Well Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's supposed to have been about a
year ago, about a year or two ago, sir, but it's pending permits. So as
soon as those permits are completed, we're supposed to begin the
project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if we push back the impact
fees, how are we going to meet the fiscal responsibility for this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't think it's as much you're
pushing the impact fees back as you are balancing. The issue right
now is, on the second half payments particularly, they don't have the
money to pay that in my example of$750,000.
Most developments are coming to us right now saying, I don't
have the money to pay that large sum. I can't pay it. What happens
next?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So can we -- if that's the case, do
we have the ability to not meet that requirement, that obligation, for
the DCA if we don't have the money in the bank to build this Oil Well
Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we've agreed to do -- and we
have a significant amount ofthose funds already set aside. What
we've agreed to do as working with Ave Maria and the DCA, is that
we will build as much as we have funded and available to build, with
our priority being the west section that's currently where the schools
are, there's a two-lane road going one or two miles east to Everglades;
and then the remaining dollars we currently have, we will let that
project on the east side to fit that budget.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So to recapture what we've just
discussed, you're saying that we could set up an agreement whereby
the impact fees would only have to be paid 20 percent for each year
for five years; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
Page 44
February 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we would still meet the
obligations that we have promised for DCA requirements; is that
correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Now, I've got to caveat
that. If the planet falls into a tailspin of fiscal environment, a year
from now nothing comes in, that could be a different story.
But assuming that our revenue stream stays stable to what we've
seen the past six months to a year, we could probably maintain that
schedule as we would described it in the CIE.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what happens if it gets into a
worse situation as far as people making those obligations of20
percent? Where does that put us as far as being fiscally responsible
for meeting the obligations that we've promised?
MR. CASALANGUIOA: If the second 20 percent or continuing
payments are not made, then we would take the existing funds we
have now, any commitments to funds to borrow, and do as much as
we could as far as our project's concerned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The good part is, is we do an AUIR
and CIE every year, so we always take a sample. They're usually
about six months apart, so you get a pretty good update of the revenue
environment, our cost projections every six months or so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have three commissioners
waiting to speak, but we have two speakers. I'd like to hear the
speakers, and then we'll move forward.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Chris Hasty.
MR. HASTY: Hasty, yes.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Rich Yovanovich.
MR. HASTY: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
I'm Chris Hasty, for the record, from Estero.
I'd like to take this opportunity to speak on behalf of Oivosta
Page 45
February 10, 2009
Homes, Del Webb, and Pulte Homes. We believe that the staff has
done an excellent job in creating a viable alternative to the current
impact pace -- impact fee pay schedules while both maintain the
integrity of the capital improvement plan and also providing some
relief to the development community.
We fully support adjustments to a five-equal-payment plan, and
this adjustment will also -- it will improve our development cash flows
while helping us to maintain the doors open and sales in those
communities.
Our company, Divosta, Del Webb, and Pulte, we do have eight
projects across the county. We've got Milano and Verona Point to the
north side of the county, Verona Walk on the south side, Twin Eagles
and Orange Blossom out towards the Oil Well, and then we have four
communities in Ave Maria, so we're pretty-well spread out across the
county.
And as I said, this will improve the cash flow in each of those
communities by allowing -- and it will help us keep those doors open,
continue sales, and hopefully get through this downturn quicker.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of Toll Brothers. Not to repeat what Chris just
said, but the same is true for Toll Brothers.
As you know, the original schedule was set up with 50 percent up
front and 50 percent -- and with the third year, back when, you know,
there was a -- quite a rapid pace for absorption in Collier County,
we've seen that that has slowed dramatically and has had quite an
effect on the entire community.
So it's really a cash-flow issue. And what staff is proposing from
a cash-flow perspective is helpful to Toll Brothers. They have one
Page 46
February 10,2009
project still, it's the old movie -- drive-in movie theater or Cook
parce 1.
It's doing well but not as well as had been originally anticipated
with the old schedule. This schedule works from a cash flow
perspective, helps the county stay on task and track to fund its
improvements while at the same time allows the project to continue to
go forward and to continue to operate and hopefully sell out at some
point and keep the community going, and it's obviously good for the
community as far as getting the roads built as well, and we see this as
a win-win for the development community as well as for
transportation and Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Rich.
Were you next, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I would just like to
very briefly recap what we asked the staff to do, and then I would like
to suggest a course of action.
But we asked the staff to take a look at whether we should go
with the current impact fee study with the trip-length update which
would have increased impact fees; we asked them to take a look at the
impact fee study without the trip-length change, which will decrease
impact fees; and we asked them to take a look at the Productivity
Committees' recommendations and look at all those from the
standpoint of financial feasibility.
And what they have said to us in this report is that the
Productivity Committee's recommendations will probably result in us
not having sufficient money to meet our Capital Improvement
Element obligations of the Growth Management Plan. It will put us in
jeopardy.
Ifwe go with the current update with or without the trip-length
change, we can meet our requirements. I think that's an accurate
Page 47
February 10,2009
statement. Have I summarized essentially what you've said?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, you have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, to give the board--
I've asked the staff for some additional information. To give the board
an understanding of what that really means is, if we include the
trip-length study, residential -- residential impact fees are going to
increase by 3 percent on average, and commercial will decrease about
15 percent.
Ifwe go without the trip-length study, that is, keep the trip-length
calculations exactly the same as they were during the last update, we
will be reducing residential impact fees by 6 percent on average and
reducing commercial impact fees by 18 percent on average.
So the elimination of the trip length itself does achieve a 6
percent and 18 percent decrease in residential and commercial impact
fees. So 1 would like for us to proceed to give the staff guidance to
use the same trip-length study that we used last time to achieve a
reduction in impact fees which will keep us financially responsible
and able to proceed with our capital improvement element as it's
currently defined, but to also continue their evaluation of the phased
payment of impact fees so that we can, perhaps, encourage some
improvement in the overall economy in Collier County.
But -- now, that's my summary and a suggested course of --
course of action.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I'd like -- okay, that is
a motion then.
Now, let me ask -- can we have discussion now, Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. There was one other thing
that we discussed at the Productivity Committee, maybe a couple of
other things. Now, do you have a linear regression analyst expert
here?
Page 48
February 10, 2009
MR. CASALANGUIOA: I do not. Mr. Oliver did not -- Tindall
did not attend this meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's been a long, long time
since I've worked with linear regressions, but let me tell you what my
gut feel tells me. If a linear regression was used, it's going to prohibit
the recent data which suggests lower costs from having much of an
impact on the final result, particularly if the linear regression analysis
uses data over, let's say, a five- to seven-year period.
If it's a nonlinear regression analysis -- if it's a nonlinear
regression analysis, then it is likely to minimize that adverse impact I
just described, but it still isn't going to show much of a downtrend in
impact fees until there is more years of data at a lower cost.
So what we -- what I thought I heard was a commitment to take a
look at our formula to see if we could have that formula adjusted so
that it can begin to trail off more rapidly during periods of economic
decline and, therefore -- therefore, lower costs of construction of
infrastructure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Let me just make sure I clarify
something. You're talking about maybe more indexing where we're
working right now with the Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, because -- because
what I'm -- what I want to do -- well, I'd like to do, I'd recommend that
we do, is that our indexing should have an influence on the other
impact fees. We're talking about transportation impact fees only here.
Now, our efforts on transportation are going to be for no reason
at all. It will have no effect if the impact fees for all the other
categories go up, right?
MR. CASALANGUIOA: I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, if the impact fees for
all the other categories actually follow the economy and the cost of
infrastructure development more closely, then we not only will see a 6
percent and an 18 percent decline in impact fees for residential and
Page 49
February 10, 2009
commercial for transportation, but we will see similar declines in
impact fees for the other categories of infrastructure. And taken in the
aggregate, it can mean a significant benefit while still maintaining our
ability to build the infrastructure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for a point of clarification. I've
almost become a psuedo expert on transportation impact fees.
We've done a hard analysis study, what I call a hard study for
transportation. Your discussion, I think, leans towards what the
Productivity Committee and our consultant, Steve Tindale, will work
with Amy's office on the other fees and transportation when we index.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But for this discussion today --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is only transportation fees and it
is only this particular study.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. And this study was a hard study;
in other words, we didn't index anything on this study. It's -- we took
actual data points and said, these are our actual costs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But I understand where you're going,
and I think we are working with that. Maybe Amy wants to touch on
that a little bit.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe -- and I'm not Amy, but
come on up, Amy. But what I will say to you is, you basically smooth
your impacts if you take it over a longer period of time, and I believe
that's what you're saying.
What I will tell you is, if you go to a three-year or smaller, that
will help. I would -- I would want staff to come back after Mr.
Tindale does -- and does some analysis.
And the reason I want to come back and talk to you about it is,
you have a requirement to do a study for impact fees every three
years, and you index in the in-between years. Right now we have
impact fee studies on the books for '09 that will cost us close to
Page 50
February 10,2009
$450,000.
I believe this particular change that the board would like would
help us not to have to go through that kind of study in order to spend
that kind of money.
So I would like to get that back from Amy and then from Mr.
Tindale and come back to the board at a meeting soon as to kind of
give you an idea of what that impact will have about where we sit on
the other categories of impact fees if that's the board's desire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So outside the motion, I'd like to come back and
have the board -- at least the board's direction to go through that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay. Then let me just
clarifY the motion. It is essentially to accept your recommendations
and to provide you guidance to take a look at the phased payment of
impact fees under the current situation and then to ask you to come
back to us with a report concerning the indexing of transportation
impact fees and other impact fees over a shorter period of time to see
what impact that will have on our financial ability to continue
infrastructure development.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Can do that, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you didn't mention trip length or not
trip length.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yes, we did, because --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You did?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. My intention was that they
eliminate the new -- the effect of the new trip-length study and retain
the same trip-length parameters they used in the last study.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. I think you said that before,
but I just wanted -- being that you were reiterating, I thought that
should be added to that.
And Jeff Klatzkow, did you have something to add?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for board direction. If staffs going to
Page 51
_.-_.,-~""...,." "~-.--,~-__...__u___,_u.
February 10, 2009
look at payments over time, how does the board want that to affect
vesting? I mean, right now what we're doing should be spent off the
top and then you pay it back, and you're fully vested, just as long as
you apply for that.
We're changing the time periods now for payment. Do you want
us also to keep vesting while they're still paying, or do you want to
incentivize payment upfront by not giving vesting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that we need to
change the vesting concept here. What we're trying to do is give them
a time payment plan. But we're going to make sure that vesting
doesn't expire --
MR. CASALANGUIOA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for them. We're not going to--
we're not going to ask them for progress payments and then say,
whoops, your vesting is expired now. We're not going to do that,
right?
MR. CASALANGUIOA: No, sir. This is the -- what we've
outlined is, you become vested on day one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIOA: You pay that 10 percent or 20 percent,
depending on where you are in your payment plan right now, and you
become locked in and committed. It's almost like that final payment
on the car is the fifth-year payment, and then you own the car.
So you own the car and then you drive it while you're making
your payments, and then when you make your final payment, you get
the title to the policy. So you're vested on day one, fully vested when
you make your final payment.
But for clear direction, you want me to implement the five-year
payment plan as I've outlined in these examples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my intent, yes.
MR. CASALANGUIOA: Okay, very good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And does the second agree?
Page 52
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, and just a clarification on
the motion, is to adopt the impact fee study --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- less the new trip impact?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is correct. That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, next we have Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In these trying economic times,
you know, individuals or corporations, we're all in the same boat, of
course, these large corporations that are paying tremendous impact
fees, or hopefully will be paying them, they hire many, many people
to work for them. So their well-being is crucial to Collier County's
well-being and workers that are within Collier County.
I'm a little bit concerned about what happens if the fifth-year car
payment, that company at that moment in time is -- finds themselves
at a disadvantage, cash broke mainly? Do they lose everything that
they have paid into it? Do they lose their vesting?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Commissioners, you're going to
have that situation. And since it's limited and what we've talked about
with the development communities is to bring them to you on a
case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is going to be an avenue
where they can come forward and it's not going to be an automatic
thing where, unarbitrarily (sic), just get cut off and that ends the whole
process and everything they invest into it would be lost; so that's not
necessarily the case?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
MR. MUDD: No. Commissioner, impact fees paid stay with the
land, okay? They don't disappear. So even if they were only able to
make four payments, they still have 80 percent of their impact fees
Page 53
February 10, 2009
locked into that property, okay, and they can draw based on building
permits. So they won't lose any dollars.
But if we get into the vesting issue, as Nick said, we will come
back to the board on a case-by-case basis and those particular -- so
that the petitioner can make their request of the board, and we can
bring the board up to speed on it if we get into that particular situation
that you described.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was an excellent question. Thank you
for asking that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSlONER HENNING: Legal question. Well, first a
statement. Every time that we advertise the ordinance, it costs money.
We have to do a legal advertisement. Other fees that we charge are in
resolution.
So my question is, can we revamp the ordinance to say that the
fees, impact fees, will be recognized in a resolution? That way when
we do the studies, all we have to do is a resolution instead of having to
do an ordinance change.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I understand the question. We will look
into doing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does anybody have a problem
with that direction?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the only thing I have.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My only concern as we work
through this whole process, whether it's impact fees for roads or
whether it's impact fees totally, is that we don't end up with a revenue
shortfall to the point where we then have to use ad valorem money to
shore up the losses.
Page 54
February 10,2009
So if I can be assured that we're not going to have to dig into ad
valorem taxes to shore up what needs to be provided for the growth in
this county, then I'm okay with this, but I have to have that assurance.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, if I could give you that
100 percent assurance, I wouldn't be working for Collier County. I'd
be in Wall Street. But what I can tell you because of what's going on --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In jail.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- what I can tell you, what's going on,
is that we do an AUIR and a CIE within six months, and we're going
to keep taking that temperature and you're going to see the trends on a
short-term basis. And I'm going to report to you, and hopefully I'll
still be here and be able to tell you with a straight face, this is where
we're heading and this is what the impacts are.
Ifwe see trends developing where impact fee revenues do not
come in as expected, we're going to let you know, and then we're
going to tell you, maybe this project in the fifth year is in jeopardy,
and that's why.
But it is not our intention to ask you for ad valorem dollars to
maintain the CIE.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you're talking for the
transportation. I'm--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- looking at the overall big picture
of all the impact fees and the requirements that we have to make in
order to make sure that we meet the concurrency, whether it's the
concurrency that we have already set by the county or whether it's the
concurrency set by the state so that we don't end up in a situation
where we have to then go into ad valorem taxes, which we're not
going have that cushion any longer.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So all I'm saying is that
when this study comes back, I want to make -- I want to be assured
Page 55
February 10,2009
that we're not jeopardizing what we presently have, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I also have a question. And I'm sorry to
jump in front of you, Commissioner Coyle, but -- and that is, those
that have already paid their 50 percent down, impact fees 50 percent
down and maybe who are having problems meeting the other 50
percent commitment, are we going to renegotiate with them to put
them on this payment plan as well so that then they'll be able to move
forward with their development?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. They would get the
opportunity to go into five equal payments of roughly 10 percent of
the original amount. So with my example, if they owed 750,000
under the current scenario --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- they would owe 100,000 over five
years. So it definitely helps them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would just like to very
strongly support what Commissioner Halas has said, that this is a
significant trap. We've got to be very careful about how we deal with
it. If we reduce impact fees and the anticipated taxes, other revenues
don't come in to help us do what we need to do, we're going to be in a
difficult situation.
So we have to be very, very careful. And I would suggest that
we -- we budget that tax revenue very conservatively, be very, very
careful. And I've talked with the county manager. He's doing that. I
feel comfortable that that is happening.
But there are surprises always. So Commissioner Halas is
absolutely right. We cannot let ourselves fall into that trap because it's
going to be very, very difficult to dig ourselves out of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 56
February 10, 2009
MR. CASALANGUIOA: Commissioners, it's our intention, as
transportation did talk about it, as we go through the legislative
session and we go through the AUIR and CIE cycle, we're going to try
and give you more updates because we're in a time where things are
changing really, really quick.
So we're going to try and keep you abreast of anything that's
going on, on a quick turnaround so that way you can see things
happening and changing. So I agree with the commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, thank you so much
for bringing that up. We really appreciate that.
And with that, we have a motion on the floor and a second, and
we have Jim Mudd with his hand up. Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Just that Commissioner Halas brings up an
interesting point. I want to make sure that you understand, your other
impact fees, you've -- your other impact fees, you've borrowed money
to build a building or whatever, and you owe payments on it.
Transportation, you haven't borrowed money yet to supplant impact
fees.
Remember that $50 million that we talked about in an AUIR, oh,
two years ago that I was going to get -- started to get drawn in 2010
and then was going to go out for five years, and the impact fees were
going to -- as they came in, were going to pay it off in order to get it
done.
When you borrow that $50 million, depending on where it is, you
now have that process that Commissioner Halas talked about about
transportation. So we really have to monitor it very closely, because if
your impact fees come in, you have no way to pay off that five-year
loan, and they're not extending them past five years. So you will have
to have another revenue source in order to get it.
So we will watch it very closely. But good point. But I'll let you
know, in transportation, that particular situation comes to -- comes to
fruition when we draw that $50 million for the Oil Well Road project.
Page 57
February 10,2009
And we'll let you know when that goes, and we'll come to the board
with permission in order to draw it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. We have a motion
on the floor by Commissioner Coy le, a second by Commissioner
Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, we'll take a ten-minute
break. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Be back at 10:40.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10B
FUND AGREEMENT NO. 4600001684 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,500,000.00 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: (1) LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; (2) FREEDOM PARK; AND (3)
GATEWAY TRIANGLE STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT - APPROVED
Page 58
February 10, 2009
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Next item on your agenda is 108. It's a recommendation to
approve funding agreement number 4600001684 in the amount of
$1,500,000 with the South Florida Water Management District to
provide assistance with the construction of three storm water
improvement projects. The first one is the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project, the second is Freedom Park, and the third is the
Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvement Project.
Mr. Norman -- Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Service
Administrator, will present. Again, Commissioners, this is accepting a
grant for three projects for $1.5 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor. It
was an excellent presentation, Mr. Feder.
A motion on the floor from Commissioner Henning to approve,
and a second by Commissioner Coletta. I see no comments from any
of our board members.
All those in favor -- oh, yes, Commissioner Halas. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is from the South Florida
Water Management; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this is some of the tax
dollars that the citizens of Collier County contribute to South Florida
Water Management that we're getting back to us to address
stormwater issues?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Great.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Page 59
February 10,2009
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #10E
AWARD OF BID #09-5169 TO THE LOWEST QUALIFIED AND
RESPONSIVE BIDDER BCBE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF THE GOODLAND
BOAT PARK PROJECT #80611.1 FOR A LUMP SUM PRICE OF
$1,690,020.28 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on your agenda--
again, 10C happens at 11 o'clock, and I believe a lot of people are here
to listen and participate in that particular item.
10D is continued until 2/24, and that was on your change sheet
this morning.
Brings us to 10E. It's a recommendation for the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the award of bid number 09-5169 to the
lowest qualified responsive bidder, BCBE Construction Company,
Inc., for the construction contract of the Goodland Boat Park Project,
number 80611.1, for a lump sum price of $1 ,690,020.28.
Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Public Services Administrator, will
present.
MS. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioners. You do have
before you the bids that we received for the Goodland Boat Park. We
had 13 qualified bidders that submitted. Of those bidders Boran,
Page 60
February 10, 2009
Craig, Barber and Engel Construction Company is the low bid.
And I don't have a presentation, but I'm here to answer questions
if you need any.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm very impressed with the
amount of companies that bidded on this project.
My question is, is this funds cash that we have or is it going to be
borrowed monies?
MS. RAMSEY: It's cash in the project, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So no borrowed monies?
MS. RAMSEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve,
and a second. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning, a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I would hope that at some point in
time our transportation department just makes sure that boats can pass
-- I mean, boat trailers can pass one another on those roads. I've
mentioned it to them, but I'll just say it on the record.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 61
February 10, 2009
Item #12A
FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
APPROVE THE FILING OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT TO RECOVER THREE OUTSTANDING CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIENS PRESENTLY TOTALING $517,662.48,
REGARDING THE JERRY BLOCKER AND KIMBERLEA
BLOCKER PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1101 ALACHUA
STREET, IMMOKALEE FLORIDA, A/K/A SHELLS TRAILER
PARK FOLIO #63864720000, #63864680001, AND #63864760002
- MOTION TO TABLE ITEM TO LATER IN THE MEETING -
APPROVED; MOTION TO UN-TABLE ITEM - APPROVED;
MOTION TO APPROVE ACTION TO FORECLOSE-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is very unusual.
lOF --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have anything to do.
MR. MUDD: 10F -- I'm running out of items, with all the time
certains.
10F is a time-certain, 4:30 p.m., and that used to be 16A 1.
Again, it was on the change sheet.
That brings us to our next item, which is 12A, and we normally
have public comment on general topics.
Ms. Filson, do we have anybody that has public comments on
general topics yet?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
MR. MUDD: We'll come back.
So we'll go to 12A, which used to be 16K4. And I won't read the
folio numbers again because I've mentioned them this morning.
But this item is for the Board of County Commissioners to
Page 62
February 10,2009
approve the filing of foreclosure action with the Circuit Court of the
20th Judicial Circuit to recover three outstanding code enforcement
liens presently totaling $517,662.48, regarding the Jerry Blocker and
Kimberlea Blocker property located at 1101 Alachua Street,
Immokalee, Florida, a/k1a, the Shells Trailer Park, and there's three
folio numbers that precede it, and I mentioned them this morning.
This item is moved from the consent agenda to the regular
agenda at Commissioner Coletta's request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, would you like to
speak first, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I only pulled it for one
reason, and that was the request I received from Patrick White to --
was it Patrick White? I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Well, you looked at me
kind of strange. I wondered if maybe 1 did that wrong -- who wanted
to appear before the commission before we acted on this to be able to
speak to us.
Is patrick White here?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, at this point in time I don't
know what to tell you. Is there any representative of the Blockers
here?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is the Blockers here?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This wasn't a time certain?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it was not.
Well, I'll tell you what, for the sake of fairness, I would like to
table this to a little bit later to see if they -- he does appear. I'm not too
sure what went wrong. Maybe it was a miscommunication regarding
Page 63
February 10,2009
when to appear. Ifwe could table this until later in the day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, let me -- well, we still have
eight minutes till we're allowed to start because this was -- it was --
MR. MUDD: Time certain at 11 o'clock, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- a time certain at eleven. Let me say to
all of those people in the audience, if you have any phones, cell
phones on you right now --
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, the last time -- I just need to get
more than two nods to table this particular item.
Commissioner Coletta, you need a motion in order to do so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to table.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second. You mean till later in the
meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to table till later in the
meeting by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 4-1.
Anybody who has cell phones, would you please turn them off or
at least put them on vibrate. Anybody who wants to speak on this
subject, please give your speaker slips to Sue Filson, because from
here on in, once we start discussing that subject, we won't be
accepting any more speaker slips, and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Look who just walked in.
Page 64
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Well, you know what, let's just do it
right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds like a great idea.
MR. MUDD: Would you like to untable this particular item?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to untable it if
we have to do that formality.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Again, I'll second that.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
We already started your subject, Pat. Yeah, turn the phone off.
MR. WHITE: I won't tell you who's calling.
Good morning, Commissioners. Congratulations on your
chairmanship, Madam Chairman.
I appreciate Commissioner Coletta taking this item off the
consent agenda. My client, of course, desired to be here today but,
unfortunately, you guys are doing such a great job at being efficient
with the county's business that he's en route, as I was. Being a little
closer, of course, I'm here on time, almost.
The matter before you is somewhat confusing to my clients in the
sense that the county's position in regards to this previously in
documents that have been on file with the court is that they would not
be seeking a foreclosure. So we're, frankly, a little, I guess, perplexed
about why it is at this point County Attorney's Office would be
looking to move forward on the foreclosure.
Page 65
February 10,2009
This is a matter that has a very long history, a procedural history
that's very complex. It's one that certainly I've had the opportunity to
talk with Commissioner Coletta to some degree about and to a lesser
degree in regards to a matter I'm not working on but is related to
litigation, the Bert Harris claim, with Commissioner Henning as well.
But I think it's fair to say that we've never truly had an
opportunity to demonstrate what my client's intention has been all
along and why he retained me to represent his interest, and that is to
assure how they could best come into compliance with the county's
rules.
That has been the desire that has been, you know, my goal in
representing him throughout this process. We simply look to have the
rules applied evenly here.
I understand that the county's position is different in that regard.
They see the property as illegal and not susceptible to coming into the
SIP process, but to go ahead and seek to foreclose would, in effect,
foreclose us having our day in court.
And it's kind of strange to me that we are about two weeks before
we're set to have a number of motions heard in front of Judge Hayes
that pertain to our appeals that are already on file and we're looking to
move forward with, as well as related matters, as I mentioned before,
in a different suit, that has, as part of it, Bert Harris claim.
So there's a lot going on here, and I'm, frankly, thinking that it
may not be the wisest expenditure of county resources to go ahead and
attempt to foreclose on the property, especially when the County
Attorney's Office has said to the courts already that that was not what
their efforts were going to be directed towards.
So I'm happy to answer any questions. I'd be glad to tell you the
entire saga and story, but I don't believe that I want to intrude upon
your 1 I o'clock time certain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle, you had a question?
Page 66
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. This is a result of a hearing
three years ago --
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSlONER COYLE: -- about zoning violations. These
people have not taken any of the suggested actions to resolve it for
three years, and now suddenly we're being told that it's a big surprise.
MR. WHITE: I don't think it's fair to say that we haven't
attempted to take the actions. We attempted to comply with the
directions of the CEB in the very first year.
And what we were told by your staff essentially was, you can't
get there from here. That was something, 1 think, that the CEB may
not have fully understood.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CEB, for the audience, Code
Enforcement Board.
MR. WHITE: Code Enforcement Board. I'm regrettably --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand -- understand the
defense. It's just that I don't accept it. I'll make a motion to approve
the filing of the foreclosure action.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle to approve this action, and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
Page 67
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 4-1 vote, Commissioner Henning
opposed.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We still have two minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Anybody have a good joke?
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE PETITIONERS REQUEST
FOR A REDUCTION OF THE STORAGE FOR THE TWO
NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANES TO BUSINESS CIRCLE
SOUTH IN ORDER TO PROVIDE STORAGE FOR A SINGLE
LEFT TURN LANE SOUTHBOUND FOR ACCESS INTO THE
MAIN GATE OF FOREST GLEN, PROJECT #60001 - MOTION
TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CURRENT DESIGN PLANS
WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY TO COME UP WITH
OPTIONS AND BRING BACK TO THE BCC FOR DIRECTION
AT A FUTURE DATE WITH NO COUNTY FUNDS TO BE USED
AND NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS TO BE PUT IN THE PLANS-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sue Filson will talk to us for a second,
and then you can tell us how many speakers we have.
MS. FILSON: On 10C -- on 10C I have 12 speakers who want to
turn their time over to Jim Dishinger; I have 12 speakers who want to
turn their time over to James Banks; I have six speakers who want to
turn their time over to Ed Rugenstein; so I'll need you to tell me how
long you want me to set the timer for those gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, 12 speakers at three minutes
each, that's 36 minutes, and then the other one 12, that's another 36 --
MS. FILSON: Eighteen.
Page 68
February 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- minutes. Eighteen? Three times eight
is 24. And so that's what, 44 minutes, 50 minutes? Doesn't make any
difference. We don't have enough time before noon. I would hope
that in the interest of brevity that we will keep this at -- within 15 -- 15
to 20 minutes at the very, very most for each of these speakers who
have all these dedicated people offering their time to them. Okay.
Twenty minutes at the max. We prefer 15. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10C, which
we've been talking about. This item to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a
recommendation to deny the petitioner's request for a reduction of the
storage of the two northbound left turn lanes to Business Circle South
in order to provide storage for a single left turn lane southbound for
access into the main gate of Forest Glen, project number 60001.
Mr. Norman Feder, your Transportation Service Administrator,
will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Norman?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: With a better haircut and I lost a little
bit of weight. But Nick Casalanguida, for the record.
Commissioner, this is the petitioner's requested item, and we've
met with them several times. This is not the fun part of my job where
I have to, you know, disagree with the community that I represent as
part of, you know, being in staff for the Board of County
Commissioners.
I'd like to have them go first and present their items and
concerns, and then I could just answer questions and present some
staff items, if I could.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Commissioners, we'll hear the speakers first, then hear from staff,
and then we'll ask questions at that time.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Jim Dishinger. He'll be
followed by James Banks.
MR. DISHINGER: Thank you, Commissioners. We thank you
Page 69
February 10,2009
for taking the time again to meet with us on this issue of such
importance to the many ob- -- for the many obvious reasons to the
members of our community.
As you have recommended and as Nick has said, we have met
several times with members of the transportation department. They
told us they would give serious consideration to any reasonable
alternative plans that we might be able to bring them, and they -- that
they would also try to think of something that might help save our
access to our front gate.
Several compromises were offered by us. All have been turned
down by the department. The Department of Transportation evidently
could not think of any alternative options on their own, as they never
offered any.
After a couple of initial meetings with DOT, we hired Jim Banks,
who is a licensed traffic engineer, to review the Department of
Transportation's plan, suggest viable alternatives, and to represent us
both with the DOT and the BCC.
Mr. Banks met on several occasions with Nick and Norm and
was involved in our representation to you last month. His meetings
with the transportation department, like ours, have been cordial but
unsuccessful.
On two occasions, we thought we had presented a plan that
would be a win-win situation for everyone. But both proposals met
state recommended traffic standards, and even so, every plan has been
quickly rejected, and pretty much out of hand by the transportation
department.
We hope after hearing our proposal today that you will ask the
transportation department members if some of their assumptions on
future needs are still truly accurate in today's economy, and are not
still accurate for their 2030 projections, why these assumptions could
not be slightly modified so as to better accommodate the needs of
Forest Glen in the next -- for the next 15 or 20 years.
Page 70
February 10,2009
We have been told several times that the reason we are losing our
direct front gate access is because the traffic counts in the year 2030
are projected to be so high that this 600 feet of dual left turn storage
for access into Business Circle South will be needed to handle that
traffic.
We have also been told that this amount of storage will also be
wanted in the near future to divert traffic wanting to turn on Davis so
that they will avoid the reconstruction project of Collier and Davis.
We really do not think it is fair under any circumstance that our
front gate access would be taken away so that the traveling public is
not inconvenienced during a reconstruction project.
After speaking with Commissioner Coletta yesterday and being
told that the county might not even have enough money to finish the
951 project, we wonder if the reconstruction to the Davis/Collier
intersection might have to be put on the back burner for some time
until the economy recovers anyway.
We all realize how important forecasting is in preparing for the
future, but no one has a crystal ball that is perfectly accurate. And
when these projections were made, the economy was in much better
shape than it is now. We seriously question the accuracy and
relevancy of these projected traffic counts for vehicles needing or
wanting to turn left into the Wal-Mart complex so many years out into
the future.
Six hundred feet of dual left-lane storage the department thinks
will be so direly needed in 2030 and beyond was determined using
those projections.
The 600 feet of storage is the real culprit in the decision to
eliminate the left turn-in access to our front gate. But the assumptions
and estimated traffic projections supporting this need are no longer
accurate, and it seems highly questionable that they are.
Asking that the 600 feet of the inside lane be reduced to 300 feet,
as was suggested at the beginning of our discussions, which would
Page 71
February 10,2009
accommodate a left turn and deceleration and storage lane for our
residents does not seem to be unreasonable, especially since our
request and modification meets required design standards and
requirements that are backed up by a licensed, registered, and highly
respected traffic engineer.
Currently, according to the department's own study,
approximately 200 northbound vehicles per hour want to make a left
turn onto Davis Boulevard from Collier. Reducing the amount of
left-turn storage at Business Circle South will still be more than
adequate to handle any traffic that the DOT estimates might want to
avoid the reconstruction area and make the -- take the Radio route
through the Wal-Mart complex. That would be about 50 vehicles per
hour, and even with a shortened inside lane, there will still be storage
for at least 30 vehicles at that time. That is surely enough storage to
handle the traffic plus the two-to-three vehicles normally wanting to
go into Wal-Mart.
This Radio route, as it is called, by the way, has a serious flaw
that will most likely make it not used by the people it is designed to
attract, one of which is me. That serious flaw is an additional left turn
that will be required where Business Circle meets Market Street. It
will have to be made against oncoming traffic from Business Circle
North, so this shortcut will mostly take more time than the trip through
the construction site at Davis.
Mr. Feder often says this route is designed to be similar to the
Naples Boulevard, but Naples Boulevard does not have this
unsignalized left turn in the middle between Pine Ridge and Airport --
To really be like Naples Boulevard, the signal at Business Circle
South would have had to be put in Business Circle North, and that
Radio route probably had a much better chance of being used.
It will also require that a signal be put at Market Street and
Davis, which is right between Radio and Collier. There's actually a
very real likelihood that the total number of vehicles wanting to make
Page 72
February 10, 2009
a left turn onto Davis will actually diminish because the elimination of
the left turns out of the communities on the west side of Collier,
motorists wanting to go north on 951 from Naples Lakes, Naples
Heritage, Naples National Golf Course and Cedar Hammock, have
lost that ability unless they come out, turn south, make a U-turn and
head back north, because the new road design has totally limited all
direct left turns out of these three or four communities.
Most vehicles from these communities will find it much more
convenient to use their other gates. And the only traffic now that can
be -- leave north directly on 951 that might have a desire to go west on
Davis will be coming from the San Marino Apartments, Forest Glen,
and possibly Cracklin' Jacks, if they can survive, since they, for some
reason, have also lost their left-turn access in.
Vehicles coming from Marco Island and wanting to go to
downtown Naples do not drive north to Davis Boulevard, but take
U.S.41. Traffic from Divosta and Lely take either U.S. 4l or
Rattlesnake Hammock because that is the most direct route.
If the Board of County Commissioners finds that the
above-mentioned plan and the rationale for it to be still totally
unacceptable, then we ask that you give serious consideration to our
last proposal. The new median on 951 is so narrow that all cars
wanting to make or needing to make a U-turn will be pointing directly
at oncoming traffic, thus they will be required to execute a complete
ISO-degree U-turn from a dead stop across three lanes of oncoming
traffic and into a guardrail.
Our own traffic count, one partially observed by DOT, shows we
have 600 vehicles daily making the current left to come into our front
gate. Expecting that many vehicles to do a ISO-degree U-turn, we
think, is a terrible design concept.
We, the people, who are being expected to make those U-turns,
think that this will be extremely dangerous not only to our residents
and visitors but to the traveling public as well, even though DOT tells
Page 73
February 10,2009
us that U-turns are safe.
Our traffic engineer says it can be made much safer by moving
the U-turn lane several hundred feet to the north, and by making this
single change, it will allow our residents more room to make the
U-turn and allow them to turn directly into our right-turn in-lane at the
end of the U-turn maneuver. Only regular-size passenger vehicles will
be able to complete a U-turn in the space currently provided in the
current plan, but our plan would allow longer wheel-based vehicles
like UPS trucks to complete the maneuver.
As designed, after a vehicle has exited our U-turn, it will then
have to accelerate back up to traffic speed and then immediately slow
down to move into our right lane. Our alternative plan still allows for
adequate deceleration and storage for six vehicles, which is twice as
much storage as our traffic count and engineer called for.
DOT has also rejected this proposal even though it meets the
requirements and design standards.
They did counter -- DOT did counter this proposal, however, but
they demanded that we extend our right turn-in lane by 100 feet, get
our own permits, use our own contractor to build it, complete the
construction with (sic) three years, pay for the construction ourselves,
and respond to their offer in 24 hours.
We did not see any legitimate reason or a real need to be required
to build storage for an additional five or six cars when the storage
allowance in our proposal is already -- it already meets twice our
needs. Like the county, Forest Glen is also short of funds, as we just
collected a $10,000 assessment from every member for the renovation
of the golf course and clubhouse.
Commissioner Coyle said several times at the last meeting we
attended that fair is fair. Forest Glen was permitted and completed
before Wal-Mart. Better advanced thought and planning by DOT and
the county would have easily provided a plan that would meet the
needs of Forest Glen and Wal-Mart, as well as the traveling public. If
Page 74
February 10,2009
that had been done, Forest Glen would not now be in a position to
make such a large sacrifice in order that the traveling public not be
inconvenienced.
Our back gate and the narrow residential streets needed and used
to access it was not designed to accommodate large service vehicles
that serve our club on a normal every-day basis. It is an unmanned
gate. It is not just that we don't want them to use it. It is just not a
realistic or viable option.
And making all our service vehicles coming in from 1-75 to go 16
miles out of their way to get to our front gate shows either a lack of
understanding of the needs of our community or a complete disregard
for all the parties involved.
In making every effort to work with DOT, we have been told that
we should have started this process much earlier than we did. We
agree, and we would have had we truly been informed maybe in
writing that we were losing our left turn-in access, but we did not
really receive any such notice like those that we have recently
received on the Benfield study.
The publication entitled, "Median Openings and Access
Management Decision Process," from the office of systems planning,
topic number 625010021F, which was effective April 5, 2007, and
emailed to us by Jim Mudd on January 6, 2009, addresses in great
detail how existing communities or citizens who are going to be
affected by these changes and median openings are to be notified.
If these guidelines had been followed, we would not now be
taking and looking to you at this late date for an outcome that will be
both safe and reasonable for us and acceptable to the county.
