BCC Minutes 03/10/2009 R
March 10, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, March 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
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the BCC
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
March 10, 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."
March 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
T AMIAMI 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 t :00 P.M.
t. 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. February 10,2009 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. February 13,2009 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards - 5 Years
1) Councilman John F. Sorey, Ill, Tourist Development Council and
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee
B. 10 Years
1) Thomas Masters, Development Services Advisory Committee
March 10, 2009
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating March 15 - 21, 2009 as Florida Surveyors Week.
To be accepted by Marcus L. Berman, P.S.M. Project Manager/Senior
Associate, Wilson Miller, Inc.
B. Proclamation recognizing Spay Day USA 2009. To be accepted by Dr. Ruth
Eisele, DAS Advisory Committee Member.
C. Proclamation recognizing March 10, 2009 as A Day of Heightened
Awareness of Wildfire Danger in Collier County. To be accepted by Dan
Summers, Peter Gaddy, Jim Flanagan, Peggy Whitbeck, Michael Ramsey,
Tim Nance, Michael Weston, Chief Rita Greenberg, Chief Bob Metzger,
Hank Graham and Keith Watchey.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. The Phoenix is a mythological bird that died and rose renewed from its
ashes. The Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department has
adopted the PHOENIX A WARD to recognize those EMS Paramedics,
EMTs, Firefighters and Sheriffs Deputies, who through their skills and
knowledge, have successfully brought back to life individuals who had died.
B. Presentation of a Donation in the amount of $1 ,000.00 from the Disabled
Veterans Foundation to the Collier County Veterans Council (to be
presented by Bobby Brooks, Operations Manager for Disabled Veterans
Foundation; to be accepted by Jim Elson, President of the Collier County
Veterans Council).
C. Presentation of the advisory committee outstanding member award for
February 2009 to Marco A. Espinar.
D. Recommendation to recognize Cristina Perez, Senior Investigator, Code
Enforcement, as Employee of the Month for February 2009.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Rick Johnson to discuss left hand turn onto
Dudley from Whippoorwill Lane.
March 10, 2009
Page 3
B. Public petition request by Dr. James Odom to discuss closure of Dudley
Road and resulting hardship to Seagate Baptist Church and school.
C. Public petition request by Doug Smylie to discuss extension of sidewalk
from Timberwood to World Tennis Center (Airport Road).
D. Public petition request by Gregory Boron to discuss sponsorship of West
Point License Plates.
E. Public petition request by John Barlow to discuss process to rehab
foreclosures for affordable housing.
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 reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. ADA-2007-AR-12312,
S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson &
Johnson, LLP, requesting an Administrative Appeal regarding the decision
of the Lot Line Adjustment for property located on Lot 28 in the Olde
Cypress PUD, application number LLA-2007-AR-12140. The applicant is
appealing the decision pursuant to Section No. 250-58 of the Collier County
Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. ADA-2007-AR-123l3,
S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson &
Johnson, LLP, requesting an Administrative Appeal pursuant to the issuance
of the staff clarification number SC-07-02 pursuant to Section No. 250-58 of
the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The applicant is
requesting an Administrative Appeal regarding the staff clarification
regarding the measurement of a front yard setback requirement on a cul-de-
sac Lot for property located on Lot 28 in the Olde Cypress PUD.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 10, 2009
Page 4
A. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
B. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee. Pursuant to Board direction on February 24, 2009, this item is
continued pending amendment of Ordinance 2001-55.
C. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing Board.
E. Appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports
of the Advisory Boards and Committees scheduled for review in 2008 in
accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55. Committees include: Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee; Lely Golf Estates Beautification
Advisory Committee; Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee;
Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee; and
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board. (Mike
Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager)
B. Recommendation to approve the financing and expenditure for the purchase
and renovation of the Naples Lodge 2010 Benevolent and Protective Order
of the Elks of the USA, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $4,618,891. (Jim Mudd,
County Manager and Skip Camp, Facilities Management Director)
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners direct the
County Manager or his designee to advertise and return for the Board of
County Commissioners' consideration at a future meeting, changes to the
Public Vehicle For Hire Ordinance, Number 2006-59, as amended,
deregulating taxicab and charter service rates, establishing a consumer
advisory board, providing guidelines for obtaining a vehicle for hire operator
license, establishing penalties for non-compliance, removing industry
protectionism, and thereby condensing the Public Vehicle For Hire
Ordinance provisions, consistent with the Board of County Commissioners'
direction. (James French, Operations Manager, CDES Operations)
March 10, 2009
Page 5
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides
direction whether to amend Ordinance No. 01-55 (the Advisory Board
Ordinance) with respect to term limits. The Ordinance presently limits an
advisory board member to two terms, absent unanimous Board approval for
an additional term.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation of the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2008.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Trail Ridge.
2) A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
designating 5,868.7 Acres in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area
Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Sending Area with a
designation as BCIIBCP SSA 10 pursuant to the terms set forth in the
Escrow Agreement, Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement for
BCIIBCP SSA 10, and Stewardship Easement Agreement for
BCIIBCP SSA 10; approving a Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement for BCI/BCP SSA 10; approving a Stewardship Easement
March 10,2009
Page 6
Agreement for BCI/BCP SSA 10; approving an Escrow Agreement
for BCI/BCP SSA 10; and establishing the number of stewardship
credits generated by the designation of said Stewardship Sending
Area.
3) Approval of A ward of Contract #08-5090 to Rhodes, Tucker &
Garretson for Special Magistrate Services for Collier County Code
Enforcement Department in the approximate amount of $80,000 per
year.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Phase Three
East, Unit One with the roadway and drainage improvements being
privately maintained.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Phase Three
East, Unit Two with the roadway and drainage improvements being
privately maintained.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a Satisfaction of Lien for the
Brittany Bay Apartments Phase II due to the impact fees being paid in
full in accordance with the Multi-family Rental Impact Fee Deferral
Program, as set forth by Section 74-401(e) and 74-401 (g) (5) of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the Agreement
for Deferral of 100% of Collier County Impact Fees for Multi-Family
(Rental) Affordable Housing between Collier County and Brittany
Bay Partners, Ltd., for the Brittany Bay Apartments, Phase I,
consistent with the Boards direction pertaining to remedies for past
due and expiring impact fee deferrals.
8) Recommendation to direct Engineering Review Staff to issue
Commercial Excavation Permit Number 60.030, AR 12838, to Rinker
Materials of Florida, Inc. and Barron Collier Companies. for the
project known as Hogan Island Quarry C.U. The project consists of
967.65 acres, more or less, sitting in Sections 9, 10, 15, 16,21,22 of
March 10, 2009
Page 7
Township 47, South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, more
particularly sitting about 0.75 miles north of where Oil Well Grade
intersects Immokalee Road.
9) Kenny Mateja of Tropiclean Gas and Auto Spa requests a Temporary
Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Development Code (LDC) for seven consecutive weekends (Friday
and Saturday) at 9995 East Tamiami Trail, Section 20, Township 50
South, Range 26, for a sum total fourteen day time limit that is
allowed by the LDC during the 2009 calendar year to display a
carwash promotional banner for his business, and to allow the
applicant to pay a one time two hundred dollar fee to encompass the
entire requested length of time.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
approve Contract #08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan for
a Phase 1 cost of $575,736.95 to update the Big Cypress Basin
regional hydrologic model and begin the development of Watershed
Management Plans required by the Growth Management Plan.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Cancellation of Agreement due to road
segment already being adopted.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement with two (2) roadway
recognition signs at a total cost of $] 50.00.
3) Recommendation to approve a Work Order for a construction project
to AP AC-Southeast, Inc. for the Goodlette-Frank Road (C.R. 851)
Intersection Improvements at Creekside Boulevard in the amount of
$219,414.35, Contract No. 08-5045, Project No. 66065.
4) Recommendation to accept the partial apportionment of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) FY 2009 Section 5307 grant in the
amount of $90 1,448.00.
March 10,2009
Page 8
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award the
Fiscal Year 2009 Landscape Beautification Master Plan capital
projects (Bid #09-5190): Immokalee Road Phase II & III (1-75 to
951), Rattlesnake Hammock (Polly to C.R. 951) and Vanderbilt Beach
Road Phase I & II (Airport to C.R. 951) to Hannula Landscaping and
Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of $1 ,786,039.23 with $13,960.77
contingency for a total of $1 ,800,000.
6) Authorization to apply for Federal Transit Administration funds under
Title 49 U.S.C. 5307 pertaining to the American Recovery and
Reinvestments Act (ARRA) and to accept the grant if awarded.
7) Recommendation to terminate the amended and restated US41
Developers Consortium (Consortium) Developer Contribution
Agreement (DCA), recorded in O.R. Book 4408, Page 2880. (CTS).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to award Agreement #08-5125 to Southwest Direct,
to outsource the printing and mailing of Collier County Water-Sewer
District utility bills, at an estimated annual amount not to exceed
$100,000.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
approve Resolution, Payment Plan Agreement and Lien Agreement
between Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (Developer) and Collier
County Water-Sewer District consistent with the Boards February 24,
2009 adjudication that Developer owes $120,904 as alternative water
and wastewater impact fees for Building 300.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to accept
funding from the 4-H Foundation Clubs, Inc. in the amount of
$50,881.00 for the 4-H Outreach Program managed by the Collier
County University of FloridalIFAS Extension Department and
approve a budget amendment in the amount of $26,481.00.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign and forward to the State of
March 10, 2009
Page 9
Florida Legislature a Resolution supporting House Bill 451 which
requires sterilization of dogs and cats of a specified age and provides
exceptions.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) Division of Marine Fisheries
Management, Artificial Reef Construction Grant Application for the
Coastal Zone Management Department in the amount of $60,000.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign an Amendment to the David
Lawrence Mental Health Center Agreement approved on November
18,2008, Item #16D9. This Amendment will increase the dollar
amount awarded to the David Lawrence Center as approved by the
Board of County Commissioners on November 18,2008 Agenda Item
# 101.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, the attached letter of support for
Esperanza Place Phase One, a forty eight (48) unit multi-family
affordable housing project being developed by Florida Non-Profit
Services, Inc.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to adopt resolution of support to amend the
Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA).
2) Recommendation that the Board waive competition and approves an
amendment to the current contract with Vocatus Medical Management
Services to open a North MedCenter location, and establish fees for
V ocatus for the renewal period.
3) To sell or donate County surplus property that is no longer of use to
County departments and obtain revenue for the County.
4) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
March 10, 2009
Page 10
5) Recommendation to authorize the conveyance of a Revocable
Temporary License to the Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. for
the installation of electric facilities to provide electric service for the
Marco Island Historical Museum which is located at 1264 Mistletoe
Court, Marco Island, Florida, at a cost not to exceed $60.00.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve the necessary budget amendment from the Ochopee Fire
Control District reserves in the amount of $120,000 for the purpose of
renovating Port of the Islands Marina to be used as a Fire Station.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment for the Ochopee Fire Control District in the
amount of$28,860 for Architectural Services regarding the renovation
of the Port of the Islands Marina into a Fire Station.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign the submittal ofa Volunteer Fire
Assistance grant application in the amount of $1 0,500 to the Florida
Division of Forestry for the purpose of refurbishing two 1994 6X6
five ton vehicles.
4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners ofColJier County, Florida, in support of House Bill
691 Relating to State Oversight of Utility Services Provided by
Intergovemmental Authorities filed by State Representative Matt
Hudson and the companion Senate Bill 1192 Relating to Utility
Services/Oversight/Intergovernmental Authorities by State Senator
Garrett Richter.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Request that the Board of County Commissioners amend the
application approval section of the Immokalee Community
March 10,2009
Page 11
Redevelopment Agency Commercial Facade Improvement Grant
Program Policies and Procedures Document, identified in and adopted
by Section Four of Ordinance Number 08-40 to correct a scriveners
error due to the inclusion of an unintended reference by deleting the
reference to the Executive Directors ability to approve or deny facade
grants in the amount of $1 0,000 or less; and by providing for an
effective date.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the ENCA Luncheon on February 19,2009 at Carrabba's in
Naples, FL. $16.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Florida Association of Counties 2009 Legislative Day
on March 25, 2009 in Tallahassee, FL. $110.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Fifth Annual Honor the Free Press Day on March 18,
2009 at the Hilton in Naples, FL. $30.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended An Evening with Clyde Butcher on March 5, 2009 at the
Rookery Bay Auditorium in Naples, FL. $20.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Chabad of Naples 5th Anniversary Celebration on
March 22, 2009 at the Naples Beach Hotel and Country Club in
Naples, FL. $150.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
March 10, 2009
Page 12
budget.
6) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He will be
attending the Chabad of Naples 5th Anniversary Celebration on
March 22, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Naples Beach Hotel and Country
Club in Naples, Florida. $150.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Henning'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
February 14, 2009 through February 20, 2009 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County approve a Interlocal Agreement for Election Services
pertaining to services and voting equipment used by the Golden Gate
Fire Control and Rescue District in connection with a special election
to be held on May 12,2009.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 21,2009 through February 27, 2009 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorizes
staff to proceed with advertising a proposed Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 2007-74, the Collier County Convenience Business
Security Ordinance.
2) Recommendation to approve settlement in the lawsuit entitled Collier
County, Florida vs. Botner Land Design, Inc., et aI., filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, Case
March 10, 2009
Page 13
No. 02-l923-CA for $99,500.00.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPRO V AL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2009-0 I, which created the Collier
County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, in order to
clarify certain qualifications for appointment and provide for waiver or
modification of the stated qualifications when deemed necessary to appoint
the best -qualified candidate( s).
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2008-AR-13661,
Center Point Community Church, represented by Matthew McLean, P.E., of
Agnoli, Barber and Brundage and Doug Lewis, Esq., of Roetzel and
Andress, is requesting a Conditional Use in the Estates (E) Zoning District
for a youth ministry sanctuary with supporting offices and youth member
social activities relating to the existing religious facility, as specified in
Section 2.03.01.B.l.c.l of the Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC). The 4.58-acre subject property is located in Tract 85, Golden Gate
Estates, Unit 29, in Section 30, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. CTS
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve to revise
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 Boards prior direction as
March 10, 2009
Page 14
reflected on the attached proposed amended ordinance.
D. The approval of this item needs to be done with a Super Maiority vote.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending 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 impact fee study entitled
the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study dated February
19,2009; amending the road impact fee rate schedule that is Schedule One
of Appendix A by incorporating the findings of the study and thereby
establishing the new impact fee rates; deleting obsolete provisions referring
to Director of Financial Administration and Housing and the Educational
Impact Fee Trust Fund; providing clarification to the four year timeframe to
request an impact fee reimbursement by removing obsolete language;
amending the special requirements for road impact fees to reflect the new
provisions, allowing for payment over five years, to obtain or extend a
Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities; directing the County Manager, or
his designee, and the County Attorney to amend the Collier County Land
Development Code for consistency with the provisions related to the
Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities and to update the Collier County
Administration Procedures Manual for the Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance to reflect the new and amended provisions related to
impact fees; and providing for a delayed effective date of June 8, 2009 in
accordance with the 90- day notice period required by Section 163.3180 I
(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
E. Petition ST-2008-AR-13958, WilsonMiller, Inc., representing North Naples
Fire Control District, requesting a Special Treatment development permit to
construct a two-story 12,952 square-foot fire station with associated parking,
utilities and a surface water management system on 3.4 acres zoned
agricultural with a Special Treatment overlay (A-ST) in section 13, township
48 south, range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
March 10,2009
Page 15
March 10, 2009
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning, everyone.
THE AUDIENCE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, it's great to see all of you here.
Everybody looks so amazing, and you're our heros, and we're going to
be celebrating you today. I'm just so glad that you could all be with
us.
Now, would everyone please rise with me, and we'll hear the
prayer.
Jim Mudd, are you going to be saying the prayer today?
MR. MUDD: Unless I can find a pastor or a reverend or -- in this
crowd. Does anyone fit that bill. Not -- Mr. Lytle, you can please sit
down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's a preacher, not a prayer.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Oh Heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings in these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
a special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the
trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now, would you say the pledge with
Commissioner Halas.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Mr. Mudd.
Item #2A
Page 2
March 10,2009
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, agenda changes,
Board of County Commissioners' meeting, March 10,2009.
First item is to move Item l6A2 to 17G. It's a resolution of
Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 5,868.7
acres in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as
a Stewardship Sending Area with a designation as the Barron Collier
Investments/Barron Collier Partnership SSA 10, pursuant to the terms
set forth in the escrow agreement, Stewardship Sending Area Credit
Agreement for this Barron Collier Partnership SSA 10 and
Stewardship Easement Agreement for SSA 10; approving a
Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement for the Barron Collier
Partnership SSA 10; approving a Stewardship Easement Agreement
for the Barron Collier Partnership SSA 10; approving an Escrow
Agreement for SSA 10; and establishing the number of stewardship
credits generated by the designation of said Stewardship Sending
Area.
Also, replacement pages for Exhibit F, pages 184 and 185, have
been distributed and made available for review prior to this meeting.
The next item is Item 16A8. 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. That
clarification's at staffs request.
The next item is 16A9, basically follows in the same vein. 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.
Next item is to withdraw item 16Fl. Approve the necessary
budget amendment from the Ochopee Fire Control District reserves in
the amount of$120,000 for the purpose of renovating the Port of the
Page 3
March 10, 2009
Isles Marina to be used as a fire station. That item is being withdrawn
at staffs request.
The next item is to move Item 16G 1 to l7F. Request that the
Board of County Commissioners amend the application approval
section of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
Commercial Facade Improvement Grant Program Policies and
Procedures Document identified in and adopted by Section 4 of
ordinance number 08-40 to correct a scrivener's error due to the
inclusion of an unintended reference by deleting the reference to the
executive director's ability to approve or deny facade grants in the
amount of $10,000 or less; and providing for an effective date. That
clarification's at staffs request.
The next item is Item 171, to move to 16A11 and should read as
follows. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Petition ST-2008-AR-13958
WilsonMiller Inc., requesting North Naples Fire Control District
requesting a Special Treatment Development Permit to construct a
two-story, 12,952-square-foot fire station with associated parking
utilities and surface water management system on 3.4 acres zoned
agricultural with a Special Treatment Overlay in Section 13,
Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida. That item
is moved at staffs request.
The next item is an add-on item, which is 17H, and it's continued
to March 24,2009, BCC meeting. It was an ordinance establishing
authorization and procedures for the Collier County Voluntary
Separation Incentive Program, VSIP; providing for a title; providing
for a statement of intended purposes; providing for incentive pay and
implementing resolution; providing for payments; providing for a
conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances; and providing for an effective date.
That item is at staffs request.
Page 4
March 10, 2009
Commissioners, you have two time-certain items today. The first
is Item 13A, and it's to be heard at 10 a.m. It's a presentation on the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008.
The next time-certain item is Item lOA, to be heard at 11 a.m., to
review the written and oral reports of the advisory boards and
committees scheduled for review in 2008 in accordance with
ordinance number 2001-55. Committees include: The Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee; the Lely Golf Estates
Beautification Advisory Committee; and the Radio Road
Beautification Advisory Committee; and the Vanderbilt Beach
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee; and the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
That's all I have, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And County Attorney, do you have anything for us?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
And now we will declare our ex parte. We'll start with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I have no
disclosures for the consent agenda or the summary agenda. With
respect to our agenda itself, I would like to ask that Item 17 A be
moved to 12B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, good morning, Chair.
I have nothing to declare on the summary agenda nor the consent
agenda, and I have nothing else to pull from today's agenda. So I'm
happy with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That makes it easy.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 5
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I -- let's see. On the consent agenda, 8A, I had meetings and
correspondence, I met with Bob Mulhere on 7/21, and CDES staff on
2/16. Article in the Golden Gate Civic Association Newsletter; and I
read that and I talked to staff about it. Other than that, I have nothing
else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. The -- I did talk
to the county manager on 17G. 17H, I never got a copy of it, but
we're going to talk about that at our next meeting. So that's all I have.
I have no changes either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes, sir?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the request by Commissioner Coyle to
take 17 A and take it to l2B. Sir, it has to be 8A because it's an
advertised item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It can't be in the county attorney's
section?
MR. MUDD: It should go--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a county attorney issue.
MR. MUDD: It should go under the advertised hearings, sir.
You can -- you can -- I'm just putting it there for the agenda for 8A. If
you want to hear that when the county attorney does his piece, then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I want to do. This
should be heard after 12A, okay. So if -- any way you want to arrange
it, it's fine with me.
MR. MUDD: We'll put it -- we'll move it to the advertised
hearings section, which will be 8A, and it will be heard following
12A.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You'll just have to lead us through one,
Mr. Mudd.
Page 6
March 10, 2009
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We'll work through that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then as far as ex parte for myself,
on Item A8, I met with Bob Mulhere; on Item A9, I received and
responded to a letter from Kenneth Mateja. I'm sure in -- I'm sure I
slaughtered his name, but anyway, regarding his business, and I also
spoke to staff.
And then on the summary agenda, I have no disclosures.
Okay. And we do have some speakers on this; do we not?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, I have two speakers on 16B7; the
first one is Rich Y ovanovich. He'll be followed by Dwight Nadeau.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning, and thanks for letting me
speak on the consent agenda. The item I want to speak to is the
termination of the DCA for the improvements to the intersection of
Collier Boulevard and u.s. 41.
We understand the need for the termination because, you know,
since we entered into that amendment, the residential market has
further declined and several of the participants, mainly the residential
developers, were not able to post the required security. So we
understand the first step of needing to terminate the Developer
Contribution Agreement; however, there are five participants of the
original DCA that are able to continue to move forward and have
projects that are ready to go and totals the sum of $8.2 million, and
that would be enough to do all of the engineering design as well as
acquire all of the necessary right-of-way for the ultimate
improvements to that intersection.
And it would -- in particular -- I'll just go over one of the
projects, but it's Lowe's. It's been advertised to be out there for many,
many years now, and their project alone would be construction in the
amount of, you know, 15- to $17 million. It would create 120
construction jobs.
When they're done, there would be 80 full-time jobs created and
20 part-time jobs created. The permit's ready to go. Their money is
Page 7
March 10, 2009
ready to go towards another DCA.
So what we're requesting is that the county allow another DCA to
come forward on April 14th. That's a critical date to keep Lowe's
interested in this site. They've hung in there for a long time, and the
other developers too.
What we're not asking for is another opportunity to post money.
We will have the money in our hand ready to become effective the
date that the board approves the agreement, which would hopefully be
April 14th. So we won't be in another situation where we're asking
you to give us another 30 days to post the money. We have the
money from those other five participants, and we're just simply asking
that you allow your transportation staff to continue to work with us on
another DCA, which will benefit the overall intersection
improvements and the county in this -- in these economics times.
Since they're ready to go and they're ready to spend some money in
Collier County, we would think that's a good thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Did you have any concerns
there, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand you need this April 14th?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. I'd like to come back to the board
then on March 24th with some policy direction. There are some
concurrency issues that the board's going to have to make a policy
issue on. This project originally was for a construction project that
would have taken care of the concurrency. Now we're talking about
just designing and engineering and some right-of-way, so there's going
to be a policy decision for the board to make before we go further.
And this might require more than just DCA. It might require
something like a prop. share agreement, for example, if the board's
going to want to do this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This won't hold the project up though,
right?
Page 8
March 10, 2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We'll do whatever --
MR. KLATZKOW: It will be board direction, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, great. Okay.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker's Dwight Nadeau.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Commissioner Coyle? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I was going to raise the
concurrency issue, Mr. Y ovanovich. Do you believe that you can
solve the concurrency problem with the funding that you have
available?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We do, and we believe that the
concurrency problem anticipated certain growth in the residential
market in actual permits being pulled that I don't think have anywhere
come near the anticipated. And I think, whatever the issue is, it's a
paper issue and not a real-life issue. So we need to work through those
issues but, yes, we think we can solve those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I would just
encourage that Mr. Y ovanovich get together with staff to deal with
that issue, because that is going to be the biggest stumbling block --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in developing another
contribution agreement.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we have started discussions with
staff, but staff wanted to make sure this was something that the board
would -- if we can get over those issues -- look favorably on. They
didn't want to waste time working with us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. I would be in favor of
giving direction to staff to continue working on this issue with a
deadline in early April to bring it back to us.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- but concurrency is going to
be a very, very important issue.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We understand.
Page 9
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Should we put that in the form of a
motion, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I'm coming back on the next meeting,
and I'm going to be asking for board recommendation, because I think
there are a couple ways the board can go. So this is not going to be
your typical DCA. I'm going to need policy direction from the board.
That will give me then enough time to prepare the necessary
documentation for April 14th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, great. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Dwight Nadeau.
MR. NADEAU: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good morning.
For the record, my name's Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for
RW A. I'm representing one of the five members of the DCA that Rich
just explained to you.
I'm here to support the request for a new DCA to come through.
I also represent the landowners of a potential pond site that
transportation wants to purchase for right-of-way needs. And we have
-- I'm representing willing sellers, and we just received documentation
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the site
is virtually clean now from any petroleum product contamination of
the soils. So the site is remediated and should be nice and clean for
the county to use.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And for our audience members, the DCA that they keep talking
about, it's Developer Contribution Agreement, just so you all know
what that means. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any more speakers on
the agenda?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know. I don't think so. There
Page 10
March 10, 2009
were just two. Do you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to approve the
agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, 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 HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 11
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
March 10. 2009
Move 16A2 to 17G: A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 5,868.7
Acres in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Sending Area with a
designation as BCI/BCP SSA 10 pursuant to the terms set forth in the Escrow Agreement, Stewardship
Sending Area Credit Agreement for BCI-BCP SSA 10, and Stewardship Easement Agreement for BClfBCP
SSA 10; approving a Stewardship Sending Area Credit Agreement for BClfBCP SSA 10; approving a
Stewardship Easement Agreement for BCIfBCP SSA 10; approving an Escrow Agreement for BClfBCP SSA
10; and establishing the number of stewardship credits generated by the designation of said Stewardship
Sending Area.
Also: Replacement pages for Exhibit F, Pages 184 and 185 have been distributed and made available for
review. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A8: "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." (Staff's request.)
Item 16A9: "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." (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16F1: Approve the necessary budget amendment from the Ochopee Fire Control District
reserves in the amount of $120,000 for the purpose of renovating Port of the Islands Marina to be used as a
Fire Station. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16G1 to 17F: Request that the Board of County Commissioners amend the application approval
section of the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency Commercial Fac;ade Improvement Grant
Program Policies and Procedures Document, identified in and adopted by Section Four of Ordinance
Number 08-40 to correct a scriveners error due to the inclusion of an unintended reference by deleting the
reference to the Executive Directors ability to approve or deny fac;ade grants in the amount of $10,000 or
less; and by providing for an effective date. (Staff's request.)
Move Item 17E to 16A11 and it should read as follows: "This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to
be sworn in. Petition ST-2008-AR-13958, Wilson Miller, Inc., representing North Naples Fire Control District,
requesting a Special Treatment development permit to construct a two-story 12,952 square-foot fire station
with associated parking, utilities and a surface water management system on 3.4 acres zoned agricultural
with a Special Treatment overlay (A-ST) in section 13, township 48 south, range 25 east, Collier County,
Florida." (Staff's request.)
Add On Item 17H and is continued to the March 24. 2009 BCC meetin!!: An Ordinance establishing
authorization and procedures for the Collier County Voluntary Separation Incentive Program ("VSIP");
providing for a title; providing for a statement of intent and purpose; providing for incentive pay and
implementing resolution; providing for payments; providing for conflict and severability; providing for
inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; and providing an effective date. (Staff's
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10A to be heard at11 :00 a.m. To review the written and oral reports of the Advisory Boards and
Committees scheduled for review in 2008 in accordance with Ordinance No. 2001-55. Committees include:
Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee; Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee;
Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee; Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee; and BayshorefGateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
Item 13A to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the
Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2008.
3/10/20098:49 AM
March 10, 2009
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 10,2009 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING AND FEBRUARY 13, 2009 ~ VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve the February 10,2009, BCC regular meeting and
February 13,2009, Value Adjustment Board meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a second by Commissioner
Halas.
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 #3A and #3B
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we move on to the fun part, the
service awards.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 3A, advisory
committee service awards. The first awardee is Councilman John F.
Sorey, III, for his participation in the Tourist Development Council,
Collier County -- and Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
Page 12
March 10, 2009
MS. FILSON: Mr. Mudd, I think I put a note on there indicating
he was out of town on family business; sorry.
MR. MUDD: Rescheduled for 3/24.
The next awardee for advisory boards is Thomas Masters, and
he's spent ten years on the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you for
your servIce.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nice to see you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 15 - 21, 2009 AS
FLORIDA SURVEYORS WEEK. ACCEPTED BY MARCUS L.
BERMAN, P.S.M. PROJECT MANAGER/SENIOR ASSOCIATE,
WILSONMILLER, INC - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations.
The first proclamation is designating March 15th through the 21 st,
2009, as Florida Surveyors Week, to be accepted by Marcus L.
Berman, P.S.M., Project Manager/Senior Associates for WilsonMiller,
Inc.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then, Mr. Mudd, do you think we
could move Item 5A after this one, because we have a lot of audience
members here that aren't --
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, we could do that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Marcus here? Oh. Gives me
Page 13
March 10, 2009
great pleasure to read this proclamation. Any other surveyors that may
be in the crowd, please step forward.
Whereas, land surveyors are counted among the founding leaders
of our country and were instrumental in the formation of the layout of
the property boundaries of the United States, which has provided our
citizens the enjoyment of property ownership; and,
Whereas, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other
former presidents of the United States served their fellow colonists as
surveyors; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Florida recognize the value -- valuable
contributions of the surveying profession to history, development, and
the quality of life in Florida and the United States of America and
make important decisions based on the knowledge and expertise of
licensed surveyors and mappers; and,
Whereas, the surveying profession provides special education,
training, and the knowledge of mathematics and related physical and
applied sciences and requirements of law of evidence; and,
Whereas, surveyors are uniquely qualified and licensed to
determine and describe land and water boundaries for management of
natural resources and protection of private and public property rights;
and,
Whereas, the continued advancements of instrumentation have
required the surveyors not only to be able to understand and
implement the methods of the past, but also to learn and employ
modern technology in finding solutions to meet the challenges of the
future.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of March 15
through 21st, 2009, be designated as Florida Surveyors Week and
recognize that the many contributions of the ongoing dedication of
surveyors for the citizens of Florida and the United States.
Done in this order this day -- 10th day of March, 2009, Board of
Page 14
March 10, 2009
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, and Donna Fiala, our
chairman.
And Madam Chairman, I move that we approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Halas to approve, 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?
(Applause.)
Item #5A
THE PHOENIX IS A MYTHOLOGICAL BIRD THAT DIED AND
ROSE RENEWED FROM ITS ASHES. THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAS
ADOPTED THE PHOENIX AWARD TO RECOGNIZE THOSE
EMS PARAMEDICS, EMTS, FIREFIGHTERS AND SHERIFFS
DEPUTIES, WHO THROUGH THEIR SKILLS AND
KNOWLEDGE, HA VE SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT BACK TO
LIFE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD DIED - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to presentations,
5A, and it is, indeed, a pleasure when we have a roomfull of heros,
and I believe we have two survivors today, and you can help me with
that, okay.
First of all, Commissioners, the Phoenix is a mythological bird
Page 15
March 10, 2009
that died and rose renewed from its ashes. Collier County's
Emergency Medical Services Department has adopted the Phoenix
Award to recognize those EMS paramedics, EMTs, firefighters, and
sheriffs deputies who, through their skills and knowledge, have
successfully brought back to life individuals who have died.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, guests, we're honored to
present this award to the following people. And if we will, we'll hold
our applause till everyone's been called up, because we have a large
group.
From Collier County Sheriffs Office, Deputy Eric Flater, Deputy
Robert Palmer, Sergeant Jason Bence, Deputy Mark Long, Deputy
Reynald Kelly, Deputy Mike Craig, and Corporal Josh White.
From Big Corkscrew Island Fire Department, EMT Fred Lehman
and EMT Albert Heasley.
From East Naples Fire Department, Lieutenant Terry Anderson,
Firefighter Mike McNally, Paramedic Jose Santana,
Engineer/Paramedic Jarrett Cotter, Driver/Engineer Matt Nixon,
Lieutenant Scott Hogan, Paramedic Anthony McGee, and Lieutenant
Todd Nugent. Did I miss anybody from East Naples? I know there
were some latecomers.
From North Naples Fire Department, Ted Vath, Firefighter/EMT
Chris Perry, Firefighter/EMT Brian Torres, Driver/Engineer Shawn
Stromdahl, Firefighter/Paramedic Larry Oakum.
From Golden Gate Fire Department, Driver/Engineer Darrel
Sapp, Driver/Engineer Kevin Schoch, and Firefighter Kenny Moyer.
From the City of Naples Police and Fire, Paramedic Joe Fetzer,
Firefighter David LaRochelle, Firefighter/EMT Jason Toreky,
Firefighter Greg Bruner, and Police Officer Benjamin Vasquez.
And from Collier County EMS, Lieutenant Jackie Lockerby,
Paramedic Tim Rudzitis, Paramedic John Beckman, Lieutenant
Brandy Clere, Lieutenant James Schnering, Lieutenant Paul Passaretti,
Lieutenant Sam Poole, EMT Dave Mennini, Paramedic Brandon
Page 16
March 10, 2009
Rivera, EMT Jack Najjar, Lieutenant Isabelle Favier, Lieutenant
Valerie Thorsen, EMT Jon Maguire, EMT Holly Murphy, Lieutenant
Mike Sullivan, Lieutenant Jennifer Palermo, Paramedic Becky
Wilson, Lieutenant Anthony Maro, Paramedic Jose Martinez,
Battalion Chief Bill Peplinski, and EMT Gabriel Acosta.
I took roll earlier, but I knew there were some latecomers. I don't
want to leave anybody out.
Commissioners and County Manager, today we also have three
special guests with us. First of all, we have Juan Flores who works for
Waste Management. He's going to come up with me. And also he's
bringing two friends with him, Rocky Freeland and Chuck W ollack.
Would you all come up forward with me.
Also, we have Andrew Delicio, and last but not least, we have
Mark Walden. Mark is here representing his granddaughter who, at
two years old, fell in a pool; and at the time when that happened,
Officer Benjamin Vasquez from the City of Naples was off duty at
that house, pulled the girl out of the pool, and without any of his
normal equipment or first response equipment, pulled the girl out and
started CPR until EMS got there, and today she is a thriving two- or
three-year-old now, up and about in her terrible twos.
Juan Flores works for Waste Management. While working at
Waste Management, he had a massive heart attack and his two
coworkers, Chuck and Rocky, started CPR till EMS got there. He was
one of our first recipients in the county of an ice protocol where they
cool the body to cool the brain to preserve it. Four days later he woke
up, and he's back at work already.
And Andrew Delicio had a massive heart attack while in a pool
and was pulled out by three visitors to our county from England who
started CPR until Golden Gate Fire Department and EMS got on
scene, and he's here today.
And if anyone of these three personnel would like to say a few
words, we'd be more than welcome to hear them.
Page 17
March 10, 2009
Andrew?
MR. DELICIO: Andrew Delicio, and I'm the one that they
saved. I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for them. The EMS were
very, very prompt, very, very professional, from what I -- I didn't
know anything that was going on, but after the story was told, you
know, that Tony Maro, Brendon Rivera, Jackie Lockerby, and
Christian Dibiazie (phonetic), who was the Batallion Chief, and he
was there and Sherry Wilson Watson. With that many people, I'm
surprised they didn't compress my chest right to my back.
But I'm a retired police officer. I was on for 27 years, and I
worked with fire personnel very closely, and they got a heck of a job, I
tell you. They do a very good job, as you can see.
But anyway, I want to thank them all, and I really, really --
there's not enough words I could say. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. WALDEN: Hi. My name is Mark Walden. I am Megan
Derocher's grandfather. And Officer Vasquez saved her life and
brought her back.
It's a very troubling experience, but his knowledge and wisdom
and strength and courage to do what you've done brought my
granddaughter back to me. God bless you. And all the rest of you
who have done what you've done, this county needs you, this country
needs you, keep up the good work, and thank you very much for your
service also.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, guests, I present to you
today's heros.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you all for all that you do for us.
We really appreciate it.
We've got 4B?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, but 4C's got some chiefs and stuff.
Page 18
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I don't understand why all ofthese
people are leaving. We have such a wonderful meeting in front of
them. They could stay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'll be asleep in 30 minutes.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING MARCH 10, 2009 AS A DAY
OF HEIGHTENED AWARENESS OF WILDFIRE DANGER IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY DAN SUMMERS, PETER
GADDY, JIM FLANAGAN, PEGGY WHITBECK, MICHAEL
RAMSEY, TIM NANCE, MICHAEL WESTON, CHIEF RITA
GREENBERG, CHIEF BOB METZGER, HANK GRAHAM AND
KEITH W A TCHEY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next item,
and if -- and we do have some of the chiefs here, and they'll be
recognized and -- for this next effort.
That bring us to 4C, which is a proclamation recognizing March
10,2009, as a Day of Heightened Awareness of Fire -- of Wildfire
Danger in Collier County, to be accepted by Dan Summers, Peter
Gaddy, Jim Flanagan, Peggy Whitbeck, Michael Ramsey, Tim Nance,
Michael Weston, Chief Rita Greenberg, Chief Bob Metzger, Hank
Graham, and Keith W atchey. If you could please come forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And a little side note. Sincere
appreciation of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association for
assisting this year. Every year we -- I assist in -- with the local fire
chiefs in putting on a fire awareness day holding meetings to try to
make the public aware of what's taking place and the great danger that
they're facing.
It's only through the educational efforts can our citizens be
prepared for anything.
Page 19
March 10, 2009
But the Golden Gate Civic Association stepped up this year and
helped to organize the event, and for that, I'm deeply grateful, just as
I'm as grateful for our emergency services that put on the event.
Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
has been made aware of the potential drought conditions due to
significant rainfall deficits; and,
Whereas, widespread drought conditions in combination with
abnormal cold and dry wintertime weather conditions can result in
severe wildfire threats and outbreaks; and,
Whereas, wildfires pose a serious threat to the life and property
of the residents and the visitors of Collier County; and,
Whereas, public safety agencies, the Division of Forestry, the
members of the community want to assure that residents and visitors
take responsibility to minimize the outbreak and spread of wildfires;
and,
Whereas, the public is requested to assist emergency responders
by working to assure a defensible zone of 30 feet around their primary
residence is cleared of brush and durbish so as to minimize the spread
of fire to homes and businesses; and,
Whereas, the public should help emergency vehicles proceed
safely to the scene by yielding for their safe passage; and,
Whereas, residents should ensure that their house numbers are
clearly visible and access can only (sic) be made by emergency
equipment to help protect their homes; and,
Whereas, residents should be prepared for emergency situations,
including evacuation if conditions become severe; and,
Whereas, residents should monitor local television, radio, and
their NOAA weather alert radios for emergency information during
times of active wildfire events.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that March 10,2009, be
designated as a Day of Heightened Awareness of Wildfire Danger in
Page 20
March 10, 2009
Collier County.
