BCC Minutes 04/28/2009 R
April 28, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, April 28, 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:
Leo Ochs, Assistant County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
~'
W
(JI ",.....
AGENDA
April 28, 2009
9:00 AM
Donna Fiala, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB 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 PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
April 28, 2009
Page 1
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Dennis Harten, St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church
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. March 10, 2009 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. Amendment to the previously approved March 10,2009 minutes to correct
the transcript to comments made by Laurie Mitchell during public comment
that read on two occasions: "My neighbor seems unstable" that should read
"My neighbor seems unstoppable."
D. March 24, 2009 - BCC/Regular Meeting
E. March 27,2009 - BCC/Airport Authority Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
April 28, 2009
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation congratulating Mario Lanciani, CEO; Jack Morgan, Project
Manager; Clay Cross, Project Engineer; Carla Morgan, and all the staff of
Astaldi Construction Corporation for their outstanding green business
practices and continued efforts to promote waste reduction and recycling.
Their green team promotes environmental awareness and sets a positive
example for others. Their initiatives will have a significant effect on
sustaining the usable life of the Collier County Landfill and protecting the
environment.
B. Proclamation designating May, 2009 as Motorcycle Safety Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Russ Ueeck, President, Gator Alley Chapter,
Darrin Brooks, Secretary and Legislative Trustee, Gator Alley Chapter, Tina
Loy, State Delegate, Gator Alley Chapter, Rick Loy, State Delegate, Gator
Alley Chapter and Dave Rich, PR Trustee, Gator Alley Chapter.
C. Proclamation designating April 28, 2009 as Norman Nadel Day, in
celebration of Older Americans Month. To be accepted by Norman Nadel.
D. Proclamation congratulating Collier County Health Department and Collier
County CDES Departments for their exemplary efforts in striving to make
the lmmokalee Housing Initiative the success it has been. To be accepted by
Dr. Joan Colfer, Nancy Frees, Kitchell Snow and the team from Immokalee
Code Enforcement, Alamar Finnegan, and Wanda Warren.
E. Proclamation designating May 8, 2009 as the 85th anniversary of the date
Collier County was created. To be accepted by Browns and Roberts Family
members from Immokalee, Storters from Everglades, John Morgan, Marco
Island, Collier family representatives from Mile's side and Judy's side, Sam
Colding for HWY 29, Lavern Norris Gaynor, and Mary Watkins, NBYH
Ambassador honoring these pioneering families.
F. Proclamation designating May 3rd through May 9th, 2009 as Collier County
Firefighter Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Jim Squitteri, MDA
Coordinator, Golden Gate Fire Department.
G. Proclamation designating May 6 through May 12,2009 as National Nurses
Week 2009. To be accepted by Karleen Hanna, Carolyn Kloosterhouse, Pat
April 28, 2009
Page 3
Market, Denise McNulty, Judy Nuland, Jackie Perrine and Elaine Wade.
H. Proclamation designating May 17 through May 23,2009 as National
Association of Insurance Women Week. To be accepted by Belinda Zivich.
I. Proclamation designating May, 2009 as Jill and Dan Burzynski Month in
recognition of their unique scholarship program linking Naples High School
students with area assisted living facility residents. To be accepted by Jill
and Dan Burzynski.
J. Proclamation designating Tourism Week in Collier County. To be accepted
by Jack Wert.
K. Proclamation designating April 26, 2009 through May 2, 2009 as Collier
County Crime Victims' Rights Week. To be accepted by Lorie Eash, Collier
County Sheriffs Office, Shaina Hicks, Project Help and Betty Ardaya, State
Attorney's Office.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Project Manager, Jack Morgan of Astaldi Construction Corporation will
provide updated information on the construction of a new 6-lane highway
between Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Davis Blvd. linking Polly Avenue
to the existing Santa Barbara Boulevard. Project includes roadwork, utility
lines, streetlighting, sidewalks, drainage ponds, and LASIP canal work.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Jane Billings of the Leadership Council on Aging,
and Kathleen Passidomo of the Senior Friendship Center, to discuss lease of
the Golden Gate Library.