We are not asking for things that other similar communities don't
already have or have been allowed to keep when their roads were
rebuilt. I drive on Immokalee Road weekly, see that every community
along that busy new road has both left-turn in and outs for their main
entrances.
Page 75
February 10,2009
Along the Sam's Club, there's a direct left turn in off of
Airport-Pulling which crosses directly at the very end of the left turn
dual lane storage area for Immokalee Road.
In conclusion, we know that nobody wants their plans or
decisions to be found wrong or be overturned, but occasionally some
plans and decisions need to be overturned or modified when found
lacking. We understand that DOT is reluctant to give in to our
proposals even though our proposals are based on reasonable
assumptions and sound engineering standards, because any change
calls their judgment into question.
We hope you will ask hard questions of DOT as to why some
compromise could not be found and not allow the safety of the
members of our community and the traveling public to be put in
jeopardy just for pride's sake.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MR. DISHINGER: If you have any questions for me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're not going to ask any questions right
now, but thank you very much.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Banks.
MR. BANKS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Jim Banks, and I'm a registered professional engineer in
the State of Florida, and I'm speaking on behalf of the residents of
Forest Glen.
My presentation will be approximately 20 minutes in length, and
as such, I have acquired the speaking time of approximately five of the
Forest Glen residents. I believe their names have been -- their
registration cards have been attached to mine and provided to the
county attorney.
Over the past three weeks -- 12, okay, thank you.
Over the past three weeks, I have been working closely with
Page 76
February 10,2009
Department Of Transportation in order to develop an alternative
design that will improve the access conditions for the Forest Glen
community and also protect the public's general interest.
DOT and I have reached an agreement on a design that would
accomplish this very objective. The alternative design, if it was
implemented, would not reduce or interfere with the construction of
the dual northbound left turn lanes as proposed for Business Circle
South, and the alternative design would not compromise the standards
that have been set forth for the six-laning of County Road 951.
The agreed-upon alternative design consists of moving the
currently planned U-turn lane, which is proposed to the south, to the
north approximately 650 feet, which would put it within proximity of
the existing Forest Glen access.
In conjunction with relocating the U-turn lane, which is designed
to be 500 feet in length, the existing northbound right turn lane that
provides access into the Forest Glen subdivision would need to be
extended approximately a hundred feet.
This design alternative will create an improvement to the
situation for both the residents and the traveling public; that is, the
residents would effectively turn left into their right turn lane and avoid
the situation of having to perform a U-turn further to the south, then
accelerate to meet the northbound traffic stream's traveling speed, and
then have to de-accelerate in order to enter into the right turn lane.
As another benefit, motorists performing the conventional
U-turns and then those folks that would continue on northbound,
heading northbound on 951, would -- would have the additional
pavement width provided by the right turn lane to perform a more
efficient V-turn movement.
Basically the right turn lane would function as an outer turning
lane. This would greatly improve conditions for long-wheel-based
vehicles and would provide better turning movements for standard
passenger vehicles. It's not imperative for passenger vehicles, but it
Page 77
February 10,2009
would improve their ability to make the turn as well.
I met with DOT yesterday, and they confirmed that this
alternative design would, in fact, provide the preferred access situation
for Forest Glen, and it would improve the conditions for those
motorists performing the U-turns.
As such, DOT agreed that the modification to the plans could be
implemented; however, it was DOT's position that the residents of
Forest Glen would need to be responsible for extending the
northbound right turn lane approximately a hundred feet and that DOT
would incur the cost associated with relocating the U-turn lane further
to the north.
Unfortunately, due to the construction constraints created by
Hendry Creek, the extension of the northbound right turn lane even
only a hundred feet will be relatively expensive. And I would submit
to the board, if Hendry Creek wasn't where it is, we wouldn't even be
having this discussion today. I think we would have been able to
finalize this issue, but we have to deal with what we have.
And because of the uncertainty regarding the costs associated
with permitting and constructing the extension of that northbound
right turn lane, Forest Glen could not commit to those unknown costs;
therefore, as an alternative to what DOT and I agreed upon, I proposed
that a modification to that plan should be considered. I suggested that
as an alternative, DOT should consider installing a shorter U-turn lane,
therefore avoiding the cost of extending the northbound turn lane.
In support of this request, I provided traffic counts to DOT that
indicated that a U-turn lane being approximately 390 feet in length
versus the 500 feet in length that is currently being proposed would be
adequate to accommodate the traffic demands for that particular
movement, both vehicles turning left and those motorists making
U-turns.
More specifically we performed traffic counts last week at Forest
Glen access and found that a queuing capacity of six vehicles or 150m
Page 78
February 10,2009
feet in conjunction with maintaining the 240 feet of de-cel and tapered
length would be adequate. So when we add the 240 and the 150, we
wind up with 390 feet versus the 500 that's being proposed.
If -- and 1-- if the 390-foot U-turn lane was installed, then the
existing right turn lane would function as we desired it to, and that is
the residents of Forest Glen would be removed from having to
perform the U-turn further at the south and would be allowed to turn
directly into their existing right turn lane, and the general public
would be provided more pavement area for performing the U-turn
movement.
Now, I was in the field and I made an observation, and during
that observation there were times when the larger wheel-based
vehicles, when they were making the U-turn at existing Forest Glen
access literally turned up onto the driveway apron to make that turn.
So I would submit to you that it would improve the situation for the
general public as well.
This design modification was discussed with Commissioner
Coletta and DOT yesterday, and although I believe DOT found merit
in the request to consider installing a shorter U-turn lane, they were
not convinced that this design would be adequate and, therefore,
would not support the suggested modification.
As such, I'm requesting that the board determine that the
installation of the U-turn lane to a length of 390 feet versus the 500
feet be deemed a reasonable compromise to this issue. In doing so,
the board acknowledges no fault with DOT's decision on this matter,
but rather recognizes that their more conservative approach to this
issue is not warranted.
I'm not suggesting that DOT is wrong in their decision. It's just
that we could consider a less conservative approach on this matter.
I believe the board can determine this -- wrapping up right now.
I believe the board can determine this to be an acceptable alternative
because the proposal before you will not interfere with the
Page 79
February 10, 2009
construction of the dual northbound left turn lanes that DOT wants to
preserve.
Two, in my opinion, the modification proposed to you will not
compromise the design standards that have been set forth for the
County Road 951 project because we will be maintaining the 240-foot
de-cel and tapered length as required by law, and we will be providing
a queuing capacity of six vehicles or 150 feet.
Three, I believe the modification will improve access and safety
for the residents of Forest Glen, and some modest improvements will
be achieved for the general public.
Four, the modification will not place a significant cost burden on
the residents of Forest Glen.
Five -- and this is -- I think, is a very key point -- other than
reducing the U-turn lane by approximately 110 feet, other than that
factor, the proposed modification meets all the intents -- all the intent
that DOT had when they put together their plan. We're asking for one
modification to their plan.
And though not as desirable as the 500-foot design, I believe the
overall effects of this design is preferred over the current plan to locate
the U-turn lane further to the south, because we'll be giving up the two
benefits of the Forest Glen residents being able to turn directly into
their right turn lane and the widened apron for the U-turn movements.
In summary, we are debat- -- in summary, we are debating the
merits of 110 feet of storage capacity and how best to achieve the
overall positive results of the three alternatives that have been
provided to you for your consideration.
I respectfully request that the board consider the merits of the
request and determine that we have proposed a reasonable
compromise to this issue.
Thank you, and I'm available to answer any questions that you
may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 80
February 10,2009
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ed Rugenstein. He'll be
followed by a single three-minute speaker, and then that will be your
final speaker.
MR. RUGENSTEIN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Ed Rugenstein. I'm an owner and resident of Forest Glen Golf and
Country Club of Naples, Florida.
Give you have a little bit of my background. Undergraduate in
civil engineering at Perdue University, bachelor of science in civil
engineering, graduate work in public administration at the University
of Northern Colorado, traffic engineering at North Western
University. I'm a registered professional engineer, obtained my
license by a I6-hour exam. I worked for the Bureau of Public Roads
(sic), which became FHW Federal Highway Administration later for
32 years. I did design, construction, and traffic engineering
throughout the United States of all types of streets, roads, and
highways with the last few of the 32 years being in the Washington
office.
I then worked for Fairfax County Department of Public Works in
Northern Virginia for 12 years. There again, I did design,
construction, and traffic engineering on a Fairfax County parkway and
other streets and roads throughout Fairfax County.
Do we need a left turn from Collier Boulevard into Forest Glen
Golf and Country Club? We have 800 homes in Forest Glen Golf and
Country Club with approximately 1,200 cars, two to three drivers per
household. Four- to 500 of these cars are leaving and returning to
Forest Glen Golf and Country Club each day.
The accident rate for 4- to 500 cars returning to Forest Glen Golf
and Country Club each day by way of I80-degree U-turn would be
approximately doubled that of returning by way of a 90-degree left
turn. That would not only be double for Forest Glen residents, but
double for other cars traveling north on Collier Boulevard.
Forest Glen Golf and Country Club has had a left turn into their
Page 81
February 10, 2009
entrance from Collier Boulevard for the last ten years. That is
approximately six years before Business Circle South or Wal-Mart
even existed.
Can a left turn from Collier Boulevard into Forest Glen Golf and
Country Club be done within the parameter of the existing plan? Yes.
By starting the two left turn lanes into Business Circle South just north
of the Forest Glen Golf and Country Club entrance, carry one left turn
lane next to the through lanes on Collier Boulevard for the first 350
feet and continue both 350 left turn lanes into the intersection at
Business Circle South.
The two-foot concrete median can then be constructed to --
which isn't constructed at this time, can then be constructed to allow a
350-foot left turn lane into Forest Glen Golf and Country Club
between station 758 and station 761 plus 50.
Should a left turn lane into Forest Glen Golf and Country Club
from Collier be allowed and built? Yes, for the following reasons:
Reducing accident rate for both Forest Glen Golf and Country Club
residents and Collier Boulevard traffic going north;
Two, all similar residential golf and country clubs have left turn
lanes into their entrances. Not to have would be changing a precedent;
Three, grandfather clause or vested right? Forest Glen Golf and
Country Club left turn lane has existed for the last ten years, six years
before Business Circle South and Wal-Mart even existed;
Four, cost-effective traffic operations. The existing plan, you
would have approximately 600 cars going one-quarter mile south and
one-quarter mile north to return into Forest Glen. That adds up to a
half mile for each car, 300 extra miles per day, approximately 15
miles per gallon, that adds up to 20 gallons of fuel per day, 600
gallons per month, and 7,200 gallons per year. That comes into costs
at -- even now at $2 a gallon, $40 a day, $1,200 a month or $14,400
per year, not counting the wear and tear and maintenance on the
vehicles themselves and the extra time for those drivers involved.
Page 82
February 10,2009
I just wanted to say a little something in finishing about U-turns.
I just want to make sure there has been a study regarding the number
of cars make U-turns each day. And does the study show how much
time to safely make that U-turn?
How long before an adequate break in a traffic flow occurs to
make the U-turn? Say between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. at night with just
38 percent of the cars turning left into Forest Glen, there would be one
every two minutes entering the queue to make that U-turn.
I've been around for the last few years in this community, and
I've seen the Collier County police, they have had so many cars
making -- at Forest Glen entrance making U-turns that they were out
there with a patrol car several times stationed to give traffic tickets
because of the danger of U-turns.
In summary, does Forest Glen actually need a left turn? Yes,
they do. In regards to the safety and cost effectiveness of the whole
situation, they really do need a left turn. And I think for the State of
Florida and Collier County themselves, they would look to do this for
the residents and cut back the costs in these economic hard times on
the traveling public coming in and also cut down on the accident rate.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Saling.
MR. SALING: It's pronounces Saling, thank you, just like what
you would do with a boat.
Commissioners, thank you very much for giving us an
opportunity to speak to you. We know that the governance of a
county of this complexity is a difficult task and you have to make
difficult decisions which don't always satisfY everybody. We
understand that.
But I'd like to address a few concepts which we've touched on,
public interest, safety, efficiency, convenience, fairness, expediency,
integrity, conservation, inertia, and opportunity.
Page 83
February 10, 2009
Public interest is paramount. We know that. That's what you're
here to do. A key element of public interest is safety. Whatever
design comes out of this whole process, is it has to be safe for all
concerned, Forest Glen residents and the general motoring public;
however, efficiency is a concept we cannot lose sight of. As the
gentleman just pointed out, we would be adding an awful lot of travel
every day, every week, every month, every year, to the motoring
public consisting of those who not only live in Forest Glen but visit it,
bring goods to it, bring workers there, et cetera.
The inefficiency of adding a half a mile to that trip is something
which I think is striking and worth considering. The convenience
factor primarily will serve those in Forest Glen and those who visit it
if we have our left turn lane preserved.
The concept of fairness has been touched on. I don't know that it
is a legitimate concern that we were there first, but we were. We have
had that left lane, and we have relied on it for a long time.
The integrity of our community is at stake insofar as the message
that would be delivered when you have to tell people you can't get into
our community without going down and making a half mile V-turn.
That is something that is of great concern to us and something that I
think is worthy of public consideration.
Conservation is a concept I mentioned, and that relates to the use
of fuel that the last gentleman mentioned. Inertia is what we're up
against insofar as there's a plan that has been developed and it's in
place and it's difficult to move.
But opportunity is the last concept that I think we have to look at.
We still have the opportunity to get it right for all concerned,
including Forest Glen. Some changes can be made. They are not that
difficult, they're not that expensive. The road hasn't been built. We
still have the opportunity to get it right.
Thank you very much for your concerns.
(Applause.)
Page 84
February 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nick, did you reserve your time till
afterwards?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I'd like to--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Very good. Then -- or did
you say you wanted to say something, or should we just go on to the
commissioners?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If! could speak a little bit, just--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- just to address some of the topics
I've heard.
Again to the, you know, community members of Forest Glen, I
work for you. We have a public meeting Thursday night for Wilson
Benfield. I hope you attend that. It's our goal to try and always
accommodate you because we do represent you.
I have two topics I want to just touch on, and I'll be brief. One is
a history and fiscal responsibility from our end of it. January 14,
2004, Commissioner Coletta attended (sic) with Mr. Don Scott to
Forest Glen and said we have an upcoming road project. There will
be public meetings that are held. Please attend because it affects you.
And that's important to note because we spend a lot of time with
public involvement. It's a lot of staff hours and design time.
A public meeting was held on February 28, 2005, a 30-percent
design meeting. That meeting was closed, and the U-turn was south.
We showed them the plans, and members of Forest Glen attended.
September 29, 2005, a 60-percent public meeting was held. That
meeting was closed. The U-turn was shown farther south, and Forest
Glen attended.
May 22, 2006, a 90-percent public meeting was shown. Median
was closed, U-turn was farther south, and again, Forest Glen
community residents attended.
So there was a lot of time for people to kind of raise their hand
and say, hey, what's going on, what can we do that's different? Again,
Page 85
February 10,2009
all the plans showed they were closed.
We met with Mr. Jim Banks and Forest Glen representatives on
December 9th, January 8th, January 22nd, January 26th, and again
yesterday, February 9th, and we agreed that we'd come up with a
solution we think works. The issue at hand was the cost of
implementing that solution.
Again, there's two engineers that spoke on their behalf, and I
have three engineers who spoke -- will speak on our behalf if they're
needed.
And the issue of -- you heard two different things. Mr. Banks
said we took some sample analyses and we didn't see that many cars if
we think the queue is there. And the other engineer says, there's a
tremendous amount of traffic that takes that left turn. We need to have
the left turn in place.
Our engineer, and two engineers have said, in a sake of safety,
we're not going to make an assumption that it's going to -- that we're
uncomfortable signing and sealing. So they've had a set of design
plans.
And again, I want to show you the compromise we have, and
then I'm going to take on some additional questions.
Okay. At this stage of the game, what you're seeing right here,
over here where my finger is or the pen is, the Forest Glen entrance.
What's in yellow as I head south is the existing northbound right turn
lane. I'm going to slide this forward for a second.
Down south is the U-turn bay that's here right now that's in our
design plans. We've just got an estimate today. To move it north is
about $73,000, and we're going to get the credit back for that
pavement, so Jay Ahmad will be looking into that.
Now, if we do the compromise that Mr. Jim Banks and our
engineers said works and is safe and everybody's willing to sign and
seal, it would move this turn lane to the north and it would pocket into
an extension of this right turn lane.
Page 86
February 10,2009
Everybody agrees that's the safest and best way to go. The cost
of that could range anywhere from 150- to $300,000. You won't know
that cost until you go through the permitting process for that turn lane
with the Water Management District.
We believe that's a fair compromise and that works, and both
engineers on their end and our end said that's the right thing to do and
that would be perfect in ideal situations.
Our engineers are not comfortable providing a shorter turn lane.
They're not comfortable because when they've done the queue
analysis and they talk about opposing traffic and they'll tell you all a
bunch of engineering speak, and they can do that, that they don't feel
__ they don't feel comfortable providing that shortened turn lane. They
do feel comfortable doing that alternative.
And I go back to what I brought up to you before, again, is the
history. Doing this change now under construction means we have to
tell the general contractor now that's running the job to stop, which
he's going to ask for delays. He's going to ask for additional money.
And right now we are not funded to do things like that.
So if the board feels that that's something we should look into,
the question comes up of money. And when we met with Forest Glen,
we've said, in fairness to you, we'll work with you. Maybe the board
can look at different alternatives for payment. But we don't have the
fiscal dollars to do that. And since we've gone through this, you
know, design process where we've had public meeting after public
meeting, to do it while we're under construction is a burden to the
county .
And if we do this now, Commissioners -- this is the concern I
have because we're in the planning department -- we hold these public
meetings, we try and make it very clear to people that it's significantly
easier to make a change while we're going through the design process
than to put the brakes on and make that change when we're in
construction.
Page 87
February 10,2009
So you've looked at the scenarios. We agree with Mr. Banks,
that's the right way to go. What we don't have is the funds to pay for
that. And we think there's been ample opportunity to talk about that in
advance. So if it's something you'd like to see, the question is, who
pays for it.
They mentioned they're going to assess their homeowners 10,000
a unit to modify their golf course and their clubhouse. To pay for
something like this, you may be looking at $50 a year for the course of
three or four or five years to pay for that. It pales in comparison,
whereas, the county might be looking at that cost up front, lump sum,
200- to $300,000.
So with that I'll answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Nick, I was at that
meeting. I think our map at that time was over a ten-year period that it
was going to be about 40 to $50. We looked at the short-term, but it
was going to be quite a financial burden.
But, of course, what I'm hoping is that we can hold community
meetings to be able to discuss this option. The problem with it is, is
that you do have to get a permit to be able to go forward, and water
management could take any period of time to go forward. Meanwhile,
you can't be holding everything in limbo while the contractor sits out
there because there's going to be a fixed cost with it.
How does that figure into it? I mean, if we told the contractor
not to do anything till we got a permit and extended the bank out and
extended the right turn area there, what kind of time would be
involved, what kind of money? Do we have any idea at all?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two things. The contractor right now
is asking for a written hold order, which means he wants something in
writing from the county that says, stop working on turn lane. And
what he's going to do with the written hold order, he's going to ask [or
damages in return in the end.
Page 88
February 10, 2009
Estimates to do that are going to range anywhere from -- the turn
lane to modify it and building that new turn lane, from 150- to
$300,000. You won't know that dollar amount until you permit that
project, and that permitting process could take anywhere from six
weeks to six months to go through that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So our recommendation is you don't
change anything now because you are going to incur costs as of today
if we stop or change anything right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what would be the
throw-away cost if you build that turn lane where you originally were
planning to build it and then have to come back and modify it, you
know, at the community's direction, to be able to have it so it's a short,
wide turn into their stacking lane going into their community?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the median, it you were to take the
existing turn lane and slide it north, our estimate was about $73,000.
And maybe Jay, who's got some estimates that came in this morning,
could expand on that a little bit.
MR. AHMAD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Jay Ahmad, for
the record.
The -- if I may, the estimates to do the median left turn lane here,
the U-turn, is $73,600, a change order that was just received this
morning from Better Road, the contractor on the project. There's no
estimates to do the right turn lane extension though. We -- that is not
designed and would require permitting if it's allowed at all by the
permitting agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So what you're saying is,
is that you can't just punch that turn in there? If you do, what would
happen? I mean, if you punched it in, we're looking to bring it out,
and then went back to get the permit for the bank and to be able to
widen the lane, show me on here with a pen or something where you
would be coming out against what it looks like today or what it would
Page 89
February 10,2009
look like today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, today you have a
scenario where the turn lane is in green or yellow here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. So by sliding it north, you're
going to take that same dimension of 500 feet, slide it to where my
hand is -- my two fingers are now in orange, or red, and then you
would extend the northbound right turn lane right there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for discussion purposes,
suppose we didn't expand the turn lane on the -- what is that, the --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Southbound left turn lane. If you went
with their proposal to do a shorter turn lane?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, no, no. I know
you can't do that. You've been -- and one of the things that this
commission's not going to do is waive on safety.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you can't endorse something
and tell me that there's no safety issue, then -- if there is a safety issue
on it, then we're not going to go with it. We never have in the past
eight years.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're saying that there would
be an issue if -- slide down a little bit farther. Now, if you put that
turn lane in and you didn't have the stacking lane match up with it to
be able to be done after the fact, what would be the outcome?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The issue that we've discussed -- and
Mr. Banks has agreed with this as well as our engineers -- by sliding
this forward without putting that in, now you're not giving the driver
enough time to make that turn and get into that turn lane accelerating
to move his way in. That's why you want to keep the turn lane to the
south if you're not going to pocket that right turn lane to the north.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, you have to
Page 90
February 10,2009
travel across one lane to get to the lane that's going to allow you to
turn in?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: By making that turn lane, you're going
to accelerate and get into traffic and then get back into your right turn
lane.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me ask you the
question. This present scenario that I mentioned where the turn lane
would be put in and then the stacking lane wouldn't be there for God
knows how long, you know, six months to a year or whatever, would
transportation be able to endorse that as -- or would they have a
problem with it because of safety issues?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be a safety issue ifthere
wasn't a committed -- commitment to put that in. And so, my
recommendation would be is that you'd want to permit these things at
the same time so that we would know, in fact, you would get the
southbound left and the northbound right modification done. So for us
to move it right now and then hope that we could permit that, would
put us in a condition that I don't think we'd feel comfortable with, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, the question comes
back to, would you come out and make recommendations because of
safety not to do it? Is that what you would do?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would, sir, and I think the engineers
would say the same thing as well, sir. And if you would like to have
them speak on the record, I'm sure that they're willing to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I would. As a matter of
fact, I would. We heard all sorts of claims today from the consultants,
a consultant and a member of the community, regarding -- with very
good credentials regarding this particular issue, and I'd like to hear
from transportation staff on this.
MR. GRAMER: Commission, for the record, Bill Gramer,
Senior Project Manager and Vice-president of Transportation for
CH2M Hill. I was the project manager for this project.
Page 91
February 10, 2009
What's being recommended in the southbound condition,
shortening up the southbound left turn lane in this area over here, does
not -- does not provide enough queue distance for the amount of cars
that will be making that turn and to the amount of time that they will
have to be waiting for the gap for the northbound traffic.
And as traffic increases in the northbound direction in those three
lanes, the amount of time that those cars will be queued up there will
increase also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about the factor, the time
factor that we've heard mentioned several times about your numbers
being way off as far as the amount of traffic you'll be seeing in the
near and distant future?
MR. GRAMER: Well, that's for -- mostly that discussion is for
the dual northbound turn lanes. For the southbound left turn lanes into
the Forest Glen community, that traffic exists today. And so it's -- that
traffic will not get worse and increase in the future. It's the
northbound traffic actually traveling on Collier Boulevard which will
cause the situation that you just discussed.
The gap -- there will be more traffic traveling northbound, and so
the wait traveling southbound left will be increasing as time goes on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Could somebody put
into some sort of terms how a whole scenario of events could unfold
that would, over a reasonable period of time, offer the residents of the
community a turn lane such as they're looking for; what would have to
take place for that to happen?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think today what we've offered with
the community is to say, because we're in a situation right now that's --
with our contractor that anything we change now is damages or
concerns as change orders. For us to continue as planned because
we're in a situation, you're not going to know in two weeks or four
weeks about that northbound right turn lane, they would continue to
work with Forest Glen and the Water Management District to go
Page 92
February 10,2009
through the permitting process as support from the county, that if they
can come up and get this turn lane permitted, that we work with them
to include it as a change order to our project sponsored by them at a
later date.
Now, we had discussed an MSTU-type scenario where, if that
was done --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Explain MSTU for the people
that are here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Municipal services taxing unit. It's
where you would get together and agree to pay for this over time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Something similar to a property
owners association assessment?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Exactly. And I think they could get to
the point where at least they know. Right now we can't tell you what
the cost would be, but at least they'd spend some additional dollars to
figure out what you're up against and then approach the board if
there's a way to do this over time, such as an MSTU. That would be
my recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Nick. I heard from the people
from Forest Glen in regards to shortening the de-cellane to 390 feet,
and our traffic engineer that presently is under contract with us said
that this would be detrimental.
I think the speed out there is around 50 miles an hour, and they're
talking that they'd have six vehicles possibly stacking up in that 390
feet. And that turn lane is basically a de-cellane. So if you have three
vehicles, let's say, that are already stopped to make a left-hand turn,
and someone else is heading south, there's no way that they're not
going to get -- or be in jeopardy of being rear-ended because they'd
have to start slowing down in the traffic lane prior to entering into the
Page 93
February 10,2009
de-cellane or the stacking lane; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that's correct. And
240 feet of that is taper and de-cel. The rest above that is storage. And
when you get into a six-car queue, we all believe -- and three
engineers or actually four that have looked at it said, we're not
comfortable providing more -- less than an eight-car queue or nine-car
queue in that analysis.
So Mr. Banks has said, look, we've done some analyses of what
we looked at. I mean, you know, about three to five cars could get in
there. You're right, 240 feet of that is taper and de-cel, which is not
storage, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing that concerns me is
that there were a number of meetings scheduled, neighborhood
information meetings, February 28, 2005, September 29, 2005,
another one at May 22, 2006, and then there was a meeting January
14,2004, by the commissioner of that district, Commissioner Coletta,
and Don Scott. And there didn't seem to be any problem until now.
We're to the point where we're in construction.
Can you tell me -- there was a statement made that they haven't
started that construction, but I was out on that road Friday -- or
Sunday evening. And where are we as far as the construction, what
percentage --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're under construction. I'll let Mr.
Ahmad give you a detailed update.
MR. AHMAD: You heard last meeting from the Better Roads
presentation about the construction of that project. The project has
been in construction since 2007. That area, as a matter of fact, I
stopped the contractor about three weeks now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You stopped the contractor?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, indeed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's paying?
MR. AHMAD: The contract with Better Roads has been stopped
Page 94
February 10,2009
to address this issue so we don't have throw-away issues like curbing
and medians. So I'd really appreciate a decision today one way or the
other.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, obviously it's costing us
money, all the taxpayers money.
MR. AHMAD: Yes, indeed. If you do make a change and go
make that U-turn as shown in red, that will cost you 73 thousand
dollars, 600 -- 73,600.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, and I think there's some
other costs involved here. So if we make that particular change and
then extend their right turn lane in, we're looking at additional costs.
Was that including if we have to shore up the canal?
MR. AHMAD: That -- the 73,000 just for the left turn lane
southbound. Additional possibly, Nick said about 150- to 200-.
That's a reasonable estimate for shoring the canal and filling in that
lake in front of them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have
is, I believe there's two entrances to this community; is that correct?
There's one off of Beck Road?
MR. AHMAD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern is, let me tell
you a scenario or what happened to me Saturday -- or Sunday evening
driving northbound on 951. There were two vehicles that were in the
left-hand turn lane to go into Forest Glen. One vehicle cut across
traffic, cleared it. The second vehicle tried to follow that vehicle. The
car in front of me had to slam on his brakes so he didn't T -bone him.
I have concerns that if we have that much traffic going into this
community, the next thing we're going to have to put up with is a
traffic light. And I think we already got a traffic light down at Beck
Road, and they have an entrance at Beck Road; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a traffic signal at Davis and
951. Beck Boulevard is unsignaled, but it's a back access point that
Page 95
February 10,2009
takes you to a signal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So if they went that way,
the story about burning extra fuel, that would save in regards to their
concerns about the extra mileage travel because of the U-turn and all
this other stuff; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: From the northbound direction, that's
correct, sir.
THE AUDIENCE: No, that's not true.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how much -- and how much--
how much has the homeowners association offered in these changes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've offered approximately
$10,000 to make a change, and that was -- they still have to bring it to
their board.
But to make sure I'm clear with homeowners, because we don't
want to misspeak. If they're traveling northbound, then they're going
to make a right-in, right-out. If they're going north on 951.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where the median doesn't make any
difference. So if you're traveling northbound, you're going to use a
right-in, right-out.
If you're traveling southbound, when you're coming from the
interstate, when you're coming from Davis Boulevard, you can go
straight across to the back Beck entrance depending on where you live
in Forest Glen. It depends on where you live in Forest Glen will be
the dimensional, you know, difference between how you get in there,
in fairness to you and us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at better than
$400,000 possibly for all these changes, and they want me, the
taxpayer, to pay for these changes, and it basically benefits their
community. I've got a real problem with that.
THE AUDIENCE: We have a road over here.
We're taxpayers, too.
Page 96
February 10, 2009
Change the road.
We're taxpayers, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, excuse me. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take a break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, we won't take a break now, we've
got six minutes left and we have a couple other speakers or a couple
other people to question, and then if we can't make the decision now,
we'll have to come back and make it after lunch.
So Commissioner Halas, you're complete? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm kind of confused what
you're trying to accomplish here. Is it going to be a left turn into the
community or a shorter U-turn into the community?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the same length of left turn. It's a
left turn into their right turn lane. So once you make that left turn
heading southbound, you're not pulling into the through traffic making
that 180-degree turn. You're actually pulling into your northbound
right turn lane. That's the perfect scenario that they agree and we
agree is the perfect way to go.
THE AUDIENCE: It's a U-turn instead of a left turn though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, we're not
getting anywhere with people in the audience talking, and I'm afraid
that we're going to be taking a lunch break and having to deal with this
later on.
So thank you for answering my question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question has been answered,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine, thank you. Well, we've got
most of our questions. And I'll just say, 1 -- I see that there is another
way to do this, to work with the community. Is there a way to do it in
a lesser amount of dollars? If they can -- maybe if there's a way that
Page 97
February 10, 2009
they pay half through an MSTU and we work with our road building
department to -- being that we're just shortening it and changing it,
there's got to be some money saved being that you're shortening that,
and maybe there's a way to modify some of those costs.
Maybe -- of course, we're estimating 150- to 300,000 as far as the
bank goes, but now with things reduced, as far as labor goes, as far as
many of the other things, that might not even come close to that. Is
there a way that we can come to a compromise so that we work with
these people as well as we maintain the safety, integrity, of that road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we have, and I think what we
can offer to these people is that we'll be hand in hand with you to the
permitting agencies and, you know, try and minimize the costs with
our construction contractor.
But any change to the currently bid design will incur costs to the
county. And it -- just as a caution, we just talked about impact fees
and dollars coming in. We're getting in a situation where we're
scrutinizing every little minor change, and direction from our boss,
Norm, to me and Jay is, no change orders unless you can justify them.
I mean, that's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I understand. We also talk about the
future of this community forever after, and we're talking about a few
dollars. I know what happened with Eagle Creek, and it still pains me
every time I see that that was such a poor decision on our part, and
now they have to live with forever after in trying to get across three
lanes of traffic to turn. It's -- so I'm thinking there's got to be another
way.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have a motion there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I certainly do. I make a
motion that we go forward with the plans as they are presently laid out
and that we start working immediately with the Forest Glen
community to see what we can do to modify this in the very near
future to be able to provide for them for that modified U-turn that will
Page 98
February 10,2009
allow them access directly to their property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second? I'll second the
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a clarification on the
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's the costs going to be
borne on?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That discussion is going to -- I
think Commissioner Fiala had a wonderful idea of the fact that we
look at a cooperative agreement. Whatever we can do from the
county's end that would not trespass against the taxpayers, as
Commissioner Halas mentioned before --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to be able to come up with
some sort of fair-share type of deal that we -- anything we can
possibly do to take part of the burden off it to be able to work this as a
collaborative agreement to be able to reach a final --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Even if they've been there ten years
already. You know, it's not like something--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But whatever happens has to
come back before this board again, and it's going to take a couple
meetings, and we've got to find out all the particulars and we've got to
find the willingness of the community to go forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And they've paid $18 million in impact
fees, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, for capacity
improvements, not access improvements. They've very different.
Just so I'm clear, we're going to proceed with construction as
planned. We're not changing our construction project. But on the
second part of your motion, are you asking us to expend county
dollars to do design and engineering with those folks or just to work
Page 99
February 10,2009
with them to see what it would cost under their dollars to do the design
and engineering?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Work with them, but come back
to the commission with a couple of different options.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Leave all the options
open at this point in time, and then come back and tell us what you've
found out, and then we'll try to find some way to be able to make it
work for everybody concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Like, for instance, the shortening of it;
$73,000, that's practically nothing. I'm sure that you can split the cost
and at least shorten it right here and now so you don't have to go back
and modify it where it will cost a lot of money.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that won't work because
you still have to do the modifications to the bank or else they're not
going to sign off on it because of safety reasons. And therein lies the
whole problem. If it wasn't for the fact that stupid canal was where it
is, this wouldn't be the kind of issue that we're looking at.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't -- I'm trying not to get in the
circle of coming back to you on this multiple times without making
sure I have clear direction from the board. It's to proceed construction
as planned, so tell our contractor, just build what you have on your
plan set, to work with the community to explore options in trying to
find some of those costs and what they would be, but not to expend
any design dollars, because we have to pay for the consultants to do
plans. That's where I'm getting a little lost.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I would do, Nick,
what I would recommend, is you meet with the community, find out
their desires and their possibilities. And mind you, we don't want to
keep dragging this out for years on end with back-and-forth deals. We
want to come up with something that's going to be a balance and
acceptable by the commission, and at that point in time bring it back
Page 100
February 10, 2009
to the commission and receive the direction that you need.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, if! believe what I've
been told in this entire process, there's nothing you can do that will not
incur additional costs.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because you -- if you proceed with
construction as it is now, that means you're going to pay for the
creation of a left turn or U-turn access and stacking lane further to the
south --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then you're going to try to
negotiate with the neighborhood whether they want to pay to do it all
over again further to the north. And in order to reach those
conclusions, you're going to have to hire someone to do that work, or
the staff is going to have to do that work.
There is a fundamental issue that has -- in my opinion, that has to
be resolved concurrently with this decision by the board; who is going
to pay for that?
Now, you know, I would suggest that, you know, we have
communities all over Collier County who have said they want
something different than what we had designed, and they have created
MSTUs to pay for that. This is not a new concept. It's happened
everywhere. Happens all the time. You know, what's fair is fair,
okay?
And if the community wants to change the design after we've
been involved in working on it for years, then I think the community
has to step up and say they're willing to create an MSTU to pay for
that. And I would find it hard to support a position that says we, the
county and the others taxpayers, will incur all of the costs delay while
Page 10 1
February 10,2009
this community decides whether or not they're going to work out an
agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's -- Commissioner Coyle --
I'm sorry, talking out of turn. May I proceed?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, we said to
go ahead with the present construction. There will be no more delay.
The road will be put in as originally planned because of the lateness of
the day to be able to get it in place, and then we're going to negotiate
with the community to try to come up with several alternatives to be
able to see about redesigning it to rebuild this at a future time when we
get permits, find out the money thing.
The money situation's left open. I'm not talking about this county
commission assuming 100 percent of the responsibility. I'm not even
asking for the county commission to authorize design plans at this
time. It's just -- let's do a little fact finding. There may not be any
interest within the community to want to participate if it's going to
require even a dollar from the community. We don't know that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my only problem is that
we've been doing fact finding now for some time, okay. But if you
will clearly specify in your motion that no additional funds are
authorized to be expended on this project by the staff, then I will
happily support it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I basically said that. The
only thing I need is staff time to be able to meet a couple times with
the community, get their feeling. There's no money that I'd want spent
on design because you have no idea what they're going to do, and we
don't know the willingness of the community. Whatever has to
happen has to come back before this commission again for further
consideration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I can support that, but you
understand that's going to make it more expensive for this community
Page 102
February 10,2009
to do anything with it, okay, because it's going to get more expensive
every day you continue working.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you have
got no options. Ifwe stop working now to wait a year and a half or
six months until we get break permits from water management, get all
the approval from the community, we're going to have a delay cost
that's going to -- for the stop of construction that's going to carry on
and on and on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with that. That's what I'm
trying to get. I'm trying to get a recognition of the fact that you're not
-- this motion will not authorize staff to spend any additional money
redesigning this project or evaluating any alternatives except for staff
time to meet with the community to see what is acceptable.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then bring it back to the
commission for direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the concerns that I have as
we move forward on what the community wants when they come in
here at the 11 th hour, the next thing that's going to be on the agenda is
they're going to want a stoplight at that intersection so that people can
make a left-hand turn if they're telling us that they got 600 cars that
are turning into this.