Done and ordered this, the 10th day of March, 2009, and signed
by our beloved chair, Donna Fiala, and I motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 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: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, you're got a heavy season in front of
you. We're all behind you, believe me.
Mike, how you doing? Good to see you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We need to get a picture, and I
need a couple people to hold proclamations. And this will be a picture
for prosterity (sic). Did I say it right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Posterity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, is someone going to say a
couple words? No, they're yours. Yeah, share them with whoever
you think should have them. You can put them in a frame and display
them on the wall. Is someone going to be saying a couple words?
Good, Peggy.
MS. WETBECK: Good evening or -- good evening? Good
morning, Commissioners. My name is Peggy Wetbeck. I'm the
President of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association.
We have a lot of problems in the Estates with fire, and we have a
Page 21
March 10,2009
lot of work to do, and we're going to continue the efforts to make
everybody aware that they need to have their homes and yards ready
in case a fire does happen.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SPAY DAY USA 2009.
ACCEPTED BY DR. RUTH EISELE, DAS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBER - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next
proclamation, which is recognizing Spay Day, the United States of
America 2009, to be accepted by Dr. Ruth Eisele, the DAS -- okay,
Leo? Eisele, excuse me -- Dr. Ruth Eisele, the DAS adviser- -- the
DAS Advisory Committee member.
Dr. Eisele, could you please come forward.
DR. EISELE: I'm bringing some of my friends.
MR. MUDD: Wonderful.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
Whereas, pets provide companionship to more than 71 million
households in the United States; and,
Whereas, due to a lack of critical resources and public awareness,
humane societies and animal shelters have to put down more than 4
million cats, dogs, and rabbits each year, many of whom are healthy
and adoptable; and,
Whereas, the tragic overpopulation of pets costs citizens and
taxpayers of this country millions of dollars annually through animal
services programs and at coping with the millions of homeless
animals; and,
Page 22
March 10, 2009
Whereas, spaying and neutering has been shown to dramatically
reduce the overpopulation of pets, proving to be a wise investment in
saving animal lives and taxpayer dollars; and,
Whereas, local veterinarians, Collier County Domestic Animal
Services, and private citizens work together to ensure the spaying of
more -- or neutering of more than 120 pets in Collier County through
February the 24th, 2009, Spay Day USA 2009.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that appreciation and
gratitude is bestowed upon the following local veterinarians for their
participation in Spay Day USA 2009: All Animals Clinic, Animal
Life Veterinary Center, Big Cypress, Brown Veterinary Clinic, Cat
Care Clinic of Naples, Crossroads Veterinary Clinic, East Side Animal
Clinic, Gulfshore Animal Hospital, Harborside Animal Clinic,
Humane Animal Clinic, Mission Hills Animal Clinic, Pebblebrook
Veterinary, and Pine Gate Veterinary Clinic.
Done and ordered this 10th day of March, 2009, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala, chairman.
Madam Chair, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor 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: And what I'd like to do is see all of those
other people in the audience from DAS come on up. Oh, don't be so
shy. Come on. Let us get them all in here.
(Applause.)
Page 23
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's going to accept the
proclamation? Dr. Eisele? And for an additional charge of $15, we'll
autograph it for you. It's a budget year.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to say a few words?
Would you like to say a few words?
DR. EISELE: My name is Ruth Eisele. I'm a veterinarian at
Harborside Animal Clinic and an advisory board member at Domestic
Animal Services.
On behalf of the veterinary community, I want to say that we
enjoyed participating and Domestic Animal Services did a really nice
job. I'd like to give specific thanks to Gloria. She ran it the best it's
ever been run. Made it easy for us to participate, and I hope that in the
future we'll have more participation and be able to offer this service to
Collier County residents. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF A DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,000.00 FROM THE DISABLED VETERANS FOUNDATION
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS COUNCIL
(PRESENTED BY BOBBY BROOKS, OPERATIONS MANAGER
FOR DISABLED VETERANS FOUNDA nON; ACCEPTED BY
JIM ELSON, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
VETERANS COUNCIL) - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to #5B. It's a
presentation of a donation in the amount of a thousand dollars from
the Disabled Veterans Foundation to the Collier County Veterans
Council to be presented by Bobby Brooks, operations manager for the
Page 24
March 10, 2009
Disabled Veterans Foundation, to be accepted by Jim Elson, the
president of the Collier County Veterans Council.
MR. BROOKS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hi.
MR. ELSON: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Why don't
you say a few words, Bobby.
MR. BROOKS: Thank you.
MR. ELSON: Commissioners.
MR. BROOKS: First of all, thank you for allowing us to come
up here and be part ofthis today. Our organization has gone through
some hard times lately, through no fault of your public or your
community. We're often mixed up with an organization that works in
this area, as well as other parts of Florida, that none of the people that
work for that organization are veterans.
Weare making every effort to every community that we go in to
distinguish ourselves. Every single person that works for our
organization is a veteran who is honorably discharged. It is my belief
and the foundation's belief that not one single veteran that has
honorably served this country deserves to be homeless.
Twenty-five percent of the donations that we collect go right
back to the veterans services in whatever community we work in.
There is nobody in the State of Florida that we know of currently that
has 70 beds that a veteran can come to today and get in one of our 70
beds. Through the donations, 67.8 percent of the money that goes in
the buckets that you see us carry goes directly to the veterans.
We appreciate the generosity of Collier County and Naples as
well. God bless America.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Brooks, a couple of commissioners
have some questions.
MR. BROOKS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Brooks, as you know,
Page 25
March 10, 2009
there has been some -- a number of questions raised in our community
about this.
MR. BROOKS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I mean no disrespect, and I
appreciated this $1,000 donation you made.
MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we do need to understand
whether or not you produce any financial reports that indicate how
much money is received and where the money goes, and how are you
registered and/or regulated?
MR. BROOKS: I have no dealings with the finances. John Luc,
the founder and the director of the foundation, will be glad to answer
that for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROOKS: Also I want to make a statement before I leave,
before I forget. I suffer from that CRS diseases, I can't remember stuff
very much. But Jeff Lytle has written some articles in the paper and
has let it be known to me personally that he wants to know where the
money goes.
I certainly want to tell each and every one that's in this room
today, any point in time that you want to come to any of our houses,
seven houses with ten beds each in them, you're more than welcome to
come, unannounced, anytime. We would be glad to show you what
we do.
MR. VERAGUAS: Hi. My name is Jean-Luc Veraguas. I'm the
Director. I'm the one that started this foundation.
As far as financial, we're registered with the State of Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. We're required to
report to them every year, all our finances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it possible for us to get a copy of
that financial report?
MR. VERAGUAS: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I sent -- yeah. I can
Page 26
March 10, 2009
fax it to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. VERAGUAS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be very helpful.
MR. BROOKS: Didn't we send one to Jeff?
MR. VERAGUAS: Yeah. I sent one to Mr. Lytle. We've only
been in existence for 15 months. Our first official one that we're
going to file with the State of Florida is going to be soon, you know,
before April 15th that we'll be filing for -- you know, for last year
basically.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I --
MR. BROOKER: And we just got our SOlc3, which was
delayed four months, wasn't it?
MR. VERAGUAS: Yeah, yeah. It was delayed four months
because my articles of incorporation were not stamped by the State of
Florida.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Now, the -- tell me
a little bit about this other organization that tends to do some
collecting, I guess, here. Are you aware that another organization is
doing the same thing here?
MR. VERAGUAS: Bobby's probably the best one for that. But
if you give me your card with your fax number, I'll go ahead and fax it
to you, because you do want to know my financial information, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. VERAGUAS: I will be -- we're starting a web site -- thank
you. We're starting a web site, and I will be publishing my financial
information on the website.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. VERAGUAS: I want everyone to know -- I want everyone
to know that everything is up and up. I didn't start this -- I started this
to help veterans, and that's homeless veterans. We want to see zero
homeless veterans in Florida and also in America, of course.
Page 27
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Are you a veteran?
MR. VERAGUAS: No, I'm not a veteran. I'm the only one. But
every one of the guys that work -- and I don't collect donations. I'm
the director. Everyone that works out there is a veteran, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the -- but, Bobby, you
were going to give us some information about this other organization?
MR. BROOKER: I'll be glad to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell us about them.
MR. BROOKS: Long story short, I've been to the attorney -- I've
spoken to the attorney general and given him what information I know
about the director of this foundation, and 1'11 go ahead and give you his
name. His name is Robert Vanhooten.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do you spell that last name?
MR. BROOKS: I'm sorry. Richard Vanhooten.
V-A-N-H-O-O-T-E-N.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BROOKS: I know for a fact that this gentleman lives in a
multi-million-dollar home with all the toys and the diamond rings and
40-foot boat. For the last four-and-a-halfto five years, this gentleman
has been making a living off of pulling homeless people out from
under bridges, young as age 14, that he brings into your communities
wearing the BDUs, and I would be willing to bet you that he can't
spell BDU if you spot him the B and the D, much less tell you what
Battle Dress Uniform stands for.
Certainly he is a 501C3, but the problem that I have personally
with this is I honorably served this country for 20-plus years. I
jumped out of airplanes for a living. And it is my belief that if a man
wants to live his lifestyle through the donations that he's fraudulently
getting from the generosity and the hard-earned dollars of the
American public by putting people on the street by representing them
as veterans, the American public, police officers -- I've never done this
before in my life. I've never even thought that I would be on a street
Page 28
March 10, 2009
corner carrying a bucket.
I do this because I want to give back to the veterans that are not
as fortunate as me. But when this guy puts people on the street, the
America public, automatically when they see a police officer or a
fireman, they're reaching in their pockets because their heart tells them
to do that.
That's how this guy is living the multi-million-dollar lifestyle that
he's living, and I have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we distinguish
representatives of that organization from yours? They all --
MR. BROOKS: Our organization, every veteran that you will
see in this community will have a National VA card. It has our name,
service connected, and a number on the back that you can call and
verify that we're who we say we are.
We also have recently started a Disabled Veterans Foundation. I
do not have it on currently today. That has all the pictures on it and
what branch of the military, and it says Disabled Veterans Foundation.
Now, you will see VSO, Veterans Support Organization, wearing
IDs around their chest and that says non-veteran. My question to him
and to some of his veterans recently in Daytona of this past week,
were, why are you even wearing fatigues if you're not a veteran?
They didn't have an answer for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We've been asking the same
question here.
MR. BROOKS: You know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, with respect to permitting.
Are you going through the proper permitting processes?
MR. BROOKS: Let me say this. John Luc gave me reins of the
operations of this organization about, what, six, eight weeks ago,
John?
Weare going above and beyond the call of duty, if you will, to
ensure that wherever we go that we're doing it legally and with the
Page 29
March 10, 2009
respect and with the condolence and -- of the commissions, police
departments. Instead of us going into a town and letting the police
come see us, we're going to see the police or county commissioners or
city council. That's the right way to do business.
I'm not saying that we have always done that. Certainly we
haven't. But I can assure you, as long as I have operation control, with
John's endorsement, that will be the way that we continue to do
business.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
MR. BROOKS: My pleasure. Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you the organization that was
out on the street corners during Christmastime in this area?
MR. BROOKS: Thanksgiving I know we were.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, Thanksgiving, and I think the
holiday season?
MR. VERAGUAS: First couple weeks of December.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So did you get the
necessary permits from the county in regards to this?
MR. VERAGUAS: Yeah, we did. We got from -- on Horseshoe
Drive, I guess, right-of-way department gave us a permit to work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I was just wondering
because I know that there were different locations, intersections that
there were people dressed in fatigues, and I was concerned at the time
whether or not that permits were obtained for doing this soliciting.
And one of the other concerns that I had is, I noticed that some of
your people were somewhat, I thought, overaggressive in trying to
obtain money from people that were stopped at intersections.
MR. BROOKS: I certainly appreciate that, Commissioner. That
gentleman's no longer with us. I know exactly who you were talking
about going up and knocking on windows.
Page 30
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. VERAGUAS: Yeah. He's no longer with us.
MR. BROOKS: I certainly apologize for that. And as soon as I
saw him do that -- let me go -- let me go a step further.
Again, I'm a career military guy, and as long as I have operation
control, we won't -- that won't be happening and we will, as I said,
have the permission of whoever we need to have permission before we
ever show up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm an ex-military person
myself.
MR. BROOKS: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question I have is, you
said that you donate 25 percent of what you collect in the community?
MR. VERAGUAS: That's correct. Twenty-five percent of what
we collect goes back to the community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so all those weekends that you
were out at intersections, you only -- any -- excuse me -- you ended up
with only $4,000?
MR. VERAGUAS: About, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, interesting. I'd be interested
to see your financial report also.
MR. VERAGUAS: Sure, no problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'm also a
former military person, just like probably half the people in this room
are. But question, sir, the end results of what you do is to provide
housing for veterans, and the reason I'm bringing this up is I know of a
person that, in April, single -- he's single, living alone, he's going to
become homeless. He's a Vietnam veteran. Can you tell me about the
housing that you provide and where it is? And do you have empty
beds at this time, and how long can a person stay?
MR. BROOKS: Great question, sorry I didn't make that clear.
Page 3 1
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This gentleman suffers from
results of Agent Orange, and not that he needs continuous medical
area.
MR. BROOKS: May I approach?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the question is, do you have
available beds now?
MR. BROOKS: Yes. I just wanted to you give that.
MR. VERAGUAS: We've got three beds open currently.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And whereabouts are they?
MR. BROOKS: Ft. Lauderdale, Miami -- actually, Ft.
Lauderdale and Hollywood.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you interested in purchasing
any property locally?
MR. VERAGUAS: I haven't looked into that right now. I mean,
we do have 70 beds. It's a lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. No, the reason I'm
saying is, I think it's noble what you're doing, I really do. And if
anything, if you can grow the mission and help our local veterans out
that are homeless, it would be tremendous. St. Matthew's House, at
this point in time, is picking up all the slack, and it sounds like what
your mission is, is very particularly aligned with veterans.
I tell you what, afterwards, if you're interested in some property,
we have unbelievable deals coming down through, and we have a
member of task forces out there that are purchasing these properties,
foreclosed properties. Is there any possibility that you might have
funds available to be able to purchase a home to offer it to local
veterans?
MR. BROOKS: The way we currently do business -- again,
John's been doing this for about 15 months. I've only been here a few
months.
We go into local communities, do what we do, we pick up
veterans -- I've picked them up as far as from Tennessee. I put them
Page 32
March 10, 2009
on a bus, bring them down to Miami/Ft. Lauderdale where our houses
are at no expense to them. Minimum 28 days. No food, no
transportation.
We plug them into the number one and number two VAs in the
country, currently Miami and West Palm. And whatever services,
psych services, A and D, vocational rehab, whatever services that they
need to be plugged into, we provide the transportation and the
wherewithal to get those folks there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't mean to interrupt
you, but I don't want to take up too much of your time. But would
you please work with our local organizations to see what kind of --
MR. BROOKS: I would love to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- collaborative effort can be
brought to be able to offer the service to our local residents.
MR. BROOKS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: These people that we're talking
about have roots here, and they really don't want to go to the other end
of the state to be able to receive services.
We have a great community for veterans here, and we have
transportation to be able to get them to the different VA hospitals. If
you'd take the time to do that, possibly give us a report in the future
about how your venture's coming forward, I would appreciate it very
much.
MR. BROOKS: Be my pleasure, Mr. Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
MR. BROOKS: Thank you.
MR. VERAGUAS: You said you have contact with properties?
Because that's the number one thing that -- maybe you can give me a
-- I could give you a call and find out what, because that's what I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: More than happy.
MR. VERAGUAS: That's the whole thing about it. I bought ten
properties and --
Page 33
March 10, 2009
MR. ELSON: We'll work on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. I think we've got
something going here so we can turn something that turned out to be a
thousand-dollar check into something that might be much bigger and
more meaningful for our own residents.
MR. ELSON: Right.
MR. VERAGUAS: It starts with a house. And obviously, I've
been housing homeless people, by the way. This is -- the veteran
thing is a new thing, but I've been helping homeless people for 11
years, so I know how it works, and I've been doing it for a while, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MR. BROOKS: God bless America and thank you very much.
MR. ELSON: Gentlemen, I want to help you for the donation. It
will help veterans council.
One of the things that we do, aside from just the homeless
people, as you know, a couple of weeks ago we helped a young lance
corporal come home from Iraq to attend his mother's funeral and then
move on to Camp Lejune for his advanced training. This afternoon
we're thanking our veteran services drivers. We have a special
luncheon for the people that drive the vans, take people to their
hospitals.
And, of course, at the end of the month we're helping conduct a
special ceremony to award the French Legion of Honor Medal to those
that served in liberating France. So we do run the full spectrum, and
every little bit of money does help. But it would be nice to start an
organization that would provide some housing.
So, Council -- or Chairman and Commissioners, I thank you for
helping us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much, Jim.
MR. ELSON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 34
March 10, 2009
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OUTSTANDING MEMBER AWARD FOR FEBRUARY 2009 TO
MARCO A. ESPINAR - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is a presentation of
the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award for February,
2009, to Mr. Marco Espinar.
Mr. Espinar, if you could please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Espinar has served as the chairman of the
Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee of the Conservation
Collier on two occasions during his tenure and currently serves as
such.
Under his leadership, the first six final management plans for
Conservation Collier preserves have been drafted and subsequently
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Espinar is a champion of hunting and always seeks to have it
included if appropriate. He has assigned staff in developing language
for cattle leases on two properties.
As a member of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Committee, he is always prepared for the meetings and actively
participates in discussions. His opinion is respected by all members of
the committee.
Mr. Espinar uses his knowledge in environmental management
and listed species protection to help develop appropriate and effective
management actions. When actions taken are appropriate and
effective, costs are kept to a minimum.
Mr. Espinar is an environmental consultant in his working life.
The knowledge that he shares during the management plan review
process would be costly to obtain if Collier County were paying for
Page 35
March 10, 2009
the same services he shares for no cost to assist his community
through Conservation Collier.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's indeed my pleasure to present to you
the Advisory Committee Outstanding Member Award for February,
2009, and to give it to Mr. Marco A. Espinar.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Marco, for all your service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Job well done.
Item #5D
RECOGNIZING CRISTINA PEREZ, SENIOR INVESTIGATOR,
CODE ENFORCEMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR
FEBRUARY 2009 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to another
presentation, and this is a recommendation to recognize Christina
Perez, Senior Investigator, Code Enforcement, as Employee of the
Month for February, 2009.
Christina Perez, Senior Investigator, has been nominated as the
Employee of the Month for February, 2009. Christina has been with
the county since 2003, starting out as a customer services
representative in the community development division. She quickly
became a code enforcement investigator and has worked her way up
over the years to become a senior investigator. Due to her hard work
and accomplishments, she was most recently promoted to an
investigative supervisor in December of2008.
Christina leads by example and is considered to be one of the
go-to people in her department. She is always willing to help with any
issue, no matter how big or small. Throughout her career, she has
gone out of her way to help the citizens of Collier County.
Christina helps residents with code violations to get into
Page 36
March 10, 2009
compliance on time to avoid extra fees. She organized the Community
Copeland Cleanup that will use volunteers to help remove litter and
debris from Copeland, Florida. She has submitted a proposal for the --
for the Fire Department to do controlled burns on unsafe structures
scheduled to be demolished by the county which, if implemented, will
save -- okay, I'll say it -- which, if implemented, will save thousands
of dollars in taxpayers' money.
Christina was also a recipient of the department's Golden Badge
Award based on the nominations from peers for going the extra mile.
This award is given by Code Enforcement's Employee Recognition
Committee, of which she is an important part.
F or these and many other reasons, she is well deserving of this
award. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Christina
Perez, senior investigator, code enforcement Employee of the Month,
February, 2009.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't thank you enough. I
really do appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Here's a letter from us and a little check.
Wish it was a lot, lot, lot bigger. Something for your wall.
MS. PEREZ: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #13A
PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 13A, which
is a time certain of ten a.m. It's a presentation of the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year which ended September
30, 2008.
Page 37
March 10, 2009
MS. KINZEL: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Crystal Kinzel, Finance Director for the Clerk of Courts.
We're here today to present to you the 2008 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report, commonly referred to as the CAFR. This
report includes a couple of things that I want to make notable mention.
For example, a 2007 award from the Government Finance
Officers Association for excellence in reporting for the 2007 report.
That was our 22nd consecutive year receiving the award for
excellence. This report will also be submitted, and we'll hope to make
it 23 consecutive years.
We also -- I believe each commissioner received their book, but
additionally this year we have available, as a cost-saving measure,
producing and preparing the report on disk. So for members of the
audience or taxpayers, it will also be posted on the clerk's website, as
it has been in the past.
Before we start the presentation, Commissioners, I would like to
thank several people and recognize particularly the finance and
accounting staff led by Derek Johnssen and Kelly Jones. Derek, Kelly
stand up. They work all year to prepare and produce the documents
that you see before you, so it is a -- it is an accomplishment.
We'd also like to thank the constitutional officers, the county
staff. Everyone works together bringing together the financial
information to make sure that we're able to prepare this and present it
to you.
We additionally would like to thank Ernst and Young, our
auditors. They had a team this year that worked with us to get the
financials done, prepare it, and I think we're a little earlier than last
year, and we hope to keep this goal for the future also.
So with that said, I'd like to introduce John Desanto, executive
director with Ernst and Young. And Mr. Desanto will present to you
the financial statements.
MR. DESANTO: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair,
Page 38
March 10, 2009
members of the board. I appreciate the opportunity to come before
you today to present the results of the 2008 audit.
My colleague actually did this presentation, I think it was June of
last year, the '07. So I think we're about three months ahead of where
we have been historically, or certainly where we were last year, and
that could not have been accomplished without the assistance of the
county manager's staff as well as the finance department staff.
You should have before you a document that's up on the screen.
It's titled, Collier County Florida 2008 Financial Statement Audit
Results, and that is the document that I'm going to be speaking off of.
Page 2 is just the agenda of the items that I'm going to cover. I'm
not going to go through each of those items in detail unless you would
like me to. I'm just going to highlight certain things that I think
warrant me to highlight and point out relative to the audit.
Page 3 is just a snapshot of Ernst and Young's Client Service
Commitment to Collier County, Florida. That's how we serve our
clients in the whole entire process of serving clients.
As far as the reports that we issued in conjunction with our audit,
we did issue an unqualified or a clean-audit opinion on your financial
statements on the CAFR for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008.
We also issued a report on internal control over financial
reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of
the financial statements performed in accordance with government
auditing standards.
In that report we did disclose one significant deficiency in
internal controls over financial reporting related to capital asset
accounting, and I will discuss that a little bit later on in the report. We
also disclosed in that report that we noted no instances of
noncompliance with laws and regulations.
We also issued a report on compliance with major federal and
state grant programs. We audited 11 programs total for fiscal 2008.
Eight of those programs were federal awards, and three of those
Page 39
March 10, 2009
programs were state awards, and they are listed out on Page 4 of this
document.
With respect to the 11 programs that we audited for compliance
for your federal and state programs, four of those programs did have
qualified audit opinions, so there were exceptions that were noted and
pointed out in our report, and seven of them had unqualified or
clean-audit opinions.
We also issue a management letter that we're required to issue
under the rules of the auditor general in that management letter. We
did point out the significant deficiency in internal controls that I
referred to earlier. And again, I'll go over in a little bit more detail
later, and that also pointed out no instances with noncompliance with
Florida Statutes or rules of the auditor general in the State of Florida.
We did issue separate unqualified or clean-audit opinions on the
constitutional officers, and we issued an unqualified or clean opinion
on a stand-alone or separate financial statement of the water and sewer
fund.
I put this slide together. It's Page 6 of the document comparison
of audit results of the prior year just so the board would be able to
clearly see the improvement that we think was made over financial
reporting from 2007 to 2008.
With respect to audit adjustments, adjustments that we detected
during the audit, there was four of them that were detected during
2008. In 2007 there were over 30 of them. That gives us a little bit of
reference.
Also with respect to findings that were considered to be
significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal controls,
2008, there was the one that I referred to earlier. In 2007 there were
three of those.
Also, with respect to findings on our audit of federal and state
grant programs, we had a total of six findings for our 2008 audit, and
there were 16 findings in 2007. So, again, you can see that there was
Page 40
March 10, 2009
definitely improvement noted there.
And with respect to the management letter, in the current year
management letter we had no current year comments other than that
significant that I referred to earlier. And in the prior year, there were
actually six comments that we had. And of those six, three were fully
implemented by staff and three of them are in the process of being
implemented.
The next several pages are the required communications. These
are matters that auditors are required to communicate to oversight
organizations and those charged with governance in organizations
such as this board. And I am going to go through all of these at high
level. Of course, if you'd like me to explain any of then in more
detail, I would be happy to do so.
The first item -- and I'm at the top of Page 7 -- the auditor's
responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards. I'd like
to point out a couple of things here. First, our audit is designed to
determine whether or not the financial statements are presented fairly
and provide reasonable assurance that they present fairly in
accordance within generally accepted accounting principles, and
reasonable rather than absolute assurance.
Secondly, with respect to internal controls, we examine and
review and test and study the internal controls over financial reporting
in order to enable us to plan and perform our audit, not to issue a
separate opinion on internal controls. And as I pointed out earlier, we
did issue a clean or an unqualified audit opinion on the county's
financial statements, or the CAFR that Crystal alluded to.
With respect to significant accounting policies, those are
disclosed in footnote one to the CAFR that you should have. I did
want to point out that during fiscal '08, the county was required to and
did adopt GASB statement number 45 on postemployment benefits
other than pension plans, and that resulted in a $3.8 million liability
being recorded in your final statements.
Page 41
March 10, 2009
With respect to our judgments about the quality of the accounting
principles selected and used by county management in preparing the
financial statements, we did find those policies and procedures to be
selected to be consistent with those that were required to be used by
accounting and industry standards and also consistently applied with
pnor years.
With respect to sensitive accounting estimates that are included
in your final statements, they are listed out here, but management does
make certain estimates that are included in the financials. Those items
are things such as establishing potential allowances for uncollectible
accounts receivable for determining compensated absence liabilities,
estimating self-insurance reserves, and estimating the postemployment
benefit liability.
With respect to methods of accounting for unusual and
significant transactions and for controversial or emerging areas, there
really weren't any of them during the year, but I'd be remiss ifI didn't
tell you that we certainly considered in our audit approach and in our
audit procedures for the fiscal '08 year the impact of the current credit
crisis on the county and also the current economic environment.
And one of the things that we look at are the reserves, and we
certainly looked at the reserves of your general fund in relation to your
total annual expenditures in the general fund. And at the end of 2008,
your current reserves in the general fund are about 17 percent of
annual expenditures. That is pretty consistent with what we're seeing
for some other counties, certainly in the northern west coast of
Florida. I think when you get down further south, like into your Lee
Counties (sic) and even, I think, Sarasota County, you might find that
they have higher -- a higher reserve percentage than you probably are
showing right now, but I can tell you that industry-wide, a rule of
thumb is to be right around that 60 days or 16 percent or so. That did
represent about a 4 percent decline in reserves from the prior year, a
decline in reserves of 3 to 5 percent. Again, it's consistent with what
Page 42
March 10, 2009
we're seeing with some of your peers in the State of Florida, primarily,
again, due to amendment one, property tax reform and things like that.
We've seen most county and city governments similar to you all
doing a combination of cutting costs, looking for alternative revenue
sources, as well as using some existing reserves.
So, again, that's not inconsistent with what we would have
expected to see for Collier County, and also it's not inconsistent with
what we're seeing in the industry in the State of Florida.
With respect to significant audit adjustments, I did mention
earlier, I think we had four audit adjustments during the year, and they
related to capital asset accounting and revenue and expense
recognition. Those adjustments were recorded by management in
your financial statements. There were no unrecorded audit differences
that were identified, so we only had those four differences, and they
all were recorded by management.
With respect to flawed and illegal acts, we're not aware of any
matters that require communication. There is a subsequent slide that
I'll point out when I get to it that spells out the required procedures
auditors are required to perform in order to determine or detect
whether or not there was a fraud that would have been material to your
organization. We did perform all of those procedures and, again, there
are no -- we did not identify any matters related to fraud, errors,
irregularities, illegal acts or any of those items.
And with respect to significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses in internal controls, the one item that we did point out as a
significant deficiency in internal controls, it related to the restatement
of the capital asset balance in the water and sewer fund. I did want to
point out that that difference was detected by management; however,
it was detected during the fiscal '08 audit, and all of these transactions
related to 2007 fiscal years and prior. So while management did
detect it, it was not detected timely. So I just wanted to point that out.
Other information and documents containing the audited
Page 43
March 10, 2009
financial statements: You'll note within your CAFR there are things
such as combining financial statements and schedules, and
management's discussion and analysis required supplementary
information. We did review all of that information, and it is consistent
with the financial statements that are included in the CAFR.
We did not have any disagreements with management. We had
no difficulties in performing our audit. Again, I think to evidence that,
we're here three months earlier than we were in the past. And, again,
that could not have been accomplished without the assistance of the
county manager staff, as well as the finance department staff.
There were no major issues discussed with management prior to
our continuing retention as your auditors, and there were no
consultations that management may have had with other accountants
of which we are aware.
And with respect to independence, Ernst and Young is
independent of Collier County in all respects.
The next -- the next thing I want to point out, Page 11 is the slide
on fraud consideration and the risk of management override of internal
controls. This is really here for your informational purposes, but this
does spell out the requirements of what auditors are required to do
with respect to detecting whether or not there was a significant or a
material fraud in your organization.
And as I pointed out earlier, we did perform all of those
procedures, and we did not identify anything that needs to be reported
to you.
The next several items are just three appendices. Appendix A
and Appendix C are information that government auditing standards
require us to communicate on an annual basis to those charged with
governance in organizations. Appendix A essentially requires us to
provide you with information relative to the different services we
provide to the county and what our responsibilities are with respect to
testing and reporting on internal controls and compliance with laws
Page 44
March 10, 2009
and regulations, and that's what Appendix A is.
Appendix B, timing of required communications. All of those
required communications I just reviewed with you, they're required to
be communicated at least annually to you; however, certain of those
items that I went over with you are also -- are also required to be
communicated upon the occurrence of the event if we become aware
of that.
An example of that would be if there was a disagreement with
management on a significant accounting issue. I would need to come
to you as soon as we're aware of that and not wait until the end of the
audit.
Same thing in became aware of a material fraud or irregularity.
So, again, this is for your information so you know when -- when I am
required to communicate those matters to you.
And Appendix C, which I alluded to earlier, it's required by
government auditing standards. This is a peer review report. What
this is, is Ernst and Young is required to undergo an audit every three
years by another audit firm, and they essentially audit our audit
practice to make sure that we're following industry standards as well
as our own standards and practices in performing our audits.
We did get a clean or an unqualified opinion. We've also
included in there some findings and recommendations that that other
audit firm had as well as our response to that. And, again, I am
required to communicate and provide that to you.
And that essentially completes my presentation for today. I'll
open it up for any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- is there any way that we
can receive this report earlier? I received this report on Friday, part of
our regular agenda. And I find the information in it very, very helpful.
MR. DESANTO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I didn't get a real chance to
Page 45
March 10, 2009
study the report. And if we just get it earlier before the presentation.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner, I appreciate that. You
know, we are trying to print and process, so I apologize. But we are
trying to get it to you earlier each year. And we will make an extra
effort next year to get you the draft document or additional
information before the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It would be -- it would be
very, very helpful. The -- your comments, where do we go from here?
Some of the comments -- I think there was one comment on a
constitutional officer about some federal monies we received, and then
on the board's side we've had some comments about the housing
department.
From there, the constitutional officer and the county manager
will respond, I would believe, directly to the Board of Commissioners
and the audit team?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that how it works?
MR. MUDD: What we have to do is once we find -- you have a
finding or a deficiency or material weakness or whatever, once that's
encountered and found, staff comes back with a comment to those
particular findings and whatnot.
In your particular CAFR, in your book, if you just go to a tab
called federal, state, single audit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. If you go to Page 182. Now, this is a little
abnormal because we normally put them in order. 2008-1, the reason
it's got a zero, it had to do with the finding -- the deficiency that was
found with the capitalization comment that John made in the fact that
in prior years we reported it as capital -- capitalization in the
water/sewer side of the house, and it shouldn't have been reported that
way.
We found it, identified it, brought it to the auditor's attention, and
Page 46
March 10, 2009
we will correct that in years out. And every one of those things now,
2008-1, 2008-2 are all there, and you'll see in the paragraphs that
follow, there'll be a recommendation, and it also has management
comment. We will continue to make progress fixing those things.
We've instituted a process within the manager's agency called
Excel, and that process has helped us. And John also mentioned how
well we did do fixing prior years' deficiencies in making them better,
and that I attributed to that program that I've engaged the organization
in order to do that.
What we will continue to do -- you'll notice also in that section
that we go into deficiencies -- and they're numbered 2007, and I
believe there's a couple of 2006s in there -- they never let go of those
deficiencies, okay. They'll hold onto it, and they'll ask for progress on
how we fix them, and we're obligated to make sure that we do fix
them when we provide that information to them, so -- and that's
always part of your audit process on an annual basis, and I don't let the
staff go. We will work with the sheriffs organization in that other
process, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have some further questions.
Please, go ahead.
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me -- and Commissioner Henning, just to
clarify something County Manager said. On the capital asset item for
water and sewer, that is corrected in the book before you. The problem
was some of the events were in prior years and we caught it in '08 as a
management group. But because the correction was multiple year,
they're required to state it.
So it is correct now. It's being handled appropriately, and it's
reported appropriately in this CAFR.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I got that from your report.
I got that the county manager's agency caught the deficiency and
corrected it. But there are a lot of other things -- and I know that the
federal and state requirements for housing is -- is so obnoxious, like --
Page 47
March 10, 2009
just an example.
On staffs allocated time for each of the grants, they have to be
recorded. And so, you know, I can understand the complexity more
and more about the housing department, and the -- and with the new
program such as HOME. Actually I seen comments that are the same
from 2006 or '7 that we still need to -- still need to fix.
And I'm sure the county -- I mean, we -- when I meet with the
county manager, we talk about these issues and try to constantly get
an update on it. But those requirements under federal government are
just horrendous. So I don't know what we should -- we should be
doing with that.
I guess my concern is, do we ever have the ability to lose future
grants because of the reporting and commitments under the state and
federal guidelines?
MS. KINZEL: Well--
MR. MUDD: Answer to that question is yes.
MS. KINZEL: -- yes. There is a risk associated with
noncompliance, obviously. I think what grantor agencies typically
look for are attempts to remediate corrective measures, corrective
actions. And what we are doing is accounting to correct any
deficiencies that we may have had.
They're usually not as adamant as long as you are working
toward a common goal. You're making it, people make mistakes.
They are much more unforgiving of a county that would not recognize
the issues and not take any action.
So I think that if you see what staff is -- their intent and what
we've planned to do as well as the things that have been fixed in the
past, I don't think we have an element of risk at this point; but
obviously with any funding from the federal or state government,
compliance is of primary concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm glad you told me that
we're working towards solutions to those issues and not ignoring them.
Page 48
March 10,2009
And I guess I must recognize that the housing department, previous
audits, we're getting there. That's the only thing I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Under the tab of Clerk of
Courts -- my book is already falling apart here. I looked under the
Special Purpose Balance Sheet, governmental funds. I think it's on
Page 3. And it says, due from the Collier County, Florida, Board of
County Commissioners $4,000,848 (sic) -- or $448,848,777. Can you
explain what that charge is that we owe you?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner, for the record, Crystal
Kinzel. The majority of that amount of money is related to the
invoicing of the board for clerk's services in the prior year. And if you
look, you'll also see a reference to the deferred revenue under that for
the 4,009,000 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. KINZEL: -- that's not recognized as revenue because it has
not been paid to the clerk from the board, but we recognize it as a due
from until the issue of those invoices is resolved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And can you explain in detail, a
little more detail, what we really owe you for and what services that
you're referring to?
MS. KINZEL: I believe, Commissioner Halas, we're working on
that with the Productivity; you referred it to them. So we have been
working to go over the invoices and the backup and the information
associated with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we'll get an answer, I
take it, in the near future, of what's going on here?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, Commissioner, we're working on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Then on Page 4, I notice it
says, revenue charges for service of$3,283,635, then there's another
entry of total expenditures of $8,323,911. What is these charges? Can
you explain the charges of the $3,283,635?
Page 49
March 10, 2009
MS. KINZEL: Those would include recording fees for the
clerk's office, other general revenues received from -- by the clerk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so the difference
between the 3 million and the 8 million is about $5 million. Can you
tell me is the -- what's the end result of the $5 million? Who's got
custody of the $5 million?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, this recognizes revenue of over
$35 million. If you look, it includes both charges for services and
interest income earned by the clerk, and so you have revenue sources
of over 35 million. The 8 million is the total expenses. That would be
the operations under the general fund for the clerk's office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this is the -- this is the clerk's
payroll?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So is that what the $5 million is is
the clerk payroll?
MS. KINZEL: That is all the financial operations of the clerk
associated with the non-court-related functions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Non-court-related functions, okay,
all right.
One other question I have and it relates to -- I think it's on Page
17. And it says under receivables -- my concern is, since July 1,2004,
the accumulated receivables through September 30,2007, total
$18,936,086.
For the current period, October 1,2007, through September 30,
2008, the accumulated additional revenue receivable is about
$5,337,197, for the total accumulative receivable balance of
$24,273,283.
Is this court-related costs that haven't been collected?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir, primarily court-related costs, and those
are the cumulative historical value of those costs not collected.
Remember, if we have assessments by the court, people go to
Page 50
March 10, 2009
jail, those are pretty much uncollectible until they get out of jail. So
you will see a significant receivable. I think that's pretty typical.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you have issued bench warrants
in regards to this?
MS. KINZEL: That's not our position, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how are you going to collect
the funds? Somebody's got to be responsible for collecting these
funds.
MS. KINZEL: We do have a collections section of the clerk's
organization that works to collect funds. We also file a state report on
collections and collections activity. We have met all of our
collections standards with the state regarding court collections except
for the criminal felony, which is falling just a percent or so below.