B. This item to be heard in coni unction with Item 8C. Public petition request
by Linda Griffin to discuss permitting requirements for as-builts of
underground facilities.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 l1.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 28, 2009
Page 4
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDA-2007-AR-
11546: Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Amendment to Longshore Lake PUD Ordinance No. 93-3, Section 3.2 B. to
allow an off premise sign for Saturnia Falls (aka Terafina PUD) in
Longshore Lake Unit 5C, Tract B; or, in the alternative to allow the off-site
premise sign to become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to
reinsert partially omitted Traffic Requirements: Section 5.2, Stipulations
subsection 2; to reinsert omitted Traffic Requirements: Section 5.2,
Stipulations subsections 3 and 4; and to add Section 8: Deviations. The
subject sign is located on a .5 acre property located on the southeast corner
of the Longshore Lake PUD, at the northwest corner of the intersection of
Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard in Section 20, Township
48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-A-2007-AR-
12046: 1M Collier Joint Venture, represented by Richard D. Yovanovich,
Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and
Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, is requesting a rezone of
the Mirasol PUD from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district
to the Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to
remedy the sunsetted status of the project in compliance with LDC Section
1 0.02.13.D.6. The number of dwelling units originally approved, 799
dwelling units, is not proposed to change. Ordinance No. 01-20 will be
repealed and a five acre tract will revert to Agricultural zoning. The subject
1,543 acre tract is located on the north side of Immokalee Road, bordered on
the east by Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard in Sections 10,
15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(CTS)
C. This item to be heard in coni unction with Item 6B. Recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approve amending Ordinance No.
2003-37 (Construction in the Public Rights-of-Way), as amended.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
April 28, 2009
Page 5
A. Appointment of members to the Health Facilities Authority.
B. Appointment of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging
Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Horizon Study Oversight Committee.
F. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
G. Appointment of member to the Water and Wastewater Authority.
H. Appointment of member to the Library Advisory Board.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to
approve the purchase of an assemblage of commercial property located in
the Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area; authorize the CRA Chairman to
execute the real estate contract; authorize the Executive Director to
coordinate with appropriate entities to secure and structure financing to
complete the sale of subject property. Site address: 6.29 acres within the
Gateway mini-triangle. (Fiscal Impact $7,500,000)(Jean Jourdan, Project
Manager, Bayshore Gateway Triangle).
April 28, 2009
Page 6
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 Bristol Pines, Phase 1.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 2-11.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Ave Maria Unit Two, Park
of Commerce with the roadway and drainage improvements being
privately maintained.
4) Recommendation to award Bid #09-5193, Nuisance Abatement
Services, to Neal's Lawn and Landscaping, Inc. and Environmental
Mowing, Inc., in the estimated combined annual amount of$100,000.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the purchase of2.5 acres of unimproved
property which is required for the construction of a stormwater
retention and treatment pond for Phase II of the Vanderbilt Beach
Road Extension Project. Project No. 60168, Phase II (Fiscal Impact:
$69,544.00).
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (I) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement with two (2) roadway
recognition signs at a total cost of $150.00.
April 28, 2009
Page 7
3) Recommendation to award a construction contract to Engineer
Controls System Corp., for Bid No. 09-5176 Goodland Bridge
(030184) Repairs and Scour Remediation Project (CR 92 over Marco
Channel), in the amount of $542,998.20. Project #66066.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give after-
the-fact approval for the attached Water Savings Incentive Program
grant application that was submitted to the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) Agency for a Water Source
Conversion Project from Potable to Irrigation Quality Water in the
amount of$l58,733.75.
5) Request for authorization for the County Manager or his designee to
bring to the Board a proposed amendment to Ordinance 91-107, as
amended, which created the Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage
Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU), to amend the MSTUs
Ordinance to include providing for the installation of sidewalks and to
address beautification within its boundaries.