And I don't believe that under the guidelines that we design
highways for, that this is acceptable. And I will not go any farther on
this idea because I can see where this is going to lead us. They've got
a stoplight, they've got a rear entrance. And if we leave the front
entrance the way it is so that those people can get into their
community as they travel northbound, then fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas,
can I amend my motion to include the fact that we will not be
discussing a stoplight? Will that give you enough comfort to vote for
Page 103
February 10,2009
it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Traffic light.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I can see where this is
leading to. And what I -- what I witnessed Sunday evening tells me
that that's going to be the next step in this thing. And if you're
stacking six cars as you said you're going to be stacking, if we -- if
they have a left-hand turn, then we've got another problem. And I
don't feel that we should be jeopardizing -- whether it's the people in
Forest Glen or whether it's the people that drive that highway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not too sure if! still have a
second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning, what
time of the day were you traveling 951 ?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was about 5:30.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After the Seafood Festival?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but I -- that doesn't matter
what time it was. It was after the Seafood Festival, definitely, and
people were making left-hand turns into that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just wanted to see how the
Seafood Festival was. I couldn't make it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excellent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was wonderful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, did you want to
say one more thing, did you say?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I think we pretty-well
covered it. I'm looking forward to working with the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, signi- --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the -- let's specify the
motion again. Make sure that we've got clear guidance here.
Page 104
February 10,2009
MR. MUDD: The motion -- the motion is, continue with the
contract as specified under current design, staff meet with the
homeowners association from Forest Glen to figure out if we can find
an alternative someplace, examine the cost to try to get more specific
as far as our estimates are concerned so that we can shorten the U-turn
lane, okay, and then work the receiving lane elongated so that people
could safely make a left-hand turn and doesn't have to go down as far
to make a U-turn to get into southbound to northbound --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just to correct the county manager, not
to shorten it --
MR. MUDD: And that will come back to the Board of County
Commissioners for a decision.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One further guidance on this
whole thing, that when you have that meeting with Forest Glen, that
you also invite water management to come and talk about the
permitting schedule. Maybe there's some way that that could be
expediated and the cost of it reduced. Who knows.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Happy to do it. And just to correct the
county manager, not to shorten it, to relocate it and adjust the
northbound right turn lane. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And no stoplight.
Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Aye.
Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We will break for lunch.
Page 105
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What time you want us back?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 1: 1 0, back.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And we are back in session.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2009-36: CU-2006-AR-I0925, BASIL
STREET PARTNERS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY CLAY
BROOKER, ESQ., OF CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO, WILSON &
JOHNSON, LLP, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE (CU)
FOR A PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USE IN THE
AGRICUL TURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT, AS SPECIFIED IN
SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 4.32 ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 10111 AND
10121 KEEWAYDIN ISLAND, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 51
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item would be 7 A. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
It's conditional use 2006-AR-I0925, Basil Street Partners, LLC,
represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson
& Johnson, LLP, requesting a conditional use for a passive
recreational use in the agricultural A zoning district as specified in
Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
The subject property consisting of 4.32 acres is located at 10111
Page 106
February 10, 2009
and 10121 Keewaydin Island, in Section 14, Township 51 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Mr. Mudd.
First of all, do we have to swear our people in today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we do.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. First I will ask for our
commissioners' ex parte. We'll start with you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. On 7 A, I had
meetings, correspondence, emails, and the last meeting I had -- I
mean, this goes over a span of time that's unreal -- was on 2/9, I had a
meeting with Mr. and Mr. Van Dongen -- did I pronounce it right --
and lots of correspondence and emails, tremendous amount of emails.
It's all in my ex parte folder if anyone would like to see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I've had
voluminous amount of correspondence on this issue. Anybody
wishing to look at my correspondence is free to do so. I've had
emails, written correspondence, and phone calls. I've had no meetings
on this rezone. I did briefly talk to Clay Brooker while coming in the
room.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I have had
correspondence from virtually everyone in the entire county. Here it
is, folks. And I want to tell you, I read every single word in this.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have met with Mr. John
Donahue and Chris Sodd (phonetic), Nicole Ryan, Dr. and Mrs. Van
Dongen, I've had emails and telephone calls, and it's all in my public
records folder.
Page 107
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also have had probably three
quarters of the people of Collier County and almost all the people
from the City of Naples come in to me or else have sent me emails,
and I understand that I'm still getting emails coming in as we speak.
But I've had meeting with Tony Pires. That took place back as
far as the ninth month, 18th day of'06. I've had meetings with Tony
Pires and Dr. John Van Dongen, Keewaydin POA, and that was
10/13/05, and I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, telephone
calls, you name it.
And if anybody wants to look at any of my ex parte, they're more
than welcome. It's here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I, too, have quite a bit of ex
parte here that will be on file for everybody's perusal, and they --
recorded in here are all of the meetings, the correspondence, the
emails, and the telephone calls I got, but specifically Annette and John
Van Dongen, Mike Bauer, Tony Pires, Nicole Ryan from the
Conservancy, and also I attended a meeting at Rookery Bay that
discussed this very item. And I think that -- and I've spoken to staff
about this as well. Thank you.
Also with everybody in the audience, first may I ask you, if you
have a telephone in your pocket, if would you turn it off or put it on
vibrate. Second of all, as of now, please turn in your speaker slips if
you have not done so. If you have, that's it. We will not accept any
more speaker slips.
Here's how we're going to do this. First we're going to hear from
the presenter, then we're going to hear from staff, then we're going to
hear from the speakers.
I ask that you keep your speech within three minutes. I will -- I
will adhere to that. If you have something that you agree with that
somebody else just said, rather than say it again, say I -- you know,
Page 108
February 10,2009
you come up, you know, I agree. That will kind of keep it under
control.
Can you tell me, please, how many speakers are registered?
MS. FILSON: For 7A, 13.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. So three minutes,
13, that's 39 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Swear in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And -- okay. Thank you very much. My
assistant, thank goodness I have him.
Would you swear in the audience, please, for all those who wish
to speak on this item.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. And we shall begin
with the presenter.
MR. HALL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Tim
Hall, for the record, with Turrell, Hall & Associates. And I'm going to
try to walk you through a brief summary of the project and how we
got to where we are today.
I'm going to use the visualizer quite a bit. Hopefully it's -- what
you've got here is a representation of Keewaydin Island with the pass
up to the north here, and then the Hurricane Pass down to the south.
The little red dot there about two-thirds of the way down the island is
the actual subject property.
Blown up a little bit higher, or a little bit more, the two lots in
question side by side. As was stated earlier, they comprise a little over
four acres. What this drawing shows is the vegetative associations
that are out there now, about half of the project property is wetlands
and mangrove wetlands. There's an existing dock out on the
waterway.
And then coming towards the beach, you go through a palm
hammock area to the coastal scrub and then to the beach itself.
The proposal is to do a small beach shelter out on that interface
Page 109
February 10,2009
between the palm hammock area and the coastal scrub. The project
originally started out much larger, much more intense. It was a larger
building, air conditioned, able to support 56 people through the
preliminary meetings with the EAC and the Planning Commission.
There was a lot of discussion and back and forth that that was too
many people. The -- the applicant took the project back under review,
scaled the building down almost two-thirds to where it is now, about
an 800-square-foot facility, went through the EAC and the planning
process -- Planning Commission process again.
At the second Planning Commission process, there was some
issues raised about the dock and getting people out to the docks, since
it was originally permitted as a single-family facility.
Since that time, from the last Planning Commission meeting,
discussions have been underway with the Department of
Environmental Protection, an application was submitted and has been
-- is in the process or being processed now for the possibility of
converting the use of that from a single-family slip to a commercial
slip which requires a submerged land lease and all which would allow
them, the Basil Street Partners, to bring people out to the facility and
use that as a -- as a drop-off point, instead of a single-family use.
So that has been underway. There are a couple of outstanding
issues still with DEP. One of them was that they wanted to actually
see that the Collier County Commission approved this use before they
would grant that request.
So we're kind of in a Catch 22 in that the county wants to see
DEP's approval first and DEP wants to see the county's approval first.
We have given them the staff report for this meeting that shows
that in the staffs opinion anyway the project is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, and DEP is currently reviewing that information
to see if that's enough to satisfy their requirements.
I'm up here speaking because most of the issues that have been
raised have been with the environmental nature of the site and the
Page 110
February 10,2009
potential impacts associated with that with the project. What this
exhibit right here shows is how the building was located around the
features that we felt needed to be protected. The mangrove forest and
fringe out there has an existing trail pathway through it, which is
going to be, of course, maintained.
The dots that you see on the project are gopher tortoise boroughs
that were located out there, and the building was actually situated so
that none of those boroughs would have to be disturbed in the
construction of it and operation.
The boardwalk, as you see, goes all the way from the dock to the
facility and out to the beach. That was to keep people confined to the
boardwalk so there wouldn't be people all over the project site.
And as a result of this design, you get a project which has a very,
very small development footprint and a very, very large preserve area.
Ninety-five percent, approximately, of the site would be preserved.
A couple of different conservation easements, one -- to Rookery
Bay or to DEP, one to the county to meet the Land Development Code
and Growth Management Plan preservation requirements.
The facility itself, kind of a blow-up here. And what you see is a
dark red, which is the actual building footprint, the septic system and
drainfield associated with that, and then the yellow around it is
temporary impacts that would need to be -- that -- areas that would be
impacted with the construction of the building and all but then would
later be restored after that and would be included in the -- in the
preservation, you know, and native vegetation retention on the project
site.
One of the other issues that came up was the compatibility of this
project with the overall -- you know, the overall island nature, I guess.
And one of the things that makes this project unique is that it is
not immediately adjacent to any residential property. The closest
property to it is a thousand feet away to the south. To the north is
state lands. Immediately to the south is also state lands. So it is a --
Page 111
February 10,2009
buffered and limited in terms of its ability to impact any of the
neighborhood residences because it is separated from all of those and
not in the midst of them.
And because the state lands are to the north and south, there also
wouldn't be future encroachment of residential buildings into it like an
airport noise zone where you have the airport built, people build into it
and then complain about the noise. This couldn't happen here because
it's already separate from those, and that wouldn't be a -- that wouldn't
occur.
In going through the island itself, we saw that there were
approximately a hundred parcels on the island. About half of them are
owned by the state and half are in private ownership. Of that half
that's owned by the state, it actually comprised about 75 percent of the
island. So there is, you know, already that large component that is
being preserved.
And in our opinion, the 95 percent of preservation associated
with this links those properties to the north and south and maintains
any corridors for wildlife and that kind of thing that would be
associated with those.
One of the other things that we were asked to look at in terms of
the impacts associated with this and with this request was, if this
wasn't approved, it's two single-family lots. So two single -- two
families could actually be out there, could be built out there.
So we looked at different housing footprints and all and did a
brief little kind of overlay of if there were two single-family
residences built out on this island or build on these properties, what
they would look like. These are conceptual only which show the
actual area is footage, which is about, between 2,500 and 3,000 square
foot per house. There would probably be a couple of levels so you'd
have, you know, expanded footprints there.
These drawings don't show the drainfields and all that would be
associated with them. But you can see that just the footprint of the
Page 112
February 10, 2009
buildings, you'd have to have two docks. You'd have to have two
boardwalks accessing them and all, and the extent of impacts becomes
much higher -- you know, it approaches the limits that are allowed in
the Growth Management Plan, which is about 10 percent of each lot
for each house.
So you'd have -- you know, instead of the 95 percent
preservation, you'd have a smaller number.
And then what I did was take that same drawing and overlaid the
beach facility, and you can see that this little yellow square right here
is actually what's being proposed in terms of the vegetation removal
and impacts associated with this project.
So given all of that, in terms of how the building was -- was
located on the island and all, then we looked at the -- okay, the
operations aspect of the facility. People are concerned that there will
be unrestricted access and a hundred people running around out there.
So the applicant worked with Rookery Bay to come up with a
management plan and an operations plan, operations manual for the
facility in which all of the do's and don'ts that are associated with
operating the facility are outlined.
And among some of those that are most pertinent are the
limitation that only 20 people at a time can be out there. The original
facility had some food preparation area and all associated with it.
That's been completely removed from this.
One of the early versions had air conditioning and all, which has
also been removed. This is now just a roofed structure.
The 20 people -- only one vessel is associated with bringing
people in and out. There are educational programs that could be
presented to the people on the way out there, so Rookery Bay would
kind of have a captive audience for some of their programs to be
presented there.
The policing of the beach and of the facility, you'd have a
property with people out there. There would be somebody associated
Page 113
February 10,2009
with the club there every day as long as people are there that would be
in charge of actually policing and enforcing all of the rules there that
are associated with it.
No overnight garbage storage or anything. Everything that's
brought in on a daily basis is removed at the end of the day. No
lighting at night, so it's a dusk-to-dawn facility only. You'd have no --
no nighttime activities or lights or anything else going out there,
which also is quite a difference from a residential project where you
would have generators and air conditioning and that kind of stuff but,
you know, to the extreme extent, potentially running all night.
So the entire structure is elevated. The structure itself is on
pilings. The boardwalk is elevated, so -- and so like I said earlier,
you've got people that are confined just to that area. They would be
utilizing the dock, the facility, and the beach, whereas in -- so the rest
of the property would be left in its natural state.
We have also made the commitment to look at the possibility for
using solar power for the lighting and all out there so that the
generator -- running the generator can be minimized. That's not my
field of expertise. I know that that stuff is possible and it depends on
the actual power requirements of the lights that are eventually used out
there and whether or not that would be -- you know, that would be
needed to run the fans or if that would be sufficient to run the fans.
The generator would still be there as an emergency backup.
There would be -- in keeping with the emergency theme, there would
also be radio and cell phone service on the -- at the facility the entire
time people are out there. So if there is some type of emergency, the
authorities could be notified, and help could be gotten to them as
quickly as possible.
So that's about all I had to say about the project. I know staff has
looked at it, compared it to the Land Development Code, the Growth
Management Plan and found it to be consistent. We agree with their
determination and believe that given the fact that the project has gone
Page 114
February 10, 2009
through the public vetting process, substantial changes have been
made to try to accommodate the concerns raised by all of the parties
and that staff has reviewed all of this, found it consistent.
Rookery Bay has coordinated with them in terms of the
operations and management plan, and we'd just like you to give it a
favorable consideration. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to ask him one right now?
Okay. I'll just have staff next.
MR. MOSS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
John David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development
Review.
As Mr. Hall pointed out, staff did review the proposed passive
recreational facility and found it to be consistent with the conservation
designation of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan and also with the conditional use criteria in the
agricultural designation and the special treatment overlay.
The Planning Commission heard this petition at its July 19, 2007,
hearing, and voted 6-3 to forward it to the Board of Zoning Appeals
with a recommendation of denial for the reasons that have been
outlined in both the executive summary and the staff report.
Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to
conditions contained in Exhibit D of the proposed ordinance, and I'll
be happy to answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll first go on to the speakers, and then
we'll get to the questions.
Would you call the speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Darin Seller. He'll be followed by
Zoe Kerns.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Zoe, would you come up and kind of
like stand at ready? Thank you.
Page 115
February 10,2009
MR. SELLERS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Darin Sellers. I stand before you today as a voice of an island,
Keewaydin Island, and also as the voice of 2,700 members who form
the group Save Keewaydin Island.
I have a petition of nearly 600 signatures that I would like to
submit to you. Of course, I walked up here without it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can just give it to the county
attorney.
MR. SELLERS: I'm a little nervous. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. It's okay.
MR. SELLERS: We are not a group that wants to restrict access
to the island. As a matter of fact, we would encourage anyone with
the will to get there to do so. They will enjoy a memorable experience
on a beautiful island which has remained untouched and in its natural
state while the world around it has exploded with development. It is
this natural state which we wish to preserve, for once it is lost, it is
gone forever.
We think this will inevitably lead to the loss of an island that is a
rare jewel, the type that gets more rare every day due to encroachment
by development.
Having grown up here and having seen countless natural habitats
lost to development in my 41 years, I know the danger that faces this
island today, which is why I implore you to vote no rezoning. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Zoe Kerns.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Nancy Mooney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nancy Mooney, would you come up.
Thank you.
MS. KERNS: Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
Board of County Commission.
My name is Zoe Kerns, and I am an active member representing
Page 116
February 10, 2009
the group Save Keewaydin Island. We have close to 3,000 members
with the same voice, and we're all fighting for the same cause, the
cause being, say no to development -- say no to development on
Keewaydin Island.
My reasons are this: Keewaydin Island has been like a second
home to so many of us. And when I say us, I am not only referring to
the weekend visitors of past generations up to now, but to the
community of fishermen and crabbers who have made their living for
generations in the surrounding waters. This is not just a fight for
recreational access. It is also about people's hard-earned livelihoods.
And to me, the development of this pristine barrier island would have
an enormous negative impact for all involved except, of course, the
developers themselves.
I agree with many of my SKI members that any development of
the island will set an ugly, ugly precedent, as we have all seen the
development skyrocket in this city and this county, and Keewaydin is
no different.
If you do not vote no to the rezoning now, when will it ever end?
All developers will want a piece of the action, and this is reprehensible
in my mind and in my heart. Although the State of Florida owns 86
percent of Keewaydin and the remaining 14 percent is privately
owned, that 14 percent does have endangered species living there,
such as gopher tortoises, indigo snakes, scrub jays, and various flora
and fauna.
Obviously development, no matter where on the island it may be,
that development is going to be extremely and extraordinarily
detrimental. I beg of you, County Commissioners, to please vote no
on this extremely important issue. Keewaydin, as an island, cannot
speak for itself, but the generations of families, fishermen, visitors and
nature lovers who love and respect Keewaydin can, and we are.
And this is the sole reason we are here today opposing any
development on Keewaydin. Thank you so much for letting me share
Page 117
February 10,2009
my voice and my passion for this cause. Thanks, County
Commission.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Nancy Mooney. She'll be
followed by W. Willkomm.
MS. MOONEY: Hello. Thank you, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners for this opportunity to speak.
My name is Nancy Mooney of Naples, and I strongly oppose the
petition by Basil Street Partners for a conditional use permit to build
the commercial beach pavilion on Keewaydin. Please vote no to any
zoning changes on Keewaydin.
Construction of this proposed beach club would result in far more
incentive use of the island than is currently allowed, and it would set a
precedent allowing other developers to build private commercial clubs
on this fragile barrier island.
Furthermore, a scaled-back plan has already been rejected by the
Planning Commission and the Environmental Advisory Council. And
I believe the Board of County Commissioners should also vote no.
Keewaydin Island is irreplaceable. Please vote no. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: W. Willkomm. He'll be followed by Marie
Barnett.
MR. WILLKOMM: Thank you, Madam Chairman and County
Commissioners. Thank you again for your service to the community.
I'm here today as a long-term resident of Collier County and as a
representative of the Naples City Council. I'll cut to the quick. I don't
want to -- I know your time's valuable.
The City Council of Naples would respectfully request that this
petition be denied and development not go forward on Keewaydin
Island. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marie Barnett. She will be
Page 118
February 10,2009
followed by Anthony Pires.
MS. BARNETT: Good afternoon. My name is Marie Barnett,
and I have two degrees in architecture, a bachelor of environmental
design in architecture, and a bachelor of architecture. I've been a
Collier County resident for 20 years and designing homes on
Keewaydin Island on ten years now.
I'm totally against this project. I think it's important to remember
that the EAC has turned down this project with prejudice. There was
a lady that came to the planning board commission from the EAC that
was so against it that she physically came to that meeting to say how
much she was against this project. That's unprecedented. That's two
for two.
We're going -- we're going for number three here. So the main
problem that I see with this project is that you cannot control it.
Building out on Keewaydin Island has it's own inherent problems, and
unless you're a 100 percent sure that you've got everything figured
out, you can't go out there and build.
And this is too complex, has too many issues with it to even try
to go out there and build in the first place.
There's -- the one question I have is with the septic. How large is
that going to be for 20 people 24 hours a day on and on and on? You
know, what happens when there is a hurricane and water comes out
there? What happens to that septic? The fair access is another thing.
And then the third thing is that I really think that two
single-family homes would have less impact than this clubhouse that
the -- its interaction of humans, interaction of people on the site. I'm
out of time --
MS. FILSON: No. You have one minute.
MS. BARNETT: -- its interaction of people on this site, so two
single-family homes would have less interaction of people coming to
those homes than this would, obviously.
And the final thing is that if you have any question in your mind
Page 119
February 10,2009
about the control of any of the issues out on Keewaydin Island, you
have to vote no because you can't go back. We've got this one chance.
So please vote no, and thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Anthony Pires. He'll be
followed by Kathy Khatib.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, members of the board, Anthony
Pires, Jr., Woodward, Pires, Lombardo law firm representing a
number of property owners on Keewaydin, John van Dongen and
others, and I'll be brief.
I provided a packet of materials last week to the board, and I've
made a copy of those and given it to the court reporter to be made part
of the record, includes the transcripts from the EAC hearings, the
CCPC hearings and the various objections.
I think what's interesting in this, in the conditional use
application, one thing that needs to be shown is that the project will
not be injurious to the neighborhood to adjoining properties.
What has not been part of any discussion, submittal or
application and we've asked for repeatedly, there's no limitation on the
number of daily boat trips. There's no statement of number of daily
boat trips.
We've asked as to the impact or limiting people on the island.
They've refused to do that. They keep saying, we limit 20 people to
the site, and that's consistently throughout all the presentations and all
the materials. So there can be more than 20 people on this island at
any given time.
You have people who are daily transient lodging facility users of
this facility, Naples Bay Resort, 85 hotel units; Cottages at Naples
Bay, 108 or 103 units; 300 residences proposed for the Renaissance
Village; 200,000 square feet of commercial use as Renaissance
Village, all part of the Club of Naples Bay Resort, plus they can sell
memberships if commercially viable to others. That's in the materials I
Page 120
February 10,2009
provided to you under the recorded condominium documents.
To make it a viable operation, they can sell memberships to
anybody they want to. This is a high-intensity commercial operation.
This is an appendage to the high-intensity commercial operation. It is
not merely a little screened recreational hut in the middle of nowhere.
They are planning on using it probably to the maximum. If! was
marketing it, they will market it to the 'nth degree when you see the
materials, if this is approved.
Again, there are a number of unanswered questions that would
show the lack of compatibility with adjacent properties, the effect that
the conditional use would have on adjoining properties.
The application -- the operations manual that they tout is not with
the county. It's with FDEP. That can be changed without the county
knowing about it.
And interestingly enough, the operations manual says they will
have club-owned vessels, not private vessels. Well, a club could own
ten vessels, club could own 20 vessels, and people can rent
club-owned vessels. This is -- the whole project, as I've seen it, has
been an illusory concept that this would be a limited, small-scale use
of this island. And I would submit to you it would be an incredible
intense use of this island marketed by your very intense commercial
development that needs us to help this destination resort.
There's no statement as to the size or type of boats. The
application at DEP says they requested submerged land leases for a
boat with a beam of up to 12 feet in width, and it's a 35-by-14-foot
area, so that's, I would submit to you, a pretty good-sized vessel.
The -- there's been no real analysis of the intention of use of the
island. They've merely repeated various assertions that since the
structure will be located on two lots, the impacts from the structure are
much less. Doesn't talk about the impacts to the people. There's no
talk about impacts of the traffic going back and forth.
I request that you follow through with what the Planning
Page 121
February 10,2009
Commission's done twice, the EAC has done twice, and deny this
application. Thank you very kindly.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Kathy Khatib. She'll be followed
by Nick Penniman.
MS. KHATIB: Hello. I am Kathleen Khatib. I'm a property
owner on Keewaydin Island. Actually, we are the closest property to
the proposed development, so I suppose we would be the most
impacted, but really my concern is for the wildlife on the island.
I understand that Collier County is considering buying property
to protect the panther habitat, spending lots of money just to create a
place where panthers could roam freely, but I also understand that
Keewaydin Island is already a panther habitat. There are panthers out
there, as well as deer and roseate spoonbills, and all the most amazing
animals that aren't going to exist much longer in Florida if we
continue to encroach upon their natural habitat.
So I feel, rather than spending money to protect panther habitat,
why not just keep Keewaydin Island as a pristine, natural environment
and allow just minimal use and not even begin to consider commercial
development.
And as a matter of fact, this is a picture of deer footprints right in
front of the proposed Basil Street development area. And where will
those deer go when that is created?
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nick Penniman. He'll be
followed by John van Dongen.
MR. PENNIMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Nick Penniman. I'm here on behalf of your Collier County
Environmental Advisory Council. We've seen this product twice; once
in 2006, again in 2007. In both cases our staff recommended
approval. In both cases we turned it down unanimously.
Page 122
February 10, 2009
I'm here to answer any questions that you have about our
recommendation for denial. They're in your executive summary. If
you have no questions, I thank you very much for your time and hope
you will recommend also denial of this conditional use permit.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John van Dongen. He'll be
followed by Annette van Dongen.
MR. van DONGEN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen. My name's John van Dongen, resident of City of Naples,
property owner on Keewaydin Island. Our lot is just about 1,400 feet
south of the subject property.
I represent Keewaydin Island Property Owners Association, and
I'm here to strongly oppose and express our opposition to this petition
for commercial development on Keewaydin Island.
The character of Keewaydin is a very low-intense, beautiful
environment that -- the environment impact study that was done did
not at all address the main issue, and the main issue is human impact.
Human impact, if we look back at the environment -- Planning
Commission report, was Chairman Mark Strain, equated this to eight
houses, not two houses. This is eight houses, the intensity of2.56
persons per household in Collier County according to the last census,
so 20 comes to -- this is not any kind of minimally passive beach
pavilion. This is a huge impact, and we would like to oppose this as
much as we can.
And the second thing was the Memorandum of Understanding
with Rookery Bay. Rookery Bay's staff is already stretched to its
maximum doing what they need to do looking after Rookery Bay.
They should not be trying to police a private beach club. That is not
their role, and I don't think it's possible. In fact, the MOU is totally
illusionary and totally unenforceable.
We as a community do not want to be turning to the police, and
Page 123
February 10,2009
I'm sure you, as commissioners, do not want to have a lot of
complaints in front of you trying to police something that's impossible
to do so.
My -- I would like to say that this is not in the public interest, and
I'd like to demonstrate by everybody who opposes please standing up.
And I think we'll see -- make my point, and I ask you, please, to reject
this petition.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Annette van Dongen.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by John McNicholas.
MS. van DONGEN: My name is Annette van Dongen. We've
heard recently about public beach access, and I'd like to separate that
topic from this topic.
What we're talking about here in this petition is private beach
access for profit for a select group of people who have paid for the
privilege. This is not public beach access. And I just want to make
that completely clear.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: John McNicholas. He'll be followed by Philip
Jentgen. I know I have one wrong.
MR. McNICHOLAS: Good afternoon, folks. My name is John
McNicholas. As a business owner that provides support services for
the folks on Keewaydin Island, I'd like to touch upon the idea of the
human impact here.
Arguably, I personally have -- spend more time on Keewaydin
Island than anyone, including the owners, since we support almost all
of them. And what I see in reality is that although there may be 15 to
20 structures out there, only of which probably a dozen you and I
would consider viable living spaces, they are used extremely
infrequently. There are owners out there that I haven't seen in a few
Page 124
February 10,2009
years. The ones who do come, it's occasionally a weekend here and
there.
So what I see in terms of human interaction, human traffic, on a
day-to-day basis is extremely, extremely small. To bring in 20 people,
or however many people there's going to be, is just a multiple --
multiplier of the human effect that there is right now.
It will just create all kind of issues with the wildlife. The wildlife
moves up and down that island. They traverse back and forth. They
tend to very quickly learn where the people are and where they aren't,
and they avoid those areas.
Since most of the wildlife moves from -- back and forth from
north to south and that's the northernmost property before all the state
lands, I think we'll impact them trying to go through there to get back
to the state lands where they know they're the safest.
I would hope that you would vote against this proposal. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Philip. He'll be followed by Andrew McElwaine.
MR. JENTGEN: My point's already been made, so I'd like to
defer. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Andrew McElwaine.
MR. McEL W AINE: Thank you very much, and pleasure to see
all five of you today. And for the record, Andrew McElwaine,
Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy is a property owner on the island and has more
than a passing interest. We were founded at the Keewaydin Club. I'm
sorry I didn't have the presence of mind to drag Lavern Gaynor here
with me who has literally spent more time on the island than anyone
else.
I'd also like to acknowledge the support of the Sierra Club for our
position and welcome their great involvement in Collier County.
The Conservancy would like to raise one issue that has not been
Page 125
February 10, 2009
raised at this point, and that is the public benefit of the private club. A
conditional use permit to be granted requires significant public benefit
when it is being granted in an agricultural location, agriculturally
zoned, with a special treatment overlay.
We do not believe the public benefit provided by this private
beach club which has already been said does not provide public
access, is sufficient to justify the granting of a conditional use permit,
and you must find that it does provide that benefit in order to grant a
conditional use permit.
So we would respectfully suggest to you that that benefit is not
there and that you would be advised, well advised, to follow the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and the EAC.
And thank you very much. I just -- I'm so impressed with the
grass-roots groups that have come here today. I can't say enough.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was our final speaker.
And Commissioners, nobody -- oh, somebody just turned their
light on. But what I'd like to do is say that personally I believe that a
private beach club is not compatible with a barrier island, so I make a
motion to deny this request.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second by Commissioner Coyle. Now, I have Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hall, if you have just a
minute. Is there any disturbed property on this lot?
MR. HALL: Just the existing pathway that goes from the dock to
the beach.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no structures on this?
MR. HALL: There's no existing structures, no.
Page 126
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I guess a question for
staff on their analysis of the Growth Management Plan, it says in our
executive summary on the Conservation Coastal Element, 10.3.12,
that it encourages actually to be rezoned a PUD.
Does the rest of the Conservation Coastal Element apply to this
property? I'm getting -- saying agricultural ST, but it's definitely a
coastal barrier island. I'm trying to figure out what part of the Growth
Management Plan should we apply to this conditional use.
MR. MOSS: Well, I know that--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your name for the record?
MR. MOSS: Oh, I'm sorry, John David Moss, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
In the conservation and coastal management element it does
require developments or encourage them to be in the form ofPUD.
And before I was involved with this project, I know that the prior
planner spoke with the County Attorney's Office, and they determined
that a conditional use would be more appropriate for this petition, and
that's why they decided to use the conditional use process.
In terms of the conservation designation of the Future Land Use
Element of the Growth Management Plan, passive recreational use
facilities are a permitted use, so it is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan.
The gentleman from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida made
a comment just a moment ago -- I don't know if this might be what
caused the confusion -- stating that conditional uses are required to be
for the greatest benefit of the county, and that's not necessarily true. I
think he's getting confused with the special treatment overlay
designation which does require that.
And staff determined that this project would provide a greater
public benefit than if the property were developed with single-family
homes as would be permitted by right in the zoning district. So that's
Page 127
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the zoning district?
MR. MOSS: Agricultural.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is it agricultural--
MR. MOSS: With a special --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- designation? But is it barrier
island?
MR. MOSS: It is a barrier island.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why wouldn't the coastal
conservation barrier islands apply to this property?
MR. MOSS: That might be better addressed by someone from
the environmental staff who reviewed this petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually it should be
somebody from the comprehensive planning should answer that
question, and I don't see anybody.
MR. MOSS: No. Unfortunately, they're not here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, I mean, you're applying it
-- you're applying the coastal barrier conservation element of the
Growth Management Plan one way, but then you're applying -- we're
applying it -- different elements of the Growth Management Plan a
different way, like it is agricultural property like is out in Golden Gate
-- or no, I'm sorry, in District 5, but it's not a coastal barrier. I don't
think you have any coastal barrier.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everglades down there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, in Everglades City,
Chokoloskee. I'm just very confused about the application of the
review of this conditional use.
MR. MOSS: Could you please clarify the question? Neither I
nor Susan Istenes are really sure what the question is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can't address my question
because it needs to be addressed by comprehensive planning.
MR. MOSS: I think Susan would like to attempt to address it if
she could understand it better.
Page 128
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On Page 2, the fifth paragraph,
bold, Conservation Coastal Element (sic), CCME, you apply it -- you
make reference to the GMP here that, you know -- and you're
encouraging it should be a PUD, but when you do your analysis for
the GMP, you're considering it agricultural property.
And my question is, why doesn't all the elements of the coastal
conservation, CCME, apply to this, or has it been?
MS. ISTENES: For the record, Susan Istenes, zoning director.
Which of the CCME do you think is not applying in this case? That's
where I'm trying to get.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Policy 10.1.1, policy
10.1.3, policy 10.2.1.
MS. ISTENES: And those say -- I apologize. You're right, I'm
not the comprehensive planning staff, so unfortunately I don't have
them memorized, but I could make an attempt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: This--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Policy 10.1.1 says, priorities of
dependent water -- water-dependent or water-related uses, B, public
recreation over private recreation facilities.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- has anybody asked the
applicant of what kind of public recreational facilities will be
incorporated into this private recreational facility?
MS. ISTENES: My answer to that at this point, just from
listening to you read and my knowledge of the petition, would be
likely the observation was that if the property was developed for a
single-family home, then obviously there would be -- the ownership of
the property would have the access to the water versus --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a right now -- right
now, and you don't have to petition the government to put a
single-family home there.
Page 129
February 10,2009
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that doesn't apply.
MS. ISTENES: But it's not -- it then is a more private use, per
se, versus a club use, which is not limited to the owner of the property
using that property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in order to answer my
question is, you're viewing this private recreational facility as a
single-family home?
MS. ISTENES: I guess what I'm saying is, a private club as
presented or described in this petition would be more public than a
single- family home, and I think that was what you were questioning as
to the consistency with the GMP.
Is it totally public? No. Is it totally private? No. It's somewhat
in between.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, are you a member of the
public when you use facilities -- let me say this a different way. Can
you go over and use your neighbor's pool?
MS. ISTENES: If! get their permission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you get their permission,
right. Can you go to the water park and pay a fee to use their facility?
MS. ISTENES: I imagine I can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Was there analysis done
on the -- to minimize the destruction or disturbance of native
vegetation communities in policy 10.1.3?
MS. ISTENES: That -- and environmental can help me if I'm not
giving the complete answer -- but that actually would be done at the
time of site plan review because there are criteria under the ST
designation that limit the amount of destruction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, isn't it in the conditional
use they're supposed to submit a site plan?
MS. ISTENES: They would submit a conceptual site plan for the
conditional use review, and then later they'd come in through the
Page 130
February 10, 2009
regular Site Development Plan process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think what they're --
what they're proposing is a ground-level private clubhouse facility. Is
that a correct statement?
MS. ISTENES: I don't know that for a fact. Is it elevated?
MR. MOSS: Elevated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any retention, proposed
retention for native vegetation underneath that facility?
MS. ISTENES: I don't know, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: They have to meet a minimum criteria, so it
would -- you would consider the structure and the land in total.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In policy 10.2, the county shall
continue to ensure that access to beaches, shorelines, and waterways
remain available to the public in continuing with this program,
expanded availability such as -- such access and method for funding. I
don't think that applies.
But it further says, existing access for public beaches shall be
maintained by the developer. But I don't see any proposal for public
access.
MS. ISTENES: Did it say existing access? I guess at this point
it's still a private property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Still private?
MS. ISTENES: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's a fair statement.
Yeah, I mean, policy 10.3, it says, undeveloped barrier island shall be
maintained predominantly in nature (sic) state in their natural
functions and protection. I don't know during this review process on
how that was accomplished.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I would suggest that then if you
are inclined to disapprove or go along with the motion that's been
made, that you -- and I would turn to the county attorney if they
Page 13 1
February 10,2009
wanted to offer any other input -- that you so state that on the record
as a reason for supporting the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Chairman. I'm -- I just want
to reinforce your motion and also reinforce the second's motion to
make sure that we, the county, have an understanding of where we're
leading this -- going with this issue.
I have some very strong concerns about where we're privatizing
more and more of the waterways and beach access in this county and
depriving the citizens of getting to the beaches.
So I'd like to read into the record here, I agree with the position
of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida attached as Pages 77 and 78
to this agenda item.
The proposed private beach club provides no benefit to the
people of Collier County as a whole, and this project simply does not
meet the standards governing the special treatment overlay of this
property, which is located on a sensitive barrier island.
Two, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 10.07.02.704,
I'm concerned there is insufficient access to this private club in the
case of fire, catastrophe, or health emergencies.
Number three, pursuant to Land Development Code Section
1 0.07.02.Do4, the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated to me
that this propositioned use would not have a negative impact on the
neighboring properties with respect to felonious, glare, economics, or
odor effects.
Number four, pursuant to LDC Section 1O.07.02.Do4, the
applicant has not demonstrated to me that there has not been
satisfactory provisions and arrangement for compatibility with the
adjacent properties, public properties in the district. I find nothing
about a commercial beach club constructing a pavilion that is
Page 132
February 10,2009
compatible with the adjacent property, since this is a barrier island.
Number five, the proposed development violates Collier County's
density requirement as set forth in the LDC Section 3.03.07.A --
parens A, which clearly states the county shall not approve any plan of
development of an undeveloped coastal barrier which would exceed a
density of one structure per five acres of fast land except for legal,
non-conforming lots of record either individually or in combination of
adjacent development.
Six, FLUE policy 504 states, new development shall be
compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses as
set forth in the Land Development Code. As I stated before, this
development is not compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Additionally, there is nothing this development would do to
complement the surrounding lands. If anything, a beach club pavilion
and numerous visitors would detract from, not complement the
neighboring land and its uses.
Lastly, I agree with the reasons set forth by Mr. Pires in his letter
to the Board of County Commissioners dated February 4, 2009.
For reasons set forth in this letter, together with the testimony
that has been presented, I do not believe that the proposed commercial
use for this property is authorized by either the GMP or the Land
Development Code.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
I don't know why we're continuing this discussion. Obviously
this thing's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Me neither.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- dead on arrival. But with that
said, I still am going to ask the questions.