And, again, that's related to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you don't collect these funds,
then does this fall on the shoulders of the Collier County Board of
Commissioners to take care of the court-related costs then?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, the funding mechanism is
complicated, and there are some state-funded as well as local funds for
the courts, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I asked you a question. Are we
now obligated to take care of the court funds since you haven't
connected -- collected?
MS. KINZEL: No, sir. That's not how it works, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you sure?
MS. KINZEL: I'm sure. And we reported to the state
consistently on our collections activity, and as I said, we've met all of
the state standards for collection. There's a general expectation of
collection percentages based on your activities, and we've exceeded
every one except criminal felony -- felony, which I began to explain,
is because if people are incarcerated, it's difficult to make that
collection off of an incarcerated individual. So you may not see
Page 51
March 10, 2009
collections on many of those things until such time that they're
released from jail, or if ever.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let me ask you this question.
The $24 million that is owed, okay, is this comparable to other
counties in regards to what the court systems owe?
MR. DESANTO: It's probably not totally out of line. I mean, it's
on the high side, I would say, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think it would be in the
high side, $24 million that we haven't collected, and I would think that
there's got to be an obligation somewheres in the system to collect
these fees or else these individuals should be incarcerated and, some
way or another, this debt be paid off.
MS. KINZEL: We agree, Commissioner, and we attempt to
collect everything that we can, obviously.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, yes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we accept the CAFR report for 2007, I believe.
MS. KINZEL: Eight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2008, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a second on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning to accept the CAFR report for 2008, a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 52
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a 4-1 vote.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. DESANTO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think due diligence has been
involved.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A break.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next item which is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A break.
MR. MUDD: Oh, is a break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yep. We'll take a ten-minute break.
MR. MUDD: Quarter to, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. We have to be back at 10:50.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY RICK JOHNSON TO
DISCUSS LEFT HAND TURN ONTO DUDLEY FROM
WHIPPOORWILL LANE - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO LOOK
OVER PUD TO DETERMINE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
DEVELOPERIMPROVEMENTS-CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item, and
we'll -- and we'll go to petitions. The first petition is the public
petition request by Rick Johnson to discuss a left-hand turn onto
Dudley from Whippoorwill Lane. I will also make sure the board is
aware that your petition 6B is related because it also has to do with
Dudley Road issue and the closure thereof. But we'll wait till we get to
that particular one to see where the petitioner is, but I believe you'll
Page 53
March 10, 2009
hear some of the same things, again.
So Mr. Johnson, if you could please come forward. You're the
gentleman that does all the Leo cars. I swear he has stock in your
business.
MR. JOHNSON: Great. That's great.
My name is Rick Johnson. I'm the owner of Rick Johnson Auto
and Tire here in Naples and Ft. Myers.
I'm here because I own a store in what's called Naples Plaza
Owners Association up at 95- -- I mean Pine Ridge Road and 75. It's
a PUD, a 1984 PUD. And when we went into the PUD, we had an
access on Lawson; that's the road between Shell and Burger King. We
had an access that you could take a left-hand turn going west on Pine
Ridge, take a left-hand on Lawson, and you'd go down to
Whippoorwill and take a left-hand on Whippoorwill and then take a
left-hand back on Dudley.
Everybody knows the area, so it's very, very easy. It is an
interstate exchange commercial project. It is where people go on the
interstate, they come off the interstate, and they've got to have a place
to stay, the Best Western; they've got to have a place to eat, the Burger
King; and they have a place to fuel up, which is the Shell station and a
Chevron.
Now, with me today to represent the owners -- I'm one of them --
we have Trent Seguin from Best Western -- he represents a lot of Best
Westerns -- and we also have Wayne Brian. Now, Wayne Brian used
to live here, and he's -- some of you all might know him. He used to
work on -- for the building department and fire review. He also was
fire marshal in East Naples before he become the director of real estate
for Pantry and the Kangaroo, which is the people who own the
Chevron, okay. Those are the representatives that are here today.
Now, I'm speaking for the association, Naples Plaza Owners
Association.
So right now we had maximum access for our people to come off
Page 54
March 10, 2009
the interstate and easy access for tractor trailers, easy access for the
fire department to get in. Well, since Pine Ridge Road was, you
know, six laned, that got rid of a left-hand turn on Lawson. We didn't
like it. We had to live with it. We understood it. We understood why
the left-hand turn lane was taken away.
We still had the left-hand turn lane onto Whippoorwill where you
could take a left on Dudley. Now, you've got to think about this area.
If you stay up there ten to 15 minutes -- and I live only two blocks
away from this -- there is literally hundreds and hundreds of cars on an
hourly basis. We had the news here, and he went up there and did two
stories, and within five minutes he seen 12 cars just doing U-turns. I
mean, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of cars that go into
this PUD from the interstate. It's Best Western's, one of the best
hotels. I mean, it's one of our busiest stores.
But since it -- the median was built on Dudley, our business and
everybody else's business has tremendously suffered. Wayne Brian
tells me his business is down 40 percent. That's tremendous,
tremendous, ever since the access was denied on Dudley.
We have -- my business is down. The Best Western's having
huge issues with complaints on it. Can't get into it, can't get into it.
The fire department doesn't like it either, North Naples Fire
Department.
Now, I was there getting gas just last week. There was a man
who had a problem at the Burger King. He must have had a heart
attack or something happened to him. The fire truck and ambulance
come from the east, coming from the east going west instead of -- I
don't know where they were coming from. But anyway, they had to
make the U-turn at Whippoorwill. Fire truck trying to make a U-Turn
at Whippoorwill was quite a site. It was very difficult for him to make
the U-Turn because you have to make the U-Turn at Whippoorwill,
right there at the Racetrac, and you make the U-Turn. When you get
over on that far right-hand lane because you've got a big vehicle --
Page 55
March 10, 2009
same thing with a tractor trailer -- then you've got to extend way left to
go right into Lawson. It's a difficult, difficult turn.
We as the owners of this PUD, of this association here, are
tremendously suffering, especially during a downed economy. You
know, when the DOT did this, they never told anybody.
Now, they claimed they mailed us a letter November the 6th--
yeah, November the 6th, '06. Never got it. None of the owners. Nine
owners there. None of us ever got it. We never even knew about the
issue of money until after the October 15th meeting in here when they
were in here and they -- it was later in the afternoon, October 15th. I
have the minutes here. And it come up, and you all -- they -- the
DOT, I hate to tell you, but DOT didn't tell you the whole story.
Nobody ever knew, the owners, that we owed any money at all.
So they told you that we owed money, and so you all decided
that after being misled by DOT not telling you the whole -- that's what
I call misleading somebody -- they -- you all decided that until we
pay, you all are not going to give us the left-hand turn on Dudley.
Well, that's not right. You all didn't have the whole story. The whole
story is, they should have never even put up the median. They should
have told us two years ago that they were going to do this, then we
could have fought it then, because it's -- it's terrible. It's caused a huge
hazard. It's astronomically bad. Anybody who goes down there, it's
just bad.
Now, I come here today to ask you all to make a decision to give
us back the left-hand turn on Dudley. That's what we need so we have
access, so our fire trucks have access, so tractor trailers have access,
everybody has proper access into our property.
Since we've owned the property, our access has been cut down to
30 percent. It's very difficult to get in there now. It's a very hard
thing. Our property values are tremendously affected, because if you
go to sell your property, you're going to have an issue because you
don't have as much access, you know, which we had.
Page 56
March 10,2009
Plus DOT's reasoning that -- the reason why they got rid of the
median is that cars were going to turn down Whippoorwill to take a
left on Dudley and they were going to back up into Pine Ridge. Now,
I've been there for a long time. I've been in Collier County a long
time. That's never happened, and never is a long time. It's never
happened. I've never been there and seen it. And since I live only two
blocks away on Bottlebrush, I'm there every morning at the rush hour
at number six store.
Now, they said, well, future growth, future growth. You know,
DOT needs to make a decision to talk to the people that it's going to
directly affect negatively, and they didn't do that. After October 15th,
then they started contacting us saying, you owe us money. We're
saying, well, what kind of Kevorkian method did you come up with
how -- what our share is? Since you only split it by three when there's
four corners and then you're bringing up a 2001 improvement, which
we knew nothing about. That's eight years ago, 2001. Nobody's ever
told anybody anything.
And to tell you, my slogan's, fair and honest, tell a friend, and if I
owe you money, I'll pay you money. If you prove to me that we owe
it -- and all the documents they sent to me -- and I'm just a tire guy
and I don't know a whole lot. But the documents here that I got right
here says that it's -- the developer shall pay for this.
Well, I've asked DOT, prove to me in a documentation that we
assumed the responsibility of the developer, and we assumed the
rights of whatever the developer said he was going to do, because
we're just individual landowners in this project. We set up our
association after we got involved.
So, they -- it keeps saying developer, and -- the developer's name
-- Bernard Dudley. He's 90-some years old. He was the original
developer in 1984. So we haven't seen -- we've got two lawyers.
We've got a few lawyers. We had two lawyers look over the entire
documents, all the documents. We can't figure out how they make this
Page 57
March 10, 2009
move.
Now, there's a possibility you all could prove that we owe the
money. But, you know, if we owe the money since 2001, you all
could have easily liened the land, and we'd have paid you. My
proportionate share is not that much.
I mean, they just told us after October 15th, so how can we as
law-abiding citizens, people who pay a lot of taxes -- that little place
pays tons of taxes. How can we be expected to pay something till
we're proven that we owe it? Somebody gives you all a bill and says,
hey, you owe this, you're going to check it out, try to figure out
whether you really owe it or not.
And if you figure out you don't owe it, then you want them to
prove that I owe it. If they prove that we owe it, then obviously we'll
pay it, and we won't have a problem in paying our bills.
We have a serious problem when somebody builds a median and
directly affects our business. I mean, that becomes personal. You
know, those guys that work at DOT, they're really not nice people, but
they get a paycheck and they go home every day. They're not
negatively affected. We are, and it's not right.
And we are asking the council to give us back the left-hand turn
yesterday. Then you'd just cut the median out, give us the left-hand
turn. Never had a problem with the left-hand turn in the first place.
Never had a problem with it, not until Naples Nissan went in and they
expanded the intersection. That turn never had an issue, and never is a
long time. And we've been there for a while.
So we know that we have severance damages because we, you
know, don't have any access, and it's tough. I tell you, tractor trailer
with a load of tires is hard to get in there. It's tough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate you coming here
today. We heard one side of the story, now I'd like to hear the other
side of the story from our transportation department.
Page 58
March 10, 2009
I believe that there were some commitments that were directed
by the Board of County Commissioners at the time that we closed off
this intersection when it was important that it was, so hopefully we
can get to the other side of the story so that we can decide what we
need to do here.
MS. AUCLAIR: Good morning commissioners, Claudine
Auclair, Transportation Planning Department.
Just want to give you a brief update of what's been going on since
the last board meeting of October, 2008, when they were put -- you
asked that we go and collect the outstanding commitments on the
PUD. A notification letter was sent to the association who manages
the area. The letter was first returned and was resent again. Then we
-- I got communication from Mr. Johnson.
We sent Mr. Johnson a packet of information with the minutes,
with the ordinance and backup information telling them about the
outstanding commitments of the PUD.
We've had several conversations with Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Johnson said he was going to contact the group, kind of serve as the
representative of the group and get back to us and sit with us so we
can discuss those commitments and the amount of money and all that.
We then had more conversation with Johnson that demanded us
to re-open the median as soon as possible, that it was causing them
hardship.
We then told Mr. Johnson that we had to follow board direction
that was given to us in October, that the only way we could go ahead
and proceed with any other median modification was to get direction
from you to do so. We have not sat down with Mr. Johnson or the
group to discuss the value of what he's saying about they owe the
commitments or they don't owe the commitments to this date.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could, Commissioners, Nick
Casalanguida, for the record. A little more backup.
I spoke to Mr. Johnson on the phone, and I said, it's been six
Page 59
March 10, 2009
months, sir. We're happy to work with you, and as his response to me
was, well, we don't owe it and we're not going to do anything until we
talk to the board. And I'm comfortable with that position, but the
direction we had was that we were to sit with them and offer them our
services, and they haven't really taken us up on that.
As far as the Whippoorwill access, that's, as they've -- that
proverbial, 25 pounds in a one-pound bag. You've got so much traffic,
and that intersection is not designed to handle that traffic. And when
all those developments that are now half vacant down Whippoorwill
come on line -- and I still get calls, people from the prior condition
that said, I can't get out in the morning on that left turn. We need dual
left turns there. So we did that modification.
It's expected to connect to Livingston in the future on the south
side. We already have the design plans and the right-of-way in place.
That intersection will be a problem some day.
Now, when we did the initial traffic study, it was a year and a
half ago. No one expected the downturn to occur the way it did. So
we came to the board and you asked us, in the interim, could we open
that median. The answer was yes, we have the design plans ready to
go. And you said, as soon as that PUD comes into compliance, please
open the median.
So we're happy to comply. If the direction is for the board to let
us open the median early in advance of them proposing or giving us
information why they do not have to provide any fair share or the
lighting, then that's fine, too.
But at this point in time, we've done everything you've asked us
to do, so we're kind of at your discretion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How long is this amount of money
-- I think it's $55,000. How long has that been owed to the county in
regards to -- from this PUD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This goes back to 2001 when the
signal was changed, but there's memos going back to when my
Page 60
March 10, 2009
predecessor, Ed Kant, worked here that said they were going to stop
the monitoring process for this PUD, and there's a note in the file that
says, no, they still owe the fair share.
Now my understanding is, they haven't submitted a monitoring
report in five years, four or five years from the PUD itself. So PUD
monitoring wasn't in the cycle as well. So when we did the audit of
that PUD, that's when this came up. So it's been quite a bit of time.
And we're finding a lot of these older PUDs as we've done some
aggressive monitoring through the County Manager's Office and
direction that these are going to come up. You're going to find
outstanding commitments, and we notify them. Some respond, some
don't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. JOHNSON: We were never notified from 2001 till after
October 15,2008, that's true. We were never notified.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't know that because the PUD
monitoring records back from 2001 show that you were. Maybe you
weren't the owner at the time or you weren't the person notified.
But I can tell you, sir, for six months we offered to sit with you
and look at any fair-share calculations, any documentation, and the
response we received was, we choose not to.
MR. JOHNSON: We asked for you to prove that we own
responsibility of the developer. And the documents you sent us says
developer. We're not developers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood.
MR. JOHNSON: Bernard Dudley was the developer. We're
owners of separate parcels. You have not come forward with that.
You know IHOP has shut down now. They went out of business.
You know Waffle House went out of business and the parent company
had to take back over? All because of this. I mean, it's a direct -- it's a
real serious problem.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't -- I disagree, because you have
Page 61
March 10, 2009
good access off of Pine Ridge. I don't think the reason -- I think the
economy shut down a lot of businesses.
MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. It doesn't -- not -- no, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Johnson, how do you
propose that we validate what our staff is saying as far as the charges?
MR. JOHNSON: We -- from this document, which is the
original PUD document that talks about developer, we've had two
lawyers read it, the entire document, and our association. There's
nothing in here that says that we assume responsibility. There's no
assigns in this document. There's nothing in here that says we assume
responsibility of future development of turn signals and lighting. It
does say that in there, but it says developer. It doesn't say owners.
Now, I've asked them if they could give me a piece of paper. I
showed it to my lawyer --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're beyond that point of
trying to validate it?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, if they'll tell me that if we assumed the
responsibility of the developer with -- a document that says that we
assume that as owners, we would be happy to pay. I mean, we have
no choice. We have no choice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just ask the county
attorney on PUDs, if -- whether it be residential or commercial, who
owns the responsibility of what's in the PUD ordinance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, I haven't looked at this one, but in
general what we've been doing is that the obligations have been
running with the land, so that for residential, for example, we've been
requiring homeowners associations at times to take care of the
developer obligations. I don't know the particulars of this particular
PUD, but in the past, we have taken that position.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, would it be fair
to direct the county attorney to take a look at this PUD ordinance and
Page 62
March 10, 2009
give an opinion to the Board of Commissioners on where the
commitments lie?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Other commissioners, how do you feel
about that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that sound fair?
MR. JOHNSON: That sounds fair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then if he finds that the money is
owed --
MR. JOHNSON: We can sit down with him and discuss our
proportionate share.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then once you all come up with your
proportionate share, then we will open that median.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, here's the problem I have with that. I
can cut you the check today for my proportionate share, and I'm sure
Pantry could and so could Best Western, so could the Spinnaker Inn
and the Shell and the Burger King, but the company that went out of
business, IHOP, I don't know.
And as far as Waffle House corporate, I don't know. There's a
few of them that I don't know if they're going to come up with their
share right away readily. While the season is fleeting away, we need
the left-hand turn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can work that out,
Mr. Johnson.
MR. JOHNSON: Ifwe can just get our left-hand turn -- if we
owe the money, we'll pay it. I'm on record. Those guys know that
we'll have to pay it if we owe the money. There's not -- there's no--
we're not trying to get out of the money. We've asked diligently, you
know.
So by saying, get all the money -- the 55,000, which they're
saying is our share -- to get all the money before you'll do the
Page 63
March 10, 2009
left-hand turn, I don't think that's fair. It's not -- we need it
expediently to get it, and we're not going to -- we're not going to run
away from it. If you give us the left-hand turn, we're not going to say,
oh, we're never going to pay you. No, we'll pay. Ifhe proves -- if the
attorney proves that we owe it from our PUD --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Johnson, the issue with
IHOP, or whatever closed businesses is down there, I'm sure our staff
can overcome those hurdles, okay?
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would think that the staff of DOT
has already probably looked at the clarification of the language in that
PUD, but I look forward to finding out what the county attorney has to
opine on probably the second or third time around. So I think that's
where we need to go, and then hopefully you can bring that back at
the next meeting --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and we can make a
determination what to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll just be brief. I
understand the problem that exists here and the difference of opinion,
and I have no problem with the county attorney looking at it; however,
with that said, I fully expect that they'll come up with a mechanism
within the development itself to be able to finance this particular
amenity that's going to take place.
If we're going to make an exception in this case, we better start
making them for everybody else out there, too. There has to be some
real good rationale of how we're going to proceed on it that's going to
make this an exception to it.
But by all means, go ahead and study it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record, I want
Page 64
March 10, 2009
to make sure I'm fair and honest as well, too.
I want these people, while they're here -- and Mr. Johnson to
understand that as those developments on Whippoorwill fill up, that
most likely, when we make that connection to Livingston, most likely
we'll be closing that median again.
So I want to make sure that I tell you that we'll come back to this
board if that's the direction of the board, and we'll do the traffic
analysis, we'll take the realtime counts. But as that traffic grows and
those developments fill up and they back up through that intersection,
that most likely we'll be closing that median again, and I want to make
sure that that's on the record.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, the next speaker, you're going to have an
issue with the church and Avow Hospice. You have an issue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. And that's something we
deal with. But I want to make sure that as traffic grows, we'll come
back to the board and show you why we originally went with that
assumption.
MR. JOHNSON: Dealing with it is not sending the police down
there to give U-Turn tickets, which is a shame. That was shameful.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We didn't do that.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, somebody did it, somebody did it. That
was just a shame. They're destroying the business and so they never
come back, you know, having $150 ticket for a U-Turn.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we have an 11 o'clock time certain;
is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, we do.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you very much.
Item #10A
REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORTS OF THE
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES SCHEDULED FOR
Page 65
March 10, 2009
REVIEW IN 2008 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO.
2001-55. COMMITTEES INCLUDE: BAYSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE; LEL Y
GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE;
RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE;
V ANDERBIL T BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE; AND BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. (MIKE
SHEFFIELD, ASSISTANT TO THE COUNTY MANAGER)
_ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU UNDER THE CRA - APPROVED
AND SERVES A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE; MOTION FINDING
THE LEL Y GOLF EST A TES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU SERVES
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - APPROVED; MOTION FINDING
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION MSTU SERVES A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - APPROVED; MOTION FINDING
THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH BEAUTIFICATION MSTU SERVES
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: And the 11 o'clock time certain, all the
commissioners have had every one of these reports that are going to
be briefed on by their chair people as far as the read-ahead and as part
of the item. And so at that particular juncture, let's start our 11 a.m.,
which is Item 10A.
What I tried to tell the folks that are up for public petition is, this
should go fairly quickly as far as the board is concerned, because they
already know what issues they have in the MSTUs. So don't lose
patience as we -- as we move through the public petition process.
This item is 10A. It's to be heard at 11 a.m. It's to review the
written and oral reports of the advisory boards and committees
scheduled for review in 2009 in accordance with ordinance number
2001-55.
Page 66
March 10, 2009
Committees include the Bayshore Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee and the Lely Golf Estates Beautification
Advisory Committee and the Radio Road Beautification Advisory
Committee and the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the
County Manager, will present and introduce those people.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Thank you. Mike Sheffield from the County
Manager's Office.
Your advisory committees are up for review every four years on
a rotating schedule in accordance with ordinance 2001-55. These
reviews allow you, the board, the opportunity to determine whether to
abolish, continue, consolidate, or modify your advisory committees.
You will be reviewing eight committees, four today and four at
your March 24th meeting. The written reports are included in your
agenda packet. After each presentation, it is requested that you make a
recommendation to either accept the committee's report or to propose
any changes that you would like to see happen with that committee.
And if there are no questions, we'll begin.
The first speaker is Bill Neal representing the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
MR. NEAL: Good morning, Commissioners. Good seeing all of
you agam.
I am the chairman of the MSTU, but better known as mayor of
Bayshore, and here just to report to you that things are going just
fantastically well in our area, and I hope you've had a chance to read
the report. And unless there's further questions, we could go from
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I would like to
recommend approval of the recommendations of the committee to
Page 67
March 10, 2009
combine the staff functions of the MSTU under the CRA itself, and
also find that the organization is performing a valuable function and
should continue to stay in existence --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with that modification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I agree with the motion,
but what about the improvements on Bayshore, like special lighting?
They're going to take over the maintenance of that? I mean, the
lighting is above and beyond the standards of the county.
MR. NEAL: May I answer?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. NEAL: We are -- we are maintaining the lighting as we
speak, the MSTU, and we'll continue that. And as we do our
extension down south Bayshore, which is coming up -- we're putting
in more lighting. Hope you'll drive down soon and take a look at how
much we've done. So yes, the MSTU will take that expense, as we're
doing now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. NEAL: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think Norm Feder has a comment on
this also.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. We're fine with the recommendation. I think we'd like
some guidance on how you'd want that transition. As you know
today, some of our staff -- and we just recently assigned a new staff
member to work with them -- are working with them while we're
doing the fiscals, and we'll be happy to transfer that over to the CRA.
The other question I did have for the board's consideration is,
when that MSTU was formed, there was a provision to get it moving
and to address some of the issues of 40,000 a year out of our
maintenance budget that was provided to the MSTU. Is that to be
Page 68
March 10, 2009
maintained with the MSTU or by this combination of the CRA and
MSTU staffing? While we return all the funds that we collect to
manage it, do we also have that $40,000 come back to our ongoing
maintenance activities around the county?
MR. NEAL: Well, Norm, I certainly thank you for your remarks.
This is a new issue that has not -- although we've coordinated some of
these discussions with the county, this is something new that's come
up. This was an arrangement we made many, many years ago because
the county was not maintaining -- no reflection on the present folks
concerned -- was not the maintaining the medians. And all we asked
for at that time was what the fair share was available for Bayshore,
that the county would ordinarily spend, and we said we'd like that
included when we had the MSTU, that we'd take care of it.
I don't -- I don't want to argue the issue. I'm just saying that was
the agreement we made years ago, and I don't see a reason to change
that.
MR. FEDER: And again, Bill, you're correct. I didn't mean to
surprise you with it. Obviously it was before any of this board or
myself were here when that got formed. Well, no, not before your
involvement, of course.
MR. NEAL: Ifwe had the approval, I'd be happy to continue
some more discussions with Norm on this issue and see if he'll agree
to my wishes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He needs direction from us.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think what we've done is
really take action on only one issue, which is to consolidate the
administrative support of the MSTU with the CRA. Any other
changes, I think, would -- should come before us as a separate item,
and we will -- we could consider the merits of those changes at that
time once we hear from both the advisory board and the staff. But
what we've done -- I mean, the motion that has just been made deals
Page 69
March 10, 2009
only with the consolidation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The motion is on the floor made by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Very good. That's a 5-0.
MR. NEAL: Thank you so much.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next speaker is Bob Slebodnik
representing the Lely Golf Estates MSTU Advisory Committee.
MR. SLEBODNIK: Good morning. In the 1980s the citizens of
our community voted to tax themselves in order to generate funds for
landscaping improvements. Today with these tax funds we have
landscaped and maintained two entrances, St. Andrews Boulevard and
Doral Circle, 1.8 miles of medians, four cul-de-sacs and
approximately four miles of road right-of-way.
Over the last four years we have accomplished the following:
Installed new irrigation or updated the existing irrigation throughout
the system; 95 percent of the water we use for irrigation is reclaimed
water; renovated the St. Andrews Boulevard with new signage,
lighting, plant materials, and flag poles which were destroyed by
Hurricane Wilma; renovated Doral Circle entrance with new
landscaping, signage, lighting, and irrigation; refurbished medians
Page 70
March 10, 2009
one, two, and three on St. Andrews Boulevard and the road
right-of-way with new plant material; 11 decorative lamp posts and
decorative benches -- this project was partially funded by a $69,800
grant received from the federal government -- finished installing the
sidewalk which Lely Development Corporation failed to complete.
Our MSTU applied for a federal grant and received $10,800 to
complete the sidewalks; installed new signage and solar lighting at the
foot of Augusta Boulevard and Forest Hills; refurbished the
landscaping and signage at the entrance to Pinehurst Estates.
There were two areas we wanted to improve and could not
because of lack of access to water. The area where the Hibiscus Golf
Course property abuts against Pebble Beach Boulevard near the golf
cart cross-over path and both sides of Forest Hills near the Royal Palm
Country Club.
We met with the golf personnel and worked out an arrangement
by which we would allow us -- they would allow us to tap into their
water system. We agreed to install the irrigation and plant material
and maintain these areas on a weekly basis. These two eyesores are
now gone.
Allen Cooper, the general manager of the Hibiscus Golf Course,
has always cooperated with us and worked together in solving
problems.
As far as ongoing projects, the projects which we were -- started
in 2007 and continue into 2008: Number one, we installed an
electronic monitoring system for the irrigation. We -- we're starting to
replace the very tall palm trees that we have. We started with
replacing carpentaria palms and replaced them with foxtail palms in
medians one through 19. This involved a total of 114 new foxtail
palms.
We made Doral enhancement -- Doral community entrance
enhancements, new landscaping in front of the old wooden fence. The
-- this is an ongoing project as we speak. The fence has been
Page 71
March 10, 2009
replaced, and the landscaping is now being installed and should be
completed within the next ten days.
We approved funds for road right-of-way landscape design into
the Doral community. We were criticized a couple of years ago for
not doing enough for the Doral Circle community. People got the
impression that we were devoting most of our effort to the St.
Andrews entrance, so we told them that we would -- we would do a
similar thing with the Doral entry, and that project is now in the
design stage.
It has taken us approximately six years to modernize and
refurbish entrance medians, cul-de-sacs and road right-of-ways with
new, improved lighting, plant material, sidewalk, benches, and an
electronic irrigation system. By the end of this year, we hope to
complete our major projects.
All of this was accomplished with the willingness of our citizens
to tax themselves and generate dollars for community enhancement.
At the annual Lely Golf Estates Civic Association meeting on
February 24th, residents told us how pleased they were with the
appearance of the community.
Soon we will enter a maintenance and placement mode. It has
taken us a long time to get to this point. At recent board meetings we
have discussed rolling back the millage rate; however, before we do
this, we agreed to build up a disaster fund to provide necessary dollars
to recover rapidly from a flood or hurricane or whatever the case may
be.
At our December board meeting, we authorized our landscape
architect, Mike McGee, to provide us with an inventory of what we
have and what it would cost to replace everything if a disaster
occurred. This information will allow us to establish a line item in our
budget and begin to build a disaster fund. The next step will be to
lower our millage rate.
When I gave the four-year review in 2005, one of the
Page 72
March 10, 2009
commissioners -- I believe it was Mr. Halas, but I'm not sure -- asked
me if there was anything they could do for our committee. I said we
needed help in solving three stormwater drainage problems. Number
one, repairing the stormwater drains behind the homes on Pebble
Beach Boulevard, which are on Hibiscus Golf Course. These 18-inch
diameter pipes were 35 years old and were failing. This was done in
2005 and 2006 at the cost of approximately $200,000.
At that time Ricardo Valera was the stormwater management
chief, and one of the commissioners directed him to meet with me.
We met after this meeting, and that's how we got the problems moving
forward.
The second problem was to repair stormwater grates and the
stormwater drains which run under St. Andrews Boulevard. Design
work was started in 2008. Last summer when Tropical Fay -- Storm
Fay dumped 10 inches of rain on us, one of the two 18-inch diameter
storm drains under St. Andrews Boulevard collapsed. Water backed
up and flooded the community. A temporary fix was done in October,
2008.
The contract for a permanent fix was awarded by the Board of
County Commissioners on January 27th of '09 for approximately
$138,863 to Haskins, Incorporated. The notice to provided is
expected by March 16,2009.
The new design has three 18-inch diameter pipes and a new curb
drop system designed to increase the movement of water.
The third thing was to improve the drainage on U.S. 41 from the
St. Andrews Boulevard to the main Lely Canal, and that's one that is
still ongoing.
In conclusion, our board would like to thank you, the county
commissioners, for their support in our beautification projects. The
county people we work with are great. Michelle Arnold, Darryl
Richard, and Tessie Sillery are the three people we have the most
contact with. They do a fine job, and we appreciate all their efforts.
Page 73
March 10,2009
I invite you to drive through our community, and I think you will
be pleased with our beautification efforts.
If you would like a guided tour -- and I've given several guided
tours to a number of people, Donna Fiala being one of them -- please
call me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks so much, Bob. Excellent report.
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next speaker is Dale Lewis, rep- --
MR. MUDD: Before you go there, Commissioner, can I get a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we find that the Lely MSTU -- Beautification MSTU serves a
valid public purpose.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, and I'll second that motion.
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.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: The next speaker is Dale Lewis representing
the Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
MR. LEWIS: Good morning. I'm Dale Lewis from the MSTU
Radio Road. My vice-chairman is here, Betty. And I hope you
reviewed my report, and I'm here to answer any questions you may
have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we find the Radio Road MSTU Beautification a valid public
purpose.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also I would like to state, the
MSTU has come to me and asked, due to citizens' outcry to expand
Page 74
March 10, 2009
the MSTU, and I know that would please a couple of my colleagues
about having MSTUs pay for median landscaping. We're going to be
dealing with this issue over the next few weeks and maybe bring
something back to the board to consider.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great, great. May I have a second to his
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion.
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.
MR. SHEFFIELD: And the last speaker today is Dick Lydon
representing the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
MR. LYDON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. As the
man said, I'm Dick Lydon. I'm chairman of that M -- VB MSTU.
And this morning I'm going to tell you that we are continuing to
maintain Vanderbilt Drive with our money while the general fund
pays for the majority of the streets of the city. I usually have a few
caustic comments to make as a result of my report, but I'm going to
pass on the comments relative to the sunshine law, the county
charging the MSTU for staff and the municipal county funds being
expended in Vanderbilt Beach, and I'm going to dispense with that,
because I need your help.
Our MSTU will be commencing construction of the electrical
cable and telephone utility line burial, and it was discovered that our
Page 75
March 10, 2009
existing ordinance governing the MST (sic) needs to be amended in
order to fully execute that mission.
We've been in discussions with the County Attorney's Office, and
they understand what we need to have modified. We request that the
BCC authorize the county attorney to amend the Vanderbilt MSTU to
allow the ability to execute all expenditures necessary to complete the
utility burial project.
I would be pleased to answer any questions or accept any
comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. First of all, Dick, thank you
for being the chairperson for such a long period of time on this
Vanderbilt MSTU, and all the other people that serve on it.
I believe that we've been working with Scott Teach in regards to
getting that ordinance changed to bring forward to the Board of
County Commissioners.
One of the questions I do have though is that you're concerned
about the continuing charge that the county charges for this MSTU,
and maybe I can have someone from the county relate why we have a
charge so that hopefully everybody has an understanding that we try
to be fair to all the MSTUs that are in existence.
Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, Alternative
Transportation Mode Director.
The staff time that is put in place to assist for running the
meetings, getting projects going, soliciting for contractors -- in this
particular case, we do have a project for the burial, so we worked with
the MSTU to get them all of the various contractors and make sure
that all the meetings go in accordance with that.
And the staff time is charged to each MSTU. I would like to say
that we probably charge them less than the time that we actually put in
because staff works pretty hard to make sure those meetings get
Page 76
March 10,2009
executed correctly and that all of the work that they need to get done
is done timely as well, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me what that MSTU is
charged?
MS. ARNOLD: I think in this case it's about $23,000, but I'm
not sure the exact amount. I think it is in the chairman's report that --
the amount that we charge.
MR. LYDON: It used to be 25-, Frank. We've negotiated it
down to 23,4- now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've done a great job.
MR. LYDON: That's a very sore point. We kind of think that
since we're putting our money into upgrading our neighborhood in
order to make staffs duplicate higher, that maybe that ought to be
county expense. But we'll not argue that. We'd just like to have you
work on this because we want to get those lines buried up there in
Vanderbilt.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other thing I want to say is that
this is a very visionary MSTU in that they realize the importance of
burying the power lines, and I can tell you that this is a huge
undertaking, and I think it's estimated -- correct me if I'm wrong --
around $6 million?
MR. LYDON: That's the best we've seen from FP&L so far, and
we have managed to get a fairly decent amount of money in our kick
to pay for it. We're trying very hard to pay as we go. As some of you
who may remember my being involved in the beach committee, I am
not going to bond anything.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good for you. But I could say that
hopefully that we'll see this to fruition the day that we get all the
power cables up there buried up in that MSTU. And also, are you --
not only do you take care of the Vanderbilt Drive for beautification,
but do you also take care of Gulf Shore Drive and Vanderbilt Beach
Road and Ill?
Page 77
March 10, 2009
MR. LYDON: Those are -- those areas are pretty well
maintained by the property owners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. LYDON: We do obviously have concern for all of them
and work on it. We've been working with parks and rec on the
turnaround at the north end if they need a little beautification help or
something of that kind. In other words, what we're really after is
making Vanderbilt a place that we can be proud of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the other attributes that
recently is in the Vanderbilt area is the two bridges that the MSTU is
involved in, the pedestrian and bicycle bridges so that people don't
have to end up being on Vanderbilt Drive.
MR. LYDON: Now if we get a new bridge across the river, we'll
be in great shape.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's coming.
MR. LYDON: So is Christmas. It took seven years to get those
two bridges.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can assure you it's going to be
there.
I make a motion that we approve the Vanderbilt Beach
Beautification MSTU, and I feel that they are a great community
servIce.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that include doubling the
MSTU tax rate?
MR. LYDON: How about a little salary for the chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas and a second from Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 78
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. LYDON: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Dick.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DR. JAMES ODOM TO
DISCUSS CLOSURE OF DUDLEY ROAD AND RESULTING
HARDSHIP TO SEAGA TE BAPTIST CHURCH AND SCHOOL -
MOTION TO OPEN MEDIAN - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us back to public
petitions. The next public petition is a request by Dr. James Odom to
discuss closure of Dudley Road and the resulting hardship to Seagate
Baptist Church and school.
Dr. Odom, if you could please come forward, sir.
DR. ODOM: Commissioners, I'm Dr. Odom, Seagate Baptist
Church. First of all, I want to thank you for a job that you do well
here in the community. I've been in the community since 1971; been
in our present site since 1984 there on Whippoorwill Lane. We have a
video or DVD or something we want to show here.
(The video is being played.)
"Here we are at 1010 Whippoorwill Lane
where at Seagate Baptist Church we've been
forced to put up barriers overlooking this
Page 79
March 10, 2009
U-Turn area just shy of where the concrete
bullhorn has been placed up there toward the
entrance to Whippoorwill, which then passes
the Dudley Drive road.
"Here you can see the median where it's
been virtually destroyed. This used to be
full of grass, and because of all the U-Turns
and the various barriers it had to put up,
which have done little to no help, it's
destroyed this entire area."
(The video was restarted.)
"Here we are at 1 0 1 0 Whippoorwill Lane
where at Seagate Baptist Church we've been
forced to put up barriers overlooking this
U-Turn area just shy of where the concrete
bullhorn has been placed up there toward the
entrance to Whippoorwill, which then passes
the Dudley Drive road.
"Here you can see the median where it's
been virtually destroyed. This used to be
full of grass, and because of all the U-Turns
and the various barriers it had to put up,
which have done little to no help, it's
destroyed this entire area."
MR. MUDD: Don't give up sir. We're going to try one more.
DR. ODOM: I'm sorry for the technology, you know. While
they're doing that, let me just say that this is giving you an idea of
what's happening down the road from Dudley Drive in the entrance of
our church, and you'll see that.
(The video is being played.)
"-- at Seagate Baptist Church
overlooking this U-Turn area just shy of
Page 80
March 10, 2009
where the concrete bullhorn has been placed."
DR. ODOM: We had two of those. Do we have the other one?
Okay.
(The video is being played.)
"Here we are at 1010 Whippoorwill Lane
where at Seagate Baptist Church we've been
forced to put up barriers overlooking this
U-Turn area just shy of where the concrete
bullhorn has been placed up there toward the
entrance to Whippoorwill, which then passes
the Dudley Drive road.
"Here you can see the median where it's
been virtually destroyed. This used to be
full of grass, and because of all the U-Turns
and the various barriers it had to put up,
which have done little to no help, it's
destroyed this entire area.
"Here you can clearly see where the
manhole has been damaged due to all these
U-turns, and the drainage has been affected.
Here's a still photo which more clearly
illustrates exactly what we're tempting to
show.
"Now here you see this large electrical
truck which needs to get into the area but it
doesn't know where to go, so it slows down
and finally pulls up into this area unsure
where to go. It waits here for just a moment
till it decides that it needs to pull all the
way in, in order to make a U-Turn because
there's nowhere to go.
"If our barriers weren't here, he would
Page 81
have, no doubt, turned and attempted to use
our parking lot for a U-Turn.
"Now here's another SUV that chose to
make a U-Turn. Still see the electrical
truck in the background, that makes a U-Turn
right there in front of our area. And now
here's this -- this van has its blinkers on.
It has its hazards on because it's not sure
where to go. It would have turned here, but
it saw our cameras, so it continued on past
the barrier. And you watch as it continues
to go all the way down to the end.