6) Recommendation to approve a local governmental agreement with the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) involving a
contribution of funds by the SFWMD totaling an amount not to
exceed $50,000.00 to provide assistance with construction of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Conservancy) filter marsh
project, which is adjacent to the Gordon River Greenway Park, and to
approve an agreement with the Conservancy whereby the County will
act as an agent between the SFWMD and the Conservancy for
disbursement of funds on the project and approve the necessary
budget amendment.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfaction of
Lien for the Solid Waste residential account wherein the County has
received payment and said Lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid
Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessment. Fiscal
impact is $28.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
Recommendation to approve the Identity Theft Prevention Program
for the Collier County Water-Sewer District utility pursuant to a
April 28, 2009
Page 8
ruling by the Federal Trade Commission requiring water utilities
among financial entities that must have a written plan in place by May
1,2009.
2) Recommendation to approve the purchase and installation of two
clarifier mechanisms from Mitchell and Stark Company, Inc. in the
amount of$419,355.00 for the North County Water Reclamation
Facility (NCWRF) Technical Support Project, Number 73968.
3) Recommendation to approve Schedule B of the Master Agreement for
Demand Side Management and Energy Efficiency Services
Agreement with Florida Power & Light Company for the
implementation of specific energy conservation options/measures, and
to authorize the needed financing in the amount of $351 ,812.
Authorization is also requested for Public Utilities Division expanded
partnering with Florida Power & Light Company; and the added
participation in this program by other county divisions.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to Award Bid #09-5168 Expendable Veterinary
Supplies and Equipment to three vendors including Fort Dodge
Animal Health Services, MWI Veterinary Supply and TW Medical
Veterinary on a line-by-line basis with an estimated annual
expenditure of $151 ,400.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its Chairman to sign a modification to Disaster
Recovery Grant Initiative Agreement #07DB-3V -09-21-0 l-ZO I
between the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and
Collier County. This modification will add new activities to utilize
grant funds previously awarded St. Matthews house.
3) Recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier County
HUD One Year Action Plan for FY 2009 - 2010 for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnerships
(HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADm) and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs; authorize the BCC
chairman to sign the approved resolution, contract templates required
HUD Certifications, SF 424 Application for Federal Assistance, and
April 28, 2009
Page 9
submission to HUD.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the after-the-fact submittal of a grant application for the East Naples
Community Center to the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners award Bid
#09-5221, Modular Homes for Housing and Human Services, to Idyll
Construction, Inc. in the amount of$344,259.00 to provide
replacement homes using Disaster Recovery Initiative funds to four
(4) households whose homes were severely damaged as a result of
Hurricane Wilma.
6) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
budget amendments totaling $77,999 to recognize additional funding
awarded from the Area Agency on Aging under the Older Americans
Act grant and authorize eligible expenditures prior to the execution of
the amendment.
7) Recommendation to approve budget amendments totaling $18,465 to
recognize additional revenue awarded in the Services for Seniors
program from the Area Agency on Aging for the State of Florida
General Revenue programs and authorize eligible expenditures prior
to the execution of the amendment.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to reject ITB #09-5191 for Court Reporting
Services, and extend current Bid #04-3685 for 180 days or until a new
bid is awarded.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners ratify a
deletion from the 2009 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan made
from January 2, 2009 through March 31, 2009.
3) Recommendation to award Request for Quote (RFQ) #07-0358 for the
installation and repair of fencing in various locations in Collier
County.
April 28, 2009
Page 10
4) Recommendation to approve a letter authorizing Emergent
Development Group, Inc. and Emergent Development Group II, LLC,
to include a County-owned property in their application to amend the
County's Growth Management Plan to add property to the existing
Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Petition No. CP-2008-2.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
an Agreement to provide an expenditure not to exceed Fifty-Four
Thousand and no/l 00 dollars ($54,000.00) from the GAC Land Trust
Fund to the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District for the
purchase of sixteen Mobile Data Terminals.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
an Agreement to provide an expenditure not to exceed Fifty thousand
three hundred seventy and no/100 dollars ($50,370.00) from the GAC
Land Trust Fund to the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue
District for the purchase of six Mobile Data Terminals.
7) Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and donation of items associated with the County surplus auction held
on March 28, 2009, resulting in gross revenues of$537,062.00.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Modification to the Fiscal Year 2009 Emergency Management
Preparedness and Assistance Grant accepting $18,834 and approve a
Budget Amendment to recognize and appropriate the revenue.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving budget amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give after-
the-fact approval for Collier County Governments Participation in a
Partner Agreement to be included with the Grant Proposal that was
Submitted by the Collier County School District for a Readiness and
Emergency Management for Schools Grant offered by the United
States Department of Educations Office of Safe and Drug Free
April 28, 2009
Page 11
Schools.
4) Approve budget amendments.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to award RFP #09-5154 to RW A, Inc. for the
purpose of updating the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA
Redevelopment Plan and mixed use overlays (Fiscal Impact
$263,500)
2) To approve and execute a Commercial Building Improvement Grant
Agreement(s) between the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and a Grant Applicant(s) within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area (3185
Van Buren Avenue).
3) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize its Chairman to execute a
Resolution authorizing the Collier County Airport Authority to enter
into Master Joint Participation Agreement 2009-A with the Florida
Department of Transportation to fund projects at the Everglades
Airpark, the Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Airport,
and approve associated budget amendments.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Airport Authority to utilize $140,700.99 from the
Immokalee Infrastructure Fund 497 for the reconstruction of the T-
hangar building at the Everglades Airpark damaged by Hurricane
Wilma, and associated budget amendments. Federal Aviation
Administration entitlement funds for Everglades Airpark will be
transferred to the Immokalee Regional Airport for infrastructure
projects to replace the funds used for hanger reconstruction at the
Everglades Airpark.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
April 28, 2009
Page 12
Attended the Boy Scouts toast for Leadership - Wine and Food
Festival Fundraiser on Saturday, March 21,2009, at the Bayfront in
Naples, Florida. $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Eastern Collier Chamber of Commerce Breakfast on
Wednesday, April I, 2009, at the Seminole Casino in Immokalee,
Florida. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending and speaking at the Leadership Collier "Campaign for
Leadership" on April 24-25, 2009 at The Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce Building in Naples, Florida. $35.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Migrant Matrix X meeting on Friday, October 3, 2008,
in Immokalee, Florida. $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Italian American Club Neapolitan Night on February 22,
2009 at the Italian American Club in Naples, FL. $45.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Rotary Club of Marco Island Spirit of Marco Island
A wards on April 17, 2009 at the San Marco Catholic Church Parish
Hall on Marco Island, FL. $45.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended a luncheon with members of the Pelican Bay Club Board of
April 28, 2009
Page 13
Directors on Tuesday, March 3,2009, at the Pelican Bay Club in
Naples, Florida. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel
budget.
8) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Annual Dinner Meeting and Installation of Collier
County Medical Staff Officers on Saturday, May 9, 2009 at Grey
Oaks Country Club in Naples, Florida. $50.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
9) Proclamation designating May 7, 2009 as National Day of Prayer.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
document for the Thirteenth Year State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program (SCAAP) Grant Funds.