This would be to staff, if you wouldn't mind, please. If this was a
Page 133
February 10, 2009
private residence, would it be permitted?
MR. MOSS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And would it have to go through
any more criteria than what a normal homebuilder would go through?
MR. MOSS: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The existing dock that
they referred to in the literature, what is this dock used for now?
MR. MOSS: I'm not sure what the dock is used for now. I just
know it's been approved for a single-family home use. And because
this would be, obviously, if approved, more than a single-family
home, they would need to have a commercial dock.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But who owns the dock?
MR. MOSS: I assume that the property owner does, but you
might want to ask his agent for clarification.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd just like to know that
for a fact. In other words -- Mr. Hall? Would that be who I address it
to, or Mr. Brooker?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Brooker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Hall, who owns the dock
itself.
MR. HALL: The dock is owned by the -- by the property owner
as well, which is the Basil Street.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it's presently permitted for a
private residence, right?
MR. HALL: It was originally permitted back in -- I believe it
was 1998 or 1999, prior to the Basil Street group acquiring the
property. It was originally permitted by the original -- or by the
former owner of the lot, and then those permits are -- either have been
transferred or are in the process of being transferred with this new
application that's in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Back to staff, if!
may.
Page 134
February 10,2009
In our summary agenda, the EAC, it said, the EAC recommended
denial 9-0 based on projected impacts on Keewaydin Island. Maybe
I'm asking the wrong person. But how would this use impact
Keewaydin Island any more than the present uses that are out there
now, being residential or private people going to the beach without
supervision? I'm kind of curious how this all comes about.
MR. MOSS: Well, I think the greatest concern was the number
of users. If it were a single-family home, there obviously wouldn't be
20 people a day visiting the site under normal circumstances, and so I
think that was their greatest concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But now a family -- if you own
a home there in Keewaydin Island, are you in any way limited to the
amount of people you can invite? Are you limited to the hours you're
going to be there?
MR. MOSS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you required to make sure
they police what's taking place as far as their -- the garbage they leave
behind or how they might misuse the wild areas there that do not
belong to the homeowners, the preserve areas?
MR. MOSS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The -- under the legal
consideration, it mentioned that as far as future conditional --
conditions of approval of the conditional use, you may require -- and
then it went on for a bunch of things -- dedicated for public use, and
that's one of the big things this commission has been very positively
looking for at all times.
What is the public's benefit to it? Not everybody has access to
the beach. I know that when we -- numerous times when people have
been building hotels or different facilities on the beach we've required
public access, required parking, numerous things, even kayak
launching.
Is there anything that's in here for the public use?
Page 135
February 10,2009
MR. MOSS: Not -- no, there's nothing open to the public as
proposed; however, as has been pointed out during this meeting, the
facility would provide a greater public benefit obviously to the
residents of Collier County who happen to live at Naples Bay Resort.
They would have access to it, but not the general public, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What would happen if
the property was transferred, sold to a private individual, maybe one
of the principals of the company that owns it now, and he or she was
to build a private residence there and invite guests at no charge -- not
that that's a likely scenario event -- would that be permissible?
MR. MOSS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. They wouldn't -- at that
point in time, they wouldn't be required to come before this
commission to ask permission?
MR. MOSS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There would be no restrictions
as to the number of times that they could use it and the hours or the
amount of people?
MR. MOSS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. That covers my
questions.
MR. MOSS: Okay. One thing -- I wanted to point it out. When
you asked me a moment ago if a homeowner would be required to get
anything else besides what a normal homeowner would have to to
build on the lot, I forgot to mention that because this is in a special
treatment area, they would need a special treatment permit, just as this
project does.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that quite involved to get?
MR. MOSS: I don't really know the process. Perhaps Joe
Schmitt could ask -- could answer any questions you might have about
that, because I'm unsure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'll be honest with you, I
Page 136
February 10,2009
don't think we need to go into that kind of detail.
MR. MOSS: Okay, very good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We just need to know that there
is something required over an average permit.
MR. MOSS: Right. Anyone who wanted to develop under a
special treatment overlay would be required to get it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we need to find a
finding, and I commend Commissioner Halas for his statement of
review of the Land Development Code and the Growth Management
Plan. It's very important to put that on the record.
And the census -- there's really no limitations on how many boats
can go there. That's nondescript. There's a lot of unknowns about this
conditional use.
And I also agree with Commissioner Halas, in their future land
use plan, that it is not compatible with the adjacent properties. I also
feel that it doesn't fit our CCME of the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, Commissioners, I'm going
to call for the vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last comment?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The reason I'm going to
go along with the vote is one reason and one reason only, is I am
concerned about property rights, whoever owns the property, and
reasonable access to it; however, with that said, I have a very big
interest in public access, and I think we need to serve that -- that issue
before the public at this time to make sure that anybody that comes
forward in the future and may look for anything, be wherever it is, it's
got to have more of a public purpose than what this one does.
Page 137
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor to deny,
we have a second.
All those favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 5-0. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #8A
RZ-2008-AR-12930, COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT REPRESENTED BY LAURA DEJOHN OF
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM THE RMF-6 (RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY) AND C-3
(COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE) TO CF (COMMUNITY
FACILITY) TO PROVIDE A PARKING LOT FOR THE
BA YVIEW PARK BOAT LAUNCH. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
IS LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH AND
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
DISAPPROVE REZONE, MAXIMIZE PARKING WITHIN PARK,
IMPROVE SHOULDERS AND CULVERTS ON DANFORD
STREET, KEEP EXISTING PROPERTY AND CONTINUE TO
PURCHASE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY - FAILED; MOTION TO
CONTINUE ITEM INDEFINITELY AND DIRECT STAFF TO
GET PROJECT WITHIN REQUIREMENTS OF LDC AND GMP
Page 138
February 10,2009
AND TO WORK ON EXP ANDING PARKING WITHIN
BA YVIEW PARK (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you could leave the room
and try to do it quietly, and the Board of County Commissioners will
continue their business for today.
The next item on your agenda, Commissioners, is 8A. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members.
It's RZ-2008-AR-12930, Collier County Coastal Zone
Management represented by Laura DeJohn of Johnson Engineering,
Inc., requesting a rezone from the RMF-6 residential multifamily, and
C-3, commercial intermediate, to commercial facility to provide a
parking lot for the Bayview Park boat launch.
The subject property is located in Section 23, Township 50 south,
and Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sue, let me just stop for a minute and say,
any people that are here to speak on this subject, number one, if you
have your cell phones on, please turn them off. Number two, if you
wanted to speak on this subject, please have your speaker slips in now
because we're going to close and we won't accept any more speaker
slips.
MS. FILSON: We currently have 25 speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty-five. It doesn't look like there's
25 people in the audience. Okay.
And let's see. We have to be sworn in here? Okay, fine.
So we're going to first declare our ex parte. We'll start with you,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I have had meetings
with Mr. Steve Riley, Phil Rufus Litow, David Kramer, Mike Sanford,
Joe Tuzzeo, Marla Ramsey, and Gary McAlpin, and I have had
correspondence, emails, and telephone calls on this -- this issue, and
Page 139
February 10,2009
those are all contained in my public folder.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've had a number of ex par- -- or
number of emailsinregardstothisitem.l.vealsometwithMr.Philip
Litow, Steve Riley, and Dave Kramer, and I believe there's a few
other associates from the neighborhood that met with me on 1/22/09.
I've also received calls from Mr. Philip Litow on 11/24/08 and
12/03/08, and I've met with our staff. I've also met with Marla
Ramsey and Gary McAlpin, and I also met with Donna Caron of the
Planning Commission in regards to this. So I think I've covered just
about everybody.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I -- my most
recent meeting was 1/26/09 with Gary Pin- -- McAlpin --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: McAlpin.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and Marla Ramsey. I talked
to numerous people on this. The Naples Fishing Club, this came up
before in the past, different other people have written me and called
me regarding access. And everything's in my folder if anyone wants
to see it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I have received
some written correspondence from members of the public, also emails
and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I have also -- I have to
just bring this out because this is what I've received on this subject.
These are emails and so forth that I've received from the -- from the
public. I've met with Marla Ramsey, Gary McAlpin. There was a
neighborhood information meeting, I attended that, Steve Riley, Phil
Litow, I visited the site a number of times.
Page 140
February 10,2009
It's interesting I've -- well, I'll say that later. I've also visited with
the neighbors and I've spoken with staff and I've spoken with a few
Planning Commission members.
And now, would you please swear in everybody who would like
to talk on this subject.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We'll start.
MS. DeJOHN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Laura DeJohn. I'm a Planner with Johnson Engineering in Naples.
I'm here today representing Collier County Coastal Zone Management
Department in this request for a rezone from RMF-6 and C-3 to CF,
community facilities.
I'm going to walk through a brief explanation of why this request
is here before you today, what the substance of the request is, and then
I'll introduce Coastal Zone Management Director, Gary McAlpin, to
give a quick wrap-up summary of the request.
The slide before you shows the context of the area. The site is
located fronting Danford Street to the north, Bay Street to the south,
and Hamilton Avenue, formerly Fern Street, to the east.
As you can see, Bayview Park -- I'll try to point to it with an
arrow -- is at the terminus of Danford Street, and the properties
requested for a rezone are colored blue within the Naples Bayview
addition number one subdivision. The general area of the property
includes Windstar PUD to the north, South Point Yacht Club to the
north, the Naples Botanical Gardens, which is a public facility. The
PUD's approved for tourist attractions and commercial research, et
cetera.
Hamilton Harbor PUD is to the south. Again, that PUD is
approved for dry storage of 325 boats. Commercial activities there as
well.
There are other conservation lands which are in green on this
map, and finally the Hamilton Harbor fuel facility sits along Danford
Page 141
February 10,2009
Street near Bayview Park.
This is a more close view of the subject site. You can see the site
consists of eight properties within that subdivision. Most of the
properties are zoned RMF -6 with the exception of the site fronting
Hamilton Avenue, which is already zoned commercial, already allows
for parking lots by right.
As I said, I wanted to give you an explanation of why the staff is
here with this request. The coastal zone management department, first
and foremost, is designed to work to provide safe access to the
waterfront throughout Collier County by providing new facilities and
improvements to existing facilities.
Back in March of 2003, the BCC was presented with a document
titled the 2003 Beach and Boat Access Report. That established a
methodology to arrive at a maximum capacity for boat launch lanes
within the county. Thirty-six launches per day was the standard
adapted from the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Planning Guide at that time.
So using that standard of 36 launches per day for a boat ramp, the
study concluded that there are -- throughout the county, Caxambas,
Cocohatchee, the 951 boat ramp and Bayview Park were all deficient
in providing adequate parking based on that carrying capacity for the
boat launch lanes.
Considering growth in new population and growth in recreational
boat users, there's a finding that six new boat lanes were needed on top
of the existing facilities, and recommendations within that study stated
that the county should consider purchasing available residential lots
along Danford Street to be used for overflow trailer parking.
Subsequently the BCC did adopt the 2003 Boat and Beach
Access Master Plan that was derived from that original study.
In 2004, the BCC approved real estate incentives to aid in the
purchase of vacant and development homesites to provide boat launch
parking for Bayview Park, and the copy of the executive summary is
Page 142
February 10,2009
on the screen, although it's hard to read.
So through the course of 2004, there were approvals to purchase
property along these streets. Again in 2005 another property was
acquired. 2006, 2007, and 2008, properties were approved for
acquisition.
And the result is shown on the map. The yellow labels point to
Collier County-owned land within the Naples Bayview addition
number one subdivision. About $2.6 million was expended to
purchase these properties.
So if we look down to Bayview Park, the county's efforts have
included an improvement plan to increase parking and add an
additional boat launch lane on Bayview Park itself, plus provide for
this overflow parking.
Here's the image of the Bayview Park improvement plan. The
site currently has 16 boat trailer parking spaces, and it's proposed to
increase by 24 spaces to a total of 40.
Once you factor in the fact that Bayview is a popular boat
launching facility -- in addition to pictures that we've acquired and
counts that we've taken, the transportation services department also
placed a pneumatic counter at the entrance of Bayview Park and
concluded, based on counts from October 4th to October 12, 2008,
approximately 56 users come and go on an average weekday and a
hundred users come and go on an average weekend day. That's
truck-trailer combination when I say users.
Considering these numbers, that there's up to a hundred truck and
trailer users on an average weekend day and only 40 spaces on the
Bayview Park site once the improvements take place, the overflow
that occurs now along Danford Street and Hamilton A venue, we
assume, will continue to occur.
Of the section of the code and laws that refers to the fact that
parking along the sides of streets, parking in swales is not allowed in
the county, we can go over that more if you have questions on it.
Page 143
February 10,2009
But this is what a busy day at Bayview Park results in. You can
see the picture on the top is Danford Street where trucks and trailers
are parked, approximately 18 of them, lining the sides of Danford
Street as you approach the park.
And I'm going to refer to this area as the mangrove area because
that's the area along Danford Street where these vehicles park, not in
front of the residences necessarily, just along the mangroves.
The bottom left-hand corner also shows the parking that occurs
along Hamilton Avenue on both sides of the street.
What results when these cars park on the shoulders of Danford
Street is a constricted travel way. Typical county standard two-way
travel requires a dimension of 20 feet, and the results when vehicles
are parked on the sides of Danford Street, both sides of Danford
Street, there's only 18 foot, eight inches for two-way travel on
Danford Street.
This image shows what happens when vehicles try to cross each
other in this constrained area of Danford Street. Picture number one is
an inbound vehicle trying to reach Bayview Park. He stops at the
point where the road becomes constrained and waits for an outbound
vehicle to get through that constrained area. Then the inbound vehicle
can proceed, and as you see in number three, pretty much down the
center line of the road.
There's not really two-way travel that's support for these vehicles.
They work out a way of going one at a time.
The parking on the shoulder also results in some environmental
issues that we've tried to bring to the attention of the county so that --
as a reason that off-street parking is the most viable to provide for this
overflow.
The vehicles park on the paved shoulder and then also occupy the
drainage swale on the side of the road. Those swales are -- qualify as
wetlands and also have tidal flow in and out of the bay waters.
So as you can see in this picture on the bottom, that's after a
Page 144
February 10, 2009
rainstorm where the brackish water is on the -- in the ditch alongside
Danford Street. And the cars that park there, they're usually, you
know, leaking oils, leaking greases that can compromise water quality.
That's not allowed, according to the Florida Administrative Code.
The coastal zone management department came forth with a
rezoning application that utilized all the property they own within the
Naples Bayview subdivision. This was the first plan. You can see
parking occupied all of the land that they hold there.
As a result of the first meeting, the first neighborhood meeting,
the plan was changed to eliminate the center parking lot to minimize
the impact and the checkerboard nature of this parking in the
neighborhood.
After another neighborhood meeting, it finally resulted in the
plan that's before you today, parking's concentrated on the eastern side
of the neighborhood with a cut-through roadway mid-block.
Sidewalks are proposed to safely get the pedestrians to and from
the parking lot to the park. Again, when we look at what a typical
county standard section is, the proposed reconfiguration, as a result of
this parking project, would allow this street to accommodate 20-foot
wide two-way traffic plus a 6-foot wide sidewalk that pedestrians
could safely walk up and down the street. These are just renderings of
what that would look like.
Through the course of the application, we did demonstrate
consistency with the Future Land Use Element, the transportation
element, and that safe motorized and non-motorized travel is provided,
the conservation and coastal management element in that the project
provides access to the waterfront front (sic) and protects
environmentally sensitive habitats.
It's consistent with the recreation and open space element in that
it improves recreational facilities and provides accessibility to these
facilities. It's consistent with the Capital Improvement Element in that
it provides and supports public access to the beaches, shores, and
Page 145
February 10,2009
waterways of Collier County.
Summary of the neighborhood information meetings; we did
have three. There were attempts to work with the neighbors on issues
of safety, hours of operation limited to dawn to dusk, controlled
lighting, and improvements to buffering.
This is one of the examples of the buffering enhancements that
were offered. Staff ultimately recommended denial of the application
but did list some conditions if ultimately approved, and coastal zone
management will comply with any conditions.
The Planning Commission met on December 4, 2008, and there
was a vote of 6-2 to recommend denial based on some inconsistencies
that I could address. The coastal zone management department feels
that they are being consistent with the Compo Plan and with the Land
Development Code.
I'll turn it over to Mr. McAlpin who can just wrap up with a
summary .
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin.
Commissioners, we believe we are consistent with the character
of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a water-related
neighborhood, and our facility is consistent with that.
The neighborhood is a patchwork of zoning. It includes a
waterfront park, a commercial marina, a private yacht club, Botanical
Gardens, which is -- which is commercial and public.
And so we are consistent with the -- our plans would be
consistent with that. We would also submit to you that a tremendous
amount of review and approvals have been done by this commission
over the last four years. We've spent $2.6 million dollars that -- the
parking.
We have demonstrated a need for this facility. We've looked at it
over the -- over the weekends, which has been non-peak, which has
been not a holiday and it was -- not been during season, and we can
clearly demonstrate that during the weekdays, there's a need for 56
Page 146
February 10,2009
trips, on the weekends a need for over a hundred trips.
So the need is there. Bayview is a growing park. It is -- it will
be -- it is our -- one of our most popular parks, and it will continue to
grow with more and more use through the Hamilton Harbor facility.
As the facilities that are offered there through fueling capability, our
park will continue to grow.
We do not have -- we looked at the options for this facility. We
have incorporated all of -- it all the way to the end. We don't have any
other options in terms of off-site parking in the general area. We've
looked at that, and we've exhausted -- we've talked to the other
property owners, and there literally is no other place to put off-site
parking if it is not in this neighborhood.
The current condition that we have right now is inadequate for
pedestrian safety, it's inadequate for two-way vehicular traffic, it's
inadequate for the 20-foot fire access, and it's inadequate for wetlands
protection of water quality. The plan that we have proposed to you
would solve those substandard conditions.
We look at this as a generational approach. This is the first step
of that generational approach. We looked at this to be a 20- to 50-year
program whereas we'd have willing sellers, we would buy the
property, and as we had -- we could agglomerate enough property
together to add to the off-site parking, we would do this.
We think we've listened to the neighborhood. This is a difficult
situation. We would like for you to consider that you allow us to
rezone this property, allow us to move forward with the renovations to
Bayview Park site, and then delay the authorization of anyon-site --
off-site parking construction, and then we would look at that during
that period of time to -- and reconfirm the capacities that we have
already confirmed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Gary.
MR. McALPIN: So we're looking for your approval,
Commissioners, and we'll ask (sic) any questions that you have.
Page 147
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right now we're going to take -- I'm sorry
about this, audience, but we're going to take a ten-minute break. We
had a tough one. We're going to take ten minutes, let everybody clear
their head. We'll be back in ten minutes. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Look at Frank. He's swimming back up
here.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we're still under Item 8A.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we've all been sworn in, and now we
will go on to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have a total of25 speakers, but I have two sets
that want to give their time to someone else.
The first one I have one speaker that wants to give his time to
someone else. The speaker is Douglas Shaw, and he has Tim
Gerhardt who's going to cede his time to him. Douglas Shaw?
And the next one is Philip Litow, and he has five speakers who
want to cede their time to him. So this one will get six minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SHAW: Well, good afternoon. My name is Douglas Shaw,
and I'm here on behalf of -- well, of course, we live on Danford Street,
but also about the rezoning, changing the park and everything that's
wanting to be done there.
From what was said prior to this from the gentleman that was up
here, the different amount -- the amount of people that have been
coming and driving down the street, it's not just boat traffic. It's also
people coming down just to sit at the park and look and see what's
gomg on.
Page 148
February 10, 2009
Having lived there for about 12 years, I have yet to see 56 people
in their boat trailers want to come in and park during the day, park
their trailers, take up the sides of the street, which I know is an issue
as well. I don't think during the week, other than maybe during New
Year's or holidays of that nature where people have a few days off,
where they ever have to park on the street of Danford for a long period
of time or even go down to what's now Hamilton Avenue, which was
Fern. I'm so used to calling it Fern, I've got to think about that one.
So I know that the boat trailer traffic -- and even whenever they
count, what kind of counter is being used, and does that account for
two axles, three axles, or just the two axles on the vehicles? Does that
count for the boat trailer axles as well as for 56 boats being parked
down through there? Are they using the amount of tickets that are sold
at the end of the street where they have to take that and put that in the
windshield? Because I know they get ticketed if they don't have one
in there on the windshield. The park rangers go through there; and if
they don't have one on the windshield, they get a nice, pretty little
ticket.
And also, if they're not parked properly on the side of the road,
which is also accounted for because the count puts up a "no parking"
sign at the end of where the mangroves are at all the way down to
where the park begins.
So the county has already allotted the space for the people to be
able to park on both sides of the road, which is not in front of
anybody's house, and also since people, whenever they go to boat,
they're not going in there to park their boat and their truck alongside
the road, they go put their boat in the water and they drive it back over
there; and then they park it along the side of the road, which they've
been doing for years without a boat on there so it's not destroying the
mangroves that are over there.
And excuse me. And I know something else that was brought up
a while ago. One of the other meetings that we had had was the
Page 149
February 10,2009
amount of medical people having a problem down there. Well, as far
as I know, I had somebody investigate the amount of medical things
that have happened down there actually where they had to go into
Bayview Park was five incidences.
One of them was in '02, one of them was in '03, and one of them
was in '87, and I'm not sure about the other two. But the other calls
that have been done down Danford Street have gone to private
residences, which does not indicate they need to go into Bayview
Park, turn around in Bayview Park, or have to go down in there, circle
around or whatever. So they're able to get in and out. Nor have we
heard of anything to where they've had to stop EMS or the fire truck
from being able to get up and down the road. So I know that was an
issue that we had to deal with.
Okay. Total feet of the road. I'm sorry. I have a whole bunch of
notes here and a whole bunch of things running through my mind, and
I know a lot of things that I'm going to cover, other people are not -- or
they're going to cover what I miss.
And even though we are on the other side of Port Royal, it's still
a beautiful place to be. And I know that's been a stigma for years
because of it being from Kelly Road to Bayshore and so forth and so
on.
The beautification that has gone on down through there is
wonderful because it's changed so much now with Hamilton Harbor
being in there and the way that the gardens place has changed the look
of it. And their access has nothing to do with Danford Street. They
pull right into the Botanical Gardens or they drive down Hamilton
Avenue, and they go into Hamilton Harbor. They don't have to go
down Danford Street for anything. So the amount of traffic that's
needed to go up and down that street to get to either one of those
places really is of no concern of what Danford Street has to offer.
And I know that the parking that the people do alongside the road
where Hamilton Avenue is now, people have been parking up and
Page 150
February 10,2009
down there whenever it gets full on Danford Street, which allows, if
I'm not mistaken, about 60 parking spots on Hamilton Avenue. Has
anybody checked on the ability to change the size of Hamilton
Avenue to allow more changes to the side of the road, allow parking
on the edge of Hamilton A venue instead of going into the areas --
which I'll get to here in a bit -- we're right around our houses where
we're going to have porous driveways, we're going to have porous
parking lots, these new fences, these new lights that are coming on and
all these people walking up and down our street to go into these
places, which is going to be behind our houses.
But anyway, the parking area on Hamilton Avenue would be a
wonderful place for people to be able to park if they're going to do
this.
I know that there's property for sale at the end of Danford Street
and Hamilton Avenue. It's been for sale for a long time. That sign's
been up there forever, and they've not purchased that. So for the
county to say that they've been trying to purchase property down there
that would be viable for parking to make it all in one area closer
together, they could have done that. They could -- they could still buy
that part of the land.
Also, I know that Hamilton Harbor had a little piece of property
on the corner of Bay Street and Hamilton Avenue, and they did not --
for whatever reason they have not secured that spot as well even
though they have the place in between the gentleman that has the C3
zoning or the place that's been for sale on the corner Danford and
Hamilton A venue that they have not purchased. And from my
understanding, that the guy has offered to sell it to them, take some
other pieces for sale -- does that mean I'm running out of time?
MS. FILSON: That means you're out of time.
MR. GERHARDT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, sir.
(Applause.)
Page 1 51
February 10, 2009
MR. GERHARDT: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Phil Litow, and I have four
people who want to cede their time to him, so that would be 15
minutes.
MR. LITOW: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Philip
Litow, and I live at 1970 Danford Street.
We who live in the area of Bayview Park have a clean, quiet,
peaceful, residential neighborhood. We feel that if a neighborhood like
this is going to be changed, in our opinion, destroyed by unit of
government, it should be for a very serious governmental problem or a
pressing need that can't be solved in any other way. We don't think
that either of these conditions exist.
I fthere was a serious public need for a hospital or a school or a
road, the government would have the power to invoke eminent
domain. This is just for a parking lot. This is not serious enough to
invoke eminent domain.
The Planning Commission and its staff have seen this, and they
agree that it's not consistent with this area. We fully -- we are not
anti-boater. We don't mind the boaters coming down using the park at
all. That's fine. Many of us have been or are boaters. We fully
support the plan to redesign the park, to increase the number of trailer
parking spots from 16 to 40. This would make parking outside the
park an extremely rare event any weekday, extremely rare, and only
occasionally on the exceptional weekend would there be parking
necessarily on Hamilton Avenue.
We oppose this requested zoning change for the following --
excuse me -- following reasons: Number one, it's unnecessary. Mr.
McAlpin has presented to the Planning Commission a figure of an
average of 56 launches for out-of-season weekday based on counting
strips laid across the road. We who live there know that this is gross
exaggeration, nothing like -- nothing close to that exists on any
weekday.
Page 152
February 10,2009
We actually sat in the park on a beautiful Friday in season,
January 9th of this year, and we counted boat lunches and haul-outs
throughout the day from nine a.m. to five p.m. We counted 45
launches in that time period. That's six hours, and -- excuse me --
that's eight hours.
And we also counted haul-outs, and there were over 20 haul-outs
during that same period. There was never nearly that many boats in
the water at anyone time.
We also have had neighbors take pictures on the last few
Sundays. On January 11th at -- between 12:30 p.m. and 2:45 p.m.,
there were a total of nine trailers parked along Hamilton Avenue. The
same thing applies on January 25th. There were eight or nine taken --
pictures taken between three and four p.m. On February 1st, there
were no trailers parked along Hamilton Avenue.
If Mr. McAlpin's count was anywhere near true, there ought to
have been trailer parking up and down Hamilton on both sides. You
wouldn't have been able to see anything except trailers. It's a total
exaggeration.
Number two, this proposed lot is ineffective. Where did they
propose to have it? Close to the park to save the boaters walking?
No. It's towards the end of the street. It's over a third of a mile away.
This hardly saves any steps at all.
Number three, safety. This is only going to make safety worse.
Instead of trailers pulling into the park, pulling out, parking on
Hamilton Avenue, now they're going to have to come down out of the
park, instead of going straight down the block, they're going to have
make another turn through a street cut-through, make another turn
onto Bay Street, turn into a parking lot where they can leave it until
dark. This is supposed to be dawn to dusk, but they will be coming
back at night to take the trailers out.
So if they keep this lit, it's going to be a terrible intrusion on the
character of the neighborhood right now. If they leave it unlit, only
Page 153
February 10,2009
more dangerous both for trailers, and as a result, strangers walking
through our neighborhood, not down the block, but between homes,
behind homes, alongside homes. This does not tend to improve safety
whatsoever.
And then I think the biggest thing is compatibility. This -- and
the Planning Commission -- and I've included the minutes of the
Planning Commission report on this that I'll include in what I give to
the recorder.
Over a dozen violations of the GMP, of the Land Development
Code, of the FLUE, including what Mr. Halas presented, 504, to chop
up a neighborhood like this, tear down existing homes, two beautiful
homes less than four years old, and instead put in parking lots, put in
walls, have traffic going through the neighborhood, is a totally
incompatible use. It's incompatible -- incompatible, inconsistent with
the current use of the neighborhood.
This is a residential area in spite of what Mr. McAlpin says.
We're surrounded by things, but the area that's involved is totally
residential. People have children there, and instead they're going to
have trailer traffic and strangers walking through at night, according to
this plan.
And another reason for over a dozen citations by the Planning
Commission of violations of the CCME, of the Land Development
Code, of the FLUE, the effect on property values. There is no doubt
that having parking lots put next to and behind homes, having people
walk through is going to make this area less desirable for future
development. Who's going to want to build a nice new home, as there
has been?
Also, the new homes that have gone into this area, by code, have
to have floors 10 feet above the water line. That means in order to
preserve privacy and security -- and Mr. McAlpin has offered to do
this -- build a wall as high as necessary to protect the privacy of
people on the first floor.
Page 154
February 10,2009
Well, how compatible is an over 10- foot wall with the residential
area like this? It's totally incompatible, and it's going to detract from
the value. And even then, it's not going to protect the neighboring
homes from the sound of the trailers being pulled in and pulled out at
night or from the glare of headlights also. It's a totally incompatible
plan. It's going to be -- very adversely affect our property values, and
it's going to ruin our quality of life.
For these reasons, the Planning Commission staff voted for
denial of this zoning request. The Planning Commission itself voted
against it by a 6-2 vote. And we think just as telling on January 21st,
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board itself denied Mr. McAlpin's
request for a recommendation to go ahead with this plan.
This is a bad plan. Other areas are opening up along Collier
Boulevard and the Port of the Islands, which was just bought by the
county .
This plan is not good. It does more harm than it can possibly do
good, thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Leigh Breeden. She'll be
followed by --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: She waived.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She waives.
MS. FILSON: Oh, she waived, I'm sorry. Michael Sanford.
He'll be followed by Catherine Shaw.
MR. SANFORD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good
morning, Commissioners. Mike Sanford, 2045 Danford Street,
another resident.
Phil pretty much touched on a lot of good subjects. I think that
their programming to put a parking lot in the residential area is a very
bad idea. The idea of improving the park to provide access for more
boaters is a great idea; it should go forward as soon as possible. A lot
of us boat, a lot of us fish. I know there's a lot of people here that fish,
Page 155
February 10,2009
and I do myself. To improve the facility would be fantastic. There's
also other property available that the county should pursue down
there. There's 1.3 acres on the side of it, and it's mangroves. But if
McAlpin is making it right, 20- to 30-, 50-year program, you would
think he'd be able to get a mitigation issue in there and do that.
The other gentleman brought up the side of Hamilton Harbor --
now it is referred to as Fern Street -- to improve the side of the road to
provide parking on one side of the street. We don't really see a big
problem with that. We have not had a safety issue there. The sheriffs
department has been in the area. They don't have a safety issue with
it.
We look forward to having the park improved and do something
with it and have them make it more viable for launching, increased
boat launching facility. Also the proposal is to put in a kayak and jet
ski launch. You might also look at maybe putting in a floating dock
facility out there, a little breakwater to protect us for the kayakers, et
cetera. That's all we'd like to see.
Or the Botanical Gardens and Hamilton Harbor also have
property adjacent to that what the -- down the future, approach them
as providing parking areas into that for overflow parking on the
weekends. Thanks, Chairman.
MS. FILSON: Catherine Kramer. I'm sorry. Catherine Shaw.
She'll be followed by David Kramer.
MR. SHAW: Catherine Shaw's my wife. She's giving me her
time to speak. She's back there. And again, my name is Doug Shaw. I
live at 1781 Danford Street.
And to add to what I was saying before, there are many places
other than where Bayview Park's at that they have boat launching
facilities right off of Bayshore, and they also have empty lots on
Bayshore that are already paved. There are multiple places to where
that could be acquired as well.
So just as they bought Port of the Islands for $4.3 million --
Page 156
February 10,2009
which I've been working out there and gone out there for years and
years and years. That to me seems like a whole bunch of money that is
just wasted for that. But then again, I don't know what you guys know
about it. So, to me, it just seems like that was a lot of money that was
not needed to be spent for that area.
And for the amount of money that you guys have to spend for
buying these houses and buying these -- which is nice, that I'm glad
that you do have the money to do so, but why not take the amount of
money that we have that we're trying to improve the park with -- I
know that there are mangroves on that area there. I know it's a
possibility to mitigate the mangroves as they call it, which I've heard
from the Army Corps of Engineers, that -- and I didn't spend any time
speaking with them. I had somebody who had done the investigation
who had told me that that was a possibility that that could be done.
I don't know all the particulars to it, but that is a possibility as
well, which that, in turn, if they're going to redo the park itself,
changing the little area bit that they have for the mangroves, they
could then, in turn, probably add probably another 15 to 20 spaces.
And then the area that's on the side of the road there on
Bayshore, if they don't want us to park on there but yet we still can,
why can they not put in drainage ditches, put the road over top of that
and allow that extra -- yeah, I know. I've been back there sweating
myself.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's warm in here.
MR. SHAW: Thank goodness it's not just me.
But parking area that we have on Bayshore already seems to
accommodate the majority of the traffic that comes through there on
just about any given day for the amount that we have available, which
is not intrusive on the actual mangroves themselves because they are
past the waterway where the water comes in. If you've ever been
down over there, you know where the water comes in. It has its own
special little path that it makes. And water finds the least path of
Page 157
February 10,2009
resistance, and it makes it right along the edge of the roadway that's
already been put there. So I think that could also be a good viable
option.
And then the major traffic increase. They decided to put in this
parking area that they have. The driveway is going to be directly
across in front of my house. So now that means for people to get in
and out of this driveway, which they've got to come up Danford
Street, go -- cut across to Bay Street halfway up the road there,
probably about a thousand feet from Bayview Park, then they have to
go across over to Bay Street, hang a left to get up to the new parking
lot, and then turn left into the parking lot and pull into the back of
where Phil's house is and then shine their lights in his house.
Now, without this -- well, he was being conservative -- 12-foot
fence. I'm thinking about an 18- foot-high wall is going to be needed
for this guy's house because he's 10 foot above the water level.
Now for the cars not to be seeing in his first floor house, first
floor of his house, that's got to be a pretty tall fence. And now for the
amount of people that are able to get out and walk around and come in
behind his house -- I don't know about you, but I don't really like
strangers walking behind my house or beside my house even if they
don't need to be there. That will, in turn, increase the amount of
possible break-ins with people being able to see what you have and
what you don't have at your house, you know. It makes you more
leery. Then if feels like you're being in a prison, you're not being in
your home.
Now, we love our little neighborhood. It's nice, it's peaceful, it's
quiet. Even with the huge wall that we have on the other side of us
that's the Hamilton Harbor boat storage facility, you know, it's still a
nice, peaceful neighborhood. They make very little noise, which is
wonderful.
But we really enjoy having this area that we have. We don't need
to have it starting to be cluttered up with driveways and with places
Page 158
February 10,2009
that they're doing driving up and down.
And from my -- remember the last survey that they had, it was
going to be a porous driveway, meaning that it's going to be made up
of rock. So whenever it's not raining, it's going to then create dust
whenever the wind blows, and it's going to get on our cars, and then
we have to wash them more often and things of that nature, excuse
me.
And then that in turn, like Phil was saying, how are we going to
keep our houses at market value? Pretty soon it's going to be where
it's not worth anything, and then our houses are going to be worth very
little, and it's going to continue to go down in value, and then the nice
new houses that have been built there -- and by the way, there are
brand new houses that are there. The gentleman that had just built
one, it's absolutely wonderful. And then we have another house that's
-- they're thinking of putting up down there, too.
So they keep going on and on and on, and next thing you know,
they start hearing -- or having a parking lot put in, they're not going to
want to build there.
And then the tidal flow. As the gentleman said earlier today that
the tidal flow is causing a problem with it, well, I got tidal flow in
front of my house, so how is that going to affect what's going on with
the environment?
So even though the cars are parking off of the edge of Danford
Street, you know, I walk out of my house, I got a ditch in front of my
house as well. The tide comes in, the tide goes out. I don't see how a
tidal flow can cause any problems with it.
You know, coconut trees and things of that nature actually helps
fill up that ditch on occasion.
Okay. I'm sorry. I got a whole bunch going through my mind
here. And then the Botanical Gardens, we know about that place.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Shaw.
MR. SHAW: That means I'm done. Thank you.
Page 159
February 10,2009
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: And what is your name, sir?
MR. KRAMER: I'm David Kramer. I've lived on Danford Street
since the mid '70s. As I understand it, there's approximately 24,000
registered boaters in Collier County. I would give a high estimate of
maybe 16- to 18,000 on trailers. A lot of these, too, are parked in
backyards in Golden Gate and are used strictly for freshwater, summer
only, seasonal. So you've got maybe 15, 16 percent of the population
that are boaters.
Now, I had a boat on a trailer myself, and I know I considered
myself lucky if I could get out on it three days a month. So you've got
maybe 15 percent ofthe population using the services probably 5 or 6
percent of the time, and normally on Sunday and holidays.
Now, as I say, I've lived there for a long time, and the overflow
parking rarely exceeds 15 or 20 days a year down on Hamilton
A venue.
I also say spot zoning devalues the property, and it's a form of
eminent -- back door eminent domain. Trailer parking is inconsistent
with Collier County's Growth Management Plan and what is
compatible and allowed in a residential neighborhood. Would a
developer be allowed to do this? Would it happen in Royal Harbor or
Port Royal, or would any of you like to have a parking lot in your
back yard?
As I'm reading from some of the minutes of some of the other
meetings, I said, this proposal is not consistent with growth policy one
four two as determined by the comprehensive planning staff, says the
parks and recreation department, failed to coordinate with the City of
Naples the provision of 15 boat trailer parking spaces at Hamilton
Harbor, which was authorized by Collier County to review and
approve the portion of the PUD within its jurisdictional boundaries.