"And when it does finally make a
U-Turn -- pay close attention to the road --
it overjumps the median, so now it's
destroying the median at the end. So now
both the sides of our entrance medians are
being -- dealership.
"And before you think that, well, maybe
it's going into the Nissan dealership, it's
actually going to come around. We'll see
that in a moment.
"But watch this white SUV as we catch it
in the far corner, it cuts a U-Turn, followed
immediately by this vehicle. How safe is
that? If that vehicle had been any faster,
the one that just came, there could have been
a collision right there.
"Now here's this Winnebago coming out,
because it had nowhere to go, so it needed to
turn around because it needs to get to the
gas station. That's actually where it ended
Page 82
March 10,2009
March 10, 2009
up going. It went to the gas station.
"Now here, watch this van with a
trailer. It needs to make a U-Turn. This is
most profound right here. This is the most
impactful. It pulls up into here,
immediately obstructing the Nissan parking
lot exit. Watch this gray truck in the
background. While the white van's looking
for a way to turn, the gray truck is now
stopped. He cannot go anywhere because of
this white van.
"So now you have a pile-up of two
vehicles. So here we have two. Count them
with me, two vehicles. And then finally this
yellow vehicle, now three vehicles, makes a
U-Turn right in front of us, boldly, amidst
all this chaos, one, two, three, four, five
vehicles. It made a U-Turn, now the white
van makes a U-Turn. It's freed up the Nissan
dealership. All of this knot is just a
complete formula for disaster.
"Now watch. This vehicle's backwards.
This vehicle actually came in the opposite
direction. "
(The video is completed.)
DR.ODOM: He turned left at Dudley is what he did. I think
you can see some of our dilemma. We believe that this has created an
imminent danger in our community for the residents as well as traffic
that comes off 1-75, especially people who don't know where to go
and turn into this exit area.
And the road has directly affected us. Our parking lot has
become a turnaround. We've had tractor trailers -- as a matter of fact,
Page 83
March 10, 2009
the other night we had a fellowship on a Friday night, and aU-Haul
truck came in pulling a trailer with a car on it and attempted to go
around; we had to stop him. He went to back up. Some of our
children were out there, and he almost ran over one of our children.
Then the following day or week another U-Haul trailer came in, a
truck pulling a trailer, and he tried to go under our underhang, and I
had to stop him and tried to tell him, and he said, I don't speak
English, don't speak English. I said, pardon de mi, Senior. Turn
around, back up. I had to lead him back so he could get out without
tearing out our lights and everything.
This has caused a hurt to our ministry. We had to put barriers up.
People think that because we have this, we're not in business. They
wonder what's going on.
It has created havoc to the property and to the area. You saw
some of the damage it's created, the danger that's been involved when
cars make the U-Turn. If we had not had the barriers there, they
would actually come into our property. When you shut the lane off,
when you shut that road off, you directed all the traffic off Whipp- --
off Pine Ridge/Whippoorwill into the left lane of our property. We
put signs out like this on poles on the grass, they ran over them, and
then we put them down on the barriers, and they ran over them. We
paid several dollars for this, 50 -- I don't know what it was. We had
several of these, and they've been destroyed, trying to help them to
know this was not a turnaround and the danger that was involved
there.
You know, I know the crises that these business owners are going
through, but I'm telling you, you need -- we appeal to you. You need
to open this road back up. You need to do something immediately
because somebody's going to get hurt. And I'm afraid that Collier
County may be held responsible because of being -- directing the
traffic into our property and people not knowing where to go, people
trying to turn around.
Page 84
March 10, 2009
And they don't -- they don't mean to do that, but they're being
directed this way, and because of this and these U-Turns, the traffic's
backing up. People have asked me down the road there, what's going
on? What's this all about?
Now, when they made the left-hand turn, or opened it, I said to
Rick and some of the others that basically a simple stop right there at
Dudley and Whippoorwill and the road, putting do not block the
intersection, will take care of that.
And I appeal to you, we need your help for the safety of our
families and our children and what's going on in this community.
Let me just say this real quick. I've been there long enough when
you, the county, said years ago, we're going to take Whippoorwill all
the way down and take it to Livingston, you said that almost ten years
ago. It's not been done. And this gentleman said, when it picks up,
we're going to close it back if we open it. What you need to do is take
the road down to Livingston and that will eliminate a lot of the
problems.
Thank you very much, and we appreciate your time, and we
appreciate your consideration in this matter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have for our staff. I
understand what we're trying to do at this location. If we opened that
up, is that opening large enough for tractor trailers to make a turn into
the gas station or people who have RVs and are bringing a trailer
behind, whether it's a car in tow or a trailer in tow?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For RVs, for tractor trailers -- tractor
trailers might be a WB50, which is a term we use, might be excessive.
But that median opening will accommodate most vehicles. And we
have the design plans ready. It's -- we've worked with the pastor and
talked with him a little bit. We have no real disagreement with
opening it up in the interim. Like I said before, you're going to have
an issue there. It's a matter of time.
Page 85
March 10, 2009
It's not that our staff or anybody else at one point in time made a
mistake. I think the mistake is, a lot of development's been approved,
and the way this whole concept is designed, it's a tight intersection
with a tight throat length that makes a lot of turns in a very tight area.
And so our recommendation was to open it in the interim, and the
board agreed with us. It was the other petition we talked about was
the reason we haven't done it yet. Once it's opened, I think this will be
relieved. And I think -- I'd like to propose working with the church to
see if we can, at some point in time, when we need to close it, if we
do, providing a safe U-Turn area in front of them, maybe working
with them on the right-of-way or what we need to do.
So I think right now we're waiting on the other equation to
formulate based on the prior public petition, and as soon as that -- or
based on the decision you make on this public petition, we can solve it
really quick.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My other question that I have is
that really when this PUD was designed, it was -- there really wasn't
any forethought put into this because where Dudley Road is, it's very
close to Pine Ridge; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's too close to Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so if you have traffic making a
left-hand turn off of Pine Ridge onto Whippoorwill, the end result is
that if they can't make that turn into the gas station, then they start
backing up traffic on Pine Ridge, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The issue with that -- and the video
doesn't take into account the morning traffic, when it backs up past the
Dudley Lane (sic) entrance. If they adhere to the do-not-block design
that we're proposing to put down and they keep that median opening,
then we won't have that opening.
Our concern is, if traffic in the morning is trying to make that left
out of there, the dual lefts, if you see it on morning video, it backs up
quite a bit. Then we would monitor that, and if it does happen, we'll
Page 86
March 10, 2009
come back to the board and we'll have the analysis and we'll show the
video and we'll do everything we need to make sure we've given you
all the information you have to make that decision, but then we'll
recommend that closure if it becomes a problem.
DR. ODOM: Well, they have been -- let me just say this: They
have been -- there has been very little problem concerning that
backup. But, you know, I -- when I learned to drive, I was told never
-- when you come to a stop sign, you don't block an intersection, you
know. So put a stop sign there if you need to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem is, people run stop
signs in this community.
DR. ODOM: I understand that. But I'm saying, even that square
thing he's talking about, you know, all of this happened because of
Nissan. And I talked to them when they were in the process of -- with
the engineers. What kind of entrance are you going to have there?
You know, every -- everybody has to enter, pretty much, Nissan from
Whippoorwill Lane. There was no -- he said there was a provision
given to them to come off Pine Ridge Road, but they didn't want to
pay $750,000 to do it, so they dumped that there.
But the biggest problem is traffic coming in pretty much from the
interstate or from Pine Ridge Road, and then of course people who
live down there that go -- maybe they want to get a hamburger or they
want to go to Rick's tire store and get a good deal from an honest man,
amen, you know. I mean, really.
You know, when they come back, they can't turn left. They've
got to go back and make a U-Turn on Pine Ridge, make a U-Turn,
which really they probably shouldn't be doing, but they make a -- and
I've done that, you know. So it is really a dilemma that we appeal to
you. I tell you, I'm so disappointed about what's happened. We just
need your help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I agree that something
Page 87
March 10, 2009
should be done, and I'm sure that if you go back there and you study it
possibly down the street farther, there might be a better way to handle
this the way you post it. But anything we can do -- I hate to see this
be delayed another two weeks if there's something that could be done
on the short order.
DR. ODOM: Exactly, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be appreciated.
DR. ODOM: Because you're talking about -- if you make a
motion to move it, you're talking 30 days, 60 days, contracts and all
that to get it done. You're talking months down the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm talking possibly a simple
solution in the way that the streets are posted and the way it's marked
off down farther. I don't know what can be done to alleviate it without
__ well, I wouldn't even know if I looked at it what would be the best
direction. That's why we got transportation. I kind of hope that we
can give direction ifthere's something we can do in the short term to
alleviate this problem that we might be able to do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For us to open it up is not a large
contract. We can have within --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not to open it up, sir. I'm not
suggesting that. The problem is where they're turning.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, it's -- other than
enforcement, it's, you know, standard practice not to make a U-Turn
into someone's private property. You saw some of the vehicles were
able to make the U-Turn okay and stay within the right-of-way, and
some weren't. So it's not designed as a two-lane road to offer U-Turns
to people to go --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we try that till we get
back and be able to come up with a more permanent solution?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right.
DR. ODOM: If you put a no U-Turn there, it's going to be very
difficult. I don't know what's going to happen. And when they don't
Page 88
March 10, 2009
do it right, that's why they end up on the sidewalk, that's why they ran
over that manhole. That's why they've done that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we do want to open that
street, but I'll be honest with you, sir, it's a case of fairness to the
whole community out there that have paid the fees that they were
required to pay to make this all work. Meanwhile, we can try to
expediate it so that we get the correct fees in place so we can make it
happen.
I agree with you, it is important. But for us to say, okay, we're
going to reach into our very limited funds and waive all fees and hope
that we collect in the future, we won't collect them. Once we pay
them out of our pocket, they won't come back in again. So we've got
to resolve this thing in a fair way and equitable way for everybody.
But I do feel for what you're going through. Your video was
wonderful. It really helped to portray the urgency of the situation.
DR. ODOM: Exactly. Well, Nissan, you made Nissan pay for
that extension, and you know, I mean, they ought to be involved in
this, too.
So I mean, you know, something, please. I beg you, I implore
you, somebody's going to get hurt, and I don't want it to be on my
property. We're here to help people in the community. I've been here
37 years, and we need to do something.
Now, I -- you know, I'm appealing to you, and whatever we need
to do, we need help so the safety of that community is taken care of.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nick, do you have another comment to
make before --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just -- the design plans are ready and
we're ready to move on at your discretion, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, in other words, either we have to pay
out of the taxpayer dollars to do that, or the people who are supposed
to pay, if they get -- give the money -- you know, get the money to
you now, we can get this in motion; is that what you're saying?
Page 89
March 10, 2009
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. It's not the money that
we're waiting for from them. We've budgeted money to do that
median modification with our budgeted annual funds to make
modifications. It's a small amount of money, 15- to $20,000. Their fair
share is not what's holding us up in terms of that. I think the board's
discussion last time was --
DR. ODOM: So in other words, they need to make the decision,
the board does?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The board has to make that decision,
yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So -- just excuse me. So you're saying we
need to tell you to spend that 15- or $20,000 to make the median
modifications?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ahead of collecting any additional
funds. Those are almost two different items. That money's fair share
to the intersection that was promised. There's also a lighting issue.
They were supposed to put up some entrance lighting. There're two
outstanding items from the Sutherland PUD that were remaining since
we last spoke.
The issue's been six months. Again, we have contacted them.
You're waiting on now a county attorney review on whether they're
responsible as the developer or the owner. In talking to Susan Istenes
and even -- I've even spoken to Jeffbriefly, but usually commitments
run with the land, so that's something we could work out with the
PUD owners as we continue forward on this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that's a separate item?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a separate item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So the item that is going to
alleviate some of this traffic problem would be the median
modification, and we already have that in the works, and you're just
waiting for us to go ahead and tell you to go ahead and do it.
Do you have the money?
Page 90
March 10, 2009
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the money for it. We could
do it, you know, to get -- start it probably within a week to get -- get it
opened up if you wanted us to. The decision was, from the last
meeting was, to make sure that that Sutherland PUD complied before
we did that. If you wanted to defer to a later time until a code
enforcement action, you could, and that way we could open it up in
advance, or you could say, no, I want to make sure that we've figured
out that Sutherland PUD issue in advance of doing this. That's the
decision that's in front of you right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, if the Sutherland PUD does not -- if
they find reasons to stall it and stall it and stall it and then, you know,
claim they don't have to pay anything, can we close it back up?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I wouldn't close it back up. I
think at that point in time -- and I talked to Jeff -- you can probably do
a code enforcement action against the PUD, so that way these folks
wouldn't be caught up in that if that was your discretion.
DR. ODOM: Excuse me, Madam Chairman. I didn't mean to
interrupt you. I apologize. I just -- you know, if the monies are there,
ifit can be done, you know, let's do it, for the community's sake. And
then, you know, like Mr. Johnson said, you know, they're going to -- if
they owe, they're going to pay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, he's trying to find reasons not to
pay. Now he's claiming that it's because the developer owes it and not
them.
DR. ODOM: Yeah, I was here. I heard that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
DR. ODOM: I apologize. I'm not speaking for him, but I'm just
saying, he did say here publicly that if he and the other property
owners are liable, they will take care of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, yeah, but then he made, you know,
some caveats to that as well.
DR. ODOM: Yes, ma'am.
Page 91
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, Commissioners, what do you to do at
this point in time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fix it.
DR. ODOM: Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then, may I have a motion to
that effect?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that you fix it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, if
we're going to fix it, do you also want to make a further motion that
we start code enforcement actions to make sure we collect funds?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't do the code enforcement
action until you reach a determination as to whether or not they're
legally obligated to pay it. So you've got to separate those two. So I
would suggest you deal with the median opening, and if you've got the
money to do it, do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then the other part is coming back to
us in two weeks, right?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah. I'll come back with an opinion, and
at that point in time if you want to direct staff to start a code
enforcement action, we'll do that, assuming that the opinion is that
they owe money. They are two separate issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you're going to first determine if they
do owe it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I am, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That answered what I had.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we need a second on this motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give you the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I've got a second from
Commissioner Coletta.
Do I have any other discussion from board members?
Page 92
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to know if this is going
to take care of the majority of the problem, and if you've got large
semi trucks that can't make that turn into the fuel station, where are
they going to turn around at? Where they're doing it presently?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Where they're doing it presently or
they'll approach the fueling station from the other direction. I know
that the fueling -- the folks that own the gas station have worked out
an issue with that.
DR. ODOM: They come in behind the Nissan, sir. There's a
road behind the Nissan that dumps in right there. You saw where the
people went up, made the U-Turn. That access comes right off Pine
Ridge and around, and that's where the fuel trucks are going now.
And for years --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there signage there saying that
they can make a U-Turn through that Nissan parking lot.
DR. ODOM: Well, they don't make a U-Turn. They turn off
Kraft. Kraft has an opening, Kraft development there, right on Pine
Ridge Road. There's a turn lane that goes into Kraft. You turn left
there and then you go in behind Nissan. There's a road that works its
way right around and dumps right into Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So maybe we need to look at the
signage there on Pine Ridge to give people direction how to get to that
fuel station and Rick's tire store.
DR. ODOM: That's a possibility, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
DR. ODOM: I think the fuel people and Rick and them, too,
have probably instructed the people to use that. But for a while when
they widened the road, that was the only way we could get into
Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So I think maybe what we
need to do for our out-of-town guests is some way or another come up
with some signage so they have an understanding, especially if they've
Page 93
March 10, 2009
got a large rig and hauling a trailer or car behind that RV, so that may
be another issue that they may have to address.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. 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: That's a 5-0. Thank you.
DR.ODOM: Thank you. Have you a great day. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, gentlemen, we will break
for lunch.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're back now from our lunch recess,
and what I'd like to do is continue on with our petitions so we can
finish them up.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DOUG SMYLIE TO DISCUSS
EXTENSION OF SIDEWALK FROM TIMBERWOOD TO
WORLD TENNIS CENTER (AIRPORT ROAD) - STAFF TO
REVIEW PUD DOCUMENT AND BRING BACK
CONCLUSIONS - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to 6C. It's a
public petition request by Doug Smylie to discuss extension of the
Page 94
March 10,2009
sidewalk from Timberwood to World Tennis Center on Airport Road.
MR. SMYLIE: Good afternoon, and I hope you all had a good
lunch.
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record, sir.
MR. SMYLIE: I'm Doug Smylie, and I'm here as chair of the
Canal Walkway Committee at the World Tennis Club. One of our
board members, Jordan Nickolson is here with us.
And the petition, as you mentioned, is about extending the
sidewalk. If you start walking south from the Carillon Place Shopping
Center on the east side of the canal, you encounter a beautiful
sidewalk that meanders between the east side of the canal and Banyan
Woods development, and it goes on past Banyan Woods, as this
photograph shows. But then when you get to the Timberwood
development, it ends. And, of course, our purpose here today is to
seek the extension of this sidewalk down to the entrance to the World
Tennis Center.
I've looked into the specifications. The sidewalk extension
would be 1,420 feet in length, and it would be constructed on the
county canal right-of-way of the South Florida Water Management
Authority. And for that, a right-of-way application is required prior to
construction of a regulation 6- foot wide, 6- foot thick concrete
sidewalk to meet the county's specs.
To prepare for this presentation, we approached three contractors
for bids. The highest bid was 60- -- more than 60,000, the next one
34-, and the lowest bid was 29,000 by a contractor that's done very
good work at WTC previously.
The range of bids reflects the current economic conditions. It's a
good time for building infrastructure. This is emphasized by a story in
the Naples Daily News on the Sunday, February 15th edition,
reporting that Lee County had estimated the spending of 900,000 on
sidewalk construction, but the lowest bid came in at less than 600,000.
These are some of the arguments in favor of the sidewalk
Page 95
March 10, 2009
extension. The World Tennis Club is a community of360 residences
with no external canal sidewalk access. The homeowners of the
World Tennis Center pay in excess of three quarters of a million
dollars in property taxes annually. And being a Canadian, I couldn't
resist to tell you that no snow removal is required. And we pay for
our own Waste Management.
At a cost of 30,000, the sidewalk extension would be less than 4
percent of our annual property taxes.
Sidewalk access would obviously get residents out of their
vehicles, reducing pollution, traffic congestion, and improving their
health. We saw a couple of presentations this morning where people
were overcome by various traffic problems.
The final argument is the safety of school children. Children
from Timberwood, the World Tennis Center, and other communities
go to school together and, of course, they visit back and forth. There's
no traffic light at Timberwood so that they would have to cross the
busy Airport-Pulling Road and walk down the other side of
Airport-Pulling. A sidewalk along the canal away from the heavy
traffic on Airport-Pulling would improve safety for everyone. I think
I've -- oh, it does come down, okay -- for all school children.
So my conclusions are to thank the commissioners for your time
and attention. I'm amazed at how many things come up at your
meetings and how patiently you deal with them.
We, of course, look forward to working together and your
financial support to bring the sidewalk extension to fruition.
Our property manager is Mr. Ethan Loschiavo, who will be the
point of contact for the project. So I'll leave his business card with
Samuel (sic) Tucker, Commissioner Coyle's assistance.
Thank you very much, and I'll try to answer any questions you
might have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions?
Commissioner Halas?
Page 96
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. If somebody from staff could
come forward.
Sir, what I'd like to do is -- your presentation was outstanding,
and thank you very much for coming today. But I want to make sure
that the other financial means may be available to make sure that a
certain PUD may have some money that is owed to the county to
address your concerns of the sidewalk. So maybe staff could give us
some -- enlighten us a little bit.
MS. AUCLAIR: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Claudine
Auclair, Transportation Planning Department.
To answer Commissioner Halas' question, we do some -- we're
doing a lot of research through old PUD commitments and going
through the process of the audit, and we're finding a lot of PUDs that
have outstanding commitments, we believe have outstanding
commitments that are not fulfilled and are trying to resolve as many as
possible because a lot of them mean dollars to the county.
We had -- through the 2006 PUD audit group, the World Tennis
Center PUD was part of that 50 PUDs that were audited, and have
been found in noncompliance with the ordinance that was approved in
1987 for some fair share of traffic improvements that were due the
county and also for sidewalks along the frontage of the property.
We did notify at that time the homeowners association of World
Tennis Center and got no response, successful response from the
association.
Staff met on several occasions with Mr. Smylie. We went over
the discussions about their wanting a sidewalk, which we do believe is
an excellent idea to have a sidewalk because it does give them access
to Carillon Plaza, and of course, you need to walk on a safe place;
however, they had already been notified that this was an original PUD
commitment, that funding would not be -- most likely come from the
county if there's a PUD commitment that is still outstanding, that we
could not find anything that said that it was either waived or paid for.
Page 97
March 10, 2009
So we addressed Mr. Smylie's request, and we also looked at if,
in fact, there would be a commitment by the county to do something
through the use of pathway funds. There's priority lists that are much
__ there's a big priority list that's classified by order of, you know,
preferenceness (sic), and definitely this is not in the top priorities of
the pathway plan.
Again, we did notify them in 2006. We believe there is an
outstanding commitment for them to build the sidewalk, and it would
be very difficult for us to support using our funding to build a
sidewalk.
We did some further research. The Timberwood PUD does not
have specific language addressing the requirement of a sidewalk. If
the World Tennis Center decides to go ahead and build a sidewalk
that's missing, we will discuss with pathways to see ifthere's anything
that could be done to actually build that missing link, which is very
small.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I guess you're saying that to
your knowledge, that there might be some funding coming forth from
this World Tennis -- World Tennis Center PUD to address the
sidewalk issue?
MS. AUCLAIR: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My other question is, since this
might be in county easement, would we give that easement to World
Tennis Center, or how does that work as far as making sure that we
can get a sidewalk accomplished once we get the funding, let's say,
from World Tennis?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They would apply -- for the record,
Nick Casalanguida. They would apply for a right-of-way permit, and
they'd work with BCB if it's in the canal easement. We would support
that and work with them to get that permit accomplished.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
MR. SMYLIE: If I could add some further comment. The -- the
Page 98
March 10,2009
PUD of the World Tennis Center has a long, complicated history. The
original PUD was taken out in 1982 and was revised, I think, in '85 or
'87, and then the homeowners association took over in 1997. So we've
been working with Maryann Devanas, who monitors PUDs, to work
towards a closeout so that we can meet our unfulfilled commitments if
there are any, and close the PUD.
Now, she offered to have a courtesy audit done, which was
recently completed by John Martino, if I have his name correct. And
it shows outstanding things like reflective tape on fire hydrants needed
and so on.
So we're trying to work our way through to fulfill our
commitments and close out our PUD. So any help you can give us
there, would be much appreciated. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I particularly don't want
to amend our pathways plan that we set forth. There was a lot of
public involvement in it. If it is a commitment in the PUD, why don't
we work that out, that PUD commitment, to provide the facilities
instead of taking on more at this time?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From the questions, it appears to
me that there is some confusion.
Mr. Smylie, you're asking merely to fill in the gap between
Timberwood and the World Tennis --
MR. SMYLIE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not asking the county to
build the sidewalk along the World Tennis Club's frontage?
MR. SMYLIE: Oh. Well, that was a -- our petition, yes, because
it's a community of 360 residences that pay more than three quarters
of a million taxes per annum, and the cost of the sidewalk would be
about 4 percent of the annual tax revenue. So that would be our
request.
Page 99
March 10, 2009
On the other hand, the courtesy audit that John D. Martino has
just completed last week, he did not mention that the sidewalk
construction was a commitment under the PUD. I don't know if that
question would have to be settled.
In fact, I emailed back Maryann Devanes and John D. Martino to
try to get a definite answer to that question. But I guess from my
point of view, a community of360 residences without sidewalk access
is a bit on the unusual side, especially in view of the tax levels that
we're paying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I don't want to be
argumentative. But your petition says, I wish to petition the county to
extend the sidewalk on the east side of the canal from Timberwood to
the World Trade Center (sic).
MR. SMYLIE: World Tennis Club.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or I'm sorry. World Tennis --
yeah, I've sort of gotten my states mixed up, don't I -- to the World
Tennis Center. So -- but now you're saying you want it from
Timberwood all the way south to the southern edge of the tennis
center.
MR. SMYLIE: Oh, no. The -- the county right-of-way, canal
right-of-way land, ends at Grey Oaks, so the sidewalk request would
be from Timberwood where it suddenly ends, 1,420 feet to the
entrance to the World Tennis Center.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, see that's -- does
anybody have this? Would you put this on the overhead, please?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now it says, sidewalk gap
at Timberwood on this overhead.
MR. SMYLIE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that is attached to the county's
response to your request and is made part of this packet. So it -- and
when you said you wanted to petition to extend the sidewalk from
Page 100
March 10, 2009
Timberwood to WTC, I interpret that as meaning that yellow segment
there.
MR. SMYLIE: Oh, no. The request was the full 1,420 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would take it down to the
southern end of the World Tennis Center PUD.
MR. SMYLIE: To the Grey Oaks boundary, yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I would think that the
first thing that has to happen -- because the staff is saying there's no
doubt that the World Tennis Center is responsible for building the red
portion of that sidewalk.
MR. SMYLIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we need to make a legal
determination whether that's true.
MR. SMYLIE: Yeah. We're trying to get that question
answered, and John D. Martino, the courtesy audit last week, didn't
mention that. He mentioned that we may be able to have a seashell
pathway or something like that, but there was no -- there was not
mention of it being a commitment in the PUD. But the PUD is so
complicated, I guess, that it's not there, because the original developer
disappeared, and the homeowners association took over in 1997. So
we're actually trying, through Maryann Devanas, to get this question
cleared up.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Fiala, they can't hear him on the
mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. What I was just told was, they
can't hear you on the mike because you were standing too far away.
But that's all right. For the next time you speak --
MR. SMYLIE: Probably I'm finished anyway.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then is seems to me that
the key question here is whether the World Tennis Center is obligated
to build that sidewalk.
Page 101
March 10, 2009
MR. SMYLIE: Yes, sir. That's what we're trying to get
answered.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We need to get that determined
first. Now, does staffhave any proof of this?
MS. AUCLAIR: Well, Commissioner, if look at the PUD
ordinance that was approved in 1987, Section 5.8 of the PUD
ordinance addresses sidewalk and bike paths and says that sidewalk
and bike paths shall be constructed to be harmonious with the natural
environment of the development.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which sidewalks?
MS. AUCLAIR: That would -- it doesn't specifically address if
it's internal or external sidewalks, but it addresses sidewalks in
general, and that would -- maybe we can ask Jeffifhe wants to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this sidewalk on county
right-of-way or is it within the PUD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's within county right-of-way, but
back in the LDC back in the '80s and early '90s said that when you
plat a property, you build sidewalks internally and on the property
frontage as you construct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what the LDC said?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Back in -- back in 1985 or '86 it
changed. I can get you the exact date. But the intent of the PUD was
that you would follow the code and that you would build sidewalks
harmonious with your project with your environment, which means
connecting with the other projects, connecting to county roadways and
developments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not all that clear.
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd be happy to look at it if you'd like and
come back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I'm going to have to look at the
Page 102
March 10, 2009
LDC requirements back at the time that this PUD was put into place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we also need to look at the
same issue that we were looking at with the other issue on
Whippoorwill Lane --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- okay, of whether or not the
obligation actually does go with the land.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if it does, then that means that
they're obligated to build a sidewalk, but we're obligated, I think, to
build a connection between Timberwood and WTC.
MS. AUCLAIR: We'll ask -- we'll supply Jeff with the materials
and the PUD ordinances of both the World Tennis Center and
Timberwood for further clarification.
I want to also bring to your attention, and as we go through the
PUD audit process or the monitoring report and review, we come up
with these -- you'll be seeing a lot more of us in front asking for
clarification on these things because some of the PUD languages is not
precise as to exactly a certain commitment; however, when we
reviewed this PUD, there is definitely a clear commitment that is part
of the transportation commitment which requires the World Tennis
Center to pay a fair share for a signal. That signal has been installed.
We, through our research process, found an unpaid invoice that
was sent to the association in 1994, that, according to our finance
department, remains unpaid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we've got to look at all that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like you're going to be busy with
all these new things they're going to be digging up, huh, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sounds like an interesting week.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You might want to be giving us -- as they
come back with more and more of them, you might want to be
prepared for all of these things so when these questions come up, you
Page 103
March 10, 2009
have an answer, now that it looks like we're going to be faced with it.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'd be glad to help out and
do some research. But that's the only thing I was going to say, I'd be
happy to research it. But ifMr. Klatzkow's going to do it, that's fine.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll take care of it, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we will be bringing this
back. Okay.
MR. SMYLIE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Mr. Smylie.
MR. MUDD: Claudine, where are you originally from?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Quebec.
MS. AUCLAIR: I'm from Montreal.
MR. MUDD: Talk to another Canadian.
MR. SMYLIE: We're from the same town.
MS. AUCLAIR: And I hope I did pronounce all my H's today.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, you missed a couple of them.
Item #6D
RESOLUTION 2009-59: PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY
GREGORY BORON TO DISCUSS SPONSORSHIP OF WEST
POINT LICENSE PLATES - SUPPORTING THE SPONSORSHIP
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, which is a public petition request by Gregory Boron to
discuss sponsorship of West Point license plates.
Good morning. If you'd come forward, please.
MR. BORON: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, folks. I'm
Greg Boron. I'm living at 2040 Isla Vista in Grey Oaks. I'm a 1974
Page 104
March 10, 2009
graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, and I'm
filing a petition today to solicit the county's support in procuring West
Point license plates for the State of Florida.
I fully realize that this is a state issue, but for over three years
now I've been playing don quixote chasing windmills throughout the
state bureaucracy, local senators, Governor Crist, and, candidly,
anybody at the DMV in Tallahassee who would listen to me. You
really are, administratively, the end of the line, and I have nowhere
else to turn.
In the interest of full disclosure, Colonel Jim Mudd was a
classmate of mine. The academy customarily groups cadets by
economic prowess. Jim Mudd was on that rarefied end at one end,
and well, I wasn't. I did, however, see Jim casually throughout the
four years. We chewed up a lot of the same turf.
The situation is, the state currently has over 110 different types of
license plates: Celebrating Tuesday, fighting indigestion, saving the
mosquitoes, on and on and on. You've seen them all, and all of them
are wonderful causes.
Also, there are 15 Florida colleges that have collegiate plates, not
just Miami, not just FSU, not just UF, but Nova, Barry University,
Edward Waters College, Rawlins, on and on.
DMV in Tallahassee was very inflexible with me in explaining
the current statute. They said that since we're not a Florida college,
we require specialty plates, and the county attorney was kind enough
to resend about the 15th copy I've gotten of the statute. It says we
have to be sponsored senatorially, pay a $60,000 fee, and conduct a
full demographic census showing that we have 30,000 potential users
statewide.
The statute, however, does not apply to Florida colleges. There's
virtually no restrictions and there's no fees associated with establishing
these license plates for a Florida college.
I'm hoping to get the Collier County Board of Commissioners to
Page 105
March 10, 2009
lead a movement to help treat the United States Military Academy at
West Point as a Florida college for the purposes of these license
plates.
We're not talking about Notre Dame, we're not talking about
Duke or Ohio State, we're talking about West Point, the most public
university we have in the country.
There are currently nine West Point Societies throughout the
State of Florida. I've submitted with my precis the location fees.
These societies have 2,500 alumnis throughout the state and almost
200 active cadets at West Point. One of the largest societies and one
of the most generous to West Point is right here in Naples where we
have over 200 members of the long gray line currently in residents.
I'm loath to believe that there is a group of alumnists anywhere in
this country from any institution that's given as much as these folks
have.
Duty, honor, country is much more than a modo to these 3,000
residents of Florida. It is and will be a way of life.
To date 70 of our West Point brothers and sisters have died in
Iraq and Afghanistan, selfless devotion to duty and to country, one a
month, since 9/11. We can have a Boy Scout license plate, we can
have an I Love My Bicycle license plate, but it's impossible to get one
for the military academy.
My research is incomplete, but at a minimum, New York, New
Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, all have West Point license plates.
Currently, the state collects a small stipend from each collegiate
plate, which is annually turned over to that institution's general fund.
We at the West Point Societies would have no problem taking the
small stipend and hypothecating these funds to either the USO or the
Army Emergency Relief Funds.
What do I need from this commission? What do I request?
Author an omnibus proposal, please, to treat West Point as a Florida
university for the purpose of the state DMV, solicit support from the
Page 106
March 10, 2009
other eight Florida counties that have West Point Societies in them to
do the same, hopefully coordinate with our local state senator to pose
this legislation and hopefully have it coauthored by the state senators
representing the other eight counties, solicit from Governor Crist and
the director of Florida DMV at least a willingness to make this
happen.
I, on the other hand, will be more than willing to do all the
legwork this board might require to make it happen. I'll work with
whatever staff member either you or Jim sees appropriate to do, and
I'm happy to coordinate the activities of all the presidents of the West
Point Societies throughout Florida and hopefully take to them this
board's letter of support of proposal.
I'd like nothing more than a year from now to be able to take a
picture presenting West Point plate number one to another classmate
of Jim Mudd and mine, that being General David Petraeus at SunCom
Headquarters in Tampa.
Please, if you can, assist me in this long overdue endeavor.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and "Beat Navy".
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a comment, because I'd asked
Greg to come before us. It is difficult for me to understand when we
have hundreds of young men and women every year competing for an
appointment to West Point and being considered by legislators who
would make those recommendations and appointments, that we
wouldn't grant this request as a state. It is not a state university. It is
our nation's university, along with the other military academies.
MR. BORON: Well, we don't particularly care about them, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I understand. I understand
that. But at a time when we need leaders who understand what duty,
honor, country really means, I think we need to recognize the
graduates of West Point, and what more public way to do that than
Page 107
March 10, 2009
with a license tag that proclaims their alma mater?
So I would like to get a resolution in support of this that we could
then send to Senator Richter and other elected representatives from
other counties, which Greg, I think, will try to coordinate with.
MR. BORON: Absolutely, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if we could have a resolution
and maybe a letter from the chair suggesting that some of the other
counties support this effort, then we'll see what the state does with it.
MR. BORON: That would be much--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, Commissioner, is that a
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll back you up on that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just the process of trying to
make it happen, I don't think there's a snowball's chance to get any
legislation this year.
MR. BORON: I've waited three years, sir; I'm very patient.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- I think it has --
should do something with our next coming -- put it on our legislation
priorities for 2010. I'm not saying that we don't do the resolution now,
but I don't think it will have much consideration this go-round, my
personal feelings.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that it's going to take
time to coordinate with the other counties and the other West Point
Societies in Florida. I think we get started now trying to do this.
Whenever it's ready, whenever it's acceptable for legislators to deal
with it, is fine.
But it we wait until next year to start, it's going to be a year after
Page 108
March 10, 2009
that. So I say we start now, and if some legislator has the good sense
and courage to move this thing this year, that would be wonderful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then possibly when we go up to
Tallahassee -- we're going to be going up there in a couple weeks
anyway -- we could begin to pave the way with our senators. We're
going to be meeting with a few of them, as well as our representatives,
state representatives. We can begin to pave the way.
And possibly you have somewhat of an email network
throughout West Pointers in the State of Florida and you -- at the push
of a button, you might be able to get everybody to start writing their --
at the proper time, writing to their legislators supporting the effort.
And maybe with a wholehearted effort like that -- and I'm sure that
you could probably get a couple thousand of them to write very easily
-- in no time at all we could put this whole project together.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And after all, from the standpoint
of the legislators, it is a source of additional revenue --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because there's an additional
charge. That's why they have all the specialty license plates right
now, because they get more money for them. So this is another source
of revenue. It will probably cover up the shortage in their budget this
year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you look like you've got a lot of
support, and we've got a motion on the floor 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.)
Page 109
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0.
MR. BORON: Thank you for your consideration, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #6E
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JOHN BARLOW TO
DISCUSS PROCESS TO REHAB FORECLOSURES FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING - STAFF TO MEET WITH
PETITIONER REGARDING REHAB IDEAS AND POSSIBLE
GRANTS USING RECEIVED FEDERAL STIMULUS FUNDS -
CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next public
petition. It's a petition request by John Barlow to discuss a process to
rehab foreclosures for affordable housing.
Mr. Barlow?
MR. BARLOW: Good afternoon. Madam Chairman, and fellow
commissioners, good afternoon. I have -- the worst position is to be
right after lunch, but I'm going to try.
If you recall, just a little less than a year ago HOME was born to
make affordable housing, single-family housing, available as primary
residential here in Collier County to income-qualified families.
I wanted to point out to you, and it's a fact that none of us like.
Last year we had 7,872 foreclosures. It's the highest year that's on
record. Typically 2-, 300 was prior -- before that last year. Year
before this was 3,000. So 7,872 is so many more than what we even
experienced in our growth period when we were putting 5-, 6,000
houses up.
U.S.A. Today this past Friday ran this map, which is up here on
the pictorial. Thirty-five counties in the entire United States had over
50 percent of the foreclosures. Now, while Collier County doesn't
Page 110
March 10, 2009
have the number of foreclosures because you're comparing against
Miami-Dade, Broward, Lee, and these larger counties, we had the
same rate of foreclosures, over 60 per 1,000 houses.
So our county is in the dark blue, the same ones that are
identified with the red outline on them comprising the 50 percent.
Now, the thing that struck me with this -- and I'm sure you've
probably already picked up on this -- that the people in the United
States as they retire are migrating to areas where it's warmer, so
you've got some -- a lot of Southern California, you've got some
Arizona, you've got some Southern Florida.
It's a perfect map. There's no significant foreclosure activity,
doesn't look like to me, where it's colder than heck, up north up in
there. So we are a magnet for this. And sometimes we're so close to it
down here, it's hard for us to perceive where we are relative to the rest
of the country.
I have lived in this era of affordable housing and the needs for it
for a long time, and I recommend that Collier decide not to participate
any further in letting these foreclosed properties drag us down,
because they do. And if you drive through these communities, like I
drive every day, you can see the signs pop up, you can see the
properties sit there and languish in what they are.
Now, how do we convert them to affordable? First of all, these
are guidelines established by HUD. And if you recall, HOME deals in
the 50 to 80 percent of average median income, which means that the
top income for a family of four is 55,850. And there's a -- 23 percent
of all the houses in Collier County in the 50 to 80 percent segment.
We did research, some research with Shimberg at the University
of Florida to kind of identify to make sure there was sufficient
population that HOME could address. Looking at the chart that
housing puts out, the mortgages that these families can afford with
their income levels, at the various income levels at the left-hand side,
are 93- to $147,000 is serviceable mortgage income at 30 percent of
Page 111
March 10, 2009
their income.