2) Request that the Board of County Commissioners accepts and
approves capital asset disposition records for time period October I,
2008 through March 3 I, 2009.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April 4,
2009 through April 10, 2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April
11, 2009 through April 17, 2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Report on status of Board direction to initiate code enforcement
proceedings against Milano Recreation Association, Inc., in relation to
their refusal to allow residents of Imperial Golf Estates to access
Livingston Road, as agreed to in the PUD rezoning for Royal Palm
April 28, 2009
Page 14
Academy PUD.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive the
potential appearance of conflict in the retention of Gregory H. Woods,
Esq., as lead counsel for Collier County in the case styled G.L. Homes
of Naples Associates II, Ltd. vs. Collier County, Case No. 09-2451-
CA, in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. 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 Indexing Methodology Study, dated March 11,2009,
which is an amendment to the adopted Collier County Impact Fee Indexing
Study; amending Schedules Five through Ten of Appendix A by applying
the indexing percentages and thereby establishing the new impact fee rates
and re-organizing the layout of the schedules to a user-friendly format;
providing for re-organization of Schedules One, Three and Four in order to
provide more user-friendly format; and providing for a delayed effective
date of July 27,2009, in accordance with the 90-day notice period required
by Section 163.31801 (3)(d), Florida Statutes and the direction provided by
the Board on March 24, 2009.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2008-AR-14017
Merit Petroleum Company, represented by Bert Thomas, is requesting five
April 28, 2009
Page 15
Variances from the minimum 50-foot front yard setback requirement of
Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 5.05.05, Automobile Service
Stations, for two gasoline pump dispenser islands and a canopy in the
General Commercial (C-4) and Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD) to
allow a reduced setback along West Main Street to 48 feet and 31 feet for
the dispenser islands and 38 feet for the canopy; and along 7th Street South
to 33 feet for the westernmost dispenser island and 41 feet for the canopy.
The 0.45-acre subject property is located at 617 West Main Street, in Section
4, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida.
CTS
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2008-AR-13977
Tim Chess of McDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of
CPH Engineers, Inc., is requesting a Variance from the landscape
requirements of Land Development Code Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer
Requirements, in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle
Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the
required 7.5-foot wide buffer on the western side of the property; and to
reduced buffer widths on the property's northern side from 15 feet to ten
feet, the eastern side from 7.5 feet to five feet, and the southern side from 10
feet to five feet. The 0.86-acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami
Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.. CTS
D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2001-43
as amended, which created the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal Service Taxing
Unit (MSTU), to include providing underground trenching and burial of
utility lines from the street or transformer to private residences and, as
needed, arranging to locate the burial of such power lines alongside any
existing utility easements but excluding the expenditure of MSTU funds for
any additional wiring or installation of improvements or upgrades to connect
service to residences required by current code or resulting from any other
hardware nonconformity.
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving budget amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
April 28, 2009
Page 16
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
April 28, 2009
Page 17
April 28, 2009
MR.OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Welcome, everyone. So nice to see you all here. We're hoping
that you'll stay for the entire meeting. We should be done by six
o'clock. So -- we'd love to have you stay.
I'm just looking here at Lol Gaynor. Lol, it's so good to see you
in the audience. Bless your heart.
Now, will all of you stand, please. And we're going to have
Father Dennis Harten say the prayer, and then after that we will say
the Pledge of Allegiance.
FATHER HARTEN: My friends, for 800 years the thought ofa
great man has influenced groups such as this who are entrusted with
the care and the concern of their brothers and sisters.
Sometimes we're called to turn the world upside down, bringing
exactly the opposite of what we find in the world. Francis of Assisi
offers us a bold prayer. And as we pray this prayer, I invite you to
think about situations that you may be involved in that require peace,
consolation, hope or light or joy.
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is
hatred, let me show love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is
doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness,
light; where there is sadness, joy.
Lord, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, but to
console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love, for
it is in giving that we receive, in pardoning that we are pardoned, and
in dying that we are born to eternal life.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Thank you. And our Assistant County Manager, Leo Ochs, will
start this off.
Page 2
April 28, 2009
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W /CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am. Good morning,
Commissioners.
BCC agenda changes for April 28, 2009. First change is an
add-on, the add-on Item 5B. That will be a presentation regarding the
swine flu outbreak by Dr. Joan Colfer, your Collier County Public
Health Director. That's at staffs request.
Next item is add on Item lOA, and that is a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners adopts a resolution in opposition
to drilling for natural gas and oil within three miles of the shoreline of
Florida, and that item would be presented by Jack Wert, your tourism
director.