Nobody can tell me what happened to these 15 spaces on there. It
seems that maybe it's Hamilton Harbor's bait and sandwich shop.
Page 160
February 10,2009
I'd just like to quote at the end here an article that was in the --
December 12th of the Collier Citizen. Hopefully this disaster will go
no further. The parks department tried to defend their purchase within
this neighborhood as approved by the Board of County
Commissioners; however, they processed these neighborhood
infringements under a county agenda format, which means it hovered
well below everyone's radar.
Government should be treated no differently than a private
sector, as there is no such way anyone have (sic) gone this far in the
scenario unless they thought they were above the law.
And I know this commission has done a lot of hard work here,
and we thank them for it, and hopefully they do what is right for all
the people, and hopefully they will do what is right for our
neighborhood.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dr. Tuzzeo. He'll be followed
by Ray Russell.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And how many more do we have, Sue?
MS. FILSON: Eleven.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eleven more speakers. So if you want to
just come up and say, we don't want it, that's fine, and then you can sit
down. Then we won't have 33 more minutes. We'll be able to shorten
this up a little bit, because after a while when you hear, we don't want,
we all know that you don't want.
So unless you have a new point to make -- and that would be just
great. Thank you.
DR. TUZZEO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Joe Tuzzeo,
homeowner of Danford Street, property owner on Danford Street.
This last weekend there were no cars --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me just a minute. Okay, okay.
DR. TUZZEO: This last weekend there were no -- and week,
Page 161
February 10,2009
there were no cars parked or trailers parked on Fern Street at all. Also,
if you check the police records, there have been no accidents caused
by any tractors or trailers on Fern Street or Danford.
The Isles of Capri will have an additional 85 trailer spaces
available shortly for fisherman and boaters' recreation. The downtown
boat ramp is available. We have a facility. It's underused, and I think
it's being underused because of the method of payment. It goes by
minutes instead of by a ticket. I think you would vastly increase the
use by changing the method of payment.
There's also available a location for a ramp and mucho parking.
On Bayshore and Bayview there's a restaurant on the right-hand side if
you're going to the Botanical, and that's been empty. You could put a
ramp in there, buy the property across the street. Big area, over a
hundred parking lot spaces.
In 1999, a movement was started -- I can't -- by the right-of-way
design evaluation coordination to buy some of the mangrove lots. If
these lots were purchased in 1999, we'd probably be parking trailers
and boats there right now. If it's a 30-year, it's a 50-year program,
we'd be way ahead.
Many of the boat -- the owners of the mangroves areas would be
willing to sell.
The fabric of Danford Street is made up of all ages, from one
year to 92. We are of different backgrounds, occupations, religions,
everything you can think of. We get along. We are truly, truly
America, truly. We don't want boat repairs at night. All boaters know
we repair the boats. We always do. We don't need the pollution from
noise, the pollution from the gasoline smells, we don't need that.
Please, don't destroy a great neighborhood, because we really like
it there. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: I have -- the next speaker is Ray Russell, and I
have two people who have ceded their time to him. Following Ray
Russell will be Dennis England.
Page 162
February 10,2009
So you'll have nine minutes, sir.
MR. RUSSELL: Okay, thank you. My name is Ray Russell
with the Naples Fishing Club.
And when I came here today I thought this was a simple
discussion of the neighborhood concern versus access to the water, but
listening to all this, I think you have a much more complex issue to
deal with.
You've got first a data question. I hear the staff saying you have
an enormous number of trips, and I hear the residents saying there's no
such thing. I actually have used this facility, and I remember one day
going there on the weekend, and I drove my trailer down to the launch
site. Every site was full. I came back around. The entire street going
down was full. And I said, I'm going home. I'm not going to park a
quarter of a mile away while my boat is interfering with everybody
else trying to get in the water.
So I think the first issue is, how much is this really used? I
suspect that on the weekend and in season it is a problem. The people
that work for a living that only have a few days to use their boats, that
place is probably crowded.
Naples has a launch site downtown. When I left that launch on
Bayshore that day, I drove to their site. Everything was full. So I
think, you know, one of the things that's very important is looking at
access to the water.
And when you make these decisions, you're trying as, I think, as
a commission, to look at how do we serve the interests of the greatest
number of people?
Now, they have a lot of concerns in their neighborhood, but there
are a lot of people who would like to use their property on Naples
Bay, and there's hardly any way to get there.
But as I listen to the discussion, what I couldn't figure out is, how
does expanding the areas in the park to 40 spaces relate to the parking
space, the big plan? Can one be done and the other one follow on
Page 163
February 10,2009
later, or are they mutually exclusive propositions?
So, you know, it would be nice to know how that unfolds. But
our primary concern as the club and as fishermen is looking at access
to the water, and the only experience I ever had, I had to go home
because I couldn't get in.
The other thing I think is an important issue for the commission
is, if you've got a facility and you've spent all this money, you might
want to have it used more. So anything that can increase the
utilization of the park, the launch, ought to be something that's good. I
don't know if the people that park on the street are required to pay the
$5, but I suspect if they're in your parking lot or in your park, they're
going to pay the five bucks.
So there should be a financial benefit for trying to get these
people off the streets.
Another thing that was kind of confusing as I listened to all the
reasons why you should do this from the staff, and then they said, we
don't think you should do it. Hello.
So I don't think you have a particularly easy decision here.
You've got some legitimate concerns by people who don't want to
have this in their neighborhood. I haven't spent enough time or our
club hasn't enough time to look at how is it located, whether logistics
to get to the park is the right spot chosen for the parking space. It may
not be.
But as you struggle with these, I'll leave you with two thoughts.
Please don't dismiss the many boaters that would like to gain access to
the water, and make sure that if you've got a park, it is being used.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dennis England. He'll be
followed by Jeff, and I think it's Lobel (sic).
MR. ENGLAND: I thank you very much for the opportunity to
talk to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, sir? Your name?
Page 164
February 10,2009
MR. ENGLAND: I am a boater. I use Bayshore all the time.
MS. FILSON: What is your name, sir?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, sir?
MR. ENGLAND: I'm Dennis England. I use it weekly. I find it
very confusing at times with the parking situation what it is because
some days you go, there's parking; some days you go, there's not
parking.
Part of the problem is the dockage of the area is grossly
inadequate in that you've got room for just a couple of boats to be tied
up. Now you've got to walk a third of a mile to get your car and come
back and somebody else is waiting to put their boat in, and it really
backs things up.
I know the residents have real concerns, and I know the boaters
have real concerns. And I'm very happy to finally, after many years,
see this commission looking at the possibilities of what we can do at
Bayshore to improve this situation to make everybody happy.
But we definitely need improvement down there. There's not
enough parking at busy times. There's not enough dockage. What
docks are there, if you go in and look at them at low tide, the posts are
almost rotted up. One of these days somebody's going to be standing
on that dock and it's going to fall down.
You took our fish-cleaning table away. That creates a problem.
There are grants available to put in a new state-of-the-art fish-cleaning
table. Many guides that used to use the area are no longer using the
area because they've got people from out of town that come that need
their fish cleaned, so they go to other areas.
But it does need a serious look, it does need improvement. I
agree with what some of the neighbors are saying and I agree with
what Ray said. And we would like to see improvement down there. It
is vastly needed.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 165
February 10, 2009
MS. FILSON: Jeff Lobel (sic). I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing
-- okay. He'll be followed by Larry Thompson.
MR. LOWE: Hi. My name's Jeff Lowe. There's a large piece of
property right across from where the parking is supposed to be, and it's
owned by Hamilton Harbor -- I'm sorry -- Botanical Gardens, and I
can't see why they can't buy some property from them. It's vacant. It's
covered with nothing but Melaleuca trees, and it's no more than 30
feet away from the existing -- from the parking that they would like to
have. So if they could look into that, that would be a good idea.
Plus, there's a piece of property on Davis Boulevard right next to
Brookside Marina that is large, empty, it's on the water. They could
put a new boat ramp there. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Thompson. He'll be
followed by Kim Branch.
MR. THOMPSON: I live at 1803 Danford Street. And when the
plan first came out in the newspaper, I thought it could be a nice idea
once they acquired all the property. If you had all the property, you
could put in parking, picnic areas, and so forth, but that's going to take
10 or 20 years till we all die off and you can buy it from our loved
ones.
And to put in little parking lots all over the neighborhood is
going to bring our property values down. And it's like the average
person, their home is their largest asset. And to do this is like -- it also
makes it -- you know, it's unfair of the county to go put in a few little
parking lots, bring our property values down, and then we want to
move, we'll get transferred, this or that, and you're able to come in and
get a lower appraisal because, you know, the property's worth less
because -- you know, try and do this at any other place in town, you
know. If! went into any residential neighborhood and said, I want to
buy up some houses, knock them down and so people can park their
recreational equipment here, you'd tell me I was out of my mind.
Page 166
February 10, 2009
And, you know, I brought -- your people brought up the issue of
trucks leaking oil into the drainage ditch, the culvert along there,
which is a tidal area. And it's like, what do you think these boats are
doing when they go out in the bay and they turn on their bilge pump,
you know? How many of these people have a hat (sic) on their boat?
What do you think they're doing out there all day?
The people that do have a hat on their boat, most of them are
leaving it open. It's like, I think that's a much bigger issue. I mean,
why are these people so entitled that we have to ruin our
neighborhood to help people with their luxury, you know, hobby?
And so there's a whole lot of issues, but it's not a good thing for
our neighborhood. So, that's it.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Kim Branch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How many more speakers, Sue?
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Brian Thompson. And two
more after that.
MS. BRANCH: Hi. Resident of Danford Street. And very
briefly, there is a large area where the trucks are currently parking
now in overflow on the street with mangroves both sides of the street.
It was mentioned that that property is available for sale. It makes the
most sense to anyone in this room that someone that was launching
their boat could park in that parking lot where the mangroves are and
not tie up the rest of the boat ramp while people are waiting while
someone walks to the corner of the street, which is a good quarter mile
away or more.
That's really all. I really don't understand why no one looked at
that mangrove as a part of the extension of Bayview Park as an
opportunity .
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Brian Thompson. He'll be followed by Steven
Riley. Steven, do you want to come up.
Page 167
February 10,2009
MR. RILEY : Yes.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Come on up.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm Brian Thompson. I'm at 1893 Danford
Street. And I think most of the points have been covered. But, again,
in Hamilton Harbor, the huge deal they went through, 25 years or
whatever, to get mangrove mitigation, and finally you got them to put
in a gas pump and a gas house. Maybe you could have made your
park bigger then. And the Botanical Garden, I understand, with that
huge chunk of property right there, why didn't somebody drive a deal
with them or still drive a deal with them? And I've heard the property,
if they don't use it, it's going to be county's. Well, the county, that's us.
Could there be a shuttle that cheaply brought people back and
forth from a parking lot down at that end of the street?
But again, Hamilton Harbor, how many acres was that? And
nobody drove the deal to give more parking and now put it in our side
yard. Not right. That's all I had to say.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steven Riley. He'll be
followed by Sandra Arafet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Steve, were you sworn in? Didn't you just
get here?
MR. RILEY: Say it again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you were here before, Steve?
MR. MUDD: Steve, did you raise your hand when they had
everybody swear?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ifnot, we'll do it now.
(The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
MR. RILEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Steven Riley. I live there on Danford Street. A couple of the -- a
couple points I wanted to bring up, make this real quick and short
here.
As far as -- well, when it all started out, I was born here and lived
Page 168
February 10, 2009
here all my life. My family's [rom here, okay? Ever since I was little
I've always went to that park. Nice little recreational park, you know,
boating, boat launch, so forth.
Now we have all this development going on and, of course,
everything's exploding. It's getting out of hand. We have a nice little
neighborhood there zoned residential, okay, and we have this proposal
being brought up to change spot zoning, which is illegal, according to
Mark Strain, illegal for spot zoning, and changing the zones of
residential to commercial and so forth, okay. That's one of the things I
wanted to point out.
The other things is, these parking issues, okay, of course, I'm
going to tell you, you're going to see more parking -- or you're going
to see less parking spaces available during season because there's
more -- there's tourists, there's everybody that comes down here,
especially on a weekend, okay, that's more people, and like these
people right back here that were speaking, they're talking about the big
ordeal about these parking issues, they can't use the boat ramp. Well,
you know what? There's plenty of boat ramps around here.
And my question to them is, where do they live? Do they live in
our neighborhood? I don't think so. I don't know who they are, okay.
It's just -- it's -- I don't know. Our little neighborhood, there's no
homes run down. It's a nice little residential neighborhood. I have a
family of six, four kids, and we all get along. There's a bunch of other
kids in the neighbor.
We're going to, of course -- we're going to be taking and having
all this other development coming in there, more traffic, more boats,
okay, now that they've expanded the boat ramp and made it bigger and
dredged it, then that's making bigger yachts, big boaters come in there.
Are they able to stop on a dime say if a kid cuts across the street or our
animals or whatever? No. And now we're getting hit with all these
parking lots scattered throughout.
So -- but anyway -- and another thing that the gentleman over
Page 169
February 10, 2009
here said he exhausted off-site parking. That's untrue, okay? They
turned down a Botanical Garden proposal. They also said that we
agreed on it. We never agreed to any of this. You know, there's a lot
of stuff we haven't agreed on. It's just been pushed down our throats.
We keep on fighting back.
You know, and the homes, they're not run down. You know
what, we live there. We pay tax money. That tax money goes right in
there. Well, now they're talking about ripping new houses down.
There's some brand new ones over there that I'd love to have. Ripping
them down for a parking lot? I don't agree with it. I appreciate you
all's time. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Sandra Arafet.
MS. ARAFET: Good afternoon. My name is Sandra Arafet, and
I'm the new neighbor in the neighborhood of Bayview. 1920 Danforth
Street.
I have been dreaming about moving into this house. I finally got
to do it this January. I am begging you to please oppose this rezoning,
spot zoning, I would call it.
Our community of Danforth and Bay Street, it's a lovely
community. All of us love living there, and that is the reason that we
built our house there.
I trust that you will make the right decision and vote no against
this proposal. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, Commissioners, we forgot to have
-- hear from staff. John David Moss?
MR. MOSS: Thank you, Commissioner. For the record, John
David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review.
Comprehensive planning staff found the project to be generally
consistent with the Growth Management Plan; however, they left the
determination of the project's consistency with policy 504 of the Future
Page 170
February 10,2009
Land Use Element and policy 1.3.1 of the recreation and open space
element to the discretion of zoning and land development review staff.
Zoning and land development review staff found the project to be
inconsistent with these two policies and with nearly all of the
applicable provisions of the LDC against which rezones are evaluated
as outlined in the staff report.
While zoning staffis of the opinion that the site might one day
make an excellent location for overflow parking for Bayview Park,
staff believes that the area is not ripe to be redeveloped, and approval
of the proposal would amount to the creation of an isolated zoning
district within an established community.
Staff is also recommending denial; however, should the BCC
choose to approve the petition, staff recommends that it be approved
subject to conditions contained in Exhibit B of the proposed
resolution, or ordinance, excuse me, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Now, first Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, a question regarding staff.
And I'm a little bit confused. Doesn't the Compo Planning normally
handle Compo Planning?
MR. MOSS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And zoning sticks with the
LDC?
MR. MOSS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why are you -- what was the
reason this one time you got this anomaly where you're stepping over
the boundary on that?
MR. MOSS: These two policies that I cited are relative to
compatibility, and rather than analyze the compatibility of these uses,
comprehensive planning staff left that determination to zoning, and
they just looked at the project from the growth management
perspective to determine whether or not the parking lot would be
Page 171
February 10, 2009
consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, what's very
disheartening is the fact that when we started this whole process and
we were looking to go forward with the purchasing of the lots, we
didn't have any consult at that point in time that there may be this
particular problem with being able to go forward.
So we're, in good faith, going forward at all times. And so I'm a
little bit perplexed with the fact that here we are, we're at the 11 th
hour, and there's all sorts of issues out there, and staff is in
disagreement with each other. It just doesn't make any sense.
MR. MOSS: Yeah. It seems like there was a lack of
communication between parks and between zoning staff, because had
zoning staff been made aware of this, we would have been able to tell
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The same --
MR. MOSS: -- a long time ago that it's not something that we
could have supported.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, let's go back to the
project itself, if we can. And let me understand what we're talking
about. We're talking about expanding the present park to be able to
accommodate from how many site (sic) spots to how many?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, on the existing -- on the
existing site we have 16 parking spots. We're going to expand that by
24 to a total of 40 parking spots on the existing site. And that will --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And when will that take place?
MR. McALPIN: That will-- we're finalizing the zoning at this
point in time. We're finding our -- excuse me. We're finalizing our
permitting with the City of Naples right now. We expect that will take
another four months, and then we will bring that to the commission at
that point in time for approval.
MR. MUDD: Does it need zoning?
MR. McALPIN: It does not need zoning from the City of
Page 172
February 10,2009
Naples.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The next question is--
this is great --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. Say that one more time.
MR. McALPIN: The park site was in -- is located within the
City of Naples. City of Naples has the jurisdiction over the
modifications that we would do to the park site. So we're currently
working with the City of Naples right now in finalizing our FDEP
permit, and that will take us about four months to have complete.
MR. MUDD: And I asked the question, ma'am, I said, Gary,
does it take any zoning actions to reconfigure the existing park site?
And he said no.
MR. McALPIN: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that's a -- that's a given?
MR. McALPIN: We expect that that would happen, yes,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then the next -- that takes
care of the short-term, and we're looking at something else that's
long-term.
And the residents that live down there, like the residents that
were in Goodland, the residents that were in other areas that we
wanted to go forward with different boat parks and different ventures
like this, beach access, parking garages, they have concerns, and
rightly so, and I'm not going to argue with that; however, with that
said, you know, we do have to meet a greater need of the public out
there.
Is there some validity to the fact that maybe we should wait and
try to consolidate more properties to make this a more attractive thing
so that it doesn't impose upon the neighborhoods? Is there also --
everybody keeps referring about this piece of property right next to
there that I guess the Botanical Gardens owns, that that might be an
option. Has that been looked into?
Page 173
February 10, 2009
MR. McALPIN: Yes, we have looked at that, Commissioner. I
met with Botanical Gardens. That property has a conservation
easement on it. It would not be available. If they chose to sell it to us,
we would not be available to expand that into parking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that's just out of the
picture?
MR. McALPIN: It's out--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So everybody that referred to it
didn't know those facts.
MR. McALPIN: We've indicated that to people. Whether they've
understood it that way or not, that's the situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I heard a suggestion about
shuttling people from some distant point. I think we tried that before
with beach access, and it doesn't work all that well, if I remember it
correctly. People expect to be able to get reasonably close to the point
that they're going to be using the amenity, and that's about it.
I f today, if we went forward and we decided to direct you to go
back and work this out as a long-term thing to try to bring the
properties together in some meaningful fashion so we don't have this
little gerrymandering taking place throughout the neighborhood, is
that a doable thing, or have you reached the ends of what you can do
there?
MR. McALPIN: Well, we would continue to be available to
willing sellers when they wanted to sell their property. We would try
to accumulate property in contiguous locations such that we could add
pieces together and come back to you when we had a spot that was
large enough that we believe we could do something with, and that's
what we've tried to do here. We tried to isolate them down to one
corner of the property, and we have a proposal where we have 39
parking spots.
If the commission directs us to continue with that policy, that's
something we certainly can do.
Page 174
February 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think that would--
myself, at this point in time, but I want to hear from my fellow
commissioners. I think the best direction to go would be to, one, get
the park underway for the expansion within the present boundaries
and, two, work out some long-range proposal that will encompass an
area that would be more continuous to what we're looking at now and
to continue to meet on a regular basis with the residents within the
area.
That's my suggestion at this point in time. I have other things,
but I'm going to wait and give the other commissioners a chance to
speak.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm somewhat perplexed,
because as Commissioner Coletta said, that all of the staff sits in here
in the meetings, and as we were going through this dialogue some
time ago about going down there and looking at the property -- and
this all started, I believe, with a bus trip in about 2003 when we started
looking for additional access to the waterways, and then it was
brought before the Board of County Commissioners.
And I'm surprised that staff doesn't work together more closely so
that we have a full understanding before we, the commission, have
funds set aside to go out and purchase property.
I'd like to remind everybody out here in the audience or TV land
that since 2003 we've lost three huge marinas here in Collier County.
Two of them have been on Naples Bay, Boat Haven and Turner
Marine. And not too long ago we lost another marina up in North
Naples. And probably the combined three facilities probably stored at
least well over a thousand boats. The marina that was located up in
North Naples was about 450 boats.
So when you displace people like that, the only recourse they got
-- and if they still want to boat is they have to go out and they have to
buy a pick-up truck and they have to buy a trailer and haul their boat
Page 175
February 10,2009
around. Of course, they probably have to pay storage charges so that
they pay to get a storage lot.
And I've gotten to the point where I've heard so many concerns
about citizens that don't live exactly on the water where we want to
deprive the citizens that maybe live a half a mile from the water and
yet we don't want to have them have access to the waterways or to the
beaches.
And I find this very discouraging. We're a large community,
we're going to get larger as time goes on, and I think that we need to
work together as a group or as a community to figure out how we're
going to address access to the waterways.
We are spending an awful lot of money trying to clean up Naples
Bay so that we can recreate even more so in that particular waterway.
And I really believe that unless the citizens can tell me where we can
go out and purchase property that's readily available at a reasonable
price -- I'm open for any suggestions.
But I believe that what we're trying to accomplish -- and even
though it's piecemeal, it's the best that we can do at the present time
because those marinas, we didn't have the ability to buy them. When
they run the price of a marina, a working marina, to $22 million so
that they can build residential, then somebody ends up being deprived,
and it's the people that do not live, like myself, on the waterways, and
I think that's totally wrong.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
One of the things that -- I'm going to jump in here now and take
my turn. One of the things we haven't taken into consideration here
today -- and I haven't heard anyone mention it at all. We started
buying this property back many years ago. Since that time, yes, we've
-- developers have bought us out and so forth, but what we have been
doing recently is buying smartly. First of all, we bought Port of the
Islands. Now we've got plenty of parking there, which is great.
Another thing we've done, we've expanded -- we are expanding right
Page 176
February 10, 2009
now 951 from 19 boat parking spaces to 86. That wasn't even thought
of at the time that we were buying up these properties right in between
people's homes.
I mean, I can't imagine -- I know Commissioner Halas is so
protective over his neighborhood. He wouldn't even -- he would never
let anybody do that to the homes in his neighborhood.
And I'm sure that Commissioner Coletta when -- he's a
private-property-rights guy. He would never let people come in and
destroy the homes right in those people's neighborhoods.
Okay. Going on. Goodland. We just voted this morning to build
75 parking spaces. We weren't going to be doing that either when we
were buying this.
Let me go on to say, Pulling Park -- Pulling Park hasn't even been
mentioned today, but we're going to be able to build at Pulling Park,
and the John Pulling people have said they want us to build it because
the city didn't, and we're readily wanting to do that, and that's a
wonderful thing.
We have -- Brookside Marina is for sale, would be nice if we
could sell these pieces of property right here and use the money that
we have plus the parking spots and buy the Brookside Marina --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- plenty of parking there. So these are
things.
Plus we forgot to mention that the Caxambas Park, the overflow
parking. They said they were spots short, but that overflow parking is
never used. I go out there all the time, never even used.
I've been out to your street, too. I went out there a week ago
Sunday. There were three -- three trucks and trailers there. I couldn't
believe it. I thought a Sunday afternoon at noon o'clock would --
everybody would be there. I was quite amazed.
Friday Joe Schmitt went out there. What did you say, Joe, zero
or three or what? Was -- that's all that were there. And same with this
Page 177
February 10,2009
past Sunday.
MR. SCHMITT: There was about six trucks out there, ma'am.
For the record, Joe Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, so -- and I've been going out there
during the week. And Gary McAlpin said there's 56, I think he said,
every day. Wrong, wrong. I've been out there. I haven't see 56 -- I
haven't even seen 56 in a week.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just wanted to mention a few of those
things.
And we do have -- we do have other places, as I mentioned, that
we are acting upon which we didn't have before. And for goodness
sake, these are people's homes. I mean, I cannot imagine building a
parking lot in between my house and your house. Well, we'll just put
a parking lot here because we've bought this property. And listen,
we're going to buy that one over there so we can pull the boats
through.
By the way, when they get off of the water, and they've been just
drinking a little bit, they're going to just clean out their boat in
between the houses, it's okay because we need extra parking for these
boats, right? Wrong, wrong. I'm sorry.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I just -- I just had to say that -- and by
the way, in the whole -- in the whole executive summary, they talk
about uses. They never say, in between uses, they never say they're
houses. They just mention uses.
Our Planning Commission did an outstanding job breaking this
thing apart and pointing out why exactly it should never even be
considered, and I was -- I was just ever so proud of them.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that's all I have to say at this moment,
and I'm sorry I jumped in front you Commissioner Coletta. I'm
Page 178
February 10,2009
supposed to be presiding rather than on this high horse. But anyway.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
You know, it's uncharacteristic of me to pass up an opportunity to
criticize staff. But, you know -- but let's make sure that the public and
everybody understands that this isn't a problem that was caused by
staff. It was caused by the five people sitting up here on this dais. We
were the ones who directed staff to go out and start buying this
residential property, and our intentions were pure.
There were a lot of homes there that were substandard and
represented health and safety risks, and so we thought it would be a
good idea. But our brains weren't working. We didn't think of the fact
that we'd be building parking facilities right beside a home that
somebody wanted to continue living in.
Now, I would have appreciated if staff had come to us and said,
what are you guys thinking? That would have helped, but if you look
at it objectively, nobody should have had to tell us that. We should
have known that there was going to be a problem putting parking lots
beside residential properties. It's a problem we caused, and it's a
problem, I think, we're right now ready to resolve.
So let me -- let me point out a couple of things, and then I'm
going to make a motion to put this thing to rest.
First of all, I don't believe -- and I believe staffwill agree with
me -- that we have not maximized the capacity of boat trailer parking
in the current park. I believe we can increase the capacity by as much
as 30 percent without even disturbing the playground. If you want to
give consideration to moving the playground someplace else, you
could create a lot more space for parking in that park, but I'm not
suggesting that at this point in time. I think the neighborhood should
be involved in that sort of a decision.
The problem with using the mangrove property that is near the
Page 179
February 10,2009
entrance to the park is that we can't destroy mangroves, so why would
we want to spend money buying property that we can't use? That's
why it hasn't been sold. It's been there for sale for a long time.
So -- but there are things we can do, and here's what I propose we
do. We disapprove the rezoning of these residential lots for parking
facilities. Number two, we develop a plan to maximize the parking
within the park. Number three, ifthere is sufficient public support to
reduce the area of the playground, we could even expand it more for
parking, but that's to be determined in coordination with the
community .
And number four, at the entrance to the park where boat trailers
are parking on the shoulders on each side, I would suggest we improve
those shoulders, if necessary, install culverts to provide for adequate
drainage which would widen that area and permit it to still be used, if
necessary, for overflow parking, and that would provide us substantial
capability for boat trailer parking for Bayview Park. So those are the
things that I would be supportive of.
Now, if there's any property somewhere else that is reasonable
for the use for boat trailer parking that we could purchase, I would be
perfectly happy to see us sell off some of this property we've
purchased along Danford and Bay Streets and use that money to buy
that additional property, but that's something for future study.
But anyway, that's my motion, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next we have Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, depending on the weather
is what you're going to see when you go down there. You're not going
to see anybody go out this last weekend.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it was gorgeous the weekend
before, and it was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I could tell you that I
Page 180
February 10,2009
haven't had my boat out in a month, two months. It's either too windy
or it's too damn cold. There's just reasons why you don't take the boat
out. And it is busy there at times when appropriate, when the tide's
right, you know, so on and so forth.
I'd much rather continue this item and direct staff to come into
compliance with our rules and regulations. I don't know what ROSE
means unless it's -- somebody's trying to send us a message that it's
close to Valentine's Day. I know what the policy, GMP policy is, but
it's -- that ROSE is a new one on me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I asked -- if I may jump in. It says
Recreation and Open Space Element, ROSE.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you know, it's -- I don't
blame myself for purchasing this property. I think it's up to our staff
to advise the Board of Commissioners, and somebody did not talk to
another department to find out compatibility issues and so on and so
forth.
I'm not going to sell this property. I'm not going to vote to sell
this property. We need to provide it for the future. And I think we're
going to have some problems with other coastal management
department capital improvements coming up. But we need to
communicate, and we need to come into compliance with our code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Joe Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning, for the record, I mean,
we were certainly aware of the county purchasing this property . We
know when it was presented. This goes back to when John Dunnuck
was, in fact, here. We're well aware of it.
The staff, the zoning staff, the concern was merely that this may
be too premature, but it was not that they could not build this, it was
just the time -- the time was not right, and -- to acquire more property
to facilitate the development of a parking lot.
Page 181
February 10, 2009
So I just want to make sure it's clear that we did know, and the
staff was aware. The comments were that you may want to hold off
on this until you acquire more property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So it was not that we didn't know. I certainly
knew about it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think -- thank you, Mr.
Schmitt. And I think we ought to save it and acquire more property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think what happened at the time was--
you know, this whole area looked a lot different 10 years ago, I mean,
really different. We didn't have a Hamilton Harbor.
MR. SCHMITT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bayshore wasn't picking up. This wasn't
becoming -- they didn't have a CRA. This whole area is improving.
It's becoming a wonderful place to live. That's why more people are
living there.
You've got people that live on this street not only 12 years, but
28 years, 33 years, 35 years. They love living there. And the
complexion of the whole neighborhood has changed, and the feeling
of the whole neighborhood has changed. And I think by moving
forward with this, we're going to destroy a neighborhood, and I don't
think that that's our purpose. Especially when we have opportunities
to buy other places, as we have done, and there are more opportunities
coming onboard, we shouldn't be destroying a neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then we never should have
purchased that in the first place.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well-- but we didn't know at the time.
Let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt. We didn't know the
neighborhood was going to improve, we didn't know we were going to
be able to buy other places.
Anyway, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to make sure that the
Page 182
February 10,2009
board here understands the concerns that I'm bringing up, and that is
the possibility of us ever buying any additional property that borders
the water line in the urban area is getting less and less, and the price is
getting prohibitive for the county to buy property.
The county doesn't have deep pockets like developers do, and the
problem is, is that we've let properties that are right on the coastal area
slip away, and the majority of boating is done by the people that live
in the urban area. And the urban area, I would classify as anything
from the west side of 951 all the way to the shoreline.
And I'm -- what we're doing here is we're tying our hands for
future. Whether it's -- whether we're concerned about what's
happening at the present, we have to look at the big picture and look at
this as a future investment, because we are committed by state law to
make sure that we have adequate access to the waterways.
We just had an issue before us today where we voted down a
private beach club because it didn't have any public benefit. And here
we are right now taking away any ability to have the public get access
to the waterway because there's no other place that there's of -- that's
available that I know of along the coastline, and especially in Naples
Bay.
I just wonder what the concerns are, because it's a protected
waterway. People -- ifthere's a storm, they can come in to -- at the
pass, and they're in a protected waterway.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And to me, I just don't understand
what we're doing here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can you tell me how many spaces they're
supposed to be building at Pulling Park, by the way?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I can't tell you that, no. And
not only that, but please remember that the -- that the types of boats
you're going to be putting in there are substantially limited, okay. So
it's not going to provide the same opportunity that Bayview Park will
Page 183
February 10,2009
provide.
But let me -- let me address a couple of things and then get to
Commissioner Halas' concerns. The public has every reason to be
confused about why you have something presented to us today and
you've got staff on the one hand saying, yeah, we support this thing
and it's compatible, and then another staff saying, no, it's not.
Let me tell you, that's a really good thing, because the last thing
you want is the county manager or any of the administrators
suppressing that kind of difference of opinion within the staff. They
could easily have done that and told the two staffs, work out your
differences right now, but the staff stood up for what they believed
was the right position and for the right reasons. And to me, that's good
government, because you get to hear both sides. So I would not
criticize the staff for that at all.
The other thing is, why didn't we do certain things with Hamilton
Harbor? We didn't approve Hamilton Harbor. Hamilton Harbor was
approved by the City of Naples. I happened to be on the city council
in the '90s when it came up and had a role in that. But there was
nothing that the county had to do with respect to Hamilton Harbor.
That was solved largely through a lawsuit between the city and the
Collier corporation. So there are lots of reasons why we're here today,
but you need to understand the facts.
Now finally to Commissioner Halas' concerns. There is nothing
about my motion that reduces our ability to build more parking space
for launching boats. There's nothing about my motion that requires
that we dispose of any of the property that we have purchased. There
is nothing about my motion which suggests that we should stop
buying property, okay.
AliI am saying is, we're not going to rezone that property
because it is incompatible with the current residential use.
But I have specifically said, maximize the parking facilities in the
__ in the park as well as on the sides of the roads and the entrance to
Page 184
February 10, 2009
the park. I believe we can double the size of the amount of parking
we can accommodate by taking these actions. So we're not limiting
access to the water. We're improving access to the water, and we are
protecting residents from having a boat parking space beside their
homes.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
I don't want to belabor this any longer, but there's a couple things
I do need to point out to you.
Are you going to laugh, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I had to cough.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right about that. The
parking lot's not always filled down there to Bayview. I had that
experience on a Saturday morning. Sunday I go to church, of course.
But Saturday morning I went down there, and I was second in line.
Don't worry, I pray for you every time, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need all I can get.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I got there. We were
second in line and there was nobody in the parking lot, but it was 5:30
in the morning.
So we got in there when they opened the place up, we parked, we
went out fishing, we came back, and the place was a mob scene. The
whole parking lot was filled. It was lined up all the way down the
road and around the corner.
Man, I would appreciate the fact if I could go at six o'clock
instead of 5:30, if we had enough parking places to be able to
accommodate everyone. So it's a real issue.
I mean, you can -- you can pick your times, your place, but I can
tell you my own personal experience, every time I've been there -- of
course, I never get to go during the week, I'll be honest with you.
Page 185
February 10,2009
And I get to go about once every two to three months with my
son, Scott. It's packed. It's absolutely packed. A lot of people are
enjoying the amenity. So we have to do the right thing.
Now, I agree with you. We've done some tremendous things as
far as providing parking places and amenities for people that like to
boat, and we're close to meeting the present need. The only thing is is
that we have a responsibility as commissioners to be planning
something out for the near -- for the future.
The problem was in the past the commissioners that preceded us
didn't do the planning. They handed it all off to us. We had the
deficiency in our roads, the deficiency in our -- in our boat parking,
we had a deficiency in parks and rec, everything you could think of,
there was a deficiency we had to cover, and we worked very hard to
be able to cover that deficiency.
So now we need to be able to make future plans. Do we need to
do this park today? I have no problem.
I do have a question on procedure from where we are right now.
We have a motion here that's to deny the zoning. Now, if the motion
fails, the next motion, I assume, would be to approve the zoning,
which would also fail.
So I'm not too sure how we're going to get there. Commissioner
Coyle did mention the fact that he's not asking for the properties to be
sold. Maybe if we could elaborate a little bit on that, and that could be
incorporated into the motion, it might give that some comfort level to
the rest of us so we can end this issue and get on to the rest of the day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know what you want me to
say about that. In order for anything to be done with that property, it
would have to come back to this commission in a publicly advertised
meeting anyway, no matter what motion I might make concerning
that.
All I'm saying to you is that I am not suggesting that you dispose
of the property, because this might not be the time to dispose of the
Page 1 86
February 10, 2009
property. You might want to hold onto the property for a while and
dispose of it, if you wanted to dispose of it at all, at a price that is
higher than what the prices are today.
So all I'm trying to do is to provide some comfort that I'm not
trying to force you to sell property at depressed values, you know. I'm
not addressing it. I'm just saying, hey, keep the property, keep doing
what you're doing. And if you've got some good buys, buy some more
if you want to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So you're not eliminating
the possibility that we might be able to put enough continuous
property together, come to some reasonable understanding with the
property owners and be able to go forward; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you address the needs of the
community, I don't have a problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And we're never going to
do it 100 percent. Commissioner Fiala referred to the fact that if it
was my district, I would never go along with it. That's not true. Under
certain circumstances, I would work with them.
I had to do that down at the Port of the Isles. There was
tremendous resistance in the beginning over doing that boat ramp and
all that. They were very concerned what the county motives was. The
whole thing that got us there was the fact that they're going to be able
to have their fire department locate in one of the buildings, which
meets an -- immediate pressing needs for them.
We went through this with Goodland. Remember all the
problems there and how we all worked through these issues?
Community totally up in arms against it. And the next thing you
know, they come to us and they embrace us very closely, and they
want us to do that because they don't want it to go back to
commercial. So it's all a matter of time and certain factors that may
come into play.
So I say we keep our options open. If this in no way impedes our
Page 187
February 10,2009
ability to be able to go forward and to -- of course, with the
commission's oversight on every single action, be able to look at
future property purchases to be able to put together some continuous
part as time goes along, this may be the right time, it may be the
wrong time. The whole thing is, as like has been mentioned several
times here, you know, we're planning for a much distant future, and
we're assuming the responsibility to it.