Now, to be quite frank with you, that's too high today. We
shouldn't be targeting people at 30 percent. I noticed that some of the
legislation that's coming out of Washington is targeting relief for
people that are 38 percent, but that really stifles your discretionary
income and what can be happening.
So we at HOME try to bring it down significantly below 30
percent and give people the ability to live and enjoy what you and
other people have given us here in Collier County.
This is our first home. We closed on it on December the 29th,
and I can't tell you how happy I was to close on this house. On the
left-hand side is Dennis Harvey. He's a barber and works at
McDonald's part time. On the right is Venecia Harvey, who's the
mother of a 15-year-old son. Venecia is a medical technician at the
Urology Center here on 41. Lisa Carr, who is our housing outreach
director for the county and coalesces the people that are qualified for
these houses, and then myself. This is actually at the closing.
Now, HOME has purchased 12 houses. Nine of them we
currently own. The booklets that I passed out are pictures of all 12 of
those houses. Nine of them we have closed on, three are in rehab --
and I'll get into that in a minute -- three are under contract which will
close in late March or early April because it's a little bit difficult to
trace the liens -- I mean the titles on some of these foreclosed
properties.
The startling parts of this is our average purchase price of a
foreclosed house is $63,167. Goes from a low of 52,5- to a high of
75,000 -- excuse me, 80,000. We did one 80,000. Because the market
continues to slide down. Unfortunately what we paid $80,000 for 90
days ago could well be down to $70,000 today. It averages 1,229
square feet of livable square feet regardless of the garage. Because
these -- some have garages, some don't.
But the critical thing to me is it's $51.39 a square foot. This
Page 112
March 10, 2009
includes the land, the building. And the house is obviously not in the
best condition in the world, that's why we're buying them for $51. But
I can't even imagine a $51 rate in Collier County. Heretofore it's been
a lot more.
I -- being former Affordable Housing Commission (sic), I can
remember when there were less than five properties available for less
than a couple hundred thousand dollars on the MLS. And one of the
recording issues that we have on foreclosing, by the way, is not all
foreclosed properties are on MLS. The banks withhold these so they
don't flood the market, and they meter them out in some form or
fashion. Why or how, I can't tell you.
Here's the breakdown of where we own foreclosed properties by
zip code today. HOME currently has eight homes in Golden Gate
City, two homes in Golden Gate Estates, and two homes in East
Naples. We looked for foreclosed homes that have been empty for 90
days, asking price less than $100,000, and preferably close to schools,
parks, and shopping.
A window of opportunity exists right here in Collier County like
never before. We need to snap these houses up before they go beyond
200,000 -- 300,000. You know, people say we're going to come back.
How far we're going to come back, I don't know. But I will tell you
that currently the tax rolls in 2008 of the houses that we have
purchased on the tax rolls from our friend over here is $205,403.
Many of these houses have never seen a day that they were really
$200,000 houses, but that's what the people are paying taxes on. We
need to act now.
Our federal government's funding a new program called NSP,
which you're going to hear a lot about from Marcy in a couple weeks.
It's trickled down at its definitional point. I haven't seen this money.
We've been talking about it now for nine -- six or eight months
anyway.
I want to bring to you a proposal today that complements the
Page 113
March 10, 2009
NSP, not takes its place, but complements it and brings more
resources to bear to the task of providing affordable housing in Collier
County and infuse monies into our local economy through rehab work.
We estimate that there are 1,500 of the 8,000 that would fit our
criteria that we could translate into the mortgages that I told you
earlier and purchase them.
With your help, a new partnership can be formed between
HOME and the county, and we can turn most, if not all of these 1,500,
into affordable houses in the next 12 to 24 months. I wish I could
share with you how latent the trades are right now, anxious for
business.
I don't have a magic wand to keep these foreclosures available at
dual prices, to waive and let them -- make them go away. And I
certainly don't have a crystal ball to tell you how long these
opportunities will be there.
The market's going to change. I mean, just look at the map. This
is where the people want to go, for Pete's sakes, that are retiring, and
the demographics tell me there's going to be a huge surge in transition,
at some point in time, as soon as we can get this thing rectified with
these liquidity markets that are going on right now.
I know what we're dealing with today, and we have, right now at
our fingertips, the biggest opportunity of our lifetime.
I don't need to tell you what a shot in the arm our project can
have and provide the local economy. My proposed partnership
represents a unique public/private design.
May I go a little bit further?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but we really have to get going.
We're already 45 minutes late for our one o'clock time certain.
MR. BARLOW: Can you give me a minute or two?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just one minute, okay, John? Because
we've still got questions.
MR. BARLOW: We're developing a (sic) subcontractors who
Page 114
March 10, 2009
need and appreciate work as a two-way street.
I think it's time to think outside the box. Here's a unique
public/private partnership that I think has potential. Let's start a public
__ a private pilot program together, and let's show you how this will
work. Let's start with one house and then expand it to two, a dozen,
and a hundred more. We can get those houses rehabbed and sold in 90
days, a hundred homes rehabbed will put four million in the
community; a thousand homes will put $40 million into the trades'
pockets as we -- if we develop them.
Here's the way I envision it working. Collier County purchases a
foreclosed home with $60,000. We will rehab it through our general
contractor for 40,000, there are carrying costs of about 5,000, for a
total joint investment of about 105-.
Where do we get the money from? Three potential sources. The
Affordable Housing Trust Fund has $193,000 in it right now, and has
not been spent that I know of.
There's a potential of a casino tax. And since we're talking about
a 90-day use ofthe $60,000 -- because when we sell it we're going to
pay it back -- it becomes self-fulfilling and we can focus our attention
in Golden Gate Estates, the city, and East Naples.
From rehab to the net mortgage, it gets even simpler. The house
is 105,000 for --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your minute is up, Hon.
MR. BARLOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay? Because we'll probably have to
bring this back again.
MR. BARLOW: Okay.
MR. MUDD: No. I think when Marcy comes forward in two
weeks, you're going to have the opportunity to tell her how you want
to partner, and she's going to come -- this neighborhood stabilization
fund is over $7 million, which has just come to the county in the last
week from the stimulus package, and you have an opportunity and you
Page 115
March 10, 2009
have the groundswell for the capital in order to start making this thing.
So this preface idea will continue from two weeks. So Marcy
will kind of come back on this particular item. And I invite Mr.
Barlow to come back when Marcy has to describe it to the board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Come with her, John.
John, don't go, because Jim Coletta has -- Commissioner Coletta
has a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Barlow, I think it's
pure genius what you've come up with to try to utilize some funds that
are available. I don't think we have anything with the casino tax right
now. That's still an entity that's out there that's a little evasive. But
we do have that money that's sitting in the account, in the Affordable
Housing Trust Account, and it'd be great if we could do something
with that.
And like you say, turn it every 90 days. Who knows, maybe
we'll find another partner out there between now and then, or some
other funding. And I need for you to get back to me in the next day or
so. I do have a person that's a grant writer that would like to work
with you on some grants.
MR. BARLOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And two weeks from now, we'll
get together, and I'm sure we're going to come out with something
positive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you'll be working with Marcy then to
come back and -- with your idea to work on that?
MR. BARLOW: Yes. We'll work together on it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, do we need to direct staff
to make sure it happens?
MR. BARLOW: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. As I stated before, we just received a
stimulus package from the United States Government for over $7
million, and it basically falls hand in hand with this presentationt
Page 116
March 10, 2009
you're talking about. One of the things you have the opportunity to do
is to go out, and based on that program, buy foreclosed homes.
So Marcy will bring that item to you at the next meeting, if she
can get all her stuff together. But that's what we're planning on the
24th. And then Mr. Barlow, no doubt, can be a speaker on that
particular item, and his ideas are always welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we can give him more than three
minutes on that item because this is an excellent idea, and I'd love to
see some of that money going just for that. I'm sorry I had to cut you
off, but we're way over time.
MR. BARLOW: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll give him ten minutes on the
public petition and then some.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much. We'll-
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2009-60: ADA-2007-AR-12312, S. MELISSA
ROSS TRUST, REPRESENTED BY CHEFFY, P ASSIDOMO,
WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP, REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REGARDING THE DECISION OF
THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
LOT 28 IN THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD, APPLICATION
NUMBER LLA-2007-AR-12140. THE APPLICANT IS
APPEALING THE DECISION PURSUANT TO SECTION NO.
250-58 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODES OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES - APPROVING APPEAL CITING
INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
- ADOPTED
Page 117
March 10, 2009
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2009-61: ADA-2007-AR-12313, S. MELISSA
ROSS TRUST, REPRESENTED BY CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO,
WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP, REQUESTING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PURSUANT TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE STAFF CLARIFICATION NUMBER SC-07-02
PURSUANT TO SECTION NO. 250-58 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES. THE
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
REGARDING THE STAFF CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE
MEASUREMENT OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT ON A CUL-DE-SAC LOT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON LOT 28 IN THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD -
APPROVING APPEAL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 7 A and 7B, and I'm going to try to read them both. And I
believe you're going to, based on your county attorney's suggestion in
a memo that he sent to you, do both of these items at the same time
and do separate votes for each as you have done before on items when
they are pretty similar.
First item is 7 A. This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's ADA-2007-AR-12312, south (sic) Melissa Ross -- excuse me.
S., not south -- S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP, requesting an administrative
appeal regarding the decision of the lot line adjustment for property
located at Lot 28 in the Olde Cypress PUD, application number
LLA-2007-AR-12140.
The applicant is appealing the decision pursuant to section
number 250-58 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
Page 118
March 10, 2009
Next item, 7B. This item, again, requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's ADA-2007-AR-12313, S. Melissa Ross Trust, represented by
Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP, requesting an
administrative appeal pursuant to issuance of the staff clarification
number SC-07-02, pursuant to section number 250-58 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
The applicant is requesting an administrative appeal regarding
the staff clarification regarding the measurement of a front yard
setback requirement on a cul-de-sac lot for property located, again, at
Lot 28 in the Olde Cypress PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now, Commissioners,
we -- for declarations of ex parte, we'll start with you, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Madam Chair, in addition to
all of the meetings that I have had when this was heard before in 2007
and 2008, I have also had recent meetings just yesterday with Clay
Brooker, Melissa Showalter, Carol Kolflat, and that applies on both of
these petitions, as a matter of fact.
And I have also read the documents and guidance provided by
the county attorney and the staff, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I also have a huge amount of
email that I received on this through the last couple of years in regards
to this home. Recently I met with Clay Brooker and Carol Kolflat on
January 9, 2008, and also March 5, 2009, this year; Clay Brooker, on
September the 4th, 2008. I also met with another attorney, David
Bryant, on November the 8th, 2005, and September 22008.
I have met with the -- one of the persons from the neighborhood,
Diane Ebert, October 10,2007, and September 30,2008, and that's
Page 119
March 10, 2009
also in regards to the same people I met in regards to item number B.
So I hope I've covered everything. And as I said, all my
correspondence are here for people here to observe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I failed to mention
that I also met with Diane Ebert yesterday to talk about both these
petitions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Of course this
has been an ongoing issue for many years, and there's been numerous
meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone calls. But recently, met
with Clay Brooker, Melissa Showalter, and also Diane Ebert, and my
-- everything is in my files up here for anybody that would wish to see
it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same as before, and in addition
to, briefly talked to Rich Y ovanovich, met with Diane Ebert, Clay
Brooker, Michelle (sic) Showalter, and Carol Kolf1at.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Add Richard Yovanovich to
mine. I'm sorry. I had to get that in before it got away. Thanks for
reminding me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have on this
particular petition.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Do you need to have dates
that we talked with these people or just that we've spoken with them?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, you can just mention that you've
spoken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because I go way back into the '07s.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but you did a lot of this back on the
original hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, okay. So -- okay, then just since
then. I did go over to the home itself to see -- I went to -- with
Page 120
March 10, 2009
Melissa and her mother Carol over to the home to -- and viewed from
her bedroom the other house and drove down the street and
everything, and I think I met Diane Ebert there a little bit, too.
Also, of course, we've had many BCC meetings and I've met with
staff, I've met with Clay Brooker, Melissa Showalter -- and these are a
number of times -- Carol Kolflat and Diane Ebert. But just over, you
know -- I even have down here Blain Spivey, but that must have been
way back in '07, so -- okay, that doesn't count.
And I can't remember if I met with Rich Y ovanovich or not but
I'm -- no, okay, good. I didn't think I forgot any. Thank you, Rich.
Thank you.
And now we need to swear in everybody who is going to be
speaking.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And now we move on to you.
We have one hour for you.
MR. BROOKER: Madam Chair, thank you for your patience
and time. Commissioners, thank you.
My name's Clay Brooker with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo
here in Naples, 821 5th Avenue South.
My understanding is that these two appeals have been read
together already. I don't want Colonel Mudd to repeat that long
description, but I believe they're being -- they're companion items and
will be heard together in accordance with a memorandum that the
County Attorney's Office issued maybe a week ago or so.
The only caveat to that is, in my discussions with Mr. Klatzkow
are that whatever I present here today in my hour's worth of
presentation -- and hopefully it won't take that long -- all of that will
be considered part of the record for both items so we don't have to try
to figure out which item is which.
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct.
MR. BROOKER: Okay, thank you.
Page 121
March 10, 2009
As you recall, everyone in their ex parte communications, this
matter's been around for quite some time. The issues that we are
discussing today were discovered at the same time the preserve
setback issues were discovered by my clients. That preserve setback
issue was a 25- foot setback.
What you'll be hearing about today is less than that 25-foot
setback, and so a lot of people have asked or have wondered, why are
we here? If we've given you 25 feet, why are you here for something
less? And the reason is for a complaint filed by the Griders against
the county with respect to the preserve setback issue.
That litigation is pending. There are hearings coming up, I
believe, in the next week or so. My clients have no choice, not being
able to control what a judge ultimately will decide, have no choice but
to bring these other issues to your attention, and we appreciate your
time and patience.
First -- what I'd like to do is first talk about the lot line
adjustment that is the first appeal we have filed. This is the subject
lot. My client's house is here on this side abutting, I guess that would
be the west side of the subject lot.
This is what the lot looked like back in 1999, if you erased the
house for a moment, back in 1999 the actual configuration of the lot as
platted. You can see here what happened was the house was permitted
and was permitted as a comer lot. The staff permitted it as a corner lot
without actually checking to see, in fact, or confirming to see if it was
a corner lot or met the criteria for a comer lot on the Land
Development Code.
The issue becomes, if it's not a corner lot, the Olde Cypress PUD,
which this lot is subject to, has in the dimension standards, a 20-foot
rear yard setback, and that is what's indicated by what I'm showing
here, this dashed line toward the back of the lot. Everything in the
yellow is portions of the house that encroach that 20-foot rear yard
setback.
Page 122
March 10, 2009
Now, how -- what happened when this house was permitted and
actually built, there was supposed to be some sort of confirmation that
this was, in fact, a corner lot to allow this rear yard to become a side
yard setback, a 20-foot setback converted to a five-foot setback.
And here is the provisions of the code -- if you could slide that
up. Thank you. This is the definition of a comer lot in the code.
Typically a comer lot deals with two streets. As you see here, we do
not have two streets, but the second sentence starting there, of the
definition, reads, a lot abutting a curved street or streets shall be
considered a comer lot, and here's the operative language.
If the straight lines drawn from the foremost points of the side lot
lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior angle of less
than 135 degrees; 135 degrees being the threshold.
So let's apply that to the lot as it existed when it was first platted.
You draw straight lines and you -- can you back out a little bit.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. You draw straight lines from the
foremost points of the side lot line, there and there, and you draw a
straight line to the foremost point of the lot somewhere around there,
and you measure the interior angle that is created by those two lines.
If this number is less than 135 degrees, it shall be considered a
corner lot under the Land Development Code's definition. If it is
greater than 13- -- or 135 degrees or greater, it is not a corner lot. As
you can see here, the interior angle as platted was approximately 144
degrees; therefore, it is not a comer lot.
When this issue was discovered we brought this to staffs
attention, and staff admitted their error. I believe it's conceded that
when initially platted, this was not -- did not meet the criteria of a
comer lot and, therefore, the house that was permitted on the -- on the
lot was potentially running into problems with regard to that rear yard
setback.
So what the staff then did -- then did was cleverly come up with
Page 123
March 10, 2009
the idea of a lot line adjustment. What if we can actually create a
comer lot by reducing this angle to something less than 135 degrees,
and how do we do that? Well, the only way you do it is you've got to
pull in the side lot line just enough to reduce that interior angle to 100
and -- less than 135 degrees.
So that's what they did. Down here in the red hashed portion is
what we call the tail that was lopped off the lot. And by lopping off
that amount of property -- and this distance ranges anywhere from 20
to 23 feet -- you have -- you have slid the foremost point of this side
lot line in towards the rest of the lot and, therefore, when you now
recalculate the angle, you come up with approximately 134 degrees,
just under 135.
So now, voila, you meet the criteria of a corner lot and, therefore,
what was the 20-foot setback line now becomes a 5-foot setback line
because in corner lots you have no rear yard. And in Olde Cypress
PUD, the side yard setback is 5 feet.
Let me show you the Land Development Code portions. These
are more definitions that deal with rear yards and side yards. This is
the authority by which, when you create a comer lot, the rear yard
automatically disappears.
At the top is basically a second half of the definition of a rear
yard. It says, in the case of comer lots, there are no rear yards but
only front and sides. And then further down in the definition of a side
yard, it, again, talks about, in the case of comer lots, yards remaining
after the front yards have been established on both frontages shall be
considered side yards.
So going back to the -- the previous exhibit, these two frontages
are now considered front yards and everything else is now a side yard
pursuant to the code. That then becomes a 5- foot setback because that
is the applicable side yard setback in the Olde Cypress PUD;
therefore, as you see, nothing in yellow, the house is no longer,
according to the staff, in violation of the Land Development Code in
Page 124
March 10, 2009
the Olde Cypress PUD dimension standards.
So the question becomes, if this was an after-the- fact fix of an
admitted error of staff of initially permitting this as a corner lot and
create -- yes, and creating what was, in fact, a non-corner lot to a
comer lot, was that proper? Was this a proper lot line adjustment?
And that is the issue before you today.
As you might suspect, there are criteria in the Land Development
Code that you must satisfy -- all of these that are listed, A through D,
you must satisfy all of them in order to approve a lot line, in order for
the staff to approve a lot line adjustment.
This is, for the record, 4.03.04 of the Land Development Code.
What we -- what we contend is that the first criteria is not met by
the circumstances at hand. And you'll see here in order to grant a lot
line adjustment, you must demonstrate that the request is to correct an
engineering or surveying error or is to permit an insubstantial
boundary change between adjacent parcels.
It is that latter half of the criteria that we'd like to focus on. And
the question becomes, is this an insubstantial boundary change --
which is undefined in the code. That is for your determination here
today. But by converting a non-corner lot to a corner lot, is that
insubstan- -- an insubstantial boundary change?
We contend it isn't for several reasons. Number one, if you go
back -- sorry I keep switching on you. If you go back to this exhibit,
LLA number 2, in the bottom right-hand comer, this red hashed area --
this red hashed area here approximates about 240 square feet.
What happens here is when the -- when the 20- foot -- the 20- foot
setback is reduced to a 5-yard setback, all the area in here, that
difference of 15 feet that now becomes buildable, according to our
surveyor, is 1,337 square feet.
So by deeding off 240 square feet, that's never -- never is it
buildable under any dimension standard under any criteria, the Grider
lot improved or increased its buildable area by 1,337 square feet,
Page 125
March 10, 2009
nearly a five-and-a-half-to-one return, and we believe that's not
insubstantial. It is substantial.
I'd liked to go back to the criteria one last time and focus here on
D as well, criteria letter D as in David. You also must demonstrate
before the staff can approve a lot line adjustment application, that the
adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density
or intensity of use of the affected lots and so forth.
We contend, again, that by increasing your developable -- did I
say that right -- developable building envelope by 1,337 feet, you are
actually increasing the development rights of that parcel, and,
therefore, we contend that in addition to criteria A, criteria D is not
satisfied either.
At the back of your packet the staff attached a list of 39 other lot
line adjustments that have been approved by staff over the years. And
I think it's worthy to note that none of those are an example of an
after-the- fact conversion of a non-corner lot to a corner lot.
I've reviewed others than those 39, and I have yet to discover any
lot line adjustment in Collier County in the history of lot line
adjustments ever being used for this purpose, to convert -- to correct
an error after the fact by converting a non-corner lot to a comer lot.
And what of the deeded portion? Remember that red hashed
area, the tail that was lopped off? Well, where did that go? Well, it
went to his neighbor. You can remove that, thank you. Just for your
purposes, here to the left of the yellow shaded area is the subject lot.
This is the neighbor's lot. This little portion here equates to the red
hashed portion on the previous exhibit. This was deeded to this lot.
So the question becomes, what is that? What does the yellow
highlighted area become? Is it a -- I assume it's not a lot. It's quite
small. But then how do you measure setbacks? You know, just what
is it? It creates so many difficult questions that it would suggest to
you that using the process in this way was improper.
And I can tell you that had this initially been platted this way --
Page 126
March 10, 2009
in 1999, had a developer come in and drawn a lot with this tail on it,
staff would never have approved it.
Again, the fact that this is an after-the-fact error only, I think,
exacerbates the circumstances. Pure speculation, but if I were to go in
today and I have a lot in a similar configuration and asked to lop off a
piece 240 feet so I can get 14 -- about 1,400 square feet more, I don't
think that would get me very far in the staffs eyes.
Some people have said that this is an irregularly shaped lot.
There has been some -- in going through all of this over the last two or
three years, there's been some talk about how. Well, this is a difficult
situation. It's a unique situation. It's an irregularly shaped lot that
actually also happens to be on a cul-de-sac which creates more
problems and so forth and so on, and how are we possibly going to
apply the rules in a fair way to place a reasonable house on this lot?
Well, our response to that contention is twofold. First of all,
everything I've discussed here with you today, the lot line criteria, the
corner lot definition, that 135-degree threshold, all of that has existed
since at least -- I believe since 1991. But certainly by the time when
this lot was platted by the developer, everyone knew the rules we were
playing by, everyone knew or should have known exactly what was
going to be permitted on this property given the fact that it was an --
admittedly not a comer lot.
So to come now and say, we need -- staff needs to exercise a
little bit of discretion to give a -- to place a reasonable house on this
lot, we believe, is just flaunting the rules that existed after the fact,
once agam.
Finally, we believe a reasonable house can be placed on the lot.
And to give you an example, we don't have to go outside of Olde
Cypress, the Olde Cypress neighborhood itself.
Up here in the top middle -- you've got to zoom out a little bit.
Yeah, there you go.
This horse's head, what we like to call it, the horse's head, is
Page 127
March 10, 2009
Lone Pine Lane, Ibis Landing. That is the subject lot we've been
talking about so far.
I'd like you to -- I direct your attention to the lot right down here
on Wild Orchid in Olde Cypress -- in the Olde Cypress neighborhood,
and here's a blowup of it. Again, this house is just serving an
example. It is not part of the appeal in any way today. But does that
__ a configuration of that lot may strike you as somewhat similar to the
subject lot we've been talking about.
And 10 and behold, when you go onto the county's web site to
determine how this lot was permitted -- if you come down just to get
the permit number now. This is the permit that, when you type in that
address, that shows up on the county's website, 2004080386.
And you'll notice in highlighting, the rear yard setback that was
applied to permit this was 20 feet. It was permitted as a non-comer
lot. There was no conversion to a corner lot just to fit something on
this -- on this lot because it's so irregularly shaped and so impossible
to get a reasonable return or a reasonable house placed on the lot.
Those are my comments with regard to the first appeal of the lot
line adjustment. We would respectfully request that you overturn
staffs approval lot line judgment and return the lot to the status quo it
was platted and approved by the county back in 1999.
And at this point, Madam Chair, I can either move -- everything
I've just showed you, I have an extra copy for the manager or the court
reporter, or I could take questions --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, right now, how about the zoning
director might have questions.
MS. ISTENES: Good afternoon, Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
Mr. Mudd, would it be possible to use those exhibits just for a
few questions, okay. That way we can just stay consistent.
I just have a few questions for clarification purposes. Clay
mentioned -- and I don't need an exhibit for this question.
You mentioned 1,337 square feet, and then you said 1,400 square
Page 128
March 10,2009
feet more of developable area was gained. How did you come to that
conclusion?
MR. BROOKER: My mistake. I meant to say 1,340, just to
round up from 1,337 to 1,340. I should not have said 1,400. I
apologize.
MS. ISTENES: You didn't answer my question. How did you --
how did you get that number and what are you talking about?
MR. BROOKER: That number was, as you can see -- let me see.
If you could bring up the -- oh, that's fine, that's fine. As you can see
at the bottom, we asked our RW A consulting surveyor planning firm
to assist us in this regard, and I asked the surveyors to calculate the
difference of buildable area between a 5-foot setback and a 20-foot
setback once you come over to here, and other setbacks may start to
come into play here.
So roughly this area here that I'm pointing to, which is essentially
the difference between applying 20 feet versus 5 feet, that 15 feet of
depth versus some width, I asked them to calculate it, and they gave
me the number 1,337.
MS. ISTENES: My next question was, I was curious how you
studied the records of the lot line adjustments. You made a statement
that a lot line adjustment to change a lot to a comer lot has never been
done before. I'm curious only because our records are pretty
uncleared. Did you -- I mean, that would have been hours of work.
Did you pull all the surveys from 2003 and study all those to -- how
did you come to that conclusion?
MR. BROOKER: You're right, it was a lot of hours. It was -- I
did a public records request of every lot line adjustment approved in
the last ten years. I will not sit here before you today and say that I
went through every single one of those and the detail necessary to
determine whether never has it been used to convert a non-comer to a
corner, but that's why I stated it the way I have.
I did not see anything. I looked at the 39 I believe you listed,
Page 129
March 10, 2009
although there were some left on your desk that weren't given to me to
review. But of those 39 that I reviewed and of others I reviewed,
nothing -- I saw nowhere an indication of a non-comer lot being
converted to a corner lot by a lot line adjustment.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. So you -- that's your statement, because
you kind of said two different things. You said you can't conclusively
come to that conclusion, then you said nowhere did I see. Is that based
on what you saw and the extent of what the research you did?
Because the records, in my opinion, were very deficient in
explanation.
MR. BROOKER: Yeah. I mean, I don't have anything more to
add. Of course, I'll ask you if you know of any.
MS. ISTENES: No. I didn't research to that extent because, like
I said, it would have been hundreds of hours because of the lack of
detail in the records.
You mentioned also -- and this is my last question, just for
clarification -- staff would not have approved the transfer of the tail,
that being the eastern part that was transferred to Mr. Dunkleberger.
Why and what do you base that on, or are you just guessing, or why
did you make that statement?
MR. BROOKER: Based on my experience in platting and
representing developers in platting, that this configuration would not
satisfy the subdivision regulations, but I don't have the exact cite for
you.
MS. ISTENES: So you're not exactly sure. You're just sort of
guessing staff may not have looked favorably on that for some reason
or another.
MR. BROOKER: And we can ask Stan that question.
MS. ISTENES: I'm just curious why you made that statement or
what basis you used for that so I can understand it.
MR. BROOKER: If you're telling me that might be possibly
permitted, then I'm sure some of my clients would be interested.
Page 130
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Okay. That's all I have right now. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Next we have -- maybe the
Griders have their attorney.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I just have two questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, Susan just asked the question.
I didn't -- I thought your expertise was in the law. I didn't realize you
were an expert in surveying and platting.
MR. BROOKER: I'm not a surveyor.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I realize that. I just wanted to
ask you a question. You said you've never seen the code applied the
way it's being applied, correct?
MR. BROOKER: Correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Have you ever been the first one to use a
county code provision to resolve a problem for your client?
MR. BROOKER: I don't know if! can answer that question. I
don't know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You don't know if you've ever been the
first one, but there also is a first one to use a code provision when it's
been drafted or put into place? There's got to be a first, correct?
MR. BROOKER: If, in fact, the code provision has been used,
yes, that would be a first time.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's somebody -- right.
MR. BROOKER: But I don't know. I can't tell you whether I
have used any code provision for the first time ever.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So the fact that it's never been used
before doesn't mean it's not being properly used today?
MR. BROOKER: You're absolutely correct, it does not mean
that, but it certainly suggests that perhaps that's improper.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I don't know how you get to that
suggestion, but that's certainly not responsive to the question. Thank
you.
Page 13 1
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question before he
leaves. It's my understanding --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Me or him?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- you -- that you're representing
Mr. Grider; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Grider works for your
corporation.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He is an attorney in our firm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I sometimes wonder if that's not
perceived as a conflict of interest.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like to perceive it as helping out
someone in my firm like I would expect other lawyers in my firm to
help me out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't look at it that way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's okay, but I'm just helping Craig
and Amber because they needed my assistance, and this is the area of
law that I practice.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Brooker, the house on Wild
Orchid, what -- I didn't see the square footage that was permitted.
MR. BROOKER: If you'll give me a minute, I'll flip that permit
to see if the square footage of that house is indicated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or for time, we can just move
on and I can ask it again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, what I'm going to do, before we
have the other party then come up, because we're giving them an hour,
I thought we'd take a break, get ten minutes, and then we'd come back
and do the rest. So why don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just hold onto that question. I
mean, I'll ask that question again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. When we finish the break, you
Page 132
March 10,2009
want to start with that, and then we'll go on to the other party. Very
good.
We'll take a ten-minute break. It's a few minutes early, but this
way then we won't have to interrupt them.
(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: Thank you. Now we're going to move on
to a presentation by our staff and the Griders' representation.
MS. ISTENES: Thank you. Susan Istenes, for the record.
I'm not going to give a formal presentation. I think, kind of, Clay
outlined the history, and the executive summary outlines it as well,
and -- so I'm going to jump around, and I hope this doesn't get too
confusing, but I just want to make some points, and then we'll kind of
move on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If it gets confusing, we'll tell you.
MS. ISTENES: If you would fucus in on the star. Hopefully I'll
be -- I always do this. I don't -- I can't read it when I put it up there.
But, for the record, our position is -- well, the areas of the Land
Development Code that govern lot line adjustments are 4.03.04 and
10.02.02B8, which are essentially -- state the same things.
I just wanted to go ahead and put on the record that staff is of the
opinion that the lot line adjustment that was approved for the Grider
lot is consistent with the Land Development Code and the criteria
found therein.
The first criteria is that it is demonstrated that the request is to
correct an engineering or surveying error in a recorded plat or is to
permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels.
We would submit this is an insubstantial boundary change. It
was 247 square feet, which is the tail, I guess we're now calling it, and
247 square feet out of a 1 0,400-square- foot lot, plus or minus, and
Page 133
March 10, 2009
moving a lot line approximately 22 feet we would opine as being
insubstantial. It does not rise to the requirement for a plat, although I
did want to point out to you that this process could also be
accomplished by replatting.
And this lot line adjustment process, based on what I know about
it, is -- has been somewhat of a hybrid process to allow landowners to
come through and make boundary changes as long as they meet this
criteria without going through a full-blown replatting process, which is
expensive and time consuming. So that's why, in our opinion, the
process exists, and that's what staff has regularly been using it for and
the citizens of Collier County have been regularly using it for, is to
move boundary lines for various reasons.
The second criteria is both landowners whose lot lines are being
adjusted provide written consent to the lot line adjustment. They do
that through the lot line adjustment application process. Yes, they did
do that, so they do meet that criteria.
The third criteria, C, I won't read the whole thing, but it just
requires evidence that the lot line adjustment is filed in the official
records and that it meets the standards of and conforms to the
requirements of the LDC, including the dimensional requirements of
the district and the subdivision in which the lots are located and,
however, in the case of a nonconforming lot of record, which is not
the case here.
So, yes, we review the lot, the before-and-after scenario, to make
sure both lots are of the dimensions, minimum dimensions, required
by the PUD and the LDC and that they don't result in nonconforming
lots. So, yes, that criteria was met.
And the last criteria, D, it is demonstrated that the lot line
adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density
or intensity of use of the affected lots, and this is qualified, by
providing the opportunity to create a new lot or lots for resale of
development. Yes, in our opinion, they meet that criteria because no
Page 134
March 10, 2009
new lots are created.
Intensity, just for your information, sometimes that word gets a
little confusing. Intensity normally deals with commercial
development. Density deals with residential development. So no new
lots were created, no additional dwelling units could be built as a
result of this change; therefore, it meets criteria D.
And those are the four criteria the staff uses, and they reviewed
those and approved the application for the lot line adjustment.
One point I want to make, and then that's -- I guess that's really
all I want to say with respect to the executive summary. It's important
to remember, too, that this -- there are two processes to move a lot
line. One is this lot line adjustment process, and one is the replatting
process. So they opted to move -- to do the lot line adjustment
process, and they met the criteria, and it was approved.
One thing I don't think that was coming out, and a point I want to
make in the change, was when Clay got up -- and my exhibits are not
as professional as Clay's. I like color and I have to draw stuff out by
hand and fiddle around with it by hand, so I apologize.
But the important thing to remember here is that you all decided
through the official interpret- -- or I rendered an official interpretation
regarding the preserve setbacks as they apply to this lot. You all
upheld my decision on an appeal. So whether or not this is considered
a corner lot, it really doesn't matter because -- at least this day and
time. I'm sorry?
The preserve setback is 25 feet, and that is also in a corner lot
configuration considered to be a side lot line which allows 5 feet,
except the 25 feet prevails over the 5 feet. So regardless of whether
it's a corner lot or not, 25 feet is the required setback on the north
property line, which, under the corner lot configuration, is considered
a side; under the non-corner lot configuration, is considered a rear.
The only way that could possibly change -- and I understand
there's been a lawsuit filed regarding your decision of the appeal of the
Page 135
March 10, 2009
preserve setbacks -- is if that attorney who filed that lawsuit was to
prevail and the judge was to decide that the preserve setbacks don't
apply.
Am I stating that correctly, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. So at this point in time, I sort of feel like
Clay represented to you that there are no issues with this structure on
this site as far as encroachments into setbacks. That's not correct.
They encroach into the preserve area setback because the requirement
is for 25 feet, and they don't meet 25 feet; therefore, they either need
to correct the situation by removing the encroachments or obtaining a
vanance.
They have held a preapplication meeting for a variance but are
awaiting the outcome, I think, of these appeals, and Rich can speak to
that, because the outcome of these appeals could determine what type
of variance they need.
So I just wanted to make that clear, because at this point, whether
it's a comer lot or not, it just doesn't matter because the setback for the
preserve is 25 feet whether it's a side yard, rear yard, or front yard, and
they don't comply with that.
The last point I'd like to make is, I was a little concerned over--
Clay somewhat implied that staff made the Griders lop the tail off
their lot and give it to Mr. Dunkleberger so they would comply. That
was at the Griders' and the Dunklebergers' own volition. Staff did not
force them to do that. Under the criteria of the lot line adjustment, if
they could meet the criteria -- we review the application and approve
it if they meet the criteria.
It was a suggestion by staff because at the time they were
permitted mistakenly as a corner lot, and so in order to legitimize that
comer lot situation, it was discovered that if they changed that angle,
they would meet the definition, because I think there was 6 degrees
difference between a corner lot and a non-corner lot. So that's all I
Page 136
March 10,2009
really wanted to say about that.
That was really all the points I wanted to make. I hope I didn't
lose you on some of that, but I'd be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Also -- well, also the Griders might have
somebody representing them that wants to say something at this time,
but I have Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, no question in my mind
you have the ability to try to fix issues, and this is just one of the tools.
I'm just scratching my head to where I almost have a bald spot on
how you got there, that's all. And if you can provide an example, not
on this lot but lots that you were saying that you turned them into a
corner lot -- do you have examples on how you made that happen so I
can kind of understand that?
MS. ISTENES: Let me make sure I understand what you're
asking me. You're asking have other --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Other lots --
MS. ISTENES: -- lots--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it has been stated, I think
everybody agrees, that you have done lot line adjustments to make
corner lots. Is that a fair statement?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I mean, lot line adjustments are, I'll be
honest with you, are a pretty liberal way to change the configuration
of the lot because the criteria is very minimal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have an example with
you that's not a cul-de-sac lot to where you take a -- if you want to call
it -- irregular-shaped lot and made it a corner lot?
MS. ISTENES: No, I don't have an example with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't have an example. Is it fair
to say that Mr. Brooker, one of the examples he pointed out was the
Land Development Code on how you measure, and it can't have that
degree of 135 feet -- 135-degree angle? Is that the criteria used to it?
Page 137
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, for a comer lot, and that's the definition
for a corner lot, part of the definition of a comer lot, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And you're supposed to
go from lot line to lot line to make that measurement?
MS. ISTENES: This is where it gets tricky. And I may call on
Stan. It's--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to understand.
MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm trying to figure out what your -- what
your question is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Stan understands what
I'm asking, is, where you measure from lot line to lot line.
MS. ISTENES: How you measure the angle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let me get him to explain it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And maybe if we have the code.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski with Engineering Review.
Joe told me to be prepared to make the geometry 101
presentation but not to do it if I didn't have to, so it looks like -- some
of what you saw is just a little wrong but not a whole lot.
If! could get Mr. Mudd to -- it looks real simple. There's a
bunch of basic types of curves you use when you're laying out roads
and lots and whatever. If you're -- you have circular curves, you have
parabolic curves, you have spiral curves. Circular curves are used
where you have a -- this; if you go to sleep, I won't mind.
Where you have a road with constant speed and you're going
around a circle, you want it to be a circle because you have constant
motion in one direction. If you have a road where you're coming off a
high-speed road onto a low-speed road, you do a spiral curve because
the rate of curvature is constantly changing as the deceleration
happens.
And if you're going over an overpass or say you're building a
Page 138
March 10, 2009
roller coaster, you do parabolic curves because a vertical curve feels
better when it's parabolic, not circular.
The kind of curve you're dealing with here is a circular curve.
An arc is any portion of a curve, whether it's a parabolic, circular, or
whatever.
What you're looking at on that exhibit is a circle with a radius
point in the middle of it, and you're looking at another point out in
space.
Now, if you wanted to find the farther point on that circle from
that point out in space, you would go and draw a line through the
center of the circle, the radius point, and there's only one point on that
circle that is the farthest-most point from that point in space, okay.
Now, what you have here is like three different lots. The green
lot, the pink lot, and the blue lot. They all have exactly the same
frontage. But if you look at the points where -- can you zoom out a
bit?
If you look at the points where it intersects the arc, you'll see a
blue point, a red point, and a green point. Well, those are the
farthest-most points from that -- those back comers.
And what I was told by the planning department when I asked
them, what do you mean by the foremost point, they told me that it's
the farthest-most point on the curve from the back corner of the lot.