Next item is a move for Item 16D3 to lOB, and that is a
recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier County
HUD one-year action plan for FY2009/2010 for a Community
Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnerships, American
Dream Down Payment Initiatives, and Emergency Shelter Grant
Programs, authorizing the BCC to sign the approved resolution.
Contract templates required, HUD certifications, SF-424 applications,
for federal assistance and submission to HUD.
Madam Chair, the County Attorney's Office in working with the
finance director has a few changes there, and that's the reason for that
pull. They're not substantive, and we'll bring that forward and get the
board's consideration there.
Next item is a withdrawal of 16Gl. It's a recommendation to
award RFP number 09-5154 to RW A, Inc., for the purpose of updating
the Gateway Triangle CRA redevelopment plan and mixed-use
Page 3
April 28, 2009
overlays. That's a staff request for withdraw due to a formal protest,
and we'll deal with the protest and bring this item back at a later date.
We also have a continuance at the petitioner's request. Item 17C
has been continued to the May 12,2009, BCC meeting. That's a
variance request from a general commercial C to a Gateway Triangle
mixed-use subdistrict, and it involves some landscaping at the
McDonald's building in the Gateway Plaza, and we'll, as the note says,
continue that to May 12th with the board's permission.
Madam Chair, I have one more agenda note that's not on your
change sheet, but I wanted to bring it to the board's attention before
you set your agenda. This morning you have two companion items,
Item 6B and Item 8C. 6B is a public petition by Ms. Linda Griffin to
discuss permitting requirements for as-builts for underground utilities,
and 8C is a staff-proposed ordinance amendment having to do with
those very changes.
I was hoping that the board would consider moving 8C up to be
heard along with 6B this morning. I've spoken with the County
Attorney about that, and even though 8C is typically heard after one
p.m. as an advertised public hearing, your agenda does note that those
items can be heard no sooner than one o'clock unless otherwise noted.
I don't know if the County Attorney has any guidance to provide the
board on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The board has some flexibility, and
we've got a light morning scheduled. The choice really is to fill up the
morning or to adjourn early and stay here till six or seven.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Board members, do I hear some--
see some nods? Okay to do?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to stay here till six or seven.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can order pizza.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He always brings his sense of humor
around. That's right.
MR. OCHS: If you'd include that in your motion when you
Page 4
April 28, 2009
adopt the agenda, I'd appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Those are all the changes I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And with that, we'll go to the
commissioners to see if they have any changes to agenda, any
corrections, or any ex parte to disclose on either the consent agenda or
the summary agenda.
We'll start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I have no further
changes to the agenda. I have no disclosures for the consent agenda.
And since 17C has been continued, I have only a disclosure for 17B. I
have received correspondence concerning that item, and the
correspondence is included in my public file.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Madam
Chair. I have no -- nothing to change on today's agenda, and on the
consent agenda I have no disclosures, and on the summary agenda, I
do not have any disclosures either, so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All I have is a question. I have
no disclosures or any further changes. Which item was it that there
was a protest on a bid? I don't have that on my change sheet.
MR.OCHS: It was a -- the item was drawn by staff, sir. It's
16G 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: The CRA item.
Page 5
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Says, staffs requesting a formal protest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Good morning, Madam
Chair. I have no disclosures for either the consent agenda or the
summary agenda, and I have nothing to change for the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. And I, too, have no
changes or additions to our agenda and no disclosures on the consent
or the summary agenda.
And with that, gentlemen, I'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved, to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve the
agenda and a second by -- the motion is made by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor -- oh, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include moving SC to
the public petition?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, it does, and thank you for bringing
that up just to make sure that we're on target there. Thank you.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Page 6
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And now we move on to -
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
April 28. 2009
Add On Item 5B: Presentation regarding the Swine Flu outbreak, by Dr. Joan Colfer, Collier
County Public Health Director. (Staff's request.)
Add On Item 10A: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts a
Resolution in opposition to drilling for natural gas and oil within three miles of the shoreline of
Florida. (Jack Wert, Tourism Director.)