And we heard Commissioner Halas refer to some lost
opportunities out there, and this could be another one if we don't at
least keep the option alive for someone else to be able to deal with in
another year or two or who knows when.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. County Attorney, if -- the
way the motion is made at the present time, does this give us the
ability to bring this back, or is this killed forever?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not killed forever. You could bring
it back. I haven't heard any direction to the county manager to dispose
of the property . You will still own that property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I just -- I just feel
that we have to look way out, we have to make sure that we have
access to the waterways for the public, for the -- and this is the benefit
of the public. This isn't a private beach club or anything else. This is
the opportunity for the public to have access to the waterways. And I
just want to make sure we don't get ourselves in the position here
where if this is turned down, that the option is no longer open at any
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my opinion, if you really
want to have off-site parking, you would ask for a continuance of this
rezone, give staff direction to acquire more properties to make sure
that it is consistent with our Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Requires three people for a
Page 188
February 10, 2009
continuance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. And I mean, that -- you
know, if you give staff direction to improve the properties or the
Bayview Park to maximize the parking, this board will never see more
parking, off-site parking. I'd rather -- rather continue it myself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not me.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Then that means you
disregard the recommendations of the Planning Commission and part
of our staff. I think that's a very serious action to take.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's not true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have -- they have clearly said
that the rezone is not consistent with the LCD or the Growth
Management Plan, and that's exactly what you're saying is that the
rezone we would not approve, but we will approve the expansion of
the Bayshore Park parking and the improvement of Danford Street
shoulder so that we could have more parking, overflow parking, there.
So we are taking action to get more parking, but we're also
protecting the property rights of the people who live there. Because if
you continue the process of studying the parking lots in the
neighborhood, you continue to erode the value of the property of the
people who live there, and that is not in the best interests of that
community and it doesn't get you any more parking lots, because
you're going to have to face the issue of an inconsistency, an
incompatibility with the LDC and the Growth Management Plan in
order to do the rezoning.
So if you're not going to do the zoning, why do you want to have
it continued?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I just bring one sentence to the
attention of my fellow commissioners? It's on the top of Page 5, the
Page 189
February 10, 2009
very first sentence. Based upon the above analysis, comprehensive
planning staff concludes this petition may be deemed consistent with
the FLUE and the GMP.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, now let's read it farther, or on the
rest of the things where it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Based upon the above analysis
which is the ROSE policy -- and it goes to the FLUE and the
transportation element -- says the above analysis, the comprehensive
planning staff concludes this petition, it may be deemed consistent
with the FLUE of the GMP.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But yet farther on down on Page 8 it says,
land and -- zoning and land development review staff finds the
proposed parking lot to be incompatible with the provisions of the
LDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the Collier Planning
Commission, right, that you're seeing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Summary, summary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Summary. I'm just going by five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Again, staff finds the proposed access
road linking to be inconsistent with the ROSE policy, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then if! --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry to jump in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to call the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not till after I spoke,
please. I just -- I just need a little more clarification on -- okay. If the
motion fails that's on the floor right now and the next motion made is
to continue it to some future undetermined date, does this have
anything to do with the parking -- the reconfiguring of the parking lot?
That's absolutely nothing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it stops it because you
haven't provided guidance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. I'm talking about the --
Page 190
February 10, 2009
excuse me. Let me clarify that. I'm talking about the boat park. Is it
__ the reconfining of the boat park, does it have anything to do with
this particular motion that's on the floor, what we're dealing with in
this agenda?
MR. KLA TZKOW: The motion that's currently on the floor has
four parts, one of which would be to direct staff to look into expanding
the existing boat park -- boat parking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So at this point in time, we
haven't agreed to expand the boat park.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: I have five things -- I have five things on this
motion, five, okay? You said four. Let's make sure you don't have an
and or a conjunction someplace that's adding the two together. I've
got, number one, disapprove the rezone as it's been stated today in this
particular item. That's one.
Maximize parking in the park. So in other words, reconfigure the
existing park that exists today and go to the 40 spaces versus the 16 or
18 that are there.
Number three, improve and widen areas along the road, and
Commissioner Coyle said Danford Street, so I wrote it down,
including putting culverts in there to maximize the flushing or
whatever and minimize whatever pollution that was brought up.
Number four, keep existing property.
And number five, keep buying where it makes sense, i.e., it
there's a really good deal in the area that comes up in order to maybe
package it later on in the future.
Those were the five items that I listened to, that I heard in the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the park itself, to
be able to reconfigure the park; does that come under a land use item?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that would only require
Page 191
February 10,2009
three?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And before I ask for the motion --
to the vote, I just want to add, one of our staff members who -- you
know, one of our top staff members who I respect a whole heck of a
lot said, this is probably government at its worst. I just wanted to
throw that in as we go to vote for it.
There's a motion on the floor and a second. Do I hear any other
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
And opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have three opposed to the perfectly
wonderful motion.
Yes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, that's why
there's five up here because we have five independent opinions, and I
respect the others for their opinion.
I'm going to make a motion to continue and direct staff to bring
this back in the future when this is ripe and it is consistent with our
Growth Management Plan or our Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'll
second it if you also include that we move forward with the
reconfiguring of the parking within the boat park itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if I include to my
motion to direct staff to bring back to us a conceptual site plan for
that?
Page 192
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the understanding we've
got two different issues. One's going to be sooner than the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. This -- what you -- you
want me to do, to put in my motion, really doesn't belong in the
motion, but I'll put it in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just don't (sic) want to
make sure we cut off our ability to be able to expand this park at this
point in time. One is the present situation, another one is a future one.
How far in the future, who knows.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you think your motion
covers that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. There is a present need
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you state your motion one more
time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is to continue this
indefinitely and direct staff to get this petition in compatibility with
our Land Development Code, our Growth Management Plan, and also
direct staff to bring back some conceptuals for expanding the existing
Bayview Park parking within the park.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there was a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question. The
advertised issue here is to determine if this property can be -- will be
rezoned. That isn't being answered by this particular motion.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, you know, are we trying to deal
with another subject that wasn't advertised, or are we going to take
action on the subject that was advertised?
Page 193
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I answer that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- nothing's going to happen
unless it is advertised either on our regular agenda, or any rezone will
be publicly advertised. And by the way, the previous motion doesn't
comply to other ordinances as far as right-of-way parking. Ifwe make
improvements to the side streets, culverts, and encourage people to
park there, it's inconsistent with another ordinance which we don't
allow other residents to do. So why would we not be in compliance in
our own ordinance?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because of the requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because of requirements, if we
want to maximize access to the water, we do things that might not be
permitted in Golden Gate City, okay. Just like -- just like the City of
Naples permits boat parking on the grass on vacant lots for parking of
boats or parking of vehicles and trailers after the boats are launched.
They don't normally permit that, but they permit it specifically for that
purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, from my conversation
with the county attorney, when we do ordinances, we want to do
ordinances for the whole county for equality reasons.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we really don't because we're
considering making exceptions for Immokalee. So we could keep that
argument going on all day if you want to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, let's call it a draw on that
part.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, can you pine in
-- opine on this motion that's on the floor?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think what you've done is you've killed
this particular application. This one's done, all right. You're required
Page 194
February 10,2009
four votes to pass. Two of you are obviously opposed to it. So this
particular application, this particular form is now dead.
What Commissioner Henning is saying is if the staff is okay,
look to acquire more properties, and when you can come back to us
with a viable project -- and it will be a different project than the one
that's been shown to you now -- then come back. In the meantime,
come back to us with a Site Development Plan -- or conceptual Site
Development Plan showing the expansion for the park.
I believe that's what you've done, and it's appropriate to do it this
way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that leaves all the residents in
limbo. You don't know what's going to happen to you. That's right.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don't sell your properties, folks.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
That's a 3-2 vote.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we're going to go take a break.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: Yeah, please, thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a hot mike. You have two time certains.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Page 195
February 10,2009
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2009-37: APPOINTING DR. JAMES V. T ALANO
(MD), STEVE SHAFOR (PHARMACIST), W AL TER KOPKA
(EMS), ROBERT METZGER (FIRE CHIEF ASSOCIATION) AND
LINDA MITCHELL (EMERGENCY ROOM RN) TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY
BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Okay. First time certain is four o'clock. I think
we've exceeded that, but we'll try, and that was Item 9E to be heard at
four p.m., and it's appointment of members to the Emergency Medical
Services Policy Advisory Board. The item was asked for a time
certain at Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason I asked for a time
certain is because what the board's direction through the ordinances is
not what we got. And I met with people from the local hospital
emergency room, and they'll probably want to address the board to
share their concerns.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. So would you like to come up
then, is that how you want --
MS. FILSON: I have speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. How many speakers?
MS. FILSON: Just one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: John Lewis.
DR. LEWIS: Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak. I appreciate it.
I've been a board certified emergency physician and practiced in
Collier County for the last 15 years and have had the privilege of
caring for many patients in our community and many that arrived in
Page 196
February 10, 2009
the pre-hospital setting.
And I consider it a privilege to be able to do this, and I think it's
also give me and my colleagues a significant insight on what happens
before the patients arrive in the hospital.
And recently, as a citizen of our county, I've grown a little
frustrated with what's happened in the paper with EMS and fire and
some of the battles that are waging, and I'm concerned that the patients
are going to get lost in the formula.
And I applaud the commissioners for forming this advisory
board, and I feel it will be a good thing.
One of the things that concerns me is that the Collier County
Medical Society has nominated a non-emergency physician for this
advisory role, and I feel this is a mistake. I truly think that someone
needs to have the experience and the background to understand some
of the nuances of some of these decisions, and I would strongly ask
the commissioners, please consider enforcing this ordinance and
having it be an ER physician.
Furthermore, given the complexity of our county, very large
county, we have two large hospital systems. I would recommend that
we have representation from both hospital systems.
So I would recommend expanding this board, this committee,
slightly to include one emergency physician from the NCH Healthcare
System and one from the HMA healthcare system. That way all of the
needs of the community are met.
I think that each hospital system had their own intricacies and
concerns, and I think the only way to really have them be registered is
if we have people there that are shareholders and stakeholders in this
problem.
I thank you for your time and appreciate any questions you may
have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I agree with that. I think
Page 197
February 10, 2009
that we do need people from both hospitals in the emergency care
facilities. But also we have another problem. We asked for the Fire
Chiefs Association to have somebody come forward, but our
ordinance says it must comply with --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bless you both.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I think it's 2001-55 ordinance
where it states you need to be a resident. So that's another problem
that we have. So I really don't want to continue this, but to be fair is --
is we task our staff to reach out to the two hospitals and get doctors
from the emergency rooms from --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fair is fair.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- from Naples Community
Hospital and Physicians Regional and ask the Fire Chiefs Association
to make a recommendation for somebody who is a resident of Collier
County .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we then have to -- excuse me,
Commissioner Halas and Coyle. Do we have to then change our
ordinance to sayan emergency room physician from each hospital so
that it reads correctly?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'll have to ask the county
attorney.
MR. KLA TZKOW: If you're looking for -- if that's what you're
looking for, we'll have to amend the ordinance. But then keep in mind
we'll have six people on this board. You're always better off with an
odd number just for purposes of breaking the tie.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But we can also -- couldn't we
remove an RN from the ordinance --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's your ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and then have it two
physicians and one emergency room. I don't have the ordinance
number front of me.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you--
Page 198
February 10, 2009
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would be five members.
Right now the ordinance reads, one emergency room physician,
emergency room nurse, a pharmacist, a representative from the --
reading the letters that you sign.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: EMS.
MR. MUDD: Okay, from EMS, and one representative from the
Fire Chiefs Association.
MS. FILSON: And you have enough members to appoint, other
than the questions you have, they sent you two RN s to choose one of
the RNs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So they aren't both for appointment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: One of them was located in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have other commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fire chief.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's RN, works in Lee County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But resides here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But doesn't work in our hospitals.
Wouldn't we want him to work here so he knows our system? This is
where they would be bringing these people. Anyway.
Okay. So then what do you propose to do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I propose that we task our
staff to reach out to the two hospitals and get MD -- emergency room
MDs, ask the chiefs association to provide us a resident -- a voting
resident of Collier County on this committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do 1-- and that's a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, make that a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second so we can
move forward?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not ready to make a second
because I've got too many questions.
Page 199
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some questions on that,
too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, Commissioner Halas is first,
then Coyle, then Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My understanding, the--
both RNs that are -- everybody is a Collier County resident and they
live in a certain district except for the fire chief --
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- who resides outside the
community.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the only thing we really need to
do is -- in our ordinance it says that we have one RN; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we have to determine what --
which one we want.
MS. FILSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then that gives us the
opportunity -- no, it doesn't either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We could do two people to make seven.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think what we wanted to do
was try to keep the committee as small as possible so we could get
some things done. How about if we do is -- that at one point, when we
appoint a doctor, that we have the doctor alternate from one hospital
versus the other hospital? And I do agree that that doctor should be --
have emergency room experience.
So if we have one doctor that is emergency-room experienced
from NCH, and then the next time there's an opening, then there has to
be a doctor from the other hospital that then is considered. I think that
would help fulfill the concerns that we have here.
And I think that we need to put this back out, as Commissioner
Henning said, to have the fire chiefs come up with someone that
Page 200
February 10,2009
resides here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think the idea of alternating
is probably good, but let's go back to the original purposes of this, and
it was to get the best qualified person to provide us with advice
concerning treatment protocols and to verify and certify Dr. Tober's
recommendations to the board. It was not to make sure that every
medical institution in Collier County was represented. That's not the
purpose here.
But if we wanted to rotate it between various places, we can do
that. The question is, is that still going to get us the best qualified
person? I don't know, and that's why we went to the Medical Society,
because it would seem to me that they would understand who the best
qualified people are for this kind of thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I'm still inclined to accept
their recommendations, whether this person has had emergency room
experience or not. His cardiology experience is extensive. We have an
elderly population that has a lot of cardiology problems here.
But I'm just sort of curious as to why this has arisen at this point
in time rather than at the time when we were debating this and
soliciting recommendations. I'd really like to understand what's
brought this up and what's behind all this, quite frankly.
But I don't see any reason why we can't proceed with what we've
got, quite frankly. You know, all we're doing is delaying and delaying
and delaying this stuff and, consequently, we're keeping people from
certifying and implementing appropriate protocols that have been
under debate for months, if not years, and I'd like to move this process
ahead and get something done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about this, this one last one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The fire chief issue is one that did
trouble me, but I -- once again, we have to be in a position of trying to
Page 201
February 10,2009
get the best qualified people.
Now, we have on occasion waived a requirement for residency
because the best qualified person wasn't a resident. I see nothing
wrong with doing that here. If Chief Metzger is, in the opinion of the
Fire Chiefs Association, the best qualified person that they can think
of, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't accept him and waive the
residency requirement. I mean, after all, he does work here. He's
responsible for this area, he understands the protocols, he's been on
EMSAC. Why would we deprive ourselves of the best qualified
person just because his address looks funny?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I agree with
you, Commissioner Coyle. I don't know why we're belaboring this
any longer. If we want to put together something that's totally fair for
the community, we'd have to grow this to about 21 people.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we've met it here. I do
think we need only one RN on there. I think an RN is absolutely
necessary to balance this whole thing. They deal with a certain
element out there that none of the other ones do.
And it would -- if Commissioner Henning's motion hasn't
received a second and it failed, I would like to make a motion. May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd make a motion that we go
ahead and we pick out Linda Mitchell for the RN, James V. Talano --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Talano.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for the MD, Steve Shafor for
the para- --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pharmacist.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- pharmacist, and Walter
Kopak (sic) --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Kopka.
Page 202
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for EMS, and Robert Metzger
for the fire chief. And there's nothing -- I don't think there's anything
in our ordinances that do not allow us to pick somebody from Lee
County; is that correct, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, I don't mind if you do it here, but
when you're done, I'd ask you for direction to modify the ordinance so
you can do this for all boards as policy direction.
MS. FILSON: There is something in the board (sic) that says
you can exempt that policy if it's in the ordinance creating the
committee, Section 5 of2001-55.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Incorporate in my motion now
or make it afterwards?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Afterwards you can give staff direction or
me direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't it be easier just to
amend this policy committee, because the medical doctor is not an
emergency room physician, because you'd have to amend that
anyways. That's the requirement under this one. And, you know, I --
on the fly, we really need to think about amending our ordinance to
require for nonresidents to make -- be making policy
recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
You're going to have to amend this ordinance anyways. So if
you're okay with a nonresident from the Fire Chiefs Association, then
amend it, but you still need to amend the requirements for a
nonemergency MD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yep. It does say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm okay with the motion,
if that's what the majority wants.
Page 203
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it -- the point here is
that there are going to be times in the future when maybe an
emergency room physician doesn't have the time to serve on this
board and they will not be able to nominate or suggest an emergency
room physician to participate on this advisory board.
We need the flexibility to make modifications to make sure that
we have the best possible person we can get. In all of our advisory
committees we have to accept the best person who applies. We're not
necessarily getting the best person in Collier County. We're getting
the best person who applies.
And if we don't have enough emergency room physicians
applying or we don't have any emergency room physicians applying
for this thing, we need to have the authority to select somebody.
So what do we need to do to --
MR. KLA TZKOW: I will work with the county manager and
we'll come back with the proposed revisions to this ordinance that will
give you far greater flexibility than we have now.
But having said that, I don't see any reason why you couldn't vote
for these applicants if that's what you want.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I would like to do. I
think the motion is still good.
MS. FILSON: Can I just --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MS. FILSON: I didn't advertise these.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to do it anyway,
aren't you?
MS. FILSON: I didn't advertise these positions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You did not?
MS. FILSON: I did not advertise these positions. The chairman
wrote a letter to the Medical Society and one to the Fire Chiefs
Association asking them to submit their recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's what the ordinance said
Page 204
February 10,2009
to do, right?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Yes. On the 24th of December -- excuse me -- the
23rd of December, the chairman sent letters to the Collier County
Medical Society asking for those three people, emergency room
physician, emergency room nurse, and a pharmacist, and then you
went to the fire chiefs' counsel and asked them for a representative,
and the EMS representative came from staff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah, but you understand the
point of my statement? They're going to get their nominations from
the physicians who will volunteer to be a part of this thing. There are
some emergency room physicians who might feel they are far too
busy to do this so they're just not going to volunteer. So the Medical
Society won't have anybody to nominate.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is an advisory board. They're for your
benefit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right. Well, so
you can work it out so we can cover the bases on the --
MR. KLATZKOW: I will give you back an ordinance that will
cover whatever decision you reach here today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's set the record straight.
The ordinance says we want an emergency room physician. This
board decided to go to the Medical Society. Emergency room
physicians is not a member of the Medical Society, okay? So they're
not going to recommend somebody who -- well, obviously they didn't
recommend somebody who is not on their membership.
So let's get the record straight. We did not ask the emergency
room physicians if they want to sit on this. And the policies that
they're going to recommend might be very concerning to the
Page 205
February 10,2009
emergency room physicians.
So what do they say? Stuff in, stuff out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, if we didn't ask for a -- ask the
emergency room physicians for a recommendation, we went to
somebody who doesn't have a member that has any emergency, then it
sounds like we went to the wrong place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who has decided that emergency
room physicians don't belong to the Medical Society? Who decided
that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I was told is they
don't --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we don't want to work off
what you were told.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that true?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We want to find out--
DR. LEWIS: For the most part.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, for the most part. There's
nothing in the Medical Society that excludes emergency room
physicians. Okay. Then let's make sure we clear that up.
You know, we're nit-picking here for some reason that I don't
really fully understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want to get the record
straight.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to call -- have the
question called, and let's get this voted on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a -- would you repeat the
motion please?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was -- it was Commissioner
Coletta's motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was I that made the motion,
Page 206
February 10,2009
and I'll ask our county manager to go ahead and repeat it.
MS. FILSON: I have it marked, Mr. Mudd, if you need me to
read it.
MR. MUDD: Good. The five people would help a little bit,
especially the nurse.
MS. FILSON: Linda Mitchell is the RN; James Talano is the
MD; Steve Shafor is the Pharmacist; Walter Kopka is the EMS
representative; and Robert Metzger, the Fire Chiefs Association
representative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely correct, Ms. Filson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second was who?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion on the floor to
approve these five people to this particular committee, Emergency
Medical Policy Advisory Committee.
Motion was made by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by
Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1 vote. Thank you.
Item #IOF
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE HAVING STAFF ADVERTISE
Page 207
February 10,2009
AND RETURN FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AT A
FUTURE MEETING THE LITTER, WEED AND EXOTIC
CONTROL ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-44) TO
CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPECIAL
MAGISTRATES ROLE IN THE IMPOSITION OF NUISANCE
ABATEMENT LIENS AND TO INCORPORATE THE BOARD'S
PRIOR DIRECTION AS REFLECTED ON THE A TT ACHED
PROPOSED AMENDED ORDINANCE - MOTION TO APPROVE
FOR ADVERTISING, TO INCLUDE 30 FOOT BUFFER ZONE
AROUND PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN
GOLDEN GA TE ESTATES - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that would bring us to our next
time-certain item, which was at 4:30, and that's Item \OF, and that
reads, a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve having staff advertise and return for the board's consideration
at a future meeting the litter, weed, and exotic control ordinance,
ordinance number 05-44, to clarify the requirements for the special
magistrate's role in the imposition of nuisance abatement liens and to
incorporate the board's prior direction as reflected on the attached
proposed amended ordinance.
This item was asked to come on the regular agenda by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Peter, would you be so kind to
go out in the hall and tell the chief to come back? I need him here for
this, too.
This has to do with two things that are on there that I need some
clarification. And one, of course, has raised quite a bit of concern.
But I think that some of that concern's been abated as we've gone
forward -- is the idea of the -- did we catch him, great -- the ordinance
Page 208
February 10, 2009
regarding the cutting of vegetative matter within 30 feet of a dwelling
or an auxiliary structure.
And as a measure to try to meet some of the needs of the
residents, you dropped the auxiliary structure off that. I don't feel
comfortable without hearing from somebody that's got a little more
authority in this.
Chief, would you -- forgive me for calling you unprepared, but
this has to deal with that ordinance change we're looking at. I know
we're in the midst of the fire season. Are you familiar with what we're
talking about?
CHIEF METZGER: I have had an extremely brief overview on
what you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHIEF METZGER: But you can probably guess my position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I can't. No, really, I can't,
and that's why I'm glad you're here.
Ms. Flagg, would you be so kind as to state exactly how this
ordinance is put together regarding the requirements for cutting brush
and grass in the Estates area.
MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director, for the
record.
This is to mow or remove weeds and grass 30 feet from a
residential structure, and Chief Metzger has -- his district covers quite
a bit of the Estates area, which is -- right now it's a requirement for all
mowable lots excluding Estates, and this proposal was just to limit it
to 30 feet of residential structures within the Estates area.
Chief Metzger?
CHIEF METZGER: And Robert Metzger, Fire Chief of Golden
Gate, for the record.
If! understand the ordinance correctly, you're talking about 30
feet -- from 30 feet in to the structure; in other words, from a structure
and 30 feet out?
Page 209
February 10,2009
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where possible. I mean, the lot
might not be 30 feet going from the structure --
MS. FLAGG: And/or to the lot line.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- somebody else's property.
CHIEF METZGER: Part of good management of a person's
property to protect a structure during fire season is to maintain a clear
distance around the structure so that we can suppress fire. That
distance is 30 feet.
And what we support is maintenance of that area so that any
brush or any growth is controlled to a degree that it does not
encourage or promote fire. And when it's left to overgrow, even if--
even if it's cut down to a -- say, a degree of 18 inches or something
like that, that still may present a substantial fire load.
Our position is that there ought to be some control of that 30-foot
area around the property such that it doesn't promote fire during fire
season.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What about auxiliary
structures?
CHIEF METZGER: Well, when you say that, if you're just
talking about a detached out-structure that is storing things of the
owner's choosing or so forth, I think it makes sense for the individual
to still protect that in the same manner, but when we go out to fight
wildland fire, the exterior structures that are detached from the
primary residents we generally do not take a stand on. We take a
stand on the residences themselves.
So it's -- while we promote good fire practice out there, we as a
fire district are taking a stand on the primary residence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. But just to be able
to give direction to us, if we want to make sure that whatever we come
up with meets the safety needs of the public but is not overimposing as
far as take away personal freedoms to be able to make their own
Page 210
February 10,2009
choices -- so it's not a real concern of yours as far as the auxiliary
structures go as far as -- the way the ordinance is now written, it
exempts auxiliary structures from it. You don't have a problem with
that?
CHIEF METZGER: I don't have a real problem with that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. You've been most
valuable with what you have passed on.
But probably the -- one of the other reasons, too, that I pulled this
was another part of the ordinance that I find extremely troublesome,
and we've got a couple of speakers, too, that are going to be
addressing it.
Thank you, Chief.
But it has to deal with the compost ordinance. I'm totally lost
what we're trying to accomplish. If there's ever an overexertion of
government authority, it's that ordinance. It makes absolutely no
sense. Objectionable odor. I'm trying to figure out what that is and
how you set up a compost pile. Are we going to require our code
enforcement officers to go into people's yards and start tearing the
compost pile apart to find out if it has objectionable pieces of material
in it?
Even though we're exempting the Estates from this the way it's
presently written because of the objection of members of the civic
society -- civic association, for just reasons, I still have concern about
it applying to the rest of the county. I really do. I just -- I think it's
overambitious and doesn't accomplish any meaningful goal.
And with that, I'm going to turn it back to you and the
commissioners and the speakers that you have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I have five speakers.
Commissioner Henning, would you like to hear the speakers
first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, because I think they'd be
Page 211
February 10, 2009
interested in other provisions in here. But just to clarify the
composting, it came about because code enforcement was -- if
somebody had a pile of palm fronds, that they would cite them for --
under the weed and litter ordinance. That's why it's there, and besides
the fact, composting is good for our landfill.
The second thing is, under the exemptions, Golden Gate --
Golden Gate Estates was exempt. Now it says, properties that are
unimproved that are located within the Estates zoning districts shall be
exempt from nuisance declaration. That was weed and litter.
On your page, it would be Page 10 of 28, number two -- number
one, if you read number one and then read number two, I'm not sure
what we're doing.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, I'm trying to -- I was talking to
Diane about something else. I'm trying to catch up here.
Commissioner, we could -- certainly those sections could be
clarified.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the intent? Before you
bring it back for advertising, what do you -- what does staff want to do
with this?
MS. FLAGG: I believe the desire is to exempt the Estates from
the -- any composting requirements based upon the feedback from
some of the Estates residents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right, but this, in the
amendment exemptions it said -- I'll read it to you. All areas zoned in
the Estates shall be exempt from, crossed out weed, exotic plant,
public nuisance declaration provided under this ordinance.
Number two it says, properties that are unimproved in the
location of area within Golden Gate Estates, it designates, shall be
exempt from the weed public nuisance declaration provided under this
ordinance.
MS. FLAGG: Right. If you go to -- I think the composting is
number four -- all properties with agriculture and Estates zoning is
Page 212
February 10,2009
exempt from the composting requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I do understand that. The
one and two I don't understand, because unimproved property, what
you're saying is, it's exempt from the weeds, but it's not exempt from
the exotics.
MR. TEACH: Well, you know, Commissioner, obviously ifit's
the board's direction, we can include the exotics in paragraph number
two as well, because if it's an unimproved structure -- and I know
some of the Golden Gate residents who we met with last week
indicated a wish to have a more natural feel to the Estates.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. TEACH: And that's why we were trying to bring back to
you something that would sort of meet some of those wishes if the
board so approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. TEACH: And so I would have no problem amending this
when it's brought back to you to include exotics as well as weeds --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Going out to number
one.
MR. TEACH: Scott Teach, for the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me give you a different
scenario. Well, actually it's law. You're legally -- your legal ability is
to clear up to one acre. So if you have a two-and-a-half acre lot,
one-and-a-half acres isn't going to be in preserves. You're going to
have weeds out there.
And what this amendment says, you're going to have to go back
in that one-and-a-half acres and clean out those weeds in that
Paragraph I.
I'm not sure if that was the intent of staff. I f definitely wasn't the
intent of the Board of Commissioners.
MR. TEACH: We can correct that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think, Scott, the question is, what are you
Page 213
February 10,2009
guys trying to do? And that's a Diane Flagg question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, it was a staff.
MS. FLAGG: It's strictly 30 feet from a residential structure.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's a different provision.
Number one, what are you trying to do? Because I read that as
saying that if you're in the Estates and you have exotics plants on your
property, we're not going to prosecute.
MS. FLAGG: That's based on the current ordinance.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And that's just what it says?
MS. FLAGG: Right. The only change that's happened here is
weed is crossed out; otherwise, the current ordinance reads that the
Estates is exempt from the exotic plant public nuisance declaration.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And the intent for two is that if you have an
unimproved property, that you're exempt from the weed ordinance?
MS. FLAGG: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're in the Estates?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But not the exotics?
MS. FLAGG: No, not in the current ordinance, correct, and there
wasn't a discussion in regard to exotics. I mean, certainly you all can
provide direction to also exempt them from exotics.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you read the old ordinance it
says that Golden Gate is exempt from the weed and exotic --
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- part of that. So what you're
doing in one and two, I'm not sure.
MR. TEACH: Well, I think one is taking into consideration what
the chief just talked about, because we're adding a 30-foot, at least
around the residential primary structure as far as weeds and
overgrowth. And I would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If that's the intent isjust to deal
with that 30- foot, then it just needs to be clarified.
MR. TEACH: Right.
Page 214
February 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One and two is within the
30-foot.
MR. TEACH: Right. I agree, Commissioner, because I think,
you know, that's what the intent is, just to capture that 30-foot around
the primary structure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So in order to do that, do we need
to bring it back?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. It has to -- this is only to come back
and advertise. What you're doing is clarifying the section that you
would like to have be more specific in detail.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have five speakers. Would
you call the speakers, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What?
MR. KLATZKOW: We haven't advertised this, sir.
MS. FILSON: Michael Ramsey. He'll be followed by Tim
Nance.
MR. RAMSEY: Howdy. Hope everybody's having a good day,
and I'm here to help.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name's Michael R. Ramsey. I
live at 2631 4th Street Northwest. I'm a 20-year resident of the Estates,
member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, and I'm
President of Ramsey, Inc., Ecological Consulting.
I have had about 30 years of experience studying the ecology in
this area, writing management plans for wildlife and endangered
species, and managing habitats in South Florida.
Today I'm representing the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association in regards to this issue for the litter, weed, and exotics
ordinance and its proposed modifications.
I have five points of our position from Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association.
Number one, in our opinion, the proposed modification to
Page 215
February 10,2009
remove the exemption for the Estates for the 18-inch grass height
restriction, which we currently enjoy, is a change in the land use
activity that appears to be unwarranted and it places an unfair
economic -- and places an unfair economic burden upon the residents
of the Estates.
This action will interfere, it appears, without substantial
justification to rural lifestyle activities over 72,000 acres.
Number two, the association supports the position that a 30-foot
defensible space around a permanent dwelling should be implemented
as we discussed here earlier.
But in our opinion, we think it should follow more of a voluntary
example set by Diane Flagg and code enforcement in relation to
foreclosure issues.
We feel that a volunteer effort that we've been supporting for the
last couple years in this issue would present a greater result in 30-foot
defensible clearing and more community support.
Number three, if an ordinance is needed by code enforcement to
assist in this matter, we recommend modification and placement of a
change of the 18-inch grass height restriction and a 30-foot mandatory
clearing of the property maintenance ordinance.
We feel that placing it there would allow more selective
enforcement because a property would be noticed in our opinion two
or three times before a landscape restriction or mandatory clearing
would be placed upon it.
In our discussion today about this ordinance modification, we
think from the Estates Association viewpoint that we're actually
pointing out a bigger problem in the Estates by discussing this. The
unintended results, we feel, of a very aggressive vegetative protection
ordinance is the result of the wildfire hazards we see today by having
a lot of homes in close proximity to large, wooded forested areas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we permit him to finish,
please?
Page 216
February 10, 2009
MR. RAMSEY: And last, in my professional opinion as an
ecological consultant, the discussion we are having today points out a
tremendous need to develop a master fire management protection plan
for the Estates. This plan needs to focus on two main areas, wildfire
prevention and improving fire response actions for the local fire
districts.
We think that actions that would allow us to participate more in
this area, we can improve on wildfire prevention, which is cheaper
than putting a fire out, and we could assist our local fire districts with
improved fire response capability.
We also brought with us today two other speakers with us, the
fire chief, Mr. -- Chief Metzger, and we also have somebody else here
from the Division of Forestry that might be able to address some of
your questions about a community wildfire prevention plan.
Apparently there is also an effort, as Commissioner Coletta has
pointed out to us, that there is a state effort to help communities put
together this kind of plan we're talking about. Thank you for your
time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Nance. He'll be followed
by Peter Gaddy.
MR. NANCE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Tim Nance. I'm the past president of the Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association, a past member of the East of 951 Horizon Study
Commission, and currently the chair of the Citizens Advisory
Committee, and the Metropolitan Planning Association.
I'm addressing you today regarding really the process that's gone
forward on this ordinance as much as anything else. The Estates is a
unique community in Collier, providing opportunity for rural living in
a natural setting, and it's very important to Collier County because it's
currently a bedroom community for the urban coastal zone. It's where
many blue collar workers and service providers live. It's the home for
approximately 10 percent of the Collier population, and it's an expanse
Page 217
February 10,2009
of over 70,000 acres.
Many assume that the Estates is not heavily regulated, but that's
really an error and it's a myth.
Estates land use, regulations, and restrictions are many. Many
agencies of government with specific focus and goals regulate the land
right around homes in the Estates, including the zoning in the Golden
Gate Master Plan, Collier County Environmental Services, Collier
County Code Enforcement, South Florida Water Management District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and many endangered species laws
that are both state and federal.
Many of those, of course, as you can tell by the list, have an
environmental focus; however, these restrictions on the use of land
right around the homes is not coordinated and often contradictory and
often confusing to residents.
Basically, what I would do as a resident of the Estates area is ask
for the help of the Board of County Commissioners to engage the
community when Estates land use changes and sweeping regulations
are proposed, basically support a public discussion.
I would like to say that we've had very wonderful response from
the Collier County attorneys, and particularly from Diane Flagg and
her staff of code enforcement; however, we really don't think this has
been discussed by the residents of the Estates.
Our goal in getting that done would be to improve the process to
achieve the best possible results and give you more information to
make your decision by, and basically to avoid unintended
consequences in rural areas where urban standards are inappropriate or
harmful. And there's a couple examples. If I had the time, I could
give you a couple direct examples of that.
I personally am requesting the full support of the Board of
County Commissioners to reprioritize our ordinances that affect the 30
feet directly around the homes, and there are many. What -- in my
opinion and in the opinion of many residents out there, is we need to
Page 218
February 10,2009
put our professional firefighters at the top of the pyramid of regulation
of the 30 feet around the home, support the 30 feet of defensible
space, and enable the citizens to act without red tape and excessive
regulation when their public safety is at risk right around their homes.
Basically right now, the 30 feet of defensible space around the
home that's recommended by the fire -- by our fire professionals is not
supported by the current codes and ordinances and rules. It's a
quagmire of confusion, which often discourages and prevents citizens
from taking action on their own for fear of fines or violating the law.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker -- the next speaker is Peter
Gaddy. He'll be followed by Michael Weston.
MR. GADDY: Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bless you.
MR. GADDY: I want to thank the county attorney, the State
Department of Forestry, Chief Metzger, and Diane Flagg for all of
their efforts in working on this ordinance and bringing to light the
potential wildfire issues which we face in Golden Gate Estates.
Just as an example, Commissioner Henning, you raised the issue,
well, why aren't the accessory buildings included? Well, the potential
is that you could violate the Land Development Code if you included
all of those -- all of the buildings on a lot within this ordinance. So
there is a potential conflict that you'd be clearing more than one acre.
Here's what we'd like to do. Through the good offices of
Commissioner Coletta, he has set up a workshop on fire danger and a
wildfire workshop for March 5th at the ago center out in Golden Gate
Estates. There's going to be a lot of participants in that workshop.
We're talking about Golden Gate, Corkscrew; we're talking about
forestry, environmental services, code enforcement, the City of
Naples, the EOC; we're talking about transportation, utilities, the
water district, Sheriffs Office, and DEP.
Page 219
February 10,2009
There are a lot of issues that need to be addressed, but one thing
is for certain, we do not have in place a wildfire protection and
suppression plan at the present time. We'd like to develop such a plan.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Ramsey is qualified to write such a plan and
has already started doing so.
So our recommendation is that this matter be sent to the Planning
Commission for public vetting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Michael Weston. He'll be
followed by Chief Robert Metzger.
MR. WESTON: Honorable Commissioners, thanks for allowing
me to speak with you today. I'm Mike Weston, CFA, Senior Forester
for Collier, Lee, and Hendry Counties with the State of Florida
Division of Forestry.
On the ordinance that's in front of you guys, you know, less -- as
Chief Metzger said, basically less height around the house is better.
That's people's defensible space. That's what's going to keep a house
safe when a fire does come. We had the 800-acre fire last year, lost
three homes, seven sheds were destroyed.
We have the ability to have multiple fires that size again this year
and -- in perpetuity going forward. So what the division would like to
recommend would be that, you know, 30 feet's a good minimum.
Again, that's your nationally recognized research study as far as your
minimum defensible space around a house.
We'd also like in the future to start trying to address some of the
interior areas that are very vegetative. I mean, you guys have done
such a good job in protecting all this vegetation around here. Then we
get a fire coming through. And you look at the aftermath of that
Estates fire in there where it destroyed thousands of trees, and where
you had the trees actually surviving was next to those grassy areas that
are going to be mowed right in here.