Now, everything I've seen so far from what people have done,
they have picked the middle of the arc and called it the farthest-most
point. I saw a memo recently claiming that our codes were, I think the
word was incomprehensible to the point of being unintelligible to the
average person. This is a classic example. Instead of -- if they had
wanted to say the middle point of the arc, they probably would have
just simply said, the center point of the arc. If -- and when you extend
the arc out, not the arc but the two lines that form the arc, the point
where those two dotted lines comes together on this piece of paper,
that's the point of intersection.
Page 139
March 10, 2009
If an engineer had written this definition, he probably would have
said something about the angle at the point of intersection. But you're
stuck with a definition that says the foremost point.
Now, I have a couple other examples here, but it will just muddy
the water. What you have is -- I'll show you something. Olde Cypress
Unit 2, you were looking at those -- the other lot that Clay Brooker
was talking about, and you have Lots 15 and 24. Well, Lot 15, this is
a blow-up of that plat. And could you zoom out, Jim?
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's a blow-up of Lot 15 on the plat.
And if you look, the pink line is from -- well, there's your circle that
the radius forms, there's the radius point. If you go to the comer, that's
the foremost point of the lot, not the center of the arc, which would be
here.
When you do the measurement from this corner to the foremost
point of the arc to that corner, you come up with 162 degrees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where are you measuring the
162'1 In the road there?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The internal part of the arc here. This is
a 180, a straight line. This is a 135, the blue line. So that lot there is a
162-degree lot. That's definitely not a comer lot.
Lot 24, roughly the same case. You have the -- this time it's a
little closer to the center of the arc because when you start at the far
point, you come through the radius point, you come to here. That's the
farthest-most point of the lot from the back corner, and the angle
through there is 163 degrees, this being the 180, the straight lane, this
being the 45 off the 90, which is the 135.
Now, the Grider lot is that lot there. And if you look--
MR. MUDD: That's 28, right?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's Lot 28, right. If you look at Lot
28, when you draw the arc, the farthest-most point is here. It's very
close to this comer, which opens up this -- I'm sorry. It closes up this
Page 140
March 10, 2009
arc a bit. And you end -- originally they had 140 degrees, about 5
degrees off.
This is the 135-degree, and they came to 133. They said 134
because they picked the foremost point. I couldn't see any reason to
say anything about it because they both work, and I wasn't about to
muddy the water any more.
But by the definition that the zoning department has given me,
the foremost point of the lot is not necessarily the center of the arc, but
this lot works from a geometry point of view.
Now, is that in answer to the question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. You even dumbed it down
enough for me to somewhat understand.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- now, let's go to language
in the Land Development Code.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't do that. I think Susan does that
for you.
MR. MUDD: I can get it for you. It's right here. Is this the
language you want to see, sir?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Corner, a lot located in the intersection
of two or more streets, a lot abutting a curved street or street shall be
considered a corner lot if straight line drawn from the foremost points
of the side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior
angle ofless than 135 degrees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And that's what we have, 133, as of my
measurement using my -- zoning's interpretation of the foremost point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, can you go to that -- your
graphic and show me the straight line?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Well, the straight line is the -- you
mean the 180'1
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When you get the measurement,
Page 141
March 10, 2009
it says to go from lot line to lot line.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This is the foremost point of your
corner lines.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zoom out, County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This is the foremost point of this corner
line, and this is the foremost point of the present corner line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Now show me the
straight line.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The straight line is the 180 here; is that
what you mean? And when you come off that, 30, 45 degrees to the
135, that's the minimum, and this is 143 right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to -- the code
says it goes -- you draw a straight line from one comer of the lot to the
other.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, that's this straight line here from the
point and the straight line from the furthest point to this corner here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the code should say, draw
two straight lines.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: As an engineer, the code should say the
point of intersection of the two tangents should be -- but it doesn't. It
says --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then I have to ask the
question. Was the code written intentionally so you can't take a
cul-de-sac lot and turn it into a corner lot?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It says, a lot abutting a curved -- shall
be considered a corner lot if straight lines, that's two lines --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Straight lines.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: -- going from the foremost points of the
side lot lines to the foremost point of the lot meet at an interior angle
Page 142
March 10,2009
of less than 135, so--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got it.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Should I sit down and let Susan take
over again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's -- Stan, there's one other
thing, and I'm sure you can answer it. Now you changed the lot to
where you have two sides and two -- no -- yeah, two sides and two
fronts. How did we come to determine that the width of the new lot
meets the PUD standards, the development standards?
MS. ISTENES: Are you asking to describe that measurement as
well or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, yeah. How do you --
how do you come to that conclusion?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't have the PUD in front of me. I
don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry to take up so much time.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what Susan just told me is she
needs a couple seconds to look that up --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: -- in order to get that particular issue. So if you
want to move to a different item, she'll look it up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a question.
We'll go there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know if it's a question or
just a conclusion I've come up with here.
Number one is, we had an individual who designed a home that
was bigger than could encompass the lot using our Land Development
Code. The person who designed this house basically just thumbed his
nose at -- or her, whoever it was -- thumbed their nose at our Land
Development Code.
And the issue with the 25-foot setback from the preserve was
Page 143
March 10, 2009
something that came into the equation later on. What came into the
equation was that when staff realized they had made a mistake
because someone wanted to build a house bigger than was
incorporated on this lot, they then came to the county to try to figure
out the best way to encompass this huge house. The only way they
could do it is to adjust the lot line.
And so here we are today with this lot line, even though we have
litigation pending on the 25-foot setback from the -- from the preserve.
What this amounts to is where there has never been a change that I
could find using a cul-de-sac and manipulating the lot to encompass a
building that shouldn't have been built, and instead of saying to the
developer or the builder or whoever it was, you are in violation, you
have a responsibility even though we issued the building permit, the
end result was we wanted to find a way to play the game to try to
make this house conform on the lot. That's the bottom line.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: About the lot width?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Susan tells me that the minimum lot
width is 60 feet for a single-family detached, but I'm not sure how you
would compute -- okay. All right.
The -- the lot is supposed to be 60 feet wide, and it's measured by
drawing the chord and then a straight line parallel to the chord through
the middle of the lot. And in this case, that would be -- let's see. This
being the chord, you set back, and the measurement would be through
here.
And you can see that this is 46 feet, so this width is probably
double that at least, more than 60 feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, as I read the code, on a
corner lot, the frontage of a corner lot is the shorter of the street,
shorter side of the streets, and actually there's a -- there's a pictric of it
in the Land Development Code.
Susan, you know what I'm talking about? It's under definitions.
Page 144
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, and I'm not sure I have all the definitions.
But the frontage is going to be that which is -- well, the front of an --
oh, an interior lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I could get my code.
MS. ISTENES: No, I've got it right here. For the purpose of
determining yard requirements on comer lots and through lots, all
sides of a lot adjacent to streets are to be considered frontage. So
anything adjacent to the street is your front. And then in a comer lot
configuration, anything not adjacent to the street would be your -- a
side lot line.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put that on the
visualizer, please?
Well, that's the old code. Are we -- are we going by the old
code? Because you permitted this -- you did this lot line adjustment in
2007, right?
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you used the new code,
unless it was not carried forward from the old code.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. So I just -- in this case I used the old
code for the whole thing because it's the same, because some stuff
wasn't carried forward. So rather than try to go back and forth
between the two and confuse everybody, I just took everything from
the old code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's start out where you
were reading where it says corner lot on how you measured the width.
Where's that -- where's that in the writing?
All right. The minimum lot width on a cul-de-sac, which we
know -- we don't want -- we're not a cul-de-sac anymore.
MS. ISTENES: We are in a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Huh?
MS. ISTENES: Yes, this lot is on a cul-de-sac.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a comer lot now.
Page 145
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: It's still a cul-de-sac. Cul-de-sac lots can be
comer lots.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the -- it's a comer lot. I
mean 1--
,
MS. ISTENES: A corner lot by definition of the code doesn't
necessarily have to be a 90-degree angle fronting on two different
streets. I do have the language that describes that, if you want to see
that as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. How are other corner
lots in this development, the sidewalk access measured?
MS. ISTENES: Well, it's by definition depending on the layout
of the lot, so you would take the definition and apply it depending on
the layout of the lot. They all have to meet the minimum for a
single-family of 60 feet. So as long as they meet 60 feet or more, they
are legal lots.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: And that's all reviewed at the platting stage. So
the plat isn't approved unless the lots meet the minimum dimensional
requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll tell you what, I'm going to
let this go for now, but I want to come back to it, I want to go get the
old code, I want to go get the new code and address it because, again,
I'm going bald of trying to figure this out because I'm reading it --
MS. ISTENES: Are you contending that the lot isn't wide
enough per the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know. That's what I was
wanting an answer on. But you're measuring -- you got -- you now
have two fronts, and the reason that you have two fronts is so you can
create two sides. That's the whole purpose of that, to try to get to that,
you know, that size building in that envelope.
So the way I see your -- the code is laid out on a corner lot --
because that's what you created is a corner lot -- you measure one
Page 146
March 10, 2009
width of the front, so -- and I'll get back to that, because I don't want
to belabor the point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then we'll go on to the
representative for the Griders.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I apologize. I'm a little confused on the
process. Do I get to ask staff any questions or do I make my
presentation and then I ask staff questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, that's what we're doing is actually --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Asking questions of staff now, or are we
making presentations?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Well, according to -- we have --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll go either way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- a little sketch here, and right now it's,
the staff and Griders present their case, and then the appealing party
can ask questions, and certainly you can as well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, I can -- I can do that
through my presentation by -- I'll ask questions of some staff as part of
my presentation.
I'd like to start out with a confession. I had a flashback to ninth
grade geometry, and I remembered what my grade was. It was barely
passing, and that's when I decided that I should not become an
engmeer.
I didn't understand a whole lot of what Stan said, but I -- and I
think that's why we are where we are in this process. What I want --
what I want to do is, since the Griders have really never had an
opportunity to explain how they got to this situation -- and I think by
some of the comments that have come out, there's some information
that clearly you all are not aware of on how we got to where we are.
And I want to go back to before Craig and Amber bought the lot
and the information they had and the information they sought so they
would know what the building envelope was for their lot so that they
could, by using an analogy, color within the lines and not go outside
Page 147
March 10, 2009
of the lines.
And it started with an email to David Hedrich on August 26,
2005, and I'm going to put the email up and show you the attachment
to that email. And I finally remembered to bring my glasses.
Okay. It's an email.it.s very short. It says, here -- it's to David,
and you all can read, but I'm just doing it for the audience. Here is the
sketch showing the lot along with the radius and chord setbacks.
As we discussed, I would like to use the chord setback in the
front yard cul-de-sac side. Can you confirm this is okay
conceptually? Thanks.
Okay, and then eventually he says yes. But this is what was
attached. And this document is the marketing piece that Stock
Development was utilizing for what the building envelope is for this
particular Lot 28.
And what Craig was trying to confirm -- as you can see it had a
25-foot setback on this portion of the road, on the cul-de-sac portion
of the road. It had a 5- foot setback over here, and here it was 10 feet.
And the reason that it was 10 feet was because there used to be a golf
course easement over that 10 feet.
That golf course easement ultimately went away because there's
no golf course there. But if you look at the document that went there,
at the very top -- and we think that's being shown right now -- is the
word preserve.
So the county was told that to the north of this property was
preserve. The county at no point ever said to Craig, because you're
adjacent to a preserve, you've got a 25-foot setback. So your question
about -- that 10-foot's not applicable. It's really a 25-foot setback.
So that question was put to the county and the information
provided. It was followed up with another emaillater on because it
was determined that he was a corner lot, and then Craig realized he
has two sides.
Now, with the two sides it would be 5 foot adjacent to the
Page 148
March 10, 2009
northern property line, which is -- this is the northern property line.
So what he -- what he realizes, if he made the golf course easement go
away, he would get an extra 5 feet because he has a 5-foot setback.
He follows up in November of the same year wanting to confirm
what the envelope is. What I've underlined, again, he says, also the
rear of the lot is preserve.
So Craig and Amber had always pointed out to the county to the
rear of the lot that there was this preserve. The county never said to
him, hey, it's a 25-foot setback from that preserve. A mistake
happened, okay. There's no question a mistake happened. We
understand the results of the official interpretation. We're not here to
argue that.
But I don't think it's fair to say that Craig and Amber tried to get
the biggest building envelope possible, design the house, and then
tried to use the process to make it fit. They attempted to get the right
information to come up with what is the envelope that needs to be
built.
It went through the review process, county staff approved the
house, it got built, it got substantially complete and then, oops, it was
discovered that this is not a corner lot. For all the geometry reasons
that Stan explained to everybody, this may not be a corner lot under
the county's definition.
So what was the fix? The fix was two -- there's two options to
fix this. Go through the lot line adjustment process, which is cheaper
than going through the replat process, or replat his lot and Mr.
Dunkleberger's lot to create the corner lot. Either one of those
processes are legal. The results may not make the neighbor happy, the
maybe neighbor to -- I forget which direction that is. I think that's
west. It may not make the neighbor happy, but it fixes a problem
that's out there, short of tearing the house down.
So he started with information provided to him that gave him a
building envelope, he confirmed with the county what was the
Page 149
March 10, 2009
building envelope, the county permitted that building envelope, and
then it was discovered that there was a mistake, and how do you fix
the mistake? You use the legal processes available to fix the mistake.
It's not wrong. It's not wrong to be the first one to use code
provision to fix a problem. This is a problem. We utilized the lot line
adjustment process to fix the problem.
Now, I know people are trying to imply that, you know, staff
came up with a solution. I also told Craig that there's a lot line
adjustment process to fix this problem. So it wasn't just staff who
suggested the resolution of this. I also suggested that you can do a lot
line adjustment to fix the problem.
So -- and I will tell you that the argument that somehow using the
lot line adjustment process to give you more of a buildable area has
never been the standard for the review of lot lines, and you can't find
that anywhere in the written terminology.
You have four criteria that you can apply for a lot line
adjustment. And as Susan has eloquently pointed out, we meet all
four. It's a fact. We meet all four of those criteria. If you wanted
other criteria out there like what's the impact to the neighbors to the
west, you would have put that in there as criteria. You don't have that
as a criteria.
I can pull Stan up here really quickly to talk about unusual lot
configurations through the platting process. But I will tell you that
Twin Eagles, if you were to look at the plat of Twin Eagles and how
they came up with those 5-acre lots so that they could fit the golf
courses around there and meet the minimum that was required in the
agricultural zoning district for 5-acre lots, I think Stan will confirm to
you that they're rather irregularly shaped. Did Stan leave? Where'd
he go? There he is. I think he can come up -- and maybe he should
for the record so if there is -- there's an appeal of this.
Stan, can you come up and answer the question about whether or
not had we platted that lot originally with the tail, would the county
Page 150
March 10, 2009
have approved the plot? Because I think that's important.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good afternoon. Stan Chrzanowski,
again. Yes, we'd have approved it. Like Rich said, there's a project
called Twin Eagles that needed 5-acre lots. They ran their lots in all
different configurations up through wetlands and across lakes.
Only the first half acre on most of them was buildable. The back
four and a half was totally unbuildable. You couldn't even get to a lot
of them. And it's the lot size that we care about.
If we had seen this, the tail on the one lot, they moved the tail to
the other lot, we probably wouldn't have cared. We generally
discourage odd-shaped lots, but we don't -- if somebody has to do it
for a reason, we allow it, like we did with Twin Eagles.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is plat -- and I've drawn -- that's my
arrow to the lot. That's the Grider lot, Lot 28.
I think when you look at that, my first reaction to looking at that
is, clearly that's a corner lot. I mean, I looked at the angle. The angle
I looked at was this right here, and I would have -- I would have said
that, you know, that looks like a comer lot to me. I think that's what
your staff person did when they reviewed it, keeping in mind that
when the recodification happened in 19 -- I'm sorry -- 2004, some
definitions were left out and not available to -- probably to that staff
person.
And there's been confusion for a lot of us since 2004 as to what is
or is not within the Land Development Code, so mistakes do happen,
and I think that's what happened here was a mistake. Staff assumed it
was a comer lot and permitted it as such.
To now -- so now what we're trying to do is fix -- fix an issue
through the legal process, and the lot line adjustment is one legal
process available to us. A replat of the property is another legal
process available to create this as a corner lot.
I think the real issue here is -- let me go back. I take that back. I
was involved in a case, an eminent domain case involving Collier
Page 151
--.<-_.~..."_._..,,..- "Y' _....--
March 10, 2009
County where Collier County had taken a portion of a platted lot in
Pine Ridge. It's on the comer of Goodlette-Frank Road -- it's the
northwest corner of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road.
When they took the frontage along Pine Ridge Road, they created
a lot that was no longer legal. And I said to the county, guess what?
You just bought the entire property. And they said, why? I said,
because I can't build on that lot. And they said, well, we'll buy the lot,
but will you agree to sell us another ten feet from the property to the
north and go through the lot line adjustment process to fix the
problem?
So the county itself plans on using the lot line adjustment process
to make an illegal lot now buildable. That's got -- if this is considered
substantial, that's certainly substantial because you've taken a lot that
can't be built on at all and making it buildable. That's never been the
way this has been applied historically.
I think it's a stretch to say that what we're doing is improper
under the code. I think you're stretching the English language to come
up with the arguments that Clay is making. I think your staff is
absolutely correct on the lot line adjustment. I think the facts all show
that we're allowed to use this process.
What it all comes down to is -- in my opinion is that I think that
people may not be so sure on the preserve argument. They don't want
to trust a judge to back you up on your decision.
If you're wrong on your decision, then the Grider residence
should stay as it is. If you're right on that decision, then there's a
25-foot setback and Susan's correct that it doesn't matter whether a
5-foot side or a 20-foot rear -- and I'll point out to you -- is that under
the PUD, the front yard requirement is 25 feet. The rear yard
requirement is 20 feet.
When you become a comer lot -- and you have your two sides.
You always have the two sides. When you become a comer lot, you
now have a 25-foot setback and another 25-foot setback where you
Page 152
March 10, 2009
normally had a 25-foot setback and a 20-foot setback, so you're more
restrictive in going to the corner lot because you have a larger setback
because now you have two fronts instead of a front and a rear.
So we are, as a couple of predecessor county attorneys said, we
are where we are. We're in a bad situation. There's -- I don't think it
was intentionally anybody's fault. The box didn't get drawn properly.
We have to find a way to solve this.
Craig and Amber have availed themselves to the lot line process,
and they're allowed to do that. And we'll let a judge decide on the
preserve Issue.
We have applied for the variance. I haven't submitted yet
because it didn't make any sense to submit until we find the results of
today's proceedings, because I don't know if I'm asking for one or
multiple variances.
That's my comments regarding what you have. I'll leave copies of
all these emails and plats for the record. I don't think I have anything
else to add, and I'm available to answer any questions that you may
have regarding my presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, wasn't this a
similar issue in the City of Naples where you represented your client?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And you know -- and that's why I
originally told Craig and Amber, no, I didn't want to be involved,
because that was a bad situation as well, and it was similar. The city
staff in that instance permitted a building, approved the plans, and
decided they made a mistake.
But the difference there and the difference here is they caught
that when the block was up for the side walls, roof wasn't up. You
didn't have a substantially completed house. And ultimately we
reached a compromise on that one through the variance process.
Here, this is a tough case. I didn't really want to be here, but
Page 153
March 10, 2009
Craig and Amber asked me to help them, and I agreed to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I just have -- I
found a -- Madam Chair, the figure from our Land Development
Code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you want to have the county
manager put it up for you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. And it's figure 2.
Actually, it's over on -- go down. There it is.
I guess the question, Susan, I have for you, on this comer lot
here, it gives you the frontage.
MS. ISTENES: The Grider lot, is that what you're referring to or
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This figure on the visualizer
now. What was the purpose of this figure?
MS. ISTENES: Off the top of my head, I'm not -- I don't have
the reference, just based on this figure, but my guess is it's just to show
what the definition of frontage is, where it would be located. Are you
referring to -- I mean, there's several things on the drawing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. ISTENES: Are you referring to the line here that says
frontage? I'm going to give you a really basic answer. It's just
defining where the frontage is. I don't know if it's in reference, as a
comparison of these two lots or that, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think you would want to
measure your width from the frontage -- your front, frontage of the lot.
I mean, that's where I'm -- what I'm taking from the new code.
MS. ISTENES: There is descriptions about where to take width
measurements from double-fronted lots. Is that what you're possibly
referring to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure that's consistent with this drawing
though because that description talks about the main entrance to the
Page 154
March 10, 2009
house as being the point at which you look at the road and the frontage
and determine the lot width. Am I on the right track? No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To me you want to measure the
frontage of the lot to figure out what your width is -- I think that's
what it's trying to tell us.
MS. ISTENES: I'm looking at that as two lots though. That's
why I'm not understanding how you would measure the width of one
lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you have to pardon me. I
go from MUNI now to the printed -- printed code, and what I seen out
of the MUNI code, it is, that's how to measure the frontage on a corner
lot.
MS. ISTENES: I'm looking for the reference to figure 2 here so I
can put the reference --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we could deal with that
later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. I have Commissioner
Halas, and then we're going to have the appealing party ask any
questions.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I tell you, to be honest with
you, I'll just see where this goes, but I've -- I think we've spent a lot of
time on this thing. We could spend here till midnight, and I make a
motion to approve the applicant's appeal that this lot line adjustment is
inconsistent with our Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second. Now--
MR. KLATZKOW: We're not done with the presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we can't -- we can't move
Page 155
March 10, 2009
forward on that motion? We have to --
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Thank you for your
guidance. All right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was just waiting to see ifthere's any
questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that stands. The motion and the
second still stands, right? Okay.
So now the appealing party may ask questions.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you very much. I have two questions,
one of Rich and then one of Stan, and so I'll be very, very brief, and
then maybe we can entertain the motion.
First, Rich, you mentioned an example of another lot line
adjustment on Pine Ridge and Goodlette, I think you gave -- you gave
that example. Was that yes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
MR. BROOKER: Was that a conversion ofa non-comer lot to a
corner lot?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, it would -- it did involve a
corner lot.
MR. BROOKER: Did it convert a non-comer to a corner?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It actually made the lot -- the corner lot
that became an illegal corner lot a legal comer lot.
MR. BROOKER: Typical lawyer answer. So if! could dissect
that, what that means is in the before case it was a comer lot and in the
after case it was a corner lot. In the after case it simply became legal.
It wasn't a non-corner lot to begin with, correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That is correct. Is that good?
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. That's all I have for asking
questions of an attorney. They tell you in law school, never ever
cross-examine an attorney.
Second, Stan, very quickly, there was a lot of talk about where to
Page 156
March 10, 2009
measure this foremost point of the lot and determining how to measure
that interior angle, and I believe Stan will simply confirm that even
though my exhibits may not match up with your definition of where
the foremost point of the lots is, as a matter of fact, can you confirm
that in the before condition, before this lot line adjustment was
approved, it was, in fact, a non-corner lot?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, it was 140 degrees.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, any members of the public
registered to speak?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I do have one person. Diane Ebert.
Do you want to speak, Diane?
MS. EBERT: Yep. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Diane Ebert.
You're right, we've been involved with this for a long time. All I
want to say is -- there's a lot of things I'd like to say, but you cannot
take our PUD development standards for residential lots as a county
employee and be changing them for your preference.
They took our PUD, standard development -- development
standards and they tried to change this. We are 55 villa
single-detached homes, and this is what they used for all of them. It
was never platted as a corner lot. It really can't be one. And even --
they admit at the beginning that it says, we'll have to put the builder
on official notice that the house is not in compliance with the
development standards as prescribed in the PUD and pursuant to the
LDC.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we will close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have my light on.
Page 157
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. But we still close
the public hearing now that the public has spoken, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no one else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you. I have several
questions, and I'm not too sure, but may I address them to our county
attorney?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. There's a lot of things
that were brought up here, and I'm still trying to separate the -- all the
issues to find -- get down to really what we're talking about here.
And I just need to clarify something. Mr. Y ovanovich and his
clients are a member of the same law firm. Is that anything we should
take into consideration in our deliberations?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it's relevant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That the home was built
on a lot inexclusive (sic) of the lot lines as we're going through right
now, is defined by some as a megahouse. Is that something that we
should take into our considerations?
MR. KLATZKOW: Only to the extent if you think that the
house is too large for the lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, inexclusive of the lot lines
itself, the size of the house.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't know what a megahouse is except
my own -- if a megahouse is a house that's too large for the lot, then
yes, but it's only because they have exceeded the setbacks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it exceeds the setbacks,
correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the word megahouse in
itself isn't reason enough to be able to refuse.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what else megahouse could
Page 158
March 10, 2009
mean.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That the application of
the corner lot, being it's the first time that this was -- this application
was used, whether it was or not, we really don't know for sure, but if it
is the first time, is that something that we should keep in
considerations?
MR. KLATZKOW: They either have the right to ask for it or
they don't. Whether or not it's been used before, I don't -- if it's been
used customarily then, yes, you could take that into consideration.
But the fact that this might be the first time -- and we have no
evidence one way or the other -- I don't think that that should bar
somebody from utilizing it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. We just heard testimony
that it was never platted as a corner lot.
MR. KLATZKOW: You didn't hear any testimony. You heard
Mr. Y ovanovich say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the next question, I
guess, would be for Stan, if I may.
There -- the statement -- I may have picked it up out of my book
or somebody may have said it, but that the county has been using the
core (sic), am I saying that right, core method for over 20 years? Did I
hear that or is this something I'm reading into it? And explain exactly
what that means.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A chord is the straight line between any
two points on an arc. So when you have -- and it's -- you got the
concept of concave and convex, the concave side of an arc is the arc --
is the part of the arc that looks like the cave, which would be the street
side of a cul-de-sac lot. The convex would be the lot side.
So on the concave side, you draw the chord from side lot line to
side lot line across the lot, and it -- Susan has some exhibits. We have
some industrial lots where the lot takes up half of the cul-de-sac, so
the chord actually cuts through the middle of the cul-de-sac. The
Page 159
March 10,2009
setback puts the building out into the cul-de-sac. It would be a very
complicated decision, or situation.
But that's what the chord means, C-H-O-R-D, chord. It's simply
the straight line between two points on an arc.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have more commissioners that
would like to ask questions, but at the same time, we still have -- we
still want to hear a summation by the zoning director, the Griders, and
the applicant.
So would Commissioners mind waiting just a minute?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How we going to do that after you
closed the public hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: The public hearing isn't closed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's been closed. So we're going to
have more presentations from the Griders?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is the summation.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is just the summation of their cases.
By the public hearing, it was people outside the parties.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. I can -- I can open the public hearing
back up if you would like, okay. I closed it a little early. I just
thought after the public spoke we should close it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I thought you meant the public speaking.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay, fine. So I'm opening
it back up then, and now we have -- we have public comment from the
zoning director and then from the Griders and then from the applicant.
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director.
I don't really need to sum up. I think the executive summary
does that pretty clearly. All I would ask is if you do deny the -- I'm
sorry. If you do support the appeal, meaning you deny the lot line
adjustment, if you would explain your reasons why. Because like we
put on the record, this is a pretty standard, common application, and if
Page 160
March 10, 2009
there's things that staff is doing that you feel are inconsistent with the
code, we would just ask for that clarification. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And now we hear from the
Griders.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think we're all in an unfortunate
circumstance. I don't know how it spun so out of control, but it did.
And we need to objectively look at what does your Land Development
Code say, and your staff who is charged with interpreting and
implementing the Land Development Code has clearly stated that the
lot line adjustment is consistent with the Land Development Code.
I, for the life of me, can't think of anything in the criteria that we
don't meet other than we're the first one to use it for a comer lot. I
think people are struggling with, this is the first time this is happening,
and you're struggling with, that perhaps the neighbor will now have a
house that can be built closer to the north property line.
Keep in mind that the law does not give the neighbor any right to
a view. I am sorry that the neighbor will have a house built closer to
that north property line. Had the proper envelope been given to Craig
and Amber, they would have built within that envelope and, candidly,
could have built a house bigger than what's there today.
And we have provided that information to the neighbor. We've
shown them, if we lose every argument, every argument, the 25 feet
from the preserve, the -- we're not a corner lot, that we can't use the
chord, the result will be the house will have to be tom down if we lose
the variance -- and I don't have any reason to believe we won't win --
we will lose the variance other than to believe we'll lose the variance,
the house -- and if the judge says, tear the house down, the house will
get torn down and someone will build a bigger house than there is
today with the same configuration.
Is that truly the result that is intended by the board? No. The
law gives them the ability to fix this. They can fix a part of it. They
can fix the front yard setback and the side yard setback by -- through
Page 161
March 10, 2009
the lot line adjustment process.
This is the first time it's being utilized. That doesn't mean we're
not utilizing the code properly. Your staff has said we've met all the
criteria. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary that we haven't
met the criteria.
And as you know, if we meet the criteria, we're entitled to use the
process, and that's all we're asking to do is apply the facts to the
criteria and uphold staffs determination that the lot line adjustment is
valid and proper under the code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now we'll hear from the
applicant.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you. Briefly, Clay Brooker, again, for
the record.
Again, we will rely on the criteria in the Land Development
Code for a lot line adjustment. Is this an insubstantial change where
you lop off 240 square feet of non-buildable area to gain 1,337 square
feet of buildable area? We believe that's substantial, we believe that
increases your development rights and, therefore, the criteria are not
met for approving the lot line adjustment.
Secondly, we -- we've heard from Ms. Istenes that this lot line
adjustment was approved to, and I quote, legitimize a staffs error.
That staffs error was used to -- or resulted in a bigger house being
placed on this lot than would otherwise have been permitted and,
therefore, we ask for your support in granting the appeal of the LLA.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we will close the public
hearing.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- Susan, I found my answers.
You're correct. I'm going to try to do this differently so I don't have to
waste so much time, everybody's time.
The only concern that I have is the intensity of the lot. And it's
Page 162
March 10,2009
no different than a case that we had a few years ago where a staff
member says, well, you could candidly build the seawall to increase
the setbacks. I think the intent of our code is to allow staff to make
some insubstantial changes. Not to increase the intensity of a
particular property, but to try to assist our residents to come into
compliance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The motion -- the motion that
I made, this is in regards to 7 A, and there will have to be a second
motion for 7B, but it's for 7 A. And, again, this is a motion to approve
the applicant's appeal that it's inconsistent with the lot line adjustment,
and this is in favor of the LLA, and the reason being is it demonstrates
that the lot line adjustment in this case does affect the development
rights, and I believe it also permits more density on the property. So
that's my -- what I put into the motion.
And County Attorney, is that sufficient?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. My understanding is that you're ruling
basically on Clay's position.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now does everybody understand
the motion? Did you want to say something. Oh, yes, you do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to say that
there is no good answer here. I believe based upon the information
that was presented here today that the Griders did ask for approval
from the staff and they got the wrong answers. And I think it's a
tragedy that somebody will build a house based upon a set of
assumptions that are validated by the government and then be faced
with the possibilty of tearing it down. It is a terrible situation.
But the -- it's just as bad for the plaintiffs in this particular case.
They have every right to believe that the government will accurately
and fairly implement the provisions of our Land Development Code,
and I do not think that we have.
Page 163
March 10,2009
I think that -- that from the time this lot was permitted as a comer
lot, in error, the staff moved from one attempt to cover it up and
justify it to another, and that that effort continued even after the house
was completed. Based upon the emails I have seen, there were senior
members of our staff who were trying to solve the problem by making
other decisions, administrative decisions, so it would go away, and
that is clearly not defensible.
And my reason for voting in favor of this motion is that it was
not an insubstantial change in accordance with Paragraph 4.03.04 of
our Land Development Code because it did let larger development
occur in violation of setbacks, and the impact on the neighborhood,
particularly the neighbor to the west, was not insubstantial.
I also find that it violates the spirit of Paragraph 4 of that same
provision concerning the densities and intensities of use. I agree that
it did not create additional lot or lots, but it did increase, in my
opinion, the density/intensity of the lot that was in existence. And I
think that is a violation of the spirit of that particular provision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also believe not only was the
government possibly at fault, but I also think that the designer and
builder could have been at fault because of the fact that this is their
occupation, they should have a full understanding of what they're
dealing with before they get started building a particular -- whatever it
is, whether it's a residential home or whether it's a commercial piece of
-- a commercial property.
They have a -- should have a full understanding of what the
regards are, and if they're not, then make sure they've got true
clarification prior to moving on. So there is a responsibility by the
developer also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Do we have any further discussion?
Page 164
March 10, 2009
(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?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You have a 4-1 vote. Thank you
very much.
Now we're onto 7B.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I only know one commissioner that
-- on the dais that might have had some experience with chord, and
maybe Commissioner Coyle can lead us in that area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't have any argument
with the staff that they have, in fact, used the chord method in the past,
but the chord method doesn't provide for violations of setbacks. And
in this case, it did violate setbacks.
As I understand the guidance from the county attorney, the LDC
does not permit the chord measure methodology to result in an actual
setback less than 18 feet, and in this case it did.
So in my opinion, the issue is not whether the chord
measurement can be used. It is that the chord measurement cannot be
used to allow a violation of the setback.
So I would vote also to approve the appeal of that particular
decision by staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I have concerns to the
process. I think we need to go through the process.
Page 165
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tell me what you mean.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we set up a process to
where our staff can explain, and actually the applicant paid money to
petition the Board of County Commissioners. Some of the
commissioners agree with that. I haven't heard our staff or I haven't
heard Mr. Grider's representation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: These were all grouped into one. You
mean you want to separately address this particular --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, are these grouped
together?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you present on this item
separately?
MR. BROOKER: Not yet, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I thought that's what we did in the
beginning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There was some explanation of the
chord here early on.
MR. BROOKER: And based upon the comments, with your
indulgence, I will be five minutes. This one's a lot less involved. If--
because this is a separate appeal that deals with the front yard setback
-- have not been talking about specifically the front yard setback
appeal yet. What we've been talking about up to this point was a lot
line adjustment to convert a non-comer lot to a corner lot and
everything that's involved in that.
You're going to hear the word chord here in the next appeal, but
this is, in fact, a separate appeal.
Is that fair, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the prudent thing to do would be to
hear Mr. Brooker and just go through this. And I don't think we
should spend nearly as much time on this as we did the prior one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, please. You're going to lose us all.
Page 166
March 10,2009
MR. BROOKER: And I'm already lost. But the danger here is if
I don't make a presentation and someone in the public wants to appeal
this particular vote, I've got no record to rely upon, so I will be very
brief. Thank you.
And I'm going to piggy-back on Commissioner Coyle's opening
statement, if you will. This is the definition of a -- the front yard in
the LDC. And I will simply go right to the second sentence that's
highlighted here.
In the cases of the irregularly shaped lots, including culs-de-sac,
the depth may be measured at right angles to a straight line joining the
foremost points of the side lot line. That's a lot of verbiage, by the
way, just to mean the chord.
But then that last caveat becomes important, starting with the
word provided. Provided the depth at any point is never less than the
minimum length of a standard parking space as established within the
code. If you go to that particular section of the code which has been
updated since then -- that's not the right cite -- but the minimum length
of standard parking space is 18 feet.
This will be hopefully the last exhibit I show you. What the
county did here was, to permit this house, they measured just a
straight 25 feet. The Olde Cypress PUD requires 25 feet for front yard
setbacks.
A straight 25-foot measurement along the straight portion of the
road. And then once you get into the cul-de-sac portion of the lot,
they utilized the chord method. That chord method, again, you would
have to then measure 25 feet from that chord. That is fine. No part of
the house actually encroaches into that section of the 25 feet measured
from the chord. But, again, you hit that last caveat, provided that the
resulting front yard depth is no less than 18 feet.
I have noted here this arced dashed line is the 18-foot minimum
line. And you can see right there -- I guess that would be the
southeast comer of the house -- that there are encroachments even
Page 167
March 10,2009
utilizing this half and half straight line here, chord measurements here.
There are encroachments here that violate the definition of how a front
yard setback should be measured and what its minimum of 18 feet can
be.
Granted, the encroachments are small, relatively small, anywhere
from six inches to 16 inches. We fully realized that an administrative
variance could be issued to cure this, again, after the fact, but we felt
when we are investigating everything that occurred with permitting of
this house, that this was yet another example of what -- all the chips
that had to fall into place to place this house on this lot.
And so our contention is that the front yard setback measurement
and the staff clarification that was issued to justify how this was
measured on the lot violates the Land Development Code and,
therefore, we respectfully request that you vote in support of our
appeal of this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The Grider representative, please.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm supposed to ask him questions right
now? I have a quick question --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- based on what he just said. He said he
fully recognizes under the code that my clients can apply for an
administrative variance to fix this problem. I just want on the record,
if they do apply for an administrative variance to fix this property, this
issue, I'm not going to be back here with a challenge to that
administrative fix, for this 6-inch and 16-inch problem on the very
comer of this house. Would you state on the record? Because, I
mean, I'm a practical kind of guy, you know.
Why spend all this time and effort to go through this process
when if someone would have simply called me and said, apply for an
administrative variance to fix a 6-inch problem, I clearly would have
told my client, just do it and save the aggravation of what we just went
through today.
Page 168
March 10, 2009
MR. BROOKER: If that's a question to me, I -- I would not -- I
cannot answer without consulting my client, and if, in fact, they're
going to have to go through the process to fix another error, then I
think my client has a right to say, yes, go through that process.
Whether we can determine if there's any problems with granting an
administrative variance between now and then, I cannot state on the
record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just -- again, never ask a lawyer a
question. I thought he just says he's fully aware that we can fix this
through the administrative variance process.
I just want to -- apparently the answer to that question is, I don't
know. I'm not sure, Rich, that if your client does it, we're not going to
put you back through this process again. And let me know when it's
my turn to present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then it is your turn to present, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just try to simplify this. Mr.
Brooker, the only issue you're bringing up on this appeal is the 18
feet? You're not challenging the chord method itself?
MR. BROOKER: Technically, we disagree with the fact that a
hybrid method of using both a straight line and a chord measurement
are improper. The code doesn't permit that, we don't believe so.
They're using both. The code says you either do one or the other.
That's in that definition; however, based upon, you know, the time
constraints and the comments, I focused my comments only on the
fact that even if you agree that that hybrid method of measuring is
correct, there's still a violation and -- of the setback, and that's what --
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But the only issue you're presenting
to the board right now is the fact that it doesn't meet the 18 feet?
MR. BROOKER: I will rely on the appeal, but yes, that's the
only -- that's the only issue I've spoken on.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then Rich Yovanovich said
Page 169
March 10, 2009
he would like an opportunity to present as well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The only thing I'm going to argue, and
it's been pointed out in your staff report, is that this appeal was
untimely. The appeal needed to happen within 30 days of the issuance
of the building permit. What he has chosen to appeal is a staff
clarification that does not apply to this property. It applies to a
process on how you implement that term in the Land Development
Code.
So if you want to say from this point forward, staff, this is the
process you must follow, fine; but you cannot retroactively apply this
appeal to this piece of property because it is, in effect, an appeal of an
interpretation without going through the official interpretation process,
I might point out.
But this was an -- this was a clarification on how the code is
applied that was issued many, many, many months after the building
permit was issued, and it wasn't even applicable to this particular
property. It was guidance for future implementation of the code. I
think the appeal was untimely. It shouldn't be here. It should have
been -- it should have been -- I guess you're the only ones who can
decide whether to dispense with it or not, but I think it should be
dismissed as untimely or only applied prospectively, and not
retroactively, to this lot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So nobody has any comments. We have a
motion on the floor. Does it stand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we hear from the county
attorney?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff, somebody lost me out in
left field with this one.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think -- the chord appeal always
struck me as a bit odd. But if what Mr. Brooker's trying to do is say
that staffhas utilized the wrong methodology for the chord, I would
Page 170
March 10, 2009
say that we've been doing this for 20 years. We have -- Lord knows
how many lots have been utilized this way.
And so if you want to direct staff to utilize a different method, it
should be on a prospective basis only, on a going-forward basis. It
should not go back in time, including the Griders' lot. This is how the
county's customarily done business for at least 20 years.
If the issue is that they missed the 18 feet, you can direct staff as
you wish at that point in time. But, I mean, to me, the cure is an
administrative remedy here. And for six inches, I'm not sure why
we're arguing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, forgive me, but -- I think
there's probably a motion. But one of the suggestions that was made
-- and I'm not sure how that would work, would be to dismiss it
because of --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can dismiss it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because you have to have a
rationale and a reason for doing it. Something about an untimely
filing?
MR. KLATZKOW: There are issues whether or not it was a
timely. There are issues whether or not it has any substantive merit
anyway because you can't require the house to be demolished based
on a later clarification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then what would happen with this?
Say, for instance, the motion went through as it is, then what are the
ramifications of that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you repeat the motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The motion is that -- the
motion does not -- I'll clarify it first. The motion does not challenge
the staffs opinion that the chord method may be utilized, but the
motion is to grant the petitioner's appeal that the application of the
chord measurement that resulted in a setback of less than 18 feet was
Improper.
Page 171
March 10,2009
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- that's what the motion was.
And it doesn't -- it doesn't provide any guidance with respect to the
use of the chord method, to the proper use of the chord method. But
the staff was clearly in error by permitting this less than 18-foot
setback.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the result of that motion then would be
the Griders are going to have to get an administrative -- go back and
get an administrative variance if one is appropriate.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I just make sure I clarified my
argument, if you don't mind? And I appreciate your indulgence.
I think that he had -- it is untimely on the 18- foot argument. He
should have raised that argument within 30 days of the issuance of the
building permit. That -- it's -- he's not filed his appeal. The
administrative action he should be appealing is the issuing of the
building permit, and that happened more than 30 days prior to his
filing the appeal.
So I think even the -- putting us through the administrative
process is untimely and, frankly he -- you know, for the six inches and
the 16 inches, he should lose on being untimely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, would you like for me to
respond to that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. I'm just telling you what my
argument was. You don't have to respond. I'm just -- I understand.
MR. BROOKER: I may be -- may be able to offer help out of
this quandary. What happened was when this was discovered, yes, the
house had already been permitted. The building permit had been
issued for some time. We have no way of knowing when someone
measures a front yard setback. No neighbor does.
The neighbor comes in, they file for their permit. Your next-door
neighbor has no idea what any of you are doing. So -- in a sense, it's a
little unfair to say we were untimely because what happened here was
Page 172
March 10, 2009
once we alerted the staff to this issue, that's when they issued the staff
clarification to say, oh, well, what we did was right.
So -- but what we're offering is, we will withdraw this appeal
with the caveat that the Griders go through the administrative variance
procedure to fix, if they can under the code, to fix the 6-inch to
16-inch encroachment, and I say that knowing I had a motion on the
floor, so you've got to grant me something here. But I'm offering that
help, if that is help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clay, they're going to have to
come through a variance process anyways. Doing an administrative
variance on that -- and if he wants to, I'm fine with that -- but it's going
to cost him. My opinion, just lump all these issues into one variance
but also give the Griders an opportunity to do an administrative
variance on that issue.
I mean, we're talking about variances of setbacks. And bundle it
up and bring it the board. Are you okay with that?
MR. BROOKER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're basically saying the same
thing.
MR. BROOKER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can support that. But I
guess we're going -- after that, we're going to have to give staff some
direction on this whole chord measurement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But now, Clay would like to withdraw his
appeal. Okay. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think what we need to
do is give direction -- make a motion for direction to have staff to do
__ to go either through an administrative variance process or just a
general variance on all the setback issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Coyle waiting also. Commissioner Coletta.
Page 173
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Just very briefly. From
what I understand, regardless of how we vote on Commissioner
Coyle's motion, they still go in for a variance. So I kind of wonder
why we're stalling this whole thing.
But here's something I'm just going to throw out, and I know I'm
probably going to get trounced to death on it. This whole thing has to
do with the back end of the property that faces the neighbor, right?
Could we make a requirement, direct staff to correct all these
variances and make them chop off that back comer as part of the
variance? We can't? Could we?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think we want to go there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I thought it might be fun
to try, bring some end to this, but maybe we won't -- okay. We're not
going to get there from here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You think it would actually solve the
problem?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm going to take a shot at
your suggestion and say that that's probably best resolved between the
two parties here to see what can be accomplished that would make
both of them happy, and let them get together and come up with a
settlement of some kind.
But nor am I going to make assumptions about what either of the
parties should do here. I mean, if the Griders want to come in for an
administrative variance here, that's up to them to decide. It's not for us
to tell them that's what they should do.
I was merely making a motion which was intended to convey my
position that the chord measurement in this case was improperly
applied because it resulted in less than an 18-foot setback. That's all
I'm saying.
The chord method as the staff has used it in the past is perfectly
fine. I don't know of any reason why we want to tell the staff to
Page 174
March 10, 2009
change that process as long as they do it in a way that is consistent
with the rest of the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. Call the motion,
please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor
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: That's a 5-0.
Okay. Commissioner Henning, you're trying to say something,
and then we're going to break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Does everybody agree
that if the Griders or Mr. Y ovanovich's attorney -- or client comes in
for a variance, they can take care of this inches? And the reason why
I'm --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but that isn't really the problem at
all. You know, Commissioner Coletta hit it right on the head. It's the
back end there that's looking into their neighbor's house. That's what
it's all about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that, but it -- what
I'm trying to offer is one variance, one fee, instead of having to do an
administrative variance if they don't want to do that, just take care of it
all at once. Does everybody agree with that or not?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know if it would work that way, so
I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan?
Page 175
March 10, 2009
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, for the record. They could do
that, assuming they do apply for a variance. They could wrap
everything into one. That is an option. If they qualify for an
administrative variance, they could apply for one, and if they meet the
criteria, it likely would be approved. That is another option.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wish somebody could bring
these people together and maybe bring an end to this. And all the
money they could save, they could feed all the hungry people out
there for a hundred years.
MS. ISTENES: I don't make enough money to do that,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about a campfire?
MS. ISTENES: May I--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do a campfire, cook some
marshmallows.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes?
MS. ISTENES: May I ask for further direction from the board
on this?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle is up next. Hold on
just a minute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I was going to say that I
didn't want to get involved in providing the staff direction because
administrative variances are your authority. You have the authority to
do that. I don't want to jump in there and start telling you how you
handle -- should handle an administrative variance in this case.
But I would -- I agree with Commissioner Coletta, it would be
good if the two sides were to get together and say, okay, you know, if
I lopped off a little bit of this and a little bit of that, cut it down to one
story and all that sort of stuff, will it work? You know, that would be
good if they could work that out.
But I don't want to -- I don't want to give you advice about
Page 176
March 10, 2009
whether or not you should take an administr- -- do the administrative
thing, and however way you do it is fine with me.
MS. ISTENES: I'm not looking for that, if that's what you were
concerned about. And I didn't want to -- I could see the way this was
heading, and I didn't want to interject some more confusion into it, I
guess. But what I do need to do and what I'm asking to do is clarify
the 18- foot setback requirement.
The intent of the 18- foot setback requirement is to ensure that
there's adequate parking in a driveway, that cars don't park over
sidewalks or end up in the street, and that's why you have the 18-foot
requirement consistent with the parking space requirement.
That really is only applicable where you're parking a car;
however, I will admit the code isn't entirely clear on that. It think it's
also not entirely clear where you take that 18- foot point. You could
read it as taking it from the chord versus the property line the way it's
worded.
So my -- I guess my question is simply just, if it's okay, we could
bring this back in the LDC amendment cycle this round and just get
this cleaned up at least to the extent of this issue. The whole definition
of chord and front yards and all that needs to be cleaned up, but I don't
really think we'll get there this cycle, to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree. Let me -- I've read
that. I understand how the chord works. It makes no sense measuring
it from the chord on a cul-de-sac, but it's not -- it is clear, as you point
out. But you're still going to have to design some setback from the arc
derived from the chord.
MS. ISTENES: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And whatever that happens
to be should be specified, and it should be consistently applied and
accurately applied. But with that guidance, that's about all I could do
to help you.
MS. ISTENES: That's all I'm really looking for.
Page 177
March 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I think we're now finished with
this subject.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's all take a little bit of a break. We'll
give ourselves about a 12-minute break here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hour and a half.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would love to get it all done.
(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: We're going to try and finish this up by
six o'clock. So we'll just cook right along.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2009-62: APPOINTING TOM CRAVENS AND
KEITH J. DALLAS, RE-APPOINTING MARY ANNE WOMBLE
AND GEOFFREY GIBSON TO THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED; STAFF DIRECTED TO RE-
ADVERTISE FOR VACANT COMMERCIAL POSITION
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our next part of our agenda,
which is Board of County Commissioners, and we're at 9A, which is
appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about 8A, when we moved
that to 17 A to 8A?
MR. MUDD: Well, it's an advertised public hearing. We'll
recognize it, and we'll -- when we do, they want -- and the board voted
that they wanted to hear it after 12A.
Page 178
March 10,2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay, all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Commissioners, on this first appointment to the
Pelican Bay Services Division Board, we have five applications and
there's five vacancies; however, the vacancy for the commercial
position, I received a telephone call yesterday indicating that she no
longer worked for the commercial business.
I tried to contact her at home. She didn't return my call. I tried to
contact her at work, and they said that she was no longer with them.
So I just wanted to throw that out for your information. And that's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's Alvarez?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the other parties
that are listed, Mary Anne Womble, Tom Cravens, Keith Dallas, and
Geoffrey Gibson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. FILSON: And then you direct me to readvertise?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then we'll have to put out for
advertisement for the commercial.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And we'll advertise and make the
appointments like we did this time as opposed to the balloting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, 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.
Page 179
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9B
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE. PURSUANT
TO BOARD DIRECTION ON FEBRUARY 24, 2009, THIS ITEM
IS CONTINUED PENDING AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE
2001-55 - MOTION TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Item 9B.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Fiala.
I'm a little bit concerned on the order of the agenda. It seems like
we've got 12A that directly conflicts with this. I thought we were
going to put this in suspended animation, or is that what we're asking
to do?
MS. FILSON: This one I have on the index to be continued
pending amendment of2001-55. So after you amend 2001-55, then
I'm going to ask you for direction depending on if it's amended
whether you want me to readvertise and retain these applicants for
appointment at a later date.
MR. MUDD: And that amendment of that ordinance number
2001-55 is Item 12A on your agenda for today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you want to hear 12A before we do
this one; is that what you're saying?
MS. FILSON: This one I have on the index as being continued
pending that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to have to make a
motion to continue this, right?
MS. FILSON: I have it advertised to be continued.
Page 180
March 10,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We didn't know that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute.
MS. FILSON: It's on the index. It's right there on the index that
you have. It says continued.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whoa, wait a minute, wait a
minute, wait a minute. You don't have to continue it. We could just
put the other one before this and do it, and then come back to this one.
You don't have to continue anything.
MS. FILSON: Well, the reason--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You advertised it, that you
continued it. Then we have no choice.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. It's right here.
MS. FILSON: It continued it on the index because there was an
applicant that you wanted to consider and he withdrew so, therefore,
I'm looking for direction to readvertise and retain --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wait -- wait just a minute. You say on the
index. This index?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you didn't advertise it as continued?
You just put it --
MS. FILSON: That is advertised.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the only people that see this are us,
right?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. That's on the Web. It's in the
newspaper.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's continued then.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Motion to continue, just
to make it official.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to continue Item 9B.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 181
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sue, on that one also, you noted that I'm
the vice -- or the vice-chair on that, and I'm not anymore.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. You've got to get her out of
there. She's causing --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's Tom Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- too many problems.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm not. Fred Coyle.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Now, I --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Fred Coyle. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Long day.
MS. FILSON: Well, because that's on the -- that's on the list and
I haven't updated that. I'm aware of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got to get that updated.
You can't leave her name on there.
MS. FILSON: As soon as these appointments are made, I will
update that.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2009-63: APPOINTING MARY LINDA SANDERS
TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, the next item is 9C. It's
appointment of a member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
Page 182
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve Mary Linda
Sanders by Commissioner Halas, 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 2009-64: RE-APPOINTING ERIC D. GUITE
REPRESENTING THE CITY OF NAPLES TO THE
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9D, appointment of a member to the
Contractor's Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Eric D. Guite'--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Guite', second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- specialty contractor.
MS. FILSON: And that's to confirm the City of Naples
appointment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you seconded, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. All those in favor, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 183
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2009-65: REAPPOINTING VICTOR L. BRITTAIN
AND WILLIAM CONRAD WILLKOMM TO THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion to approve the
committee recommendations for the appointment of Victor Brittain
and William Conrad Willkomm.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 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: lOA is already done.
Item #10B
Page 184
March 10, 2009
THE FINANCING AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURCHASE
AND RENOV A TION OF THE NAPLES LODGE 2010
BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER OF THE ELKS OF
THE USA, INC., AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $4,618,891 -
APPROVED; AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
WILL BROUGHT BACK AT THE APRIL 28, 2009 BCC
MEETING
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Next item is lOB. It's a recommendation to approve the
financing and expenditure for the purchase and renovation of the
Naples Lodge at 2010 Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks of
the United States of America, Inc., at a cost not to exceed $4,618,891.
And, yes, Jim Mudd, the County Manager, and Mr. Skip Camp,
your Facilities Management Director, will present.
Commissioners, I've come before the board and talked about
available property and trying to get out of the oppressive rent situation
that we have in the present building that the property appraiser is in.
With that, I went out and started to look at different properties
that were up for sale. The Elks Club was one. The original offered to
the Elks Club was for $3 million with $250,000 being put into escrow
to cover any structural deficiencies in the particular building. And I
believe ours had to do with the back wall that we had some concerns
about, and we still do, and we will still ask for that escrow amount.
I will tell that you the Benevolent Order of the Elks turned down
our original offer. With that, a secondary offer was issued for $3.5
million with the same $250,000 being set aside in escrow to cover any
structural deficiencies that we will discover as we do due diligence
prior to survey and the engineering inspection in this particular
building.
We've take then that into account with the facility director and
architectural contractor on staff, and we've reduced the amount of
Page 185
March 10, 2009
changes that we have to do interior to turn that dance floor/kitchen/bar
area into office space, and that's how we come from $3.5 million, the
original sales price for the Elks building, to $4.6 million as I specified
before.
And I'm here to answer any questions you have. Now,
Commissioner Coletta has asked in the past, wanted to make sure that
we had looked at every bit of space that we had in the county to make
sure that we couldn't fit the property appraiser into -- we couldn't fit
them someplace in the county.
I had Mr. Skip Camp and his staff go through every building that
we own to identify space. Right now the property appraiser is in
20,000 square feet. As you can see from the second line of this memo
from Mr. Camp to Mr. Ochs dated the 26th of February, we're able to
identify 9,450 square feet, but none of - none of which is contiguous,
nor does it get us to the 20,000 square feet that the property appraiser
has said that he needs to continue his operation if he's going to move
out of the building that he's in right now.
So I've done that, and I've exhausted that particular search in
order to get that done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have you considered using the
tents that the sheriff had before for the property?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I did not consider the spring form tents,
but the sheriff still has those in their inventory.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, keep them in mind. The one
thing that is very, very critical, and I'd appreciate if you'd give the
public a concise reply to the question, why, in these times of funding
shortages, do we want to spend $4 million buying and renovating a
building?
MR. MUDD: Okay. Right now the present building that the
Property Appraiser's Office occupies, I've asked on numerous
occasions to ask the present owner of the building if he would like to
Page 186
March 10, 2009
sell, and in every particular case, he has either offered us a very
extraordinarily high amount that he wants for his building, and the --
and the latest has been some 8.9 million.
Our folks basically appraise it right now today at around 4 and a
half to 4.7 million. We are paying $628,000 a year for rent for the
property appraiser in that particular building. We can continue under
the present rental agreement, continue to provide and pay that amount
of money or we can take those monies that we are applying to the rent
and go out and buy a facility that is similar, and is functionally similar
for the Property Appraiser's Office.
We have found a place called the Elks Club. A year and a half
ago our staff did a preliminary appraisal of this particular property,
and it came out to be over $9 million. That is a far cry from the 3.5
million that the board -- I'm asking the board or recommending that
the board pay for the particular building.
We will take the $628,000 in rent that we're paying on an annual
basis and apply it to pay for the loan that we are doing internally out
of the landfill closure fund. Now, you also know from Mr. DeLony's
presentations that we've extended the life of the landfill to 2032 the
last time he's presented to the board. That gives plenty of time to pay
back this particular loan.
Our finance charge on the loan will be opportunity costs, i.e., the
rent -- or excuse me -- the interest that Mr. DeLony would have made
on the $4 million in the account. We will make sure that the -- that the
solid waste customers are reimbursed so that there is no interest lost in
that particular property.
If you take a look at taking that 628,000 and putting against, we
will have paid this building off in less than eight years' time period,
and it will be a county's asset, capital asset, and we will be out of the
rent-paying mode.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So bottom line, by processing this
transaction, you're saving the taxpayers hundreds, if not millions, of
Page 187
March 10, 2009
dollars; is that a fair statement?
MR. MUDD: I would say over a ten-year period of time, we are
saving the taxpayers well over a million dollars on this transaction, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clarifying that. That was
excellent.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd anticipated my
questions and already answered them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only concern that I have is
we've also housed the property appraiser, even before we implement
government building impact fees, and I feel really uncomfortable
about using that whole piece for replacing what the facility is now into
the Elk's facility.
And I know that you're going to be paying this money back
actually from what is being used for rent, because there is no impact
fees. Is there any way to readjust that to a more reasonable -- let's say,
since it's coming out of the rent monies anyways, and have a -- more
of a reasonable payback from government impact fees?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I -- I need to go back a little bit. I've
asked our impact fee coordinator. They've checked with our adviser,
the county attorney even asked their impact fee coordinator on this
particular issue, and -- to make sure it's impact-fee eligible.
What I need to go back and look at -- and I need to do that still to
this day -- is the property appraiser used to be where Jennifer Edwards
was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And then Jennifer Edwards was someplace,
and now she's over there. I've got to go and check all the pegs where
they came from and to make sure -- and we can get at your point that
Page 188
March 10, 2009
you're asking, to make sure that we are not just going straight impact
fee for something that used to be government supply and, therefore,
that wouldn't be impact-fee eligible.
So I have to go back and look at every one of those things, go
over that with Amy, with Sue Usher, and before it's over, to get Steve
Tindale involved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next question along with
that is, if that's what you're going to do, the allocation is going to come
back to us anyways of whether it's going to -- you know, morally -- I
think it's a moral issue, but it's not just a legal issue, personally.
MR. MUDD: Well, I believe if you -- you can't use an impact
fee for something that's not eligible for impact fees, and we've got to
make sure we're dead on in this particular --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Legally.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with that. But I'm
saying morally, I have a problem with using all the government
impact fees for that. Besides, it's going to be years and years and
years before you get it anyways.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll just comment on that as well. Every
time we drive into our front entrance here, I recall long before we ever
were in office, the county had an opportunity to buy the old Texaco
station out front, and they wanted to save money, and so they didn't
buy it, and instead we're greeted each day as we drive into the
government center with a bail bondsman. And I'm sorry that we didn't
buy that then. I mean, none of us had any control over that anyway,
but I'm -- I'm glad that we're now taking a look and wisely thinking
about what we can do to save our government money in the future,
save our taxpayers, and buy it now while we can. It's just -- to me, it's
the wisest way to use our taxpayer dollars.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that a motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With that I motion to approve item
Page 189
March 10, 2009
number lOB to buy -- to --let's see, how would be -- approve the
financing and expenditure for the purchase and renovation of the Elks
Lodge and approve all related budget amendments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that with the caveat, the
county manager's going to come back to us?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I'm going to write you a memo and tell
you all about it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I'll add that to my motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How did you know that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: Thomas Lykos.
MS. MITCHELL: I was here first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, are you a public speaker on this
subject?
MS. MITCHELL: Not on this particular subject.
MS. FILSON: No, she's public comment.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you. My name is Tom Lykos. I'm the
President of the Lykos Group. I own a remodeling company and a
custom homebuilding company, and also, just for full disclosure, I'm
also the vice-chairman of the County Licensing Board, I'm also
president of the Collier Building Industry Association.
When I read about your decision today on the purchase of this
building, quite frankly, I was concerned about several different things.
One is, at a time when there are several companies that are going out
of business, they just don't have the working capital, I'm concerned
Page 190
March 10, 2009
about county's expenditures of such a large expense, number one.
Number two, it seems like over the years, the county government
has grown and grown and grown, and this is just another opportunity
for the county government to grow again.
I've heard from the county manager that this was going to save
money in the long run; however, I wonder if the calculations have
been done taking into consideration the cost to maintain the property
versus just renting space. I know on my street, my office is on Trade
Center Way, there are -- probably half the businesses on my street
have gone out of business, half the buildings are empty, and I wonder
if research has been done not only on county buildings that might
already be owned, but other private buildings that are owned that
might have the square footage, and you could pay a smaller rent
amount and not have that large of an expenditure right now.
I understand that there might be some great deals in commercial
property right now but, quite frankly, I could go out and buy a really
expensive home, move my family into it, but at some point, I've got to
pay the piper on a bigger home on higher taxes, on more energy -- my
utility bills being higher. So just because there's an opportunity to buy
something at a good price doesn't mean it's what's really in our best
interest.
I understand the math with regard to saving money on a future
purchase, but sometimes it's more prudent to spend less money now
and take advantage of a deal later.
I think that the current real estate market, especially with regard
to commercial, we may not have bottomed yet. There may be better
deals and better opportunities at a later date, and just because a good
deal comes along now doesn't mean it's the best deal and it's in our
best interest. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
MR. MUDD: To answer -- to answer to the gentleman's
question. We've gone out there and looked, trying to find that 20,000
Page 191
March 10, 2009
square feet that's available, and we've gone to several locations in
order to look at it.
The next thing I'll respond to you is, it would be nice if all we
had to do was pay the rent. I haven't seen a rental yet with a
commercial where we don't have to pay the CAM, which is the
operations and maintenance of that particular property on top of the
rent. They get it from you as you do that rental contract. So I just
wanted to make sure, if you weren't aware, and I don't mean to insult
your intelligence.
MR. LYDON: I appreciate that, and I understand that. I just --
you know, I'm a small businessman, and I look at spending $600,000 a
year versus spending $4.6 million. You know, I'm own a remodeling
company. I wouldn't mind a $1 million contract to remodel that
building for you, but I think it might be in the best interest of the
community, considering the budget shortfalls, considering that we
continue to lose our tax base with falling property values. It might not
(sic) be in our best interest to forego a purchase until the next year or
the year after considering the current economic circumstances.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Lykos.
MR. LYDON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the further. Any
further comment from commissioners?
(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: Thank you.
Page 192
March 10, 2009
Item #10C
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ADVERTISE
AND RETURN FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE
MEETING, CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE
ORDINANCE, NUMBER 2006-59, AS AMENDED,
DEREGULATING TAXICAB AND CHARTER SERVICE RATES,
ESTABLISHING A CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD,
PROVIDING GUIDELINES FOR OBTAINING A VEHICLE FOR
HIRE OPERATOR LICENSE, ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR
NON-COMPLIANCE, REMOVING INDUSTRY
PROTECTIONISM, AND THEREBY CONDENSING THE
PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS,
CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' DIRECTION - MOTION FOR STAFF TO
BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE WITH AMENDING
LANGUAGE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10C, and it's a recommendation the Board of County
Commissioners direct the county manager or his designee to advertise
and return for the Board of County Commissioners' consideration at a
future meeting changes to the public vehicle for hire ordinance,
number 2006-59, as amended, deregulating taxicab and charter service
rates, establishing a consumer advisory board, providing guidelines for
obtaining a vehicle-for-hire operator license, establishing penalties for
noncompliance, removing industry protectionism and thereby
condensing the public vehicle for higher ordinance provisions, excuse
me, consistent with the Board of County Commissioners' direction.
Mr. Jamie French, your operations manager of the community
Page 193
March 10, 2009
development's environmental services, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that, but I'd like to see if
the motion maker would maybe add a couple of items to this motion
and that is that we have some type of control over paint schemes, and
also -- that's basically the big thing, paint schemes and advertising on
taxicabs.
MR. FRENCH: Commissioner Halas -- for the record, Jamie
French, Community Development. If it would at all help you, you can
bring this back in the form of a resolution within the administrative
policy manual that will accompany this ordinance when we bring it
back to you, and then -- and this ordinance also allows you, if you
choose at a later date to come back in, to set that maximum taxicab
and charter service vehicle rate as the board so approves without going
back and changing -- and continuing to change the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got it. Understand. Okay. Thank
you for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's good with you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, was that for Attachment A that we're
approving?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A couple of suggestions I
might make, if I could. I've been reading this over in great detail. I've
had an interest on this subject for many years, and thanks to our
intervention and staffs help, we're finally getting there.
One of the things it says is, no member of the CAB shall be a
current motor vehicle-for-hire owner or operator. I think that's
wonderful.
Page 194
March 10,2009
There's two things I think we need to do, one might sound
contradictory, but it's really not supposed to be. We should also
include the language that they also exclude immediate family
members that live in the same home so that we don't run into a
problem with it becoming packed with people from there; however,
with that said, I think just for the sake of argument, not argument, but
the sake of fairness, we should have one position on there that would
be a member of the industry, help bring a balance to the whole thing.
That would be a suggestion. I've got another one, too, sir, but I'd like
your opinion on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the first one I don't have a
problem with, but quite frankly, I think that the Sunshine Law would
take care of your concerns about a family member being on the board
and voting on any issue that might result in some personal private
gam.
But the second one about putting someone from the industry on
the board, I think, gets us into a lot of trouble because there's going to
be a lot of squabbling about who it should be, and the people who are
not -- don't have some representative on the board.
I mean, this is a highly competitive business. And so, you know,
we put one person from the industry on the board, the other members
of the industry are going to feel that they are being discriminated
against or there's a potential they could be discriminated against.
So I think we're wise to leave all of the members of the industry
off the board, and they're going to be able to come to the board in
public meetings and express their concerns. They'll still get input. It's
just that they won't be a voting member of the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. My concern was a
little bit different, is the fact that some day they could come back here
and say that they were discriminated against with not even one
member allowed.
Maybe Jeff might be able to give us some comfort level on this.
Page 195
March 10, 2009
Not that I'm not (sic) saying your idea's not valid. I just want to make
sure that we're protecting ourselves.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think we're okay. If it's the will of
the board to exclude people in the industry, I think we're okay with
that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If it's the will of the board to have
somebody there for some expertise, you're okay with that, too. It's
your direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I appreciate that.
There's another thing --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What about your first suggestion though
to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Well, I think
Commissioner Coyle is adopting that part to his motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did he?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To exclude any member of
immediate family living in the same household, I wouldn't have any
problem with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any member of the immediate family
living in the same house or somebody living in the same house?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm not too sure how you
-- maybe Jeff could --
MR. KLATZKOW: We'll come back with appropriate language
on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And also, too, as a matter of
convenience -- and I don't -- I just know that, myself, whenever I had
applied for certain business licenses, it was a real hassle. The general
parts of this that require people to keep updated as far as their
employees go, to turn in the right kind of paperwork and inspections,
that takes place irregardless of the yearly license.
Page 196
March 10,2009
I was wondering if we might be able to come up with something
where we charge a fee three times what it is, and have them apply
every three years. It would save a lot of time and trouble not only for
our staff, but for the applicants, too, that would be looking for these
licenses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The concern I have about that is
the possibility of a -- of a felony conviction or some other conviction
during that three-year period of time, and that person still has a valid
license. I think the more frequently we check on those kinds of things,
the safer the public will be. So I'd prefer to leave it -- and you would
agree with that?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, you are -- you're dead on, and that's exactly
what we have found. We have found that we've had license holders
come back to us and they committed a crime three months after we
issued a license, and they no longer qualify. They either fall in that
five-year or ten-year period.
So if we're not checking on an annual basis, I'm not sure
Commissioner Coyle would be right that they're going to slip through
the cracks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, but I wanted to
explore that possibility.
One more question, and that's for you, Jamie, if I may.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: On page 5 it says, with the
intent to receive compensation for providing such transportation.
Would this exempt, and hopefully it does, those industries out there
that provide complementary service such as hotels that transport
people to an airport and from an airport?
We had a situation before us on a business in Everglades City
back a number of years ago where the board, licensing board for this,
got on an industry or a hotel in Everglades City and tried to make
them comply with regulations that were way beyond their means to do
Page 197
March 10,2009
it, and I just want to make sure I understand that.
MR. FRENCH: If your primary business is not the transportation
business, then you would not come in for a vehicle-for-hire license. If
you're a -- if you work for a hotel, if you're picking someone up from
a, gee, I don't know, a vacation service that picks you up at the airport,
so long as they're not charging an additional service like a limousine
or a taxi meter, then they would not be required to come in.
They would have to be a third-party paid chauffeur-driven type
vehicle, and that would be their primary business.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm all set.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. We have a motion on
the floor 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.)
MR. FRENCH: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comments
on general topics. Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Laurie Mitchell.
Page 198
~ ,_~~__,,~_,__"_'_'~'m.'". . ,'-'----_.
March 10, 2009
MS. MITCHELL: Thank you. I brought some pictures for show
and tell. Do you want me stand here or there?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you can stand wherever you want. Tell
me when you want --
MS. MITCHELL: All right. I want to say thank you in advance,
because I might run out oftime here. Yeah, that's the fortress of
solitude. All the land around me now has been developed. I have to
the north of me Topia Creations, and to the south of me, the pig farmer
who was granted permission to raise pigs without best management
practices, 500 on his 5 acres. There's no drainage.
I have a letter I wrote to the editor of the Naples Daily News
back in '97, and it doesn't seem as though anything's really changed.
Now my neighbor, who seems to be unstable, he is going to be
having a hearing for a conditional use permit to breed and profit from
his exotics animals.
I thought I'd beat the crowd in here and really don't want to have
any more confrontation with any more of my neighbors since the pig
farmer already verbally abuses me every chance he gets. So I try to
stay on my side of the property and really just keep to myself.
But I think this is -- this needs to be recognized. It's not just my
problem. It's a county problem, and it's a county issue, and the county
needs to put this baby to bed.
The guy's been going with his exotic animals. He's been putting a
lot of money into his property. I can appreciate that. But now he's no
longer a philanthropist. He is doing it for profit. He's raising all kind
of exotics animals, and I'm in complete fear of my own security.
When I look out my window and I see a panther looking in his
direction, I'm just glad that I'm looking outside the window and not
outside with the panther. I don't want to be the first person to have --
succumb to this attack, which is inevitable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you talking about Nagala or
Nagalla or whatever?
Page 199
March 10, 2009
MS. MITCHELL: Yeah, Section 30, Township 49, Range 27
east.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's coming to the Board of
County Commissioners.
MS. MITCHELL: It's coming, it's coming. I'm just here to let
you know that it's a county problem. It needs to be dealt with. It's not
water management's issue. It's the county's problem. It's the county's
Issue.
I'm just growing trees out there. I have an occupational license to
grow trees out there. I'm using best management practices. I'm not
bothering anybody, but I've got this neighbor who seems to be
absolutely unstable.
I'm just giving you a heads up. I don't want to be here when
they're here, so I'm appealing to you to make the right decision for the
future of agriculture in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess this is part of ex parte
communication when it comes up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Ms. Mitchell.
MS. MITCHELL: Thank you for your time.
Item #12A
DIRECTION WHETHER TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 01-55
(THE ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCE) WITH RESPECT TO
TERM LIMITS. THE ORDINANCE PRESENTLY LIMITS AN
ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER TO TWO TERMS, ABSENT
UNANIMOUS BOARD APPROVAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL
TERM - MOTION TO ADVERTISE AS AMENDED -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On to number 12A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And that is a recommendation that
Page 200
March 10, 2009
the Board of County Commissioners provides direction whether to
amend ordinance number 2001-55, the advisory board ordinance, with
respect to term limits. The ordinance presently limits an advisory
board member to two terms absent unanimous board approval for an
additional term, and I believe Mr. Klatzkow will present on this item.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I'm just seeking direction from the
board whether or not you want to maintain the two-term limit, or
whatever the board's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know who was first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I think that the direction
we should go -- think about it for a moment. The Collier County
Commissioners themselves, we don't have -- we don't have term
limits. Yes, we do. It's called death. But put that aside.
I think we're not serving our public by putting term limits in
place and having to go through this rigmarole every time it comes up.
We get somebody in there that's totally capable, I do believe that, you
know, we should just be able to move forward; however, with that
said, I would suggest that we consider a couple of things.
One thing would be, as far as the Planning Commission goes and
Productivity Committee, you know, we have people that we appoint
more or less from different districts to try to come up with a balance,
that the person that's coming forward that received an appointment
from the commissioner from that district can be one of the three votes
that would be putting them in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On each one of the committees?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. I'm talking about the
Planning Commission and Productivity Committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be a suggestion. I
wanted to give it to you as an idea for discussion. But my motion
Page 201
March 10, 2009
would be, is to do away with the term limits and to have it where it
only takes a majority to be able to keep a person or appoint a person to
the different committees regardless of how long they're there. And the
other thing which is open for discussion would be the idea of having it
where the sitting commissioner of that district as far as the
Productivity Committee goes or the Planning Commission, would
have to agree to make that appointment to be able to move that person
forward, because who would know better than the sitting
commissioner of that district who would be the best person as far as to
represent that district?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you have three parts to your motion; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? If that's all right.
Here's the problem. With respect to the commissioner
nominating someone who has applied and expecting that
commissioner to know if that person is better qualified than someone
in another district, it's almost impossible. I mean, you'd just -- you'd
just be -- for example, let's suppose we had two nominees and one was
from your district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. You missed the whole
point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Productivity and the
Planning Commission are appointed by districts.
MS. FILSON: No, sir. The Planning Commission is. The
Productivity Committee is not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry, you're right.
The Planning Commission is appointed by the district. The
Page 202
March 10, 2009
Productivity Committee -- so strike Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now we're all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, you're right. That was an
oversight on my part. So it would be for the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm okay there. The -- I'm
not sure that doing away entirely with the term limits is such a good
idea. You might want to keep term limits but make it a simple
majority, and that way it gives you an opportunity, if someone isn't
performing up to standard when their term limit applies, you could just
let them drop off if you want to without embarrassing them and just
selecting somebody else. I think it provides an easier way of
permitting some new blood to be brought into --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll tell you what,
Commissioner Coyle, if one other person agrees with you, I'll be more
than happy to change it to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then that's changed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So then do I have a second to his
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You sure do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
MS. FILSON: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He made the motion, I seconded it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, Commissioner Coletta did.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Then can I get some direction?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MS. FILSON: And this is in reference to the Productivity
Committee, it was continued pending your amendment of this
ordinance. Are you now directing me to readvertise and retain the
current applicants that I have?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, because this motion hasn't
Page 203
March 10, 2009
been voted on and approved, so we don't know where it's going. So
we need to finish with this item, and then we can get to that.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Come back with an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But this motion also includes
not only the Productivity Committee, but the Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of the committees, everything.
This motion deals with all of our committees; is that not correct, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's my understanding --let's get
clarification. We're amending the general board ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: The general advisory board ordinance, and
at this point we're keeping term limits.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we're having a simple majority.
MR. KLATZKOW: But what's the difference if it's a simple
majority because it's always a simple majority if it's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nomination.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- term limits or not?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nothing unanimous though --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're keeping the term limits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Supermajority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I know that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what you said earlier.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, he didn't. He said majority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I said simple majority, simple,
simple majority.
MR. KLATZKOW: Simple majority is for whether you're there
one term, two terms, three terms, four terms.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. That's right.
MS. FILSON: Anything over two terms, that's what it is now.
Two terms take a unanimous vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, now it's unanimous, but--
Page 204
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Let's go through
this step by step now. I've got Elvis here and we're going to vote on
Elvis being reappointed to the position, right? Elvis has only one
term. We're not dealing with term limits, okay.
Now, we've got Tom who has served for three terms, which is in
excess of the normal term limits. If we want to nominate him, we --
three of us can nominate that person. Are you suggesting then that
that vote should also apply to the term limits?
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess I'm not understanding what you
mean by nominating.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, selecting the person.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean it takes three people to
approve?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess -- I guess for me there are
two steps in the process. Number one, is the person qualified, okay,
and number two, do we want them to continue serving for another
term in excess of the number of terms they've already been serving.
But to you that means the same thing, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure that I really understand the
difference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Probably
practically there is no difference. So if we go with a simple majority
and we approve for someone to be appointed to the board, it doesn't
make any difference how many times they've served.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what you're saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to make a difference, it would
have to be supermajority, be four votes, or current system, which is
unanimous, if you want to make a difference for term limits.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I'm interested in
getting the best person that we can possibly get to serve on the
advisory boards. And since most everything else we do is by simple
Page 205
March 10, 2009
majority, I'm perfectly happy to do it that way.
MR. KLATZKOW: That means there's no term limits.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That means you just wipe
out the term limits.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the motion -- and I'll repeat it
-- it's for a simple majority regardless of how many terms a person
serves, and I believe we still agreed to incorporated the part with the
Planning Commission, they have to have the vote or the endorsement
of the commissioner from that district. Am I understanding everyone
correctly?