So as far as the foreclosure issue, you know, for us that's a fear as
Page 220
February 10,2009
far as getting to houses and not being able to save them. I mean, we're
coming in with our tractor plows and putting in fire lines and stuff,
and then, you know, Chief Metzger and the other structure assets are
coming in and trying to actually do structure protection. And it works
a lot better if we have that 30 feet to be able to go in there and do
those kind of things.
Also, we are trying to lead the creation of the Community
Wildfire Protection Plan. This does a couple things. Kind of gives a
voice to everyone to come together, do a -- you know, almost a
nine-month-long process, we started last August, to come together,
create a plan that's going to look at all the issues, land management,
resource to fight the fires, also the opinions of the residents to try and
make some recommendations.
The other thing that can come out of this is to pull either some
grant dollars down for some of the fuel treatment to do some of the
work so it wouldn't be such as imposition on the residents -- the other
that we'd be able to do out of this is -- Lee County just recently
purchased $600,000 worth of equipment to be able to treat out
people's -- the vegetation that was on a neighboring lot, and they're
actually operating out of a Hawkins bill to go there and basically give
people the 30 feet that they need.
Again, some of the structures we lost in the Estates this year were
because they had that massive brush right next to their structure. This
ordinance won't deal with it. But again, this ordinance is dealing with
something. You know, the lower six inches would be a little bit
better; 18 inches, though, is better than three, four feet, five feet of
vegetation.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Chief Robert Metzger.
CHIEF METZGER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I don't
have a lot to add. I would emphasize a couple of things.
First of all, we believe strongly in the development of
Page 221
February 10, 2009
Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The reason for that is as much
to gain partnership with the residents out in the Estates area, because if
we get buy-in on a wildfire protection plan which basically educates
the public about the need for the development of that in compliance
with the tenants of that, with an educated public, we actually reduce
our fire risks. That means that we gain time, really. Ifwe have a
wildland fire out there, it helps us. We gain time in being able to
suppress it, and that's usually important.
We talk about the 30-foot zone around a structure to be able to
protect it, and we need to remember that that's a minimum, of course.
But it is essential, so we certainly endorse that. At the same time, I
really believe we have to be mindful of the unique nature of the
Estates area and what it presents not only to the residents who live out
there but really as an asset to this community, to the county, and to be
mindful that whatever we do takes into account the values of the
people who live out there.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I have two
speakers, but did you have a motion that you wanted to present to us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact.
Recognizing the fact that we're going to be reviewing this with the
public as far as the fire plan that's going to take place, I think if we
start the process going forward with the 18-inch rule throughout the
Estates as far as improved lots with a house on it, that 30-feet
perimeter around it would be a good thing to do at this time.
When it comes back to us, we might have a little more
information, we might want to adjust it. So that would be the first part
of my motion.
The second part is that we do away with this compost item totally
from consideration. I think it's not needed anyplace in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, does everybody understand the
beginning of his motion, the first phase of his motion? I had a little
Page 222
February 10,2009
problem with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'll try again. As you
can -- as you heard today, there's a little bit of difference of opinion
between what we're hearing from the people that are forefront as far as
fire prevention. We heard from chief -- Chief Metzger, we heard from
Mike Weston from forestry, and they both said the same thing, that we
need to have something in place that -- to have the brush under control
around Estates lots to be able to protect everyone; 30-foot perimeter
they were talking about.
I do think that we need at this point in time to incorporate this in
what we're looking to do. I mean, this has to come back to us for
reVIew.
The reason I'm going forward with it now, even though we are
looking at alternatives out there through the fire review -- wildfire
review group, that I do think we need to have this in place going
forward. We can always withdraw when it comes back again if we
come up with a better answer.
I do think that the safety of the residents in Collier County are of
most important concern at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See if you can give me a concise motion,
would you? You're motioning to, at this present time, make sure that
they have 30 feet around their property?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Diane Flagg, would you, with
all the legalese you can put into it, pick up on that motion and move
forward. Give me --
MS. FLAGG: How about a motion to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the language.
MS. FLAGG: -- approve to allow us to advertise. That's really --
because this is a two-part ordinance. This is to address a special
magistrate process, and then the second part is to create 30 feet from a
residential structure that folks would need to mow the weeds from that
structure.
Page 223
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So it already stands. I
don't have to make that part of the motion. That part I can approve as
is?
MS. FLAGG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you make a motion to approve that
part of it, plus you're adding composting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Asking for the removal of the
composting part of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Does everybody understand that
motion? I'll give you a chance to talk.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, don't give him a chance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I need a second to that. Okay. I'll
second it for the sake of discussion.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle, before you jump off your chair, you
go next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Based upon what I've just heard,
we're nowhere near prepared to have this thing come back for hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners. There are five speakers
who just spent some time telling us about all the things that are wrong
with this process, in addition to a number of questions from
commISSIOners.
I don't know why we're talking about advertising and bringing it
back. Why don't you set up a workshop, as someone suggested, have
a workshop, get the input from the community, and then once you're
assured that you have developed an effective plan that would satisfy
most of the interests in the community, and particularly the
commissioner in whose district most of this affects, get with those
people in a workshop. And then once you've done that, advertise it
and come back and let's have a public hearing; because if you go
ahead and advertise it now, we have a public hearing two weeks from
Page 224
February 10,2009
now, you know, we're going to have the same people talking about the
same thing all over again, and that's a big waste of time for them and
for us.
So I know what Commissioner Coletta wants to do, but let's
make sure we incorporate all the concerns of the community before
this thing comes back to us.
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner Coyle, what these folks are asking
for is actual clearing of 30 feet from their residents, not just the
mowing of grass and weeds. And in talking to the environmental
folks, that's a very long, drawn-out process that incorporates, as
they've indicated, a lot of different laws.
What this is, simply is to correct a process in the special
magistrate process that we have, the proposal before you today, and to
mow the weeds 30 feet from the residential structures. It's not a
clearing.
It's not a clearing. When we start talking about actual flat
clearing, no trees, no hedges, no bushes, which is what they're
speaking to you about, they want the ability to completely clear 30
feet from structures. That's something that is going to take a long time
to accomplish.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, this is one of those
ordinances that I was told earlier does not exist. It's an ordinance that
has special provisions for certain parts of the county, right?
So I don't care, quite frankly, if this community wants to clear
500 feet around every building, if they have a good reason for it, I'm
going to buy it.
So -- but I don't want to have to go through this process over and
over and over. Why not address their concerns now? And so when
you come back to present it to us, we have a complete package and we
can vote on it, we can hear it one time, and we can get on with our
lives.
MS. FLAGG: Well, we can certainly do that. Ifwe can just take
Page 225
February 10,2009
the weed out of it then and then just address the special magistrate part
of the ordinance, which is also in this weed and litter ordinance.
The special magistrate part, which is what we were actually
coming to you today for, was to have to not come back to you
repeatedly for each and every case where the special magistrate can go
ahead and proceed with the process without bringing each and every
case to the board.
So if we could separate that out, that's what we were proposing,
and then we'll just take -- the county attorney can take all the weed
references out of the ordinance and leave it as is. And as is would
mean that the grass and weeds have no limit of height in the Estates.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not my motion; it's
Commissioner Coletta's motion. But I'd just like to see you have a
complete package when it comes back. I just don't want to keep doing
these things a little bit at a time over a period of the next year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned. Can you give me a
-- they want to -- what's the deal with the exotics?
MS. FLAGG: Currently, the current ordinance is that weeds can
grow taller than the houses in the Estates zoned area, and exotics also
can be in the Estates. That's in the current ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, aren't we trying to eradicate
the exotics? All we're doing is having a ground for them to spread.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Simply put, we do
not enforce the removal of exotics on Estate lots. In other areas of the
county, we can go in under contract and remove exotics; because of
the size of the Estates lots and the cost and because of the rural nature,
it's part of the requirement when they develop. But undeveloped
lands, we do not have any authority to go out there under government
authority to go and remove exotics.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then why are we spending so
much money removing exotics in the rest of the county?
Page 226
February 10,2009
MR. SCHMITT: We require developers to remove exotics as
part of the development process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then -- but yet if residents in
the urban area have exotics, they've got to get rid of them.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. And, likewise, in the Estates,
we'll cite them for removal if they're deemed a hindrance, but we have
no authority -- we've never had the authority to go in and remove
exotics on Estate lots.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But the seeds just blow all over, right? Is
that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The composting. Is this an
issue?
MR. SCHMITT: Composting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Show me some pictures where
somebody had a pile about 140-foot high.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. Composting was at the direction of this
board. The board discussed an issue in the Estates, as Commissioner
Henning brought up, involving a code case with a pile of palm fronds.
And after discussion by this board, this board directed us to come back
as part of this ordinance to include a section on composting to clarify
and define what was enforceable and define as composting versus
what would be weed and litter, and that's what we attempted to do
under this change we brought to the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that the residents should
have the ability to compost, but it shouldn't end up to be a mini
landfill.
So I think that we have to make sure that we understand what
would be a comparable land -- or a comparable compost pile for a
family out there instead of using this as some kind of an industrial
processing area that it end up being a mini landfill.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's what we tried to do in this. And just
for the -- clarification, what Tim Nance was talking about was
Page 227
February 10,2009
clearing for vegetation removal permits. Right now you can clear up
to an acre when you develop a lot in the Estates, and then you can
clear up additional property. If you need to clear 30 feet around a
home or a structure, normally you have to come in for a vegetation
removal permit. That is an application process, and staff will go out
and review and conduct a site visit.
I guess what they were requesting -- and that's a whole separate
ordinance, but they're asking to have the authority to do that without
going through the vegetation removal permit process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the vegetation removal permit
for mowing grass?
MR. SCHMITT: No, that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: That's this ordinance. That's a different
ordinance. And I think we're trying to -- we're now confusing
everything into one ordinance.
And I apologize, but this was nothing more than an ordinance to
cut grass on abandoned properties that were in foreclosure to allow us
to go out and use the contract to cut the grass on foreclosed properties.
Right now we have no authority to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think where we need to go
-- and I think Commissioner Coyle hit the nail right on the head, I
think there needs to be a workshop put together by that commissioner
in that district, they sit down and hammer out what they want and
make sure they address all these issues before they bring it back to us,
because I'm totally confused.
We've got -- we're not going to remove exotics, we're not going
to -- we've got composting out there, and then there's the deal about
mowing around the perimeter of a building and whether you need a
permit for vegetation removal. It's--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's crazy. It's something that
wasn't even advertised. This is nuts.
Page 228
February 10,2009
MR. SCHMITT: This was at the direction of the board to bring
this back. That's why we brought it back, for your discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Diane, you mentioned that this
30-foot buffer zone for fire protection, you mentioned landscaping.
Are you saying that there's going to be --
MS. FLAGG: No. This does not address landscaping.
Landscaping stays.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. Let me finish what I
was saying. What they're proposing, and I think what you said, there
won't be anything allowed in there like landscaping. Did I hear you
right?
MS. FLAGG: What this other ordinance that was never part of
this, what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. FLAGG: -- what these folks are suggesting is the ability to
completely clear 30 feet from their structure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Is it a requirement and
you can't put landscaping within that 30-foot? Is that your
understanding?
MS. FLAGG: I believe what their concerns are is that the code
allows them to clear an acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. FLAGG: What they're saying is, is that when they want to
clear 30 feet from their house, it exceeds the acre that they're allowed
to clear.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. FLAGG: And so they want to pass, if you will--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you said landscaping, so
why did you say landscaping?
MS. FLAGG: Well, landscaping in terms of like hedges. In
other words, clearing. They can put landscaping in, but they want the
ability to take it out and clear 30 feet from their structure beyond the
Page 229
February 10,2009
one acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They can today. It's not a
requirement to have a hedge.
MS. FLAGG: They -- I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a requirement to have a
hedge.
MS. FLAGG: Oh, I agree with that. But they can't go beyond
the one acre is what the concern is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So let me just see if I understood what
just went on here. There's been so much going on. This actually was
here just to mow the land --
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- 30 feet around the property?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what we were voting on?
MS. FLAGG: That's all we're doing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: These people have some other concerns?
MS. FLAGG: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what we should be doing is vote on
this thing, do we want to let you mow them or not, and bring the other
stuff after it's gone to a workshop, back to us, for consideration; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's about as close as we're
going to get. It's my turn now or no?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. It is your turn. I just wanted to
make sure that we were talking about the same thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we got so far off the mark.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, exotics, Estates area,
the lots are 660 feet deep. There's no way on God's earth you're going
to be able to keep them cleared of exotics. It's not going to happen.
Page 230
February 10,2009
This was recognized by every commission since ancient history, so
that's not even an issue, and it shouldn't be something that we get
involved with on discussion.
As far as you want -- as far as the ordinance for the -- not the
mulching, but the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mowing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- compost pile, okay. Just
exempt the Estates and the agriculture area. The rest of the world
wants it, good for them. You know, I just -- I didn't think it was fair if
-- you know, to impose this upon people that might be doing the right
thing.
That ordinance is very specific of what that compost pile is made
up of and what isn't in it. It seemed like it was an -- extremely
over-regulative, and that was my concern. But if that's not a concern
with the other commissioners, leave that alone.
MS. FLAGG: We have no preference. We'll just apply whatever
you all decide.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let's make sure -- let me make sure
I've got this.
First of all, let staff come back for two items, and then we're
going to sit down in a workshop where everybody, Mr. Nance, Mr.
Ramsey, and whoever else, and Commissioner Coletta, with staff in
order to get down to the other regards.
We need to get the thing resolved on the special magistrate,
because that will save your time; it will save staffs time. We need to
get that done.
Number two, we need to be able to mow 30 foot around the
Estate lots that are foreclosed so I know that they're foreclosed and we
can get it cut around so they're not a fire hazard. We know those two
things. Everybody on this board agrees to those particular items.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do we need a motion? Let me stop
you there. Do we need a motion to that effect?
Page 231
February 10, 2009
MR. MUDD: I need you to tell me to come back to the board if
that's what the board desires to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's more than just foreclosed property. It's
all residential properties within the Estates.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I know we have a motion on
the floor. I'm going to pull my second so that then we can move
forward with this, and then we'll continue on there. Is that okay?
Good.
Okay. So may I have a motion to approve the special magistrate
and also the mowing 30 feet around properties in Golden Gate
Estates?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Primary residences.
MR. MUDD: Primary residences.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Primary residences.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put in the composting
in that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved. Or did you make the
motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You just made it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you just seconded it. Okay.
No more further discussion; all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
Page 232
February 10, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Direction?
Yes. Now, we need direction for staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you bring back that ordinance
about downed vegetation, it's going to be a problem because code
enforcement has, in the past, viewed that as if you have palm fronds
next to a palm tree, that's downed vegetation.
MS. FLAGG: I think we took care -- I can follow up with you
later. But I believe we put an exemption in there for that, horticultural
waste.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The board just --
MS. FLAGG: It's in here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now the direction is that
Commissioner Coletta will meet with the residents that are here and
others who are interested, along with staff, and they'll prepare
something that has to do with the other things like composting and
clearing and so forth, right -- or not composting. Whatever you want
to do, right? And then you'll come back to us with a recommendation,
correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds good. The only
thing is, is I'm very concerned about the fire season that's underway.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's why we had to do this
mowing, and we just did that, right? So we did -- did we vote on that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we're all set on that with a
5-0 and the direction we've given to staff to move forward on the rest
of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about composting?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're going to handle that with your
workshop and come back and tell us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we already know that we
Page 233
February 10,2009
don't want it out in the Estates.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know that. I understand that. And we
all understand that you don't want it. I think you just have to put it in
some form. You bring it back next meeting, great, two meetings.
Doesn't make any difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what's the direction we're
giving staff on that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're going to meet with staff and with
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but compo sting never
was an Issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, then why did you bring it up?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just the -- I brought it up
because of the fact that I want the Estates exempt, but I wanted to give
you the chance to weigh in to exempt it in the rest of the county. That
was the only reason.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's on first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I just thought it was
a repressive ordinance. I don't like green. You know, be it as it is, I
can approve it the way it is as far as just exempting the Estates from it.
That's fine. Does it say agricultural areas, too, or just the Estates?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're only going to do two things
to come back with this next ordinance so I can get ready for the fire
season. You're going to sit down with your folks over there, with
Chief Metzger and with staff, and we're going to get any other issue
that's out there in this change resolved before we make another change
at a future meeting for the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Include composting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
Page 234
February 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think we have to move this. This
is a direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All you need is three nods. You've
got --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've got them all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got three.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2009-03: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 STEPHEN J.
LOCKWOOD, TRUSTEE FOR SJL REALTY II TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY HEIDI WILLIAMS, AICP, OF Q. GRADY
MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., AND RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, ESQ., OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN,
JOHNSON, YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A., REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD, TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 20
TOWNHOUSE, SINGLE-F AMIL Y ATTACHED OR SINGLE-
F AMIL Y DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT 6.81
ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF
MILE WEST OF AIRPORT ROAD (CR 31), IN SECTION 2,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION TO ACCEPT CCPC
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ENHANCED BUFFER ON
EASTERN SIDE WITH AN EIGHT FOOT HEDGE HEIGHT
ALONG CAY LAGOON - ADOPTED
Page 235
February 10,2009
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to one thing that we
haven't done on this agenda yet, and that is 8B. This item requires that
all participants be sworn and ex parte disclosure be provided by --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry that you folks have had to wait this
long.
MR. MUDD: -- commission members.
It's PUDZ-2007-AR-12026, Stephen 1. Lockwood, Trustee for
SJL Realty II Trust, represented by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q.
Grady Minor & Associates, P A, and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire,
of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich & Koester, P A -- and
I'm so glad you're the last item, Rich -- requesting a rezone from the
rural agricultural zoning district to the residential planned unit
development, RPUD, zoning district, for a project to be known as
Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 20
townhouse single-family attached or single-family detached dwelling
units.
The subject 6.81-acre property is located on the south side of
Orange Blossom Drive, approximately one half mile west of Airport
Road, County Road 31, in Section 2, Township 49 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas would like to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to ask of the residents that
have been sitting here -- I assume that these are the residents -- are you
in opposition at all with what's being proposed at the present time?
MS. COX: We have concerns.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right. I was hoping I
could move this along, but if you've got concerns, then we'll hear it. I
just thought maybe we could and --
MR. DAY: We'll be fast if you're fast.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, forget it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'd like to drag this out another hour,
so.
Page 236
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, no, no. I'm just trying to
move this on, but let's get sworn in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We need to swear them in? Okay, fine.
MR. MUDD: And ex parte.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And ex parte. Let's start with ex parte
with Commissioner Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8B I have -- I have talked -- I've
received some correspondence and I've had a meeting with Ms. Heidi
Williams on behalf of Mr. Rich Y ovanovich.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's getting late, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? Getting a little
punchy here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I met with that same gentleman,
and I've also had meetings and correspondence and emails and phone
calls. This was -- there was another issue that was on this piece of
property about a year ago, and I think we've gotten that taken care of.
I had a teleconference with Mr. John Garbo. This was back at
10111/07, and of course this pro- -- this whole thing has changed
around. So hopefully we can get moved -- get this thing moved along
and find out what the concerns are so we can make a motion and
hopefully get everybody out of here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll declare next. I've had
correspondence and emails and I met with Rich and Heidi.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've had written correspondence
and emails, Madam Chair. That's it. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On 2/9 I met with Heidi
Williams and Rich Y ovanovich and I had corresponding emails.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Now, will you swear in
everybody who wishes to speak?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Rich.f
Page 237
February 10, 2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Rich Y ovanovich, for the record. I'll try
to keep this short and simple.
I have had -- since the executive summary was written, I've had a
chance to meet with your staff and your environmental staff, and their
objection to the size of the preserve, I think, has been resolved. We
were able to show them the original SOP and that, what they believe
was supposed to be a preserve is not the case on the original SDP. So
I think that issue is no longer an issue, and they're nodding that that's
correct.
We've -- the petition has changed dramatically since it was
originally proposed. The original proposal was a 70-unit affordable
housing project, and the proposal in front of you is a 20-unit
single-family -- single-family attached duplex or a townhome.
We went through the Planning Commission hearing. The
Planning Commission asked us to do increased buffers around the
perimeter, which we agreed to. They also asked us for the
townhomes, which is consider multifamily under the code, that we
limit the size of the building to no longer -- no longer than 140 feet in
length to make sure that it was compatible with the neighborhood so
that we didn't have eight-plexes or 12-plexes, that we had townhomes,
that was okay, but they needed to be in a smaller building, and that's
what the Planning Commission supported.
Mrs. Cox has a concern that she has built her buffer on our
property, and we have committed, to the maximum extent we can as
we go through our site plan and permitting process, to incorporate that
into our buffer, and we will do that to the extent we can, keeping in
mind that she built it on our property, and I'm sure it was not by
design, because she originally owned all of the property, which this
was split off from.
So we will attempt to incorporate as much of that as we can into
our buffer. I think I've summarized all the issues that we've
committed to and the summary of the Planning Commission
Page 238
February 10,2009
recommendation, and we hope that we can get approval from the
Board of County Commissioners. I do think it was a good process that
we went through with the neighbors, and I think we've addressed
many, ifnot all of the concerns, for a good project.
And with that, unless you need a more detailed presentation, I'll
summarize it that way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's wonderful, Mr. Y ovanovich.
Staff member?
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning.
As Rich, whatever his name is, said, we have met this afternoon
and discussed some additional information and we have resolved our
issues. Staff is recommending that this petition be approved subject to
the existing PUD document.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that meets with Rich's approval as
well? This is an agreement between the two?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. They're agreeing that the preserve
that we presented all along to the neighborhood is the appropriate-size
preserve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Now we have our
speakers. Would you call them, please.
MS. FILSON: Joyce Etchison. She'll be followed by Ann Cox.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for your perseverance.
MS. ETCHISON: It's been a very interesting day. Since this
mornmg.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wish I could say the same thing.
MS. ETCHISON: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is
Joyce Etchison. I'm here on behalf of Cay Lagoon. I am
vice-president of the Board of Cay Lagoon. Cay Lagoon is on the
eastern border and adjacent to Savannah Place.
I'm here just speaking on behalf of the landscaping and buffer.
Right now we have 20-foot solid trees. They may be exotics. I don't
Page 239
February 10, 2009
know what an exotic is, but I know they're loaded with hawks.
If these trees are going to be taken down, my understanding is the
proposal for the landscaping on our buffer to Cay Lagoon is a six-foot
hedge -- I don't know how long it will take it to get to a six-foot hedge
with, I believe, an opening every 30 foot for some little tree. I would
prefer -- we would prefer, on behalf of our board, to seek a more solid
buffer and a higher buffer.
We are a two-story condominium complex. Much of our park's
and our cars' lights go right into them. I also understand that if they
have a pool or community area, it will be toward our buffer. So the
pool would be close to us, probably if they're having one, and our
lights are going to go into them.
I am just proposing that they strongly consider a taller --
something that would maybe go to 12 feet since we have that on our
other three perimeter areas of our project, and that it be a solid buffer.
I believe that the other adjoining properties are asking for the
same, but I'll let them speak. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Ann Cox. She'll be followed by John Garbo.
MS. COX: I'm Ann Cox, and I live on the property adjacent to
this property. I used to own it. My husband and I ran a plant nursery
there, and I've been on the property for 30 years.
I've spoken to Mr. Y ovanovich, and he assures me that the buffer
that now exists between my property and his property that he is
representing will stay there because I believe there is a sufficient space
there to keep the material life planted. In fact, everything on the
property, on both sides, I have planned myself anyway, my husband
and I.
So that was one of my concerns. The other concern is that I want
to make sure that within the PUD there is provision for taking care of
any runoff from the seasonal rains, and I have been assured by them
also that this is taken care of in the PUD, but I just want to reconfirm
that this is a big concern because there is a big runoff during the rainy
Page 240
February 10,2009
season.
That's basically what I wanted to talk about.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is John Garbo. He'll be followed by
Tyler Day.
MR. GARBO: Unfortunately, good evening. John Garbo. I'm
the president of the Orange Blossom/Pine Ridge Community which
was formed about two years ago. As Commissioner Halas said, you
probably got a few letters and emails from our organization early on
when the proposal was for much different than what it is today.
I will tell you our organization is made up of every community
on Orange Blossom Drive. We represent over 2,000 homes with
probably close to 5,000 residents. They didn't tell you this, but those
2,000 individuals gave me their time, so we should be out of here
about -- I think I calculated at 8:30. So sit back, relax, and we'll go
from there. Just kidding.
At any rate, we're -- our organization has followed this very
closely . We are in favor of the organization -- or the proposal as it is
now. We'd like to just see one thing, which I actually spoke to the
developer's representative about after the last public hearing that was
held at the North Collier Government Center, and that is to just have
single-family homes, primarily because Mill Run and Mrs. Cox's
property border on the west and south, I believe it is, and we'll be
backing up to single-family homes.
The area that was discussed that is mainly now a natural pine --
high pine trees, it's going to be removed. We understand that. We've
advised neighbors and Mill Run of that. And they're going to have a
type B buffering within a type A buffer, which is great, with a 25-foot
setback.
If they were single-family homes only, it would be more
compatible with the adjoining neighbors. That's really the only issue
we have.
I would like to say -- and thank both Mr. Y ovanovich and the
Page 241
February 10,2009
folks from Grady Miner and the owner of the property, because over
the last year plus, they really have worked hard to get that property to
be much more compatible than what it was originally proposed for,
and I think it will be a good addition to our neighborhood and
eventually our organization when it's developed. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wasn't it originally proposed for
affordable housing?
MR. GARBO: Yeah, 75 units, yep.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tyler Day.
MR. DAY: They talk about 0 day being the longest day. I think
you people are ones that, perhaps, haven't had to go through that
bombardment, but you've done a marvelous job today.
So I just want to add -- my name is Tyler Day. I'm the former
president of the Villages of Monterey Master Association. I'm a
Vice-president of the Orange Blossom/Pine Ridge Community
Alliance. I support all what John and the other people have said with
regard to this community and the planning that they're doing.
I'd just like to -- we had a letter that we sent to Mr. Ron Russo,
who's the agent for the owner, and I'd just like to excerpt a few things
out of it.
We would like, again, to express on behalf of the Orange
Blossom/Pine Ridge Community Alliance, our appreciation for
reducing the number of proposed residential units from 75 to the
proposed 20. And that was as a result of an amazing letter-writing
campaign that I'm sure a lot of you people had responded to.
While all the details of the project are not clear, it's obvious that a
community of20 homes should have price-point amenities and
compatible quality in line with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Now, we've been talking all day about compatibility, any new
development that's coming in on Orange Blossom or anywhere else
certainly should be compatible, and we're very hopeful that this is
going to be compatible with the communities around it.
Page 242
February 10, 2009
And the last point I'd like to say, it's our desire to have landscape
buffers, which we've all talked about, that will continue to provide
privacy to Mill Run and Cay Lagoon residents, plus the new residents
of Savannah Place. So basically we do support the new group and we
trust that they will be doing what they have indicated that they're
going to do.
Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was our last speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, Rich. When we had a
meeting, you said that -- you told me that everything was taken care
of. So obviously we've got a buffer issue, that somebody would like
to have something higher. We've got -- want to address, make sure
we've got storm water containment taken care of.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm not sure, was this
discussed at the Planning Commission about single-family homes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Every one of these issues was discussed,
as I told you, and the Planning Commission agreed that the
multifamily townhomes limiting them to 140 foot in length was
compatible with the neighborhood. They did raise a single-family
home issue then. We told them we needed -- we needed the ability to
have flexibility, and the concern was compatibility, and they didn't
want a big wall building behind them.
And the Planning Commission suggested by limiting the length
of the building and having four or five units in a building would be
compatible with the single-family home. And that was the motion of
the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The water management is a standard
requirement that we treat -- water management, retain and treat it on
Page 243
February 10,2009
site and discharge it at the appropriate rates, so that was addressed and
committed to at the Planning Commission for Mrs. Cox.
We did commit to incorporate into her -- into our project as much
of her plantings as we can, and we'll do that through the Site
Development Plan or platting process. So that was a commitment that
we made, and we're continuing to make that commitment.
We discussed the buffer on the east side of the property next to
the multifamily, which this woman spoke to, and we agreed to
enhanced the buffer, and that is all in the Planning Commission's
recommendation and was considered by the Planning Commission in
their recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is -- I would assume then, if what
the recommendations were at the Planning Commission, that will be
incorporated into the motion. Does that cover all the concerns that the
residents have at this point in time other than, have you decided what
you're going to do about having a higher buffer?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that -- I thought that was resolved
by the enhanced buffer that we had agreed to by the Planning
Commission, and the increased setbacks from the -- as I understand it,
I think they're more concerned that they're going to somehow
negatively impact us by their cars driving around the neighborhood,
and we're going to have a six-foot -- it's a very small area. If you're
going to put an aerial up, I could show you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I ask a question while you're
talking to him about the buffer?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Rich, could I ask a question--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- while you guys are talking about the
buffer?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you already have pine trees, which
Page 244
February 10,2009
aren't exotics, pine trees there that are the thick buffer, why would you
remove them, why wouldn't you --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we're going to keep as many as we
can, Commissioner Fiala, but you don't know how much exotics are in
there, and we'll have to put in a hedge and supplement it with trees in
the buffer. And there's only a small area, as you can see -- you need to
work it a little bit.
As you can see where Jim's hand is, only a small portion of the
project actually abuts the multifamily to our east. I'm directionally
challenged, as you know. So we will have a buffer there, and I think
their concern was is their lights were somehow going to shine in our
project. And with our hedge and screening that we'll do with the trees,
I think that's really a non -- it's going to be a nonissue for us.
And we -- again, we thought we had taken care of that through
the Planning Commission recommendations. You know, if they want
us to grow the hedge a little higher, we can grow the hedge a little
higher.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, why don't we put that into
the motion?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Eight feet? Do you want to do
eight feet instead of the standard six? That's fine, if that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eight feet. Okay. So I'll make a
motion for approval of this project with the Collier County Planning
Commission recommendation and that we're going to increase the size
of the buffer.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The height of the hedge to eight feet on--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're going to try to save as
many trees as possible along that whole area where the buffer is going
to be what, 15 feet deep?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ifwe do multifamily it's 15, and if we do
single-family, it's \0, but we do the same plantings regardless of the
width. So along -- I just want to make sure I'm clear. So along the
Page 245
February 10,2009
eastern portion of the project, we would grow the hedge to eight feet
adjacent to -- is it Cay Lagoon -- adjacent to Cay Lagoon? Is that the
motion, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is up-side down.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: North is to the bottom here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. North is to the
bottom.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you're talking about east--
thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think I'm right on this one, which scares
me, quite honestly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I second that motion.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: IfMr. Yovanovich got it right, Mr.
Y ovanovich, I think, is having some problems.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coyle, or are you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm just going to second
Commissioner Halas' motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I already seconded it, but I'd be
happy to let you second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to be double sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion on this item?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 246
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for your presence all day long,
keeping us company. Been a long day.
And now, Commissioners, we have a public comment, I believe,
is the last thing on our agenda; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes. I have one speaker for public comment.
Ken Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'm going to be here for an hour and a half,
this is what he said. That's what he told me.
MS. FILSON: He didn't mean it. He was kidding.
MR. THOMPSON: Oh, yeah, he means it. I was here three
times and I -- I'm Ken Thompson. You know, I don't know who put
this dummy next to me over there, but I think this county needs to get
him moved. He's got cameras all over my property. He's got cameras
on the back of my house, my bedrooms. People come up -- I've lost
four customers, my wife has, and they're her oldest customers. She
only got -- works two days, Saturday, three people, and Wednesdays, I
think, Thursday, three people.
And I'm kind of getting sick and tired of this. He's got cameras
on there, and every time somebody comes down the road, he'll run out
in the road calling me all kinds of SBs. Well, that's probably what I
am, but I could give a damn what I am.
But you put code enforcement in and you bitch about somebody
using it. Well, I'm going to tell you something, my wife adopted a
Page 247
February 10,2009
road there for 10 years, and she kept that neighborhood spotless. And
then she put the -- the Sheriffs Department, she put that in.
So every time I try to use that I get a kick in the rear end from
Rambosk. Well, I ain't really worried about Rambosk. I think he'll be
all right. I'm just going to try to get Don Hunter back if I can. That's a
joke. I did that for you.
But this guy next door to me and the EMS and that fire
department, I had the pictures all laid out, but I forgot them. And I
was going to show you what the Sheriffs Department does on their
days off when they're supposed to be working. I was going to show
you what EMS does, and I'm going to show you what the fire
department don't do, just aggravating the hell out of you all night long
with them air horns. They'll come up right in front of my house and
blow the air horns.
It's against the law for them to blow those sirens through a
residential neighborhood that late, at three o'clock in the morning. I'm
telling you.
I wrote them the other night. I was telling this guy, I got this
thing still implanted in me, and I'm having a hard time with it. It's
about to -- it's really cooking me right now. I'm supposed to go back.
And what I'm telling you is somebody pulled me to pieces. I can't
hardly make it with it.
But thing with this guy living next door to me, everybody -- the
Sheriffs Department went around the neighborhood, there ain't a
person there that didn't sign a complaint against him. He walks right
in people's houses, starts cooking his breakfast at two, three o'clock in
the morning. I don't believe I've ever seen an animal quite like this
one.
But he's been -- it's in the State Attorney's Office now. I don't
know when they going to try him, if they ever do. With my luck,
they'll kick it out. You know, my luck, they'll put him right in the
highest court he's ever been in. You won't believe what he's did to me.
Page 248
February 10,2009
Saturday -- I never had mindless treatment like this. I've worked
hard. My wife has worked hard. She got that property from her
mother and father, and I have spent every dime I got just about in it, in
that property, to update it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: I'll be damned if it ain't time for people to
clean up around their house. Start on Weeks Avenue and go all the
way around, come up Becca, and you will find some of the rottenest
garbage --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: -- behind that Pizza Hut. That's the real
place to clean up, and I thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now County Manager?
Careful there.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I have a couple of items. First -- and
I don't mean to -- I just got this yesterday and it was later in the
afternoon, so I just want to make -- I just received this from the
Coconut Creek manager, Mr. David Rivera. We've got enough David
Riveras. Now there's the third one. We've got one that works for
Hole Mon- -- not Bird, excuse me -- for WilsonMiller, we have a
representative, and now we have a city manager.
But the interesting parts of this, all of a sudden it shows up and
says they're doing testimony, and this has to do with the Seminole
Indian Tribe and gambling; attached to it there is a draft. And I don't
plan to -- a draft agreement which I didn't even know existed dated of
August 9,2007. Bottom line -- and we can cut this to the chase.
Is there anybody on the dais that would be opposed to have an
Page 249
February 10,2009
agreement broke red by the state that would provide Collier County 5
percent of the gross gambling revenues from each Seminole gambling
facility, i.e., the one in Immokalee, and it would come into the general
fund?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sold America.
MR. MUDD: And so -- and the reason I'm asking the question--
I got this yesterday and I said, well, you know, this is kind of
interesting, and it goes on and on. And oh, by the way, we have no
partners to share with because we have no abutting municipalities, so
Collier County would get the 5 percent.
Today in my email I received this notification, that the house
democratic caucus is meeting with the Seminole gaming CEO
tomorrow in Tallahassee. And I just want to make sure that when I
get with Keith Arnold and crew that I'm staying within the board's
intent that -- stay within the 5 percent gross revenues from -- on an
annual basis, instead of impact fees -- the Indians don't pay impact
fees. This would be their fee to the county for their impacts that that
casino would have on the county in general.
And so I could tell Keith, support that draft agreement, and I'll
fax it to him tonight so he has it for tomorrow's meeting. But -- I
wouldn't do this normally, but this just showed up out of the blue, and
I don't want to miss the opportunity and not have someone to speak for
us, and then all of a sudden Collier County gets sliced out of the --
sliced out of the agreement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have to do anything for that 5
percent, sign anything?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, breathe would be really good, and what
we do is we'd have an agreement that we would have to sign when it
comes to us in order to get it done.
But I just wanted to make sure that I was on firm ground with the
board in this particular regard. Again--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you need three nods?
Page 250
February 10,2009
MR. MUDD: I think I received three nods on this one. I think I
have five.
The next item is, we've been notified by our outside attorney
that's legal counsel for the Code Enforcement Board that she is going
to resign. Ifwe were able to get county attorney -- and, again, I didn't
want to have people with -- if I could get the county attorney to do it,
we could save $14,000 a year.
And I've talked to Jeff about this one. He's willing to give it a
try. The only piece that's in there that could cause an issue -- and I
don't believe it will -- would be somebody coming in and saying, well,
the county attorney gave an opinion on a Code Enforcement Board
and that he's representing the Code Enforcement Board in the
particular action.
But we'll take a look at that, but I just wanted to make sure we
were in keeping. Again, instead of going out and advertising for an
outside consultant, to try to save dollars, we could use the county
attorney in this particular regard.
Jeff, did I miss anything?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. The state statutes authorize the county
attorney to either represent the Code Enforcement Board or be the
prosecuting attorney. We're almost never the prosecuting attorney. In
those few instances where staff would ask us to prosecute, we could
go to the special magistrate who has all the powers of the Code
Enforcement Board. So that if the board wished -- and it's really a
matter of public perception on this, we could save the county $14,000
a year by our being the Code Enforcement Board's attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. Okay. No problem with that from
up here.
MR. MUDD: Do I have three nods to at least move in that
regard, and then if something comes up as we do it?
The next issue is, I received yesterday from staff an application
for Collier County to put itself into the National Association of
Page 251
February 10,2009
Counties for a 2009 achievement award application. This has to do
with our Blight Prevention Program.