MS. FILSON: It doesn't really indicate that in the ordinance. It
just says they have to be from the respective district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I understand that, but we
had the chance to amend the ordinance --
MS. FILSON: That's the Planning Commission ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just the Planning Commission?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is an LDC provision. If you're going
to want to do that, we can do that, but it will require -- should require
four votes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How do you feel about it? I just
think that it would give us the power to be able to make sure we have
the right person in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know, I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would support it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we're going to hear the motion again
because you had a three-part motion initially, but I have
Commissioner Henning waiting and Commissioner Halas waiting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Commissioner Coletta's
issue about the Planning Commission can be easily resolved in this
ordinance change. The Planning Commission, it says the appointment
Page 206
March 10, 2009
of all members of the Planning Commission shall be made by
resolution of the BCC. In any event any members are no longer
qualified or elected, and it goes on and on. Doesn't say
recommendation and confirmation of -- I think that can be clarified in
another ordinance until we get to an LDC change.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we'll just -- if it's the will of the board
to do this, we'll just do this and we'll throw this in the cycle to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, why can't we take the
Planning Commission out of the Land Development Code? Because
you're only talking about a cycle of two years, and if we want to do
something else with the Planning Commission, we would have to wait
for an LDC amendment. But take a look at that, please, and see if we
can do such --
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got a lot of commissions in the Land
Development Code --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it doesn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that we'll be looking at taking out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Including the EAC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I agree. We can look.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can move forward with
your recommendation.
MS. FILSON: Can I ask one more question, sir, or make a
statement, I guess.
Also in ordinance 2001-55, if you serve on more than two
boards, that also takes a unanimous vote. So I just want to make sure
that you want to leave that in and not change that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd be willing to change that one,
too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. If! may make a
suggestion, since I am the motion maker, that what we'd do is we'd
Page 207
March 10,2009
have that fact brought forward very similar to the fact that you have as
far as a person's attendance goes so that we realize how long they've
been there and what their attendance has been, and then we can make
an informed decision, and we can just keep it right at three votes.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Then I know that a lot oftimes staff
provides me a year or two years attendance records, and is that
direction for me to give direction to staff that you want the attendance
records for as long as they've been on the committee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would think the last two years
would be sufficient. I don't want to create any extra work. I mean, the
most current years are the most important years that you have to take
into consideration.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I just wanted to be clear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want some clarification. Are
you saying that on the Planning Commission and other areas where
the commissioner of that district appoints individuals, we're no longer
going to have that option?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. What I understand from the motion is
that if you're on the Planning Commission and you're in District 3, you
must be nominated by the commissioner from District 3.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or at least accepted by that
commissioner, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever the word is there.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, my understanding from the motion is
nominated by.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nominated by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nominated would be a fine
word, unless there's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it's going to stand as it is today;
you've got so many people on the Planning Commission and there's so
Page 208
March 10, 2009
many from each district that -- okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. And in practice, you've been
doing that anyway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's only nine members of the
Planning Commission --
MS. FILSON: Yeah, there's two--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- right, and there are --
MS. FILSON: Two from each district and one from the City of
Naples.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see, okay.
MS. FILSON: Now -- and then just to be clear, clear, clear,
when there's an opening on the Planning Commission, ifhe's going to
be nominated by a commissioner, do I advertise, or does that
commissioner bring forth a person to be presented to the board?
MR. KLATZKOW: You advertise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And a commissioner can make a
choice from there, or he might say none of the above.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you -- would you do me a favor,
and would you repeat your motion as it stands now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I love you, Donna. Of course I
will.
Yeah, my motion is several different parts, and I hope I can
repeat it exactly as it was. One, that everything is passed by a simple
majority. No exceptions.
Two, that the -- when an applicant comes forward for the
Planning Commission only, that person has to be -- receive a
nomination; in other words, whatever the list of people is from that
particular district that submit for it, the commissioner of that district
would nominate one person that he thinks would be most fit or he
could not nominate any of the above and readvertise it.
Page 209
March 10,2009
Two -- I'm trying to remember -- or three, would be the -- dealing
with, oh, the records that come forward as far as what we have to
make our decision, that we don't require anything special as far as the
vote goes for people that are into three terms or serve on more than
two boards. At that point in time, there'll just be a notification within
our agenda package along with the time that they have served on there
the past two years, what their attendance was so that we can make an
informed decision on our votes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, one of the things that makes
me a little nervous is, say, for instance, some commissioner has -- is in
a snit that week when somebody's term is being applied for on the
Planning Commission, and that week they don't like him, but then the
next week they're going to like him again. That person won't be
accepted, and then they'll be off four years.
I mean, I'm thinking like Mark Strain, for instance, is who I'm
actually thinking. So Mark Strain -- you know, say, for instance, you
and Mark don't see eye to eye on something or another and you decide
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's a terrible example
because we've been together for like 20-some years plus.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's true, but I mean, I'd hate to lose
him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know what you're saying, but
it's because of Mark Strain that I'm putting this thing together the way
it is, is to try to keep things attached. But once again, I think the
commissioner in that district should be able to make an informed
decision.
Mark Strain's an example of about as perfection as you can get.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you wouldn't want to lose him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You wouldn't want to lose him.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so if somebody had a -- you know, if
you had a snit with him --
Page 210
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there's a lot of other people
that come forward that want to get on the Planning Commission that
you don't want -- I mean, traditionally, we have always honored that
commissioner, but there's been a couple times where somebody would
jump in and say, no, I want this one or that one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got to remind them it's
that. But this is putting it down as a matter of law so it no longer
becomes a hit-or-miss situation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: But what you're really doing is you're
having the commissioner of that district choose the planning
commISSIOner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's exactly what you're --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what you're doing, because the
commissioner is only going to choose the person he wants, and if four
people apply, it's just going to be one nomination, and the board will
either accept or reject it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And they can reject it,
and you'd have to go back to the drawing boards if they did reject it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if Commissioner Coletta were
to vote -- were not to select Mark Strain, can we vote to impeach
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. You can do that,
too.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you cannot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we change the law so we can?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So now Commissioner Coletta's just
nominated -- poor Mark, oh, ifhe could hear us now -- has just
nominated Mark Strain, and then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got to help you Donna. I had
breakfast with Mark, and this was -- a good part of it was his own
Page 211
March 10, 2009
idea.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. And then after he's nominated
him he didn't get the majority vote. There were only two votes rather
than three. Then what happens?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the same thing that
happens now. That person wouldn't be appointed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It takes three votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but what you're going to find is that
that commissioner may not approve anybody else down the line until
he gets, or she gets, their choice, and you'll -- you're getting yourself
into a position where you might get yourselves into gridlock by doing
it this way is what I'm getting at. I mean, I understand what you want
to do but--
,
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. What's the problem?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're putting yourselves into a position of
potential gridlock because a particular commissioner can say, I want
this person or nobody else, and that's the only person that
commissioner will nominate. If the others vote no, that commissioner
simply doesn't nominate anybody else and you'll have a vacancy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think that's -- we never
ran into that. And if we did, I mean, at that point in time, you might
get somebody that's really being a pain in a neck and they won't make
-- and they want to bring everything to a dead stop. It didn't exist with
this present commission. You know, we can only address problems
like that when we've seen them, and we've never seen them in the past
eight years, anything even resembling anything like that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I like -- I would think that instead
of having a unanimous majority, that we would have a supermajority
in regards to approving somebody if they were term limited. I would
go along with that.
Page 212
March 10,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, we
discussed this quite a bit, and I think we got enough acceptance for the
simple majority across the board, and I'd like to run the motion
through just like that, but I appreciate your input, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I kind of interrupted with the
question there. Is there any more to your motion than the two points
that you made?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Help me. Have I missed
anything from what we were discussing? I think we covered it quite
well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Then I have a motion
on the floor and a second.
Oh. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Oh, I hate to get it. You have more than one board
that you have a district representative on in the Planning Commission.
Clam Bay Advisory Board has --
MS. FILSON: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- district members that are applied, and you
basically focused on the Planning Commission. I'm just going to tell
you, you might be in a position in the future where you want district
representatives on a new board. And if you put something in there
that just says Planning Commission, you just hamstring yourself for
the future.
So if you can get it a little more generic for the county attorney
and give yourselves some leeway because you have -- right now you
have Planning Commission and you have the Clam Bay Advisory
Board that has district representatives.
MR. KLATZKOW: But this nomination's going to the Planning
Commission board. It's not going to the general one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I feel a little
uncomfortable trying to carry it across paths at that point. I really do.
I think we covered it well enough. I think the rest of the boards
Page 213
March 10,2009
that we have, the system works very well. It's just Planning
Commission is the hinge point where everything happens around here.
We want to make sure that we have the right people in there. Who
would know but the commissioner of that district? Past that point, I
think we'd leave it just the way it is.
MS. FILSON: Yeah. The library board has districts, too.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. You have more than just planning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Limit it just to the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. It's a 4-1 vote.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Now can I have direction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. MUDD: No. You can't have direction until the board
approves the ordinance. They gave the county attorney direction to
change the ordinance. The ordinance needs to be advertised, it needs
to come back to the Board of County Commissioners for a vote.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But now you've got 12 -- that is --
yeah, 12B. Wherever you moved that thing.
MR. MUDD: We're not there yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 17 A.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson was asking about her 9 item as far as
being continued. It's continued until the ordinance is approved by the
Page 214
March 10, 2009
Board of county Commissioners, and then from there we'll get some
direction.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2009-11: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2009-01,
WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD, IN ORDER
TO CLARIFY CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT AND PROVIDE FOR WAIVER OR
MODIFICATION OF THE STATED QUALIFICATIONS WHEN
DEEMED NECESSARY TO APPOINT THE BEST-QUALIFIED
CANDIDA TE(S) - ADOPTED
MR MUDD: Brings us now to 12B, which is 8A on your
agenda, but it used to be 17 A.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. MUDD: -- adopts an ordinance amending ordinance
number 2009-01 which created the Collier county Emergency Medical
Services Policy Advisory Board in order to clarify certain
qualifications for appointment, and provide for waiver or modification
of the stated qualifications when deemed necessary to appoint the
best-qualified candidate or candidates.
Mr. Klatzkow?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I already have a motion to approve from
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Coyle. I think I had --
Commissioner Coletta already second it.
Page 215
March 10, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Any 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.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Now we move on to staff and commission general
communications. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: I will make this as short as I can. When we had
our budget policy guidance to the Board of County Commissioners, I
used a document -- Leo, if you can help me out -- I used a document
that came from the Department of Revenue that had -- that came out
of the ad valorem estimating conference. It was dated December 4th,
2008.
The -- if you take a look, it says, Collier County -- it's kind of
highlighted on the sheet, and I'll try to go across from Collier County,
put my finger on it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want a ruler?
MR. MUDD: It's right -- it's right here. It basically says minus
14.3 percent. And what was happening at the time on 4 December is
Page 216
March 10, 2009
that the state was estimating that our -- we would have a devaluation
of property in Collier County of some 14.3 percent.
Based on that, my recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners on a tax neutral position was to come back with a
budget that was minus 15 percent and -- in case we went to a millage
neutral.
Since that time, on 4 March I received another Florida ad
valorem tax roll estimate. And again, I want to make sure that you
understand that the December 4th roll that I got said final on it. On
March 4th, I received another one that still has final on it. I just want
to know when it's really going to be final because I don't think it's
going to be final until Abe Skinner tells us when it is; however, on 4
March, they told us that Collier County would -- our values of
property would go down some 23.5 percent.
With that, I had nothing else to go on, and I try to go on what the
best estimates that I can get my hands on. I will not know until Mr.
Abe Skinner gives us his estimate on 1 June by Florida Statute.
I've gone back to the staff and basically told them in the millage
neutral alternative that they need to have a minus 25 percent cut, okay.
So I've gone back to the staff. Instead of the minus 15, it's now minus
25 because of that. I let you know that because I'm going to talk about
this tomorrow night at a town hall meeting with Commissioner Fiala,
and I didn't want to bring this up the first time with you during a town
hall meeting and have you look at that particular slide and/or the
ramifications of that particular Department of Revenue estimate of
what our properties would go down this next tax cycle. So I just want
to bring that to your attention.
That's all I have, ma'am, and I think that's quite enough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I have one small-- one small item.
One of the things we've been trying to deal with in our office is --
deals with the Vanderbilt Beach parking garage. Apparently we have
Page 217
March 10, 2009
commercial property owners in the area having their employees utilize
the beach parking as employee parking, and unfortunately, I don't
have a remedy at this point in time. There's no ordinance to ticket
them, there's no ability to simply tow them away. They're putting
beach stickers on the cars and they're just parking there all day long.
And I'm just coming to the board for direction if there's anything
you want us to do about that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I got a call to my office that
commercial property owners are thinking that this is a municipal
parking garage, and it really isn't. This garage was provided by tourist
development -- tourist development tax dollars, it's there's for the
residents, and it's there for the people that come into this community,
and obviously our visitors bring in around $800 million a year.
And to have commercial property owners basically have their
employees use this parking garage, I think, is appalling, especially
when you have some of these commercial properties that are
providing a parking garage for their own employees, but because of
where the parking garage is located, they're parking in our garage
because it's closer to their work.
And all of the -- I believe that our Land Development Code is
such that all property owners and business owners have to have
parking on their premises to provide that for their workers.
So I think it's a problem that we should address, that it's there for
the citizens who are there to take care of the beach -- or to go to the
beach and have a couple of hours or a day of recreation, but it's not
there to take care of the commercial portion of this, in other words,
provide commercial parking in a beach parking garage. I hope I'm
clear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. How do we -- how do we stop it
though?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm looking to the county
Page 218
March 10, 2009
attorney to hopefully come up with some type of an ordinance.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I could come back on executive
summary with a proposed ordinance. There are several different ways
to do it. I just want to know if this is something the board wants us to
look into.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, this is Commissioner Halas' district.
If he feels that this is important --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think I need the support of
the board to carry this item on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think it's important because
all of us know that we've been looking at every nook and cranny for
additional beach parking, and when we have tourists that come into
this town and spend this kind of money, I think that we should do
everything possible to make sure that we accommodate their needs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a comment. I think it's going
to get real tricky telling the general public that they can't park in a
government parking building.
The -- we have the same problem in Naples. The parking lot
there on Third Street has some signs that says for beachgoers only, but
the parking lot is used by all of the businesses in there. And I'm not
sure that we wouldn't get into trouble with the public if we started
saying, yeah, government funds. I mean, yeah, tourist development
funds went to build this thing, but -- and it can only be used by
tourists.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or the people that go to the beach
to go -- to enjoy the beach not use it as public parking to
accommodate their needs when they go to work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's the problem, trying to
decide which are which is a real tough problem.
But I -- listen, it is Commissioner Halas' district, I understand the
Page 219
March 10, 2009
problem, and I'm going to go along with it. I just want to raise the
question that, you know, there might be some pushback on this, so we
just need to anticipate that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we ought to have it back
by staff, possibly they can poll some other communities that have
similar parking situations, see how they resolved it. There should be
some sort of way to be able to do it. I can see how it would be a real
problem, because every time you get X number of people in there just
parking and taking up the space for beachgoers, you limit -- you limit
the number of people. I mean, these garages are quite full, especially
for weekends. In this time of year, it's very difficult to find parking.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate the support.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You do have it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you've got all four of us nodding for
you. Very good.
That's the only thing, County Manager?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the only thing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We covered that particular subject,
thank you. And it was a very busy and hectic day, and you did a great
job. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Swamp Buggy weekend
last weekend was a roaring success. The weather was absolutely
perfect. We had Commissioner Peppy Diaz come down from Miami
and was recognized as the special guest, and he gave a little bit of a
rendition of what his vision was for the jetport, and the crowd went
absolutely crazy. So just a little headway of where everything's going
in that direction. Appreciate your support.
Page 220
March 10, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And just to wind this up in
case anybody still happens to be watching the television, I hope to see
you tomorrow. Everybody from Collier County is invited to our town
hall meeting. It's going to be at the new library. Doesn't have any
furniture in there yet, no books in there yet, but we do have chairs. So
we'd love to have you come and join us and see what the new library
looks like.
It's on Lely Cultural Boulevard. Starts at seven p.m., goes till
nine p.m. Our commissioners, for the most part, will be there, staff
will be there, and we're going to give you heads-up on all the things
going on in Collier County. It will be the only town hall meeting this
year, so please join us.
Thank you. And with that, the meeting is adjourned.
MR. MUDD: Ah, Ah. Ma'am?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn.
MR. MUDD: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to adjourn by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Gee, I wish I
could just end it all by myself.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're just used to being in
control.
****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Page 221
March 10,2009
Coletta and carried that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TRAIL RIDGE - W/RELEASE OF ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2 - Moved to Item #17G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16A3
CONTRACT #08-5090 TO RHODES, TUCKER & GARRETSON
FOR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE SERVICES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT IN AN
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $80,000 PER YEAR - FOR
CONDUCTING HEARINGS AND ADMINISTERING THE LAW
RESULTING FROM VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL CODES AND
ORDINANCES
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2009-49: FINAL APPROV AL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PHASE THREE EAST,
UNIT ONE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED -
W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
Page 222
March 10, 2009
RESOLUTION 2009-50: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PHASE THREE EAST,
UNIT TWO WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED -
W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE BRITTANY BAY
APARTMENTS PHASE II DUE TO THE IMPACT FEES BEING
P AID IN FULL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUL TI-F AMIL Y
RENTAL IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM, AS SET FORTH
BY SECTION 74-401(E) AND 74-401(G) (5) OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES - IMPACT
FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,210,626.56 WERE PAID IN FULL
ON FEBRUARY 5, 2009
Item #16A7
AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR MULTI-
FAMILY (RENTAL) AFFORDABLE HOUSING BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND BRITTANY BAY PARTNERS, LTD.,
FOR THE BRITTANY BAY APARTMENTS, PHASE I,
CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD'S DIRECTION PERTAINING
TO REMEDIES FOR PAST DUE AND EXPIRING IMPACT FEE
DEFERRALS - GRANTING A FOUR YEAR EXTENSION WITH
THE REMAINING BALANCE (INCLUDING 5% INTEREST PER
YEAR) DUE ON SEPTEMBER 5,2011
Item # 16A8
Page 223
March 10, 2009
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.030, AR
12838, TO RINKER MATERIALS OF FLORIDA, INC. AND
BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN
AS "HOGAN ISLAND QUARRY" C.U. CONSISTING OF 967.65
ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SITTING IN SECTIONS 9,10, 15, 16,
21,22 OF TOWNSHIP 47, SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE P ARTICULARL Y SITTING
ABOUT 0.75 MILES NORTH OF WHERE THE OIL WELL
GRADE INTERSECTS IMMOKALEE ROAD - ADDED
LANGUAGE PER AGENDA CHANGE SHEET: "THIS ITEM
REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS. SHOULD A HEARING BE HELD ON THIS ITEM,
ALL P ARTICIP ANTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SWORN IN" - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16A9
KENNY MATEJA OF TROPICLEAN GAS AND AUTO SPA
REQUESTS A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE (LDC) FOR SEVEN CONSECUTIVE WEEKENDS
(FRIDAY AND SATURDAY) AT 9995 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26, FOR A SUM
TOTAL: FOURTEEN DAY TIME LIMIT THAT IS ALLOWED
BY THE LDC DURING THE 2009 CALENDAR YEAR TO
DISPLAY A CARW ASH PROMOTIONAL BANNER FOR HIS
BUSINESS, AND TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PAY A ONE
TIME TWO HUNDRED DOLLAR FEE TO ENCOMPASS THE
ENTIRE REQUESTED LENGTH OF TIME - ADDED
LANGUAGE PER AGENDA CHANGE SHEET: "THIS ITEM
Page 224
March 10, 2009
REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX
PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION
MEMBERS. SHOULD A HEARING BE HELD ON THIS ITEM,
ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SWORN IN"
Item #16A10
CONTRACT #08-5122 WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH &
JERNIGAN FOR A PHASE 1 COST OF $575,736.95 TO UPDATE
THE BIG CYPRESS BASIN REGIONAL HYDROLOGIC MODEL
AND BEGIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT PLANS REQUIRED BY THE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN - ADDRESSING AND IMPROVING
ELEMENTS OF FLOOD CONTROL, WATER QUALITY,
NATURAL SYSTEMS AND PROTECTING COLLIER
COUNTY'S WATER RESOURCES
Item #16A11 - Moved from Item #17E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2009-51: (ADDED LANGUAGE PER AGENDA
CHANGE SHEET: "THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL
P ARTICIP ANTS BE SWORN IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
BE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. SHOULD A
HEARING BE HELD ON THIS ITEM, ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE SWORN IN") PETITION ST-2008-AR-13958,
WILSONMILLER, INC., REPRESENTING NORTH NAPLES
FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL
TREATMENT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
TWO-STORY 12,952 SQUARE-FOOT FIRE STATION WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING, UTILITIES AND A SURFACE
WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON 3.4 ACRES ZONED
AGRICUL TURAL WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY
Page 225
March 10, 2009
(A-ST) IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED BETWEEN LIVINGSTON AND V ANDERBIL T
BEACH ROADS
Item #16B1
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT DUE
TO ROAD SEGMENT ALREADY BEING ADOPTED -
CANCELING PARTICIPATION BY MCDONALD'S FOR A
SEGMENT OF IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM US 41 TO 1-75
Item #16B2
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH TWO (2)
ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF
$150.00 - W/LlZ APPLING OF FLORIDA HOME REALTY FOR
APART OF ROADWAY KNOWN AS OLD LIVINGSTON ROAD
Item #16B3
WORK ORDER FOR A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO AP AC-
SOUTHEAST, INC. FOR THE GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
(C.R. 851) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT CREEKSIDE
BOULEVARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $219,414.35, CONTRACT
NO. 08-5045, PROJECT NO. 66065 - IMPROVING AN EXISTING
TURN LANE, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL LANE ONTO
CREEKSIDE BLVD. AND RESURFACING ROAD SURFACE
Item # 16B4
PARTIAL APPORTIONMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
Page 226
March 10,2009
ADMINISTRATION (FT A) FY 2009 SECTION 5307 GRANT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $901,448.00 - FUNDS WILL BE USED TO
IMPROVE SECURITY AT THE NEW CAT OPERATIONS
FACILITY; PURCHASING BENCHES AND SHELTERS; FOR
ADA PARA-TRANSIT SERVICES AND PREVENTATIVE
MAINTENANCE
Item #16B5
AWARD FISCAL YEAR 2009 LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION
MASTER PLAN CAPITAL PROJECTS (BID #09-5190):
IMMOKALEE ROAD PHASE II & III (1-75 TO 951),
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK (POLLY TO C.R. 951) AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PHASE I & II (AIRPORT TO c.R.
951) TO HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,786,039.23 WITH $13,960.77
CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL OF $1,800,000 - UPON
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AN ADDITIONAL
$595,123.70 IS NEEDED ANNUALLY FOR MAINTAINING THE
10.3 MILES OF ADDED LANDSCAPING
Item #16B6
APPL YING FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
FUNDS UNDER TITLE 49 US.C. S 5307 PERTAINING TO THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENTS ACT (ARRA)
AND TO ACCEPT THE GRANT IF AWARDED - UNDER THIS
2009 ACT, COLLIER COUNTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR $2,963,261 TO
BE USED FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECTS TO INCLUDE:
ELECTRONIC F AREBOXES, MOBILE DATA SYSTEMS, A GIS
ROUTE PLANNING SYSTEM, PURCHASING TWO (2) HYBRID
BUSES, SECURITY CAMERAS FOR BUSES AND UPGRADING
Page 227
March 10, 2009
THREE (3) BUSES WITH HYBRID TECHNOLOGY
Item #16B7
TERMINATE THE AMENDED AND RESTATED US41
DEVELOPERS' CONSORTIUM (CONSORTIUM) DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (DCA), RECORDED IN O.R.
BOOK 4408, PAGE 2880. (CTS) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C1
AGREEMENT #08-5125 TO SOUTHWEST DIRECT, TO
OUT SOURCE THE PRINTING AND MAILING OF COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UTILITY BILLS, AT AN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000-
FOR AN INITIAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIOD
Item # 16C2
RESOLUTION 2009-52: RESOLUTION W/EXHIBITS OF THE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PAYMENT PLAN AGREEMENT AND
LIEN AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAMIAMI SQUARE OF
NAPLES, LLC (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT CONSISTENT WITH THE
BOARD'S FEBRUARY 24,2009 ADJUDICATION THAT
DEVELOPER OWES $120,904 AS ALTERNATIVE WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR BUILDING #300 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D1
Page 228
March 10, 2009
FUNDING FROM THE 4-H FOUNDATION CLUBS, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $50,881.00 FOR THE 4-H OUTREACH PROGRAM
MANAGED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA/IFAS EXTENSION DEPARTMENT AND APPROVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,481.00 - TO
FUND A TEMPORARY POSITION, PARTIALLY FUND A FULL-
TIME POSITION AND EXPENDITURES TO ENHANCE
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 2009-53: SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 451 WHICH
REQUIRES STERILIZATION OF DOGS AND CATS OF A
SPECIFIED AGE AND PROVIDES EXCEPTIONS - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
A FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION (FWC) DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT, ARTIFICIAL REEF CONSTRUCTION GRANT
APPLICATION FOR THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
DEP ARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 - FOR THE
CREATION OF THREE (3) NEW 200 TON ARTIFICIAL REEFS
THAT WILL BE LOCATED AT GORDON PASS, DOCTOR'S
PASS, AND WIGGIN'S PASS FOR THE PROJECT TITLED
"SANTA LUCIA REEF SITE"
Item # 16D4
AMENDMENT TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER AGREEMENT APPROVED NOVEMBER 18,
Page 229
March 10, 2009
2008 AS ITEM #16D9, INCREASING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT
AWARDED TO THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER
PERVIOUSL Y APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ON NOVEMBER 18, 2008 AS ITEM #101-
DUE TO SEVERE BUDGET CUTS BY THE ST ATE, FUNDS
RECEIVED FROM COLLIER COUNTY'S CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICERS THAT WERE RETURNED TO THE BOARD AS
"TURN-BACK DOLLARS" WILL BE USED TO FUND THE
ONE- TIME AWARD OF $450,000
Item #16D5
LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR ESPERANZA PLACE - PHASE
ONE, A FORTY EIGHT (48) UNIT MULTI-FAMILY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT BEING DEVELOPED BY
FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SERVICES, INC. - BENEFITTING
FARM WORKERS IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16E1
RESOLUTION 2009-54: SUPPORT FOR AMENDING THE
CONSULTANTS' COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ACT (CCNA)
- ALLOWING LOCAL AND ST ATE AGENCIES THE ABILITY
TO COMPARE FEES AND USE THE "BEST VALUE BASIS"
APPROACH DURING FORMAL SOLICIT A TION WHEN
CHOOSING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS
Item # 16E2
WAIVE COMPETITION AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CURRENT CONTRACT WITH VOCA TUS MEDICAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO OPEN A NORTH MEDCENTER
Page 230
March 10, 2009
LOCATION, AND ESTABLISH FEES FOR VOCATUS FOR THE
RENEWAL PERIOD - MEETING HIGH DEMAND FOR
SERVICES FORA NEW LOCATION AT 4513 EXECUTIVE
DRIVE AND EXTENDING THE CURRENT AGREEMENT
(CONTRACT #05-3748R) THROUGH NOVEMBER 14,2014
Item # 16E3
SELL OR DONATE COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY THAT IS
NO LONGER OF USE TO COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND TO
OBTAIN REVENUE FOR THE COUNTY - SCHEDULED FOR
MARCH 28, 2009 WITH AUCTION SERVICES PROVIDED BY
ATKINSON REALTY & AUCTION, INC.
Item # 16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE REPORT PERIOD JANUARY 19,2009
THROUGH FEBRUARY 17,2009
Item # 16E5
CONVEYANCE OF A REVOCABLE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO
THE LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO PROVIDE
ELECTRIC SERVICE FOR THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL
MUSEUM WHICH IS LOCATED AT 1264 MISTLETOE COURT,
MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$60.00 - TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY
Item #16F1 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 231
~..,--"--,-~..-._......,--- - ....--.-....'
March 10,2009
BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM THE OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$120,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENOVATING PORT OF THE
ISLANDS MARINA TO BE USED AS A FIRE STATION -
ENHANCING FIRE & RESCUE PROTECTION IN COLLIER
COUNTY AND TO ADDRESS PROPERTY INSURANCE ISSUES
Item # 16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,860 FOR ARCHITECTURE
SERVICES REGARDING THE RENOVATION OF THE PORT OF
THE ISLANDS MARINA INTO A FIRE STATION - TO HOUSE
PERSONNEL AND STORING FIRE APP ARA TUS
Item # 16F3
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER
FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT
OF $10,500 TO THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF REFURBISHING TWO 1994 6X6 FIVE TON
VEHICLES - FOR USE BY THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT TO ADD VALUABLE EQUIPMENT BEFORE THE
PREDICTED ACTIVE BRUSH FIRE SEASON
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2009-55: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09
ADOPTED BUDGET - RECOGNIZING $495,000 IN GRANT
Page 232
March 10, 2009
FUNDS FROM THE USDA (AS AGENDA ITEM #16G2 2/24/09)
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2009-56: SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 691
RELATING TO STATE OVERSIGHT OF UTILITY SERVICES
PROVIDED BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES
FILED BY STATE REPRESENTATIVE MATT HUDSON AND
THE COMPANION SENATE BILL 1192 RELATING TO
UTILITY SERVICES/OVERSIGHT /INTERGOVERNMENT AL
AUTHORITIES BY STATE SENATOR GARRETT RICHTER -
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G1 - Moved to Item #17F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE ENCA LUNCHEON ON
FEBRUARY 19,2009 AT CARRABBA'S IN NAPLES, FL; $16.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED ON TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES 2009 LEGISLATIVE DAY ON MARCH 25, 2009
IN TALLAHASSEE, FL; $110.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO PRESENT
Page 233
March 10, 2009
COLLIER COUNTY'S PRIORITIES
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE FIFTH ANNUAL HONOR
THE FREE PRESS DAY ON MARCH 18, 2009 AT THE HILTON
IN NAPLES, FL; $30.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111 T AMIAMI
TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED AN EVENING WITH CLYDE
BUTCHER ON MARCH 5, 2009 AT THE ROOKERY BAY
AUDITORIUM IN NAPLES, FL; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - AT 300 TOWER
ROAD OFF CR 951 BETWEEN NAPLES AND MARCO ISLAND
Item # 16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE CHABAD OF NAPLES
5TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION ON MARCH 22, 2009 AT
THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB IN
NAPLES, FL; $150.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 851 GULF SHORE
BOULEVARD NORTH
Page 234
March 10, 2009
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND THE CHABAD OF NAPLES 5TH
ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION ON MARCH 22,2009 AT 6:00
P.M. AT THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL AND COUNTRY CLUB
IN NAPLES, FLORIDA; $150.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 851 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH
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 235
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 10, 2009
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Animal Services Advisorv Board:
Minutes of December 16, 2008.
2) Bavshore/Gatewav Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board:
Minutes of December 2,2008; January 6, 2009.
3) Collier Countv Planning Commission:
Agenda of February 19,2009 REVISED.
4) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of January 21, 2009.
5) Countv Govemment Productivitv Committee:
Agenda of August 27, 2008; September 17,2008; October 15,2008;
November 19,2008; December 17,2008.
Minutes of August 27, 2008; September 17,2008; October 15,2008;
November 19, 2008; December 17, 2008.
A. Productivitv Committee/EMSAC Master Plan Review:
Minutes of February 19,2008; August 28,2008.
B. Countv Core Function Studv Subcommittee:
Minutes of April 23, 2008; May 6, 2008.
C. Impact Fee Review Subcommittee:
Minutes of December 6,2007.
D. Alternative Policy Approaches for Impact Fees
Subcommittee:
Minutes of December 3, 2008.
6) Development Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of January 7, 2009.
7) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of December 3, 2008; January 7, 2009.
8) Golden Gate Communitv Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of December I, 2008; January 5, 2009.
9) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of December 3,2008.
Minutes of December 3, 2008.
10) HistoricaIl Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of November 19,2008.
I I) ImmokaIee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of January 26, 2009.
Minutes of December 17,2008.
12) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board:
Agenda of January 26,2009.
Minutes of December 17, 2008.
13) ImmokaIee Master Plan and Visioning Committee:
Agenda of January 26, 2009 w/CRA Committee.
Minutes of December 17,2008 w/CRA Committee.
14) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
A. Budget Committee:
Agenda of November 6, 2008.
Minutes of November 6, 2008.
B. Ordinance Review Committee:
Agenda of November 25,2008.
Minutes of November 25, 2008.
15) Public Vehicle Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 2,2009.
16) Utility Authority (Water and Wastewater Authority):
Minutes of September 22, 2008.
March 10, 2009
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 14,2009
THROUGH FEBRUARY 20, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 1612
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION SERVICES
PERTAINING TO SERVICES AND VOTING EQUIPMENT USED
BY THE GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH A SPECIAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON MAY 12, 2009 - AGREEMENT IS $84,270 AND IS
AN ESTIMATE BASED ON 44,000 VOTERS
Item # 1613
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 21,2009
THROUGH FEBRUARY 27, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ADVERTISING A PROPOSED
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2007-74; THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONVENIENCE BUSINESS SECURITY
ORDINANCE - AMENDING SECTION THREE OF 2007-74 TO
INCLUDE MINIMUM SAFETY AND SECURITY STANDARDS
SET FORTH IN FLORIDA'S ADMINISTRATIVE RULE
Item #16K2
Page 236
March 10, 2009
SETTLEMENT IN THE LA WSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA Vs. BOTNER LAND DESIGN, INC., ET AI.,
FILED IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 02-1923-CA FOR
$99,500.00 - CLAIMS FILED IN 2002 FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE FOR THREE
LANDSCAPE PROJECTS IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item # 17 A - Moved to Item #8A during Agenda Changes
(Per Commissioner Coyle's request)
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2009-57: PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13661,
CENTER POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH, REPRESENTED BY
MATTHEW MCLEAN, P.E., OF AGNOLl, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE AND DOUG LEWIS, ESQ., OF ROETZEL AND
ANDRESS, IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A YOUTH MINISTRY
SANCTUARY WITH SUPPORTING OFFICES AND YOUTH
MEMBER SOCIAL ACTIVITIES RELATING TO THE EXISTING
RELIGIOUS FACILITY SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2.03.01.B.1.C.1
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(LDC). THE 4.58-ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN
TRACT 85, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 29, IN SECTION
30, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. CTS
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2009-08: REVISING THE LITTER, WEED AND
EXOTIC CONTROL ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-
Page 237
March 10,2009
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
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2009-09: (THIS ITEM NEEDED A SUPER
MAJORITY VOTE FOR APPROVAL) RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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 IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED THE "COLLIER
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY"
DATED FEBRUARY 19,2009; AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT
FEE RATE SCHEDULE THAT IS SCHEDULE ONE OF
APPENDIX "A" BY INCORPORATING THE FINDINGS OF THE
STUDY AND THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE NEW IMP ACT
FEE RATES; DELETING OBSOLETE PROVISIONS REFERRING
TO "DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND
HOUSING" AND THE "EDUCATIONAL IMP ACT FEE TRUST
FUND;" PROVIDING CLARIFICATION TO THE FOUR YEAR
TIME FRAME TO REQUEST AN IMP ACT FEE
REIMBURSEMENT BY REMOVING OBSOLETE LANGUAGE;
AMENDING THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROAD
IMPACT FEES TO REFLECT THE NEW PROVISIONS,
ALLOWING FOR PAYMENT OVER FIVE YEARS, TO OBTAIN
OR EXTEND A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES; DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
Page 238
March 10, 2009
DESIGNEE, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO AMEND THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND TO
UPDATE THE "COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE" TO REFLECT
THE NEW AND AMENDED PROVISIONS RELATED TO
IMP ACT FEES; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF JUNE 8, 2009 IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE 90- DAY NOTICE PERIOD REQUIRED BY SECTION
163.31801 (3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES
Item #17E - Moved to Item #16A11 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 17F - Moved from Item # 16G 1 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ORDINANCE 2009-10: AMENDING THE APPLICATION
APPROVAL SECTION OF THE IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMERCIAL FACADE
IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES DOCUMENT, IDENTIFIED IN AND ADOPTED
BY SECTION FOUR OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 08-40 TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR DUE TO THE INCLUSION
OF AN UNINTENDED REFERENCE BY DELETING THE
REFERENCE TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S ABILITY TO
APPROVE OR DENY FACADE GRANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10,000 OR LESS; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
Item #17G - Moved from Item #16A2 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 239
March 10, 2009
RESOLUTION 2009-58: DESIGNATING 5,868.7 ACRES IN THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT AS A STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA WITH A
DESIGNATION AS "BCI/BCP SSA 10" PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS SET FORTH IN THE ESCROW AGREEMENT,
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR
BCI/BCP SSA 10, AND STEWARDSHIP EASEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP SSA 10; APPROVING A
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA CREDIT AGREEMENT FOR
BCI/BCP SSA 10; APPROVING A STEWARDSHIP EASEMENT
AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP SSA 10; APPROVING AN
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR BCI/BCP SSA 10; AND
ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF STEWARDSHIP CREDITS
GENERATED BY THE DESIGNATION OF SAID
STEWARDSHIP SENDING AREA
Item # 1 7H - Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet) and then Continued
to the March 24, 2009 Meeting (Per Agenda Change
Sheet)
AN ORDINANCE EST ABLlSHING AUTHORIZATION AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY VOLUNTARY
SEP ARA TION INCENTIVE PROGRAM ("VSIP"); PROVIDING
FOR A TITLE; PROVIDING FOR A STATEMENT OF INTENT
AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING FOR INCENTIVE PAY AND
IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTION; PROVIDING FOR
PAYMENTS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Page 240
March 10, 2009
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:36 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIA~STRlCTS/U~ER ITS CONTROL
.~,d~
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
c
.<.
AWI,$t II ooCM
It QMt....9lI!11';. .'
;. .~~.
These }l1inutes approved by the Board on ~ as presented
./ or as corrected .
-)(:- ~dl Q.QA. Ltld8/~sx:/1 --- See oJ!t1J!(1~r(,
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 241
-"",--~'-'" _..-
March 10, 2009
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:36 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIA~ISTRlCTS ~ER ITS CONTROL
~ ~ d4-ec.
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
A TT~ST:'~ ". .
DWIGHT E., BRDCK, CLERK
~qZP~.~c:
. At~C it te Chi \'rwfI ,
,IQA.t'"rt OIl 1 .
These minutes approved by the Board on
or as corrected
'-l/ D2f3/ ~9 , as presented
'~
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 241