And what I need to have -- because there's a suspense on here of
13 February, is permission from the board so that your chairwoman
could sign this particular application at the close of business today,
and I can get this out in the mail.
It has no revenue issues, no money issues with the county. It
would just be an application that would come back. They'd give us
some kind of a plaque if we win, and at the same time we could help
other municipalities in counties throughout America, helping us work
on foreclosure problems.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great idea. I think you're seeing five
nods over here. One big one over here from Commissioner Henning.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
And the last thing, a while back I said that I was going to start
looking at real estate to try to get us out of the public -- or excuse me
-- the property appraiser's building and the rent.
I did meet with Mr. Oboss (phonetic), who's the present landlord
of the commercial property that's over here across the street on Airport
and 41 where the property appraiser resides. Our annual rent there is
$648,000.
Because of the economic times, there are some properties that are
out there that are good buys at this particular juncture.
I met with Mr. Oboss. I offered Mr. Oboss $4 million for the
building. All of this is predicated on the board -- coming back to the
Board of County Commissioners and getting approval for that. Mr.
Oboss is not interested in selling his property for any price.
He is very concerned that he stays the county's friend. He's been
a good landlord, but that's where that ended.
So I made sure I went to see him to make sure he was aware that
we were going to come out of our rental agreement.
In the interim I've -- there was the Elks Club on Radio Road just
Page 252
February 10,2009
at the bottom part of Livingston Road that everybody knows that -- all
the commissioners have been there -- that's been up for sale.
The asking price on that particular property is six -- was $6.2
million. I put in an offer at $3 million holding a quarter of a million
dollars in escrow because I believe they have some structural wall
problems, to make sure that the county was covered in that particular
regard.
I received information yesterday, and they turned that offer
down. They told us that their appraisal had it appraised well over $4
million. I don't deny that particular -- and we'll do our own.
I counteroffered three-and-a-half million, again, with the 250,000
in escrow. They came back and said, no, it came back -- well, it came
back with an offer -- counteroffer that was 3.75 million. And I
basically said, last offer was final. And all of a sudden, within 10
seconds, I was at 3.5 million with 250- in escrow. The paperwork will
come forward.
We need to make sure that we have our 90-day due diligence
time period and whatnot in order to get that done, along with our
appraisals. I'll let you -- I wanted to make sure you knew that. That
all happened within about 15 minutes yesterday afternoon on my
email, but I thought you should know about that in that particular
regard. So that's out there right now.
And I believe everything that I know of, that is a pretty good
sales price, and it's a rather large lot, almost 10 acres, has a hundred
and -- has 200-plus parking spaces that are on there. And, again,
anybody that's been in the Elks Club understands the parking area
that's there. It would provide the county a facility that's got 27,000
square feet in it, and we can get some storage issues and other things
done.
But more to follow on that one. But I just wanted to make sure
the board was aware.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioner Coletta has a
Page 253
February 10,2009
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, forgive me. But I've still
got concerns about all this, and I talked with Mr. Mudd about it
several times. And I'm hoping in the very near future I'll get a tour of
all the county complexes to be able to see exactly what we have.
But with 22 percent of our people laid off, it seems like we could
consolidate what workforce we have and come up with enough room
to make it operate.
I never -- I've heard that it's not possible, but I still haven't been
convinced. And I need to share that with you. I'm not saying this is a
bad deal. I'm just saying that I do have concerns.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Continue, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And how about our county
attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have one item. It's a rather large one.
The -- I want to talk a bit about the decision that came down on
the clerk's case. As you know, the District Court of Appeals has come
down reversing the trial judge. And the District Court of Appeals is
saying that the clerk is entitled to the interest on the surplus funds that
the county has; in other words, the amount that he's investing for you,
the interest received on that is deemed to be income for the clerk.
I learned about this decision, curiously enough, from a phone call
from the Florida Association of County (sic) attorneys, Ginger de
LaGalle (phonetic), who was horrified by the decision and wanted to
know what we were going to do about it and offered, frankly, to get
her organization to help us get to the Florida Supreme Court on this,
because this has statewide implications.
We have the ability to file a petition with the second circuit
asking basically two things. One's for a rehearing of the decision.
They'll deny that. The other one will be for them to certify this as a
matter of great state importance so that if they were to do that, we
Page 254
February 10,2009
could then petition the Supreme Court to ask them if they want to look
at this.
The substantial probability is they're going to say no to that either
way; however, it's a very minimal cost to do this, and the potential is
to get the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
Now, the advantage of getting this in front of the Florida
Supreme Court is, one, you may get a reversal but, two, even if the
Florida Supreme Court affirms the decision, Tallahassee's now aware
of this decision. They're more likely, from a legislative standpoint, if
they're bothered by this, to make a change rather than just stay the
district court opinion.
We would probably get notice from the second circuit within 30
days of our application, and so I'd be able to come, you know, in a
couple weeks and let you know what's going on.
If the second court denied our motion, which is a substantial
probability, at that point in time, I'd probably come to you, ask for a
shade session so we can discuss settlement in the clerk's case.
So this is really the last piece of it that's active right now that we
have to make a decision on. I don't want to go forward without board
direction on this.
Jackie's already done pretty much all the work. Florida
Association of Counties' attorneys, at this point in time my
understanding is they're willing to help us with a brief in support of
this. I need to let them know, because I think Friday is the day we're
going to be filing, and their last day, I think, would be Tuesday to do
that, but they would also intend to file Friday. It's just a quick time to
turn around. It's up to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know the fee to file a
petition in the Supreme Court is $300. That's what they have online.
That's the only thing I know about the fiscal impact. So what is the
fiscal impact to taxpayers?
Page 255
February 10,2009
MR. KLA TZKOW: I would have Jackie do the paperwork so
that there'd be no outside counsel on this. It would be Jackie's time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think I need to make you
aware of where I stand on this thing pretty quickly. I think it's a bad
decision. It means that taxpayers' money is going to be spent by
someone who doesn't have to get approval for expenditure and doesn't
really have any oversight.
But the point is that I have said from the very beginning, if we
get a court decision, I'm going to accept it and abide by it. As bad as
it might be, I'm not interested in pursuing this any further, okay? I've
had it. We've spent enough time and enough money on this, and --
although I think it is wrong, but nevertheless, that's the way it's going
to be.
If the Court tells me that I've got to release millions of dollars to
someone to spend taxpayer money without any accountability and
without any approvals, then that's what I'm going to do. And I'll
probably try to get some audits from time to time to find out what's
going to be going on -- what's being done with it, but I'm not sure we'll
ever get that from the clerk.
But in any event, I'm finished with it, okay? I'm through.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I wasn't quite done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know that -- I mean, the
law's pretty clear that whatever the clerk in this case doesn't use for his
office, he's to return it to the Board of County Commissioners. County
manager budgeted those monies, and it's anticipated on a monthly
basis; is that a fair statement?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I -- the clerk's particular budget -- there is
no budget for the clerk in our -- in our approved budget because he
claimed to be a fee officer.
Page 256
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. But the law says
whatever funds he has left over -- and it's just like the Tax Collector--
he's to turn over to the Board of Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my question is, were you--
on the interest money, you were anticipating it and trying to get that
back at each month, if I'm --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's what the board's resolution that had
passed in September of 2007 had stated. The issue now -- and oh, by
the way, in your budget, clerk's interest on the budget that you passed
was projected to be $20 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So Madam Chair, if you
don't mind, why don't you allow me to work with the County
Attorney's Office and the clerk to see if we can get payments on a
monthly basis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First of all -- I'm sorry if! stepped in front
of you.
Back in 2002 when we had -- when the clerk was a budget officer
-- and he was a budget officer for as long as I can remember way back
when and always was before this clerk was in office -- and I said -- he
came to my office and he said, you ought to put your interest money
with me.
So I said, great. So I brought it to everybody's attention at that
board meeting and said, let's put our interest money with the Clerk of
Courts. And, of course, the main concern was, will we get our interest
money back, not only the interest, but the interest on the interest
money, because we need it for other things, especially in these down
times when we're trying to keep our employees working. We need
that money desperately.
And he said, you'll get every single cent of your money back, and
with that, we all voted for it.
Now, all of a sudden, it's legal for him to take our money and, by
Page 257
February 10, 2009
the way, he doesn't have to account for it. He can spend it on suing
our pants off all the time, and that's perfectly okay, and it just bothers
me tremendously.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I, myself, am in favor of joining
with the Florida Association of Counties to pursue this to the utmost.
I feel that, contrary to what's been published in the newspaper, I
believe that the Board of County Commissioners in any county have
the final say in regards to monies and how they are spent. And I feel
that I want to pursue this until the final straw. So that's where I stand
on this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I couldn't agree more. I think
that we need to bring resolution to this. And this is something that will
have a clear path. And once it gets there, it's the end results. There's
nothing that can happen after that?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, where we are right now -- the end of the
road is the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. If the Florida
Supreme Court accepts the appeal, then that's it. If the Florida
Supreme Court does not accept the appeal, that's also it.
But the rules of appellate procedure permit the county in this case
to file a notice for a rehearing and also to file a petition, our motion for
certification, to the Florida Supreme Court.
At that point, which is pretty much strictly procedural, it's over.
It's -- as far as this case is, and then you know exactly what the law is.
You've taken it as far as it will go, and that is the law that's going to be
until such time as some other incident arises.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm for proceeding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coyle, then me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, it's my understanding -- and
correct me if I am wrong -- but the appeal that was -- the ruling came
Page 258
February 10,2009
down on, that appeal was put in by the Clerk of the Courts; is that
correct?
MS. HUBBARD: That's correct. The entire litigation matter
was instigated by the clerk, not the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So why didn't the county
get involved in this, or is it strictly the clerk's side of the proceedings?
MS. HUBBARD: No. Both parties were involved in the appeal.
The county filed a brief -- the clerk filed his brief first, the county filed
a brief in opposition, the clerk filed a responsive brief to our brief.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Then the clerk requested expedited appeal.
We had oral argument on December 2. And, as you know, the ruling
came down on January 29th.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: And really, the only thing left to do, if you
vote to continue, is to file additional legal writings with the Court.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I hope that we -- that the --
what I hope that we gain out of this process is that someone tells us
who has the utmost authority, the Board of County Commissioners or
the Clerk of Courts. That's what I want to find out, okay?
MS. HUBBARD: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think they've already told us. It's
the clerk. But nevertheless.
I do applaud the three members of the commission who want to
proceed with this, and I don't blame you. The problem is, that unless
we get some other counties in Florida to express concerns about this,
it's not going to go anywhere. Nobody's going to care about it, and it --
now, I've been told that it's not likely anybody else is going to get
involved in it because nobody else has a clerk like we have.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MS. HUBBARD: Well, they're -- well, go ahead.
Page 259
February 10, 2009
MR. KLA TZKOW: The Florida Association of County
attorneys are going to be filing a brief in support of this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, big deal.
MS. HUBBARD: Plus Herb -- plus their county, Herb Teal
(phonetic), his county.
MR. KLATZKOW: Leon County.
MS. HUBBARD: Leon County's filing -- wishes to file an
amicus brief also. So you have two entities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are the only ones that
are interested in doing anything?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, the opinion is just starting to go around
the state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how long do we have before
we make a decision?
MR. KLA TZKOW: We have to file by Friday. It's a very -- it's
MS. HUBBARD: It's a short process.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's a very short process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I can understand why
you want to do that.
But it's absolutely critical if we're going to get any attention from
anybody to get more counties involved in this.
Now, I want you to explain to me again, why are the other
counties not so concerned about this?
MS. HUBBARD: Well, if I may, we did a survey in the past
week after the opinion came down, and what we found out was that of
the 67 counties in the State of Florida, 57 of those counties utilize the
clerk for their investments. Ten counties do not.
The -- both Jeff and I participated in a conference call. The
import of this decision isjust starting to move around the state.
Of those 57 counties, some of them are charter counties, some of
them are not that, use the clerk to handle their investments.
Page 260
February 10, 2009
We spoke to quite a few of those counties in compiling this list.
Apparently some clerks feel that they don't have a lot of surplus funds,
so it's not a major issue to them. It's going to be an issue, it seems to
me, to the counties in which they do have substantial surplus funds,
which we don't know which counties do and which counties don't, and
we don't know -- we have copies of all the charters, but we don't really
know whether or not there are ordinances that prevent the clerk from
taking the interest in all of these counties or whether each charter
county prevents the kind of problem that we have. That analysis has
really not been completed, and I think people around the state are just
beginning to look at that issue.
So it's a new issue. It does have some room for argument that the
opinion was incorrect. And the briefs are pretty much prepared. We
do have at least two amicus people who are going to petition the court
to file briefs in support of our position.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- all right. It looks
like we've got a majority that want to proceed, so I'm not going to try
to talk them out of it. I encourage them to proceed.
But the other issue I want to make absolutely clear -- and I
believe, based upon past comments by other members of the board,
most of the members of the board agree with this statement -- this has
absolutely nothing to do with trying to limit the clerk's ability to
properly audit funds or the expenditure of money in Collier County.
If the clerk walked through the door in the next five minutes and
gave this board reason to believe that there was something wrong in
some department, there was something wrong with some contract and
he felt it needed to be audited, I would vote to give him the money to
do it, okay. So this has absolutely nothing to do with the clerk's ability
to audit.
The point is, he has never once, in the seven years I've been here,
come before this commission and said, I think we have a problem. I
think we ought to audit somebody or some department or some fund.
Page 261
February 10, 2009
I've never heard that from the clerk.
And so for people to allege that we're doing this because we want
to restrict the clerk's ability to perform valid audits is absolutely -- is a
distortion of the facts, okay.
But nevertheless, that's my position, and I applaud the majority
of the board for proceeding.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good luck.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I'd like to ask, how
many ofthe clerks around the State of Florida, 67 counties, how many
are actually budget officers and how many are fee officers?
MR. KLA TZKOW: We believe that pretty much all are budget
officers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, with this decision, they may be doing
the calculus in their head, are they better off as a fee officer or budget
officer. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would think that the other counties
would get pretty nervous. And when they see that their interest dollars
have wings on it and they can't even ask for any accounting, I would
guess a lot of people are going to be very nervous.
And I liken it to a bank. When I take my money to a bank and it
earns interest, I expect to be able to get my interest when I want it. I
don't expect the bank to say, well, you know what, we've had a lot of
extra expenses, so I'm going to -- I'm going to take your money and,
really, I don't have to tell you where I'm spending it. Anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me. So is that all? You've got
some direction from us.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's all, yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three people that said please move
forward, Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Page 262
February 10,2009
Coletta. Thank you very much.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have -- yes, I do have something
very quick. I had a constituent come talk with me within the past
week. I hope he's gone to the county manager to get on the schedule
for public petition. It has to do with Mr. Thompson.
Okay. So I'm told that it is -- is going to be on a public petition.
And I want to tell you where this -- I think what I'm going to do.
I'd like to ask the county manager to get me a report from all of
the appropriate agencies listing the times that Mr. Thompson has
called the police department, the fire department, the EMS, the code
enforcement people, anybody who goes out to his property and spends
their time listening to his stories, because I would like to have this
board investigate charging him a fee that covers the cost of the time
wasted by our staff, the sheriffs staff, anybody else's staff, in going
out on these wild goose chases.
I saw a list of calls for one day. For one day there were 25 calls,
and there were police officers who were out there, there were code
enforcement people who were out there, you know. It just goes on and
on and on. It doesn't ever stop. And the only way I think we're going
to stop this is to charge Mr. Thompson a fee for wasting the time of
our personnel.
Weare having a difficult budget time, and we need to take some
action about this. This has been going on for the seven years I've been
on this commission. He's come here hundreds of times, and that's only
-- and he's talked with the staff more than he's talked with us.
So we've got to take some action about this. We just can't permit
this to continue. He harasses everybody in the neighborhood about
something.
MR. MUDD: Two years. Commissioner, you're making a
request for two years? You don't want to go any deeper than two
Page 263
February 10, 2009
years, do you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Over the past decade would be
really good, but two years if that's all you can imagine -- all you can
manage.
MR. MUDD: No, we can manage it, but it just gets to be--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's take a look at the two years,
and then see where that takes us, and then if we can --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Commissioner Coletta has a
comment on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand your concern,
but there might be a better way to approach this, you know. You're
talking about a person that has issues in life, that they go past what
you see in here.
What I might suggest is maybe we might be able to come up with
an understanding when people out there in staff, when they receive the
phone calls, treat him with the kind of deference that needs to be to be
able to just handled in on the phone call, refer to a supervisor,
whatever.
But I'm very nervous about going -- for spending the amount of
time it's going to take to research something that we already know the
answer to. He takes an exorbitant amount of staff time, not only our
staff, but the Sheriffs Department and everyone else.
Maybe Jim Mudd could intercede on our behalf to all these
different agencies, county -- in the county itself, our county
government, and the Sheriffs Department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leo Ochs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's my problem. I've through of
that and I've gone through it. Let's suppose that the police department
gets a call from him, he's making some wild allegation about what's
going on out there, police department is very diplomatic, says, yes, sir,
we understand, we've been out there before, we're not going to come
out, and there's really something bad going on. You see?
Page 264
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we have a false report law
that if you file a false report, you can be prosecuted for it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that that's true of code
enforcement. I don't know if it's true of --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: County Manager's Office nor your office.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't know if we have
those kind of things.
MR. KLATZKOW: I had a gentleman in my office, and, you
know, to say that he's being harassed is putting it mildly. His life is a
nightmare right now. I mean, it's incessant, the complaints.
We control code enforcement, and I've asked my staff to put
together a memorandum of like a do not respond. Code enforcement's
not a matter oflife, safety, and health issues. So if there was
something horrible going on like a fire or EMS, that's one thing, but to
constantly utilize our staff as a hammer to bang your neighbor time
and time and time again, I think, is inappropriate, but that will be a
board decision.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think it's inappropriate, too,
and I'd like to take some action against him. I'm tired of this. Seven
years. My patience has worn out, and I know the sheriffs has, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do you have some direction on that,
Mr. Mudd, or will you work that out with--
MR. MUDD: I'll try to get some --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Coyle?
MR. MUDD: -- historical information and we'll keep cranking.
This gentleman will petition the board at the next meeting, and Mr.
Klatzkow's already working on an opinion or whatnot in order to give
some direction from the board to staff as far as cease and desist is
concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay, thank you,
Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Halas?
Page 265
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that County
Manager Jim Mudd, myself, and Deb Wight made a fast trip up to
Washington. We saw snow. We froze. But I think the end result was
that our concerns were addressed.
And I believe that through the auspices of our lobbyist up there,
that we're going to get some funding back down here for a lot of our
projects; probably the majority of them.
I also would like to say that with our meeting with Congressman
Diaz-Balart, Commissioner -- or excuse me -- County Manager Mudd
basically said that there should be accountability for this massive
amount of aid that seems to be flowing out of Washington in regards
to people who claim they have shovel-ready projects.
Jim Mudd made it very clear to his staff that these people -- that
our shovel-ready projects better be shovel-ready. All the permitting
by other agencies, other than local, need to be addressed and cleared,
and that the projects that we have on the shelf can immediately -- if
there's money that happens to come down from Washington, to start
building infrastructure and putting people in Collier County back to
work.
The manner in which County Manager Mudd made that -- and I
hope there's no offense here, but he says, if somebody gave me some
wrong information, they'll be gone. I'll ask them for their resignation.
The point being that Congressman Diaz-Balart was so impressed
that he brought this up to the congressman from Minnesota, Oberstar,
who is in Congress, the -- kind of the overseer of how they're going to
dispense these funds. And if I'm --
MR. MUDD: Transportation appropriations. I mean, he is the
committee chair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so any of the
transportation things, Diaz-Balart took -- asked if we had an extra
book, which is about so thick, that our lobbyist put together, and we
said yes. And he immediately took it down to the floor after we left,
Page 266
February 10,2009
and Jim Mudd got a phone call from chief of staff from Diaz-Balart's
office saying that it had made it down to the floor in the House and
that the people were impressed with what we want to have -- make
sure that the funds are committed and that if we -- if states or counties
such as us can't use the funds, then it must be returned back to the
people in Washington DC.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's great.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we did leave quite an
impression there, and I think the trip was fulfilling for us, that we've
accomplished the task, and we're just now waiting to see what the
appropriations are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for going up and representing
us. You do a great job every year, and we so appreciate that. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank you.
Mr. Mudd, on the 24th, is that when we're going to be issuing
budget guidance? When does this come into play?
MR. MUDD: I believe we're shooting for 2/24, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the next meeting
we're going to be discussing budget guidance and -- there's going to be
an issue that we need to be able to start thinking about in great detail
at this point in time. There's going to be many different things.
There's going to be -- all sorts of sacred cows are going to get knocked
out of the picture for this particular budget coming up. I got no doubts
about it.
One of the things that we need to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Limerock roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Limerock roads.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's very possible. Also
Page 267
February 10,2009
planted mediums (sic).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what we need to do
is we need to come to this thing with our minds wide open, how we're
going to be able to survive, how we're going to be able to meet the
basic needs that are out there, health, safety, and welfare. That's going
to have to take a precedence.
I already have concerns over -- I was reading, there was
something like 17,000 people in Collier County now that are on food
stamps. It was an unbelievable number.
So this situation seems to be picking up steam as we go forward,
and so what we're going to have to be looking at, how we're going to
be able to keep our citizens together, body and soul. A lot of the fluff
that we've been offering on a regular basis -- I'm sorry, you were --
forgive me. I thought you were signaling me to be quiet or something.
That's Commissioner Coyle's job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right, that is it, but
between now and next meeting, we have to do a little soul searching.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can I ask? I have a little problem
sometimes with it as well, because as we cut back more and more of
our dollars, we cut off jobs, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we put more people out of work. Do
we want to spend the money or try and at least eke out some kind of --
so at least keep people semi working so that they can partially fund
their family or eliminate the jobs altogether. That's something else we
have to consider.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's what Obama's doing
for us, I guess, with his stimulus plan.
But meanwhile, we have to be realistic what we're going to have
Page 268
February 10,2009
to work with. I doubt there's going to be any turn back money that
we'll have to argue over. I can almost see that just disappearing into
the regular budget.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Some of it --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's very little money
there. I don't think there's going to be an awful lot to talk about. But I
just had to bring it up now. I mean, it's a very big concern to me
because there's a lot of things that I am needing in my district that I
know are going to go unfulfilled, at least for the next couple of years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Me, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so please, between now
and the next meeting, keep your minds open.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have to think about trying to keep
our people working as well.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Happy Valentine's Day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks.
And actually, that's all. I have nothing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're adjourned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need a motion.
MR. MUDD: Motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I need a motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Made me do it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He made a motion, I seconded.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion by Coyle, second by
Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 269
February 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
The Henning move.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now you can go home.
****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al - Moved to Item #10F
Item #16A2
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF COPPER COVE
PRESERVE, UNIT TWO - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2009-27: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONAWALK PHASE 3A
(WINDING CYPRESS PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2009-28: EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE
Page 270
February 10,2009
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE
- DUE TO THE DELAY IN COMPLETION OF THE
COMMITTEE'S FIVE YEAR REVIEW OF THE RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM, NEW TERM EXPIRA TION DATE
IS APRIL 24, 2010
Item #16B 1
BID NO. 09-5144 - 111 TH AVENUE AT 8TH STREET
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (PROJECT NO. 600741/F.M.
NO. 415543-1) TO BETTER ROADS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$148,660.60 WITH 10% CONTINGENCY OF $15,000.00 FOR A
TOTAL OF $163,660.60 - TO ADD DEDICATED TURN LANES;
CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN SPRING OF 2009
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2009-29: THE DONATION OF PLANTS FROM
THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT (M.S.T.U.) TO THE NAPLES BOTANICAL
GARDEN (NBG) - DUE TO THE REMOVAL OF PLANT
MATERIAL AFFECTED BY A LIGHTING PROJECT AT THE
BA YSHORE BRIDGE (ESTIMATED VALUE: $3000.00
Item #16B3
THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND PINE AIR LAKES
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE
RIGHT-OF-WAY ON NAPLES BOULEVARD-
IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE FUNDED AND MAINTAINED
BY PINE AIR LAKES CDD
Page 271
February 10,2009
Item # 16B4
A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $223,990, TO URS FOR
PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT FOR THE LEL Y
AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP)
LELY MAIN CANAL (EAST - WEST) PHASE UNDER
CONTRACT #05-3657, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND
OVERSIGHT SERVICES - TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
SUPPORT INVOLVING CONTRACT SCOPING, PLAN
REVIEWS, SCHEDULING REVIEWS, BUDGETING,
EVALUATION OF COMPLETENESS OF SUBMITTALS, AND
PAYMENT SUBMITTALS
Item #16B5
CONTRACT #08-5132, TO AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS
FOR PROVISION OF A RED LIGHT RUNNING CAMERA
ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM - FOR SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16Cl
CONTRACT ITB #08-5075, COLLECTION AGENCY SERVICE
FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO UNITED ADJUSTMENT
CORPORATION - THE TERM IS FOR 2 YEAR PERIOD, WITH
A RENEWAL CLAUSE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2 YEARS
Item #1601
FIVE (5) LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES AT $14,987.08 EACH FOR
Page 272
February 10,2009
OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING
UNITS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY AT LIBERTY
LANDING - DEFERRING $74,935.40 IN IMPACT FEES FOR
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (FOR
FELIX AND IRMA, LOT 126; MICHELINE BRIGNOL AND
DACHNA CIVIL, LOT 123; MICHELLE CANALES, LOT 125;
JOSE GOMEZ VEGA AND MARGAITA GOMEZ, LOT 124 AND
ROMENER BAPTISTE, LOT 121)
Item #1602
EIGHT (8) DEVELOPER LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR DEFERRAL
OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES AT $14,987.08
EACH FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY AT LIBERTY
LANDING - DEFERRING $119,896.64 IN IMPACT FEES FOR
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (FOR
LOTS 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 AND 63 IN LIBERTY LANDING)
Item #16D3
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 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D4
REPLACING PAGE 2 OF 10 DUE TO A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
Page 273
February 10, 2009
ON THE FDEP COST SHARE CONTRACT #05C01 FOR THE
CITY OF NAPLES/COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RE-
NOURISHMENT PROJECT - DUE TO A CLERICAL ERROR
Item #1605
REVISED USE AGREEMENT NO. U-0344 BETWEEN BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST
FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND COLLIER COUNTY
FOR ACCESS TO DELNOR- WIGGINS STATE PARK FOR
WIGGINS PASS DREDGING
Item # 1606
AN AMENDMENT TO THE EDEN GARDENS APARTMENTS
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PROGRAM (SHIP) FOR (55) FIFTY-FIVE MULTI-FAMILY
RENT AL UNITS SUBRECIPIENT LOAN APPROVED ON
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 (ITEM 16027) FOR $442,000.00,
ALLOWING FOR A TIME EXTENSION, BUDGET CHANGE
AND PAYMENTS TO BE MADE TO EDEN GARDENS
APARTMENT LLP AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
INCURRED FOR ELIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
AGREEMENT EVEN THOUGH LEASING OF THE UNITS IS
NOT COMPLETE - THESE UNITS ARE FOR MIGRANT FARM
WORKERS IN THE IMMOKALEE AREA
Item #1607
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND BUDGET
Page 274
February 10, 2009
AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL GRANT A WARD
FOR THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM - FOR THE
PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009
Item # 16D8
AN AMENDMENT TO THE BIG CYPRESS HOUSING
CORPORATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) FOR (55) FIFTY-FIVE MULTI-
FAMILY RENTAL UNITS SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
APPROVED ON JULY 24, 2007 (ITEM #120) FOR $192,000.00,
ALLOWING FOR TIME EXTENSION AND FINAL PAYMENTS
TO BE MADE TO BIG CYPRESS AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR
EXPENSES INCURRED FOR ELIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE AGREEMENT EVEN THOUGH LEASING OF THE
UNITS IS NOT COMPLETE - THESE UNITS ARE FOR
MIGRANT FARM WORKERS IN THE IMMOKALEE AREA
Item # 1609
APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR A SAFE HAVENS: SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE
EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 FROM
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND, IF
AWARDED, SERVING AS THE FISCAL AGENT AND
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A SUB-RECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH CHILD ADVOCACY COUNCIL (DBA
CHILD PROTECTION TEAM) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16010
Page 275
February 10,2009
AN AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY CHILD
ADVOCACY COUNCIL DBA CHILD PROTECTION TEAM,
PROVIDING SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES IN
COLLIER COUNTY. SERVICES WILL BE REIMBURSED
THROUGH A GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN, WHICH BEGAN SEPTEMBER I, 2007 AND ENDS
AUGUST 31, 2009
Item #16El
A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH
GEORGE VEGA, TOM BROWN, LARRY MARTIN AND JACK
STANLEY, AKA PALM LAKE INVESTMENTS, FOR
TEMPORARY OFFICE SPACE TO HOUSE THE OFFICE OF THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW
COURTHOUSE ANNEX BUILDING AT A MONTHLY COST OF
$17,225.10, PROJECT #52004-1- LEASES WERE SCHEDULED
TO EXPIRE IN FEBRUARY
Item #16E2
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
MAHLAN HOUGHTON AND PAULA HOUGHTON FOR 2.73
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$44,000 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53 AS
PART OF THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-
PARCEL PROJECT
Item # 16E3
Page 276
February 10, 2009
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MONTY
D. ROBINSON FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $36,800 - LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53 AS PART OF THE RED MAPLE SWAMP
PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item # 16E4
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
THEODORE W. ROMAK FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18,700 - LOCATED IN
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53 AS PART OF THE RED
MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI-PARCEL PROJECT
Item #16E5
THE COLLIER COUNTY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN AND
FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN DOCUMENTS EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1,2009 - PROVIDING GROUP HEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE TO EMPLOYEES THROUGH A
PARTIALLY SELF-INSURED GROUP HEALTH PROGRAM
Item # 16E6
BID NO. 09-5146, HANDYMAN AND MINOR CARPENTRY
SERVICES TO BQ CONCRETE LLC; ONESOURCE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND BUILDERS, INC.;
HOMESCAPE CONSTRUCTION, INC.; SPECTRUM
CONTRACTING, INC.; AND CALI AND ASSOCIATES, INC.,
FOR HANDYMAN AND MINOR CARPENTRY SERVICES FOR
Page 277
February 10, 2009
AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $70,000 - FOR THE
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF COUNTY OWNED AND
LEASED BUILDINGS
Item #16E7
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO
BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF
DECEMBER 15,2008 THROUGH JANUARY 16,2009
Item #16E8
A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
DOMENICO AND MARIA LAGRAST A FOR THE CONTINUED
USE OF TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE/OFFICE SPACE USED BY
THE SHERIFFS OFFICE AT A FIRST YEARS COST OF $52,800
- LOCATED ON MERCANTILE AVENUE AND USED FOR
THEIR FLEET MAINTENANCE, RADIO SHOP, MOBILE DATA,
TELEPHONE AND PURCHASING OPERATIONS
Item #16E9
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FIRST
QUARTER OF FY 09 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16EI0
RESOLUTION 2009-30: AMENDING THE PURCHASING
Page 278
February 10,2009
POLICY TO ALLOW STAFF TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FROM
FIRMS UNDER CCNA FIXED TERM AGREEMENTS
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2009-31: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED
BUDGET - FOR REVENUE RECEIVED FROM NCH
HEAL THCARE FOR EMS CERTIFICATE RENEWAL (BA 09-
157) AND GRANT REVENUE FROM FLORIDA AIRPORT
COUNCIL FOR MARCO (09-152) AND IMMOKALEE (09-151)
Item # 16F2
A PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE OPPORTUNITY
FOR A VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM
TO ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES UPON APPROVAL BY THE
BOARD OF AN ENABLING RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE
STAFF TO ADVERTISE SAID ORDINANCE FOR APPROVAL
AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING - TO ASSIST THE COUNTY
MANAGER'S AGENCY IN MEETING ITS FINANCIAL GOALS
Item #16Gl
A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL A VIA TION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) IN THE AMOUNT OF $187,150.00,
AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, TO
EXPAND THE AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - TO PROVIDE FOR THE
CAPACITY AND SAFETY NEEDS OF INCREASED DEMAND
Page 279
February 10,2009
Item #16G2
A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) IN THE AMOUNT OF $101,741.00,
AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE AIRCRAFT APRON (NORTH) AT
THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT - TO ENHANCE
SAFETY BY PROVIDING SUFFICIENT AIRCRAFT
OPERATION AND MOVEMENT AREA ENSURING
COMPLIANCE WITH FAA AIRPORT DESIGN CRITERIA AND
STATE AND COUNTY CODES
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
A TTENDING AN EVENT SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE ANNUAL EAST NAPLES
CIVIC ASSOCIATION BANQUET ON 1-26-09. $40.00 TO BE
PAID OUT OF COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - HELD AT THE NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A V AUD PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 59TH ANNUAL EAST
NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION BANQUET ON JANUARY 26,
2009 AT NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FL.
$40.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item # 16H3
Page 280
February 10,2009
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL VIP BREAKFAST ON FEBRUARY 6, 2009 AT
PARKER HANNIFIN IN NAPLES, FL. $10.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 3580 SHAW BLVD IN THE WHITE LAKE
BUSINESS PARK
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S PAYMENT FOR ATTENDING A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDED THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTE OF SOUTH WEST FLORIDA'S 12TH ANNUAL
WINTER INSTITUTE ON THE GULF, JANUARY 29, 2009 AT
THE NAPLES HILTON. $50 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S PAYMENT FOR ATTENDING A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA PARTICIPATING AS
INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT AT THE 25TH ANNUAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT, ENERGY, CLIMATE CHANGE,
AND ENVIRONMENT SHORT COURSE, FEBRUARY 18-19,
2009, AT THE DAYTONA BEACH HILTON. REGISTRATION
$495; HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS $133; PARKING: $34; TOTAL
OF $662 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET
Page 281
February 10,2009
Item # 16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S PAYMENT FOR ATTENDING A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDED THE 59TH ANNUAL
EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION BANQUET, JANUARY
26,2009. $40 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE NAPLES LAKES
COUNTRY CLUB
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S PAYMENT FOR ATTENDING A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDING THE FOUNDATION
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED FUNDRAISER AND
GALA, FEBRUARY 21,2009. $125.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 282
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 10,2009
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of December I, 2008.
2) Airport Authority:
Minutes of October 6,2008; November 11, 2008 w/Form 8B
Conflict of Interest, dated 11110/08 by David Gardner;
December 8, 2008.
3) Collier Countv Citizens Corps:
Agenda of November 19, 2008.
Minutes of November 19, 2008.
4) Collier County Coastal Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of November 13,2008; December 11, 2008.
5) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of January 15, 2009.
Minutes of November 20, 2008; December 4, 2008;
December 9,2008 Special Session.
6) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of December 17, 2008.
7) Development Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of December 3, 2008.
8) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of November 12, 2008.
Minutes of October 8, 2008.
9) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 13,2009.
Minutes of September 9,2008; December 11, 2008.
10) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board:
Minutes of October 23, 2008.
11) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 4, 2008.
Minutes of December 4, 2008.
12) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of December 8, 2008.
13) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of December 9,2008.
14) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December 8, 2008.
15) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board:
Minutes of December 17, 2008.
16) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of December 3, 2008.
Minutes of December 3, 2008.
17) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of November 18, 2008.
Minutes of October 21,2008.
18) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of December 18, 2008.
19) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 4, 2008.
Minutes of October 23,1P08.
B. Other:
1) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of December 5, 2008.
February 10,2009
Item #] 611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 17,2009
THROUGH JANUARY 23, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #] 6J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 24, 2009
THROUGH JANUARY 30, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
A SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED OSVALDO GAYON V. DENNIS LARSON, ET AL.;
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 06-340-CA, FOR
$9,500.00 - FOR AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON APRIL
19, 2005 AT THE COURTHOUSE
Item # 16K2
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$356,305 FOR PARCELS 134 AND 135 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RONEN GRAZIANI, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 06-0548-CA (SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
PROJECT, NO. 62081). (FISCAL IMPACT $222,772.60) (THIS IS
A COMPANION ITEM TO PARCEL 136, ITEM #16K3) - FOR
.599 ACRES NEEDED FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES
Item #16K3
Page 283
February 10, 2009
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 136 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RONEN GRAZIANI,
ET AL., CASE NO. 06-548-CA AND PURCHASING THE
REMAINDER PROPERTY LOCATED ON SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD AS PART OF THE OUTSTANDING EMINENT
DOMAIN LITIGATION SETTLEMENT. PROJECT NO. 62081.
(FISCAL IMPACT: $637,780). (THIS IS A COMPANION ITEM
TO PARCELS 134 AND 135, ITEM #16K2) - LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
AND PAINTED LEAF LANE
Item #16K4 - Moved to Item #12A
Item # 1 7 A
ORDINANCE 2009-02: DISSOLVING FOURTEEN (14)
INACTIVE TAXING AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE CURRENTLY
FOUND ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS AD VALOREM
PROPERTY TAX ROLL - TO REDUCE THE VOLUME OF
PAPERWORK INVOLVED
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:44 p.m.
Page 284
February 10,2009
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL D TRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~ d4.4
DONNA ALA, Chairman
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
tj~'r-fi~l.{v~ .'/
ttttt ai, toC1\l ~ I
,i.,..tIN 0/11'. . \.'
These minutes approved by the Board on 11la~ c1) IQ2/l1, as presented
1/ or as corrected '
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 285