Move Item 16D3 to 10B: Recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier County
HUD One Year Action Plan for FY 2009-2010 for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
Home Investment Partnerships (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Programs; authorize the BCC chairman to sign the approved
resolution, contract templates required HUD Certifications, SF 424 Application for Federal
Assistance, and submission to HUD. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16G1: Recommendation to award RFP #09-5154 to RWA, Inc., for the purpose of
updating the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Redevelopment Plan and mixed use overlays
(Fiscal impact $263,500). (Staff's request due to formal protest.)
Continue Item HC to the Mav 12. 2009 BCC meetin~: VA-2008-AR-13977 Tim Chess of
McDonalds USA, LLC, represented by Jeffrey Satfield of CPH Engineers, Inc., is requesting a
variance from the landscape requirements of Land Development Code Subsection 4.06.02, Buffer
Requirements, in the General Commercial (C-4) and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict
(GTMUD-MXD), to allow a modification of the required 7.5-foot wide buffer on the western side of
the property; and to reduce buffer widths on the property's northern side from 15 feet to ten feet,
the eastern side from 7.5 feet to five feet, and the southern side from 10 feet to five feet. The 0.86-
acre subject property is located at 2886 Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
4/28/20098:57 AM
April 28, 2009
Item #2B, #2C, #2D and #2E
MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 10, 2009 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING; AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
MARCH 10,2009 BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES; MARCH
24, 2009 BCC/REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AND THE
MARCH 27,2009 BCC/AIRPORT AUTHORITY WORKSHOP
MEETING MINUTES - APPROVED W/CHANGES
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the March 10,
2009, BCC regular meeting; amendments to the previous approved
March 10,2009, minutes to correct the transcript to comments made
by Laura Mitchell during public comment that read, on two occasions
my neighbor seemed unstable. That should read my neighbor seems
unstoppable.
Well, everybody's awake this morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And listening.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: March 24, 2009, BCC regular
meeting; and March 27,2009, BCC Airport Authority workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second to
approve all of the minutes just mentioned.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we move right on to proclamations.
Page 8
April 28, 2009
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS: ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN ADOPTING
ALL PROCLAMATIONS EXCEPT FOR ITEM #4E (SEE TITLES
BELOW)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve Section 4 of our agenda, proclamations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes, except I would like to read
one of them, just step aside from protocol just a minute right now, and
I would like to read the one that talks about the history of our Collier
County, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Madam Chair, do you have all the
agendas (sic) there?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All the proclamations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The proclamations, okay. So we're
clear.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know which item that
was. I can include it in my motion, except for 4E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: E.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There you go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So motion is to accept all except
for 4E, or move all except for 4E.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a second on that.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
Page 9
April 28, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And what that means is, instead of each
us reading all of the proclamations -- and there are many on this
agenda today -- we're going to call each group up to receive their
proclamation, congratulate them for all the hard work that they do
within our community, except for the one that has to do with the
history of Collier County, which we will read.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION CONGRA TULA TING MARIO LANCIANI,
CEO; JACK MORGAN, PROJECT MANAGER; CLAY CROSS,
PROJECT ENGINEER; CARLA MORGAN, AND ALL THE
STAFF OF AST ALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION FOR
THEIR OUTSTANDING GREENE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
CONTINUED EFFORTS TO PROMOTE WASTE REDUCTION
AND RECYCLING. THEIR GREENE TEAM PROMOTES
ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND SETS A POSITIVE
EXAMPLE FOR OTHERS. THEIR INITIATIVES WILL HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON SUSTAINING THE USABLE LIFE
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL AND PROTECTING
THE ENVIRONMENT - ADOPTED
And we'll start off with -- we'll start off with the proclamation
congratulating Mario Manciani, CEO; Jack Morgan, project manager;
Clay Cross, project engineer; Carla Morgan, and all the staff of
Astaldi Construction Corporation for their outstanding greene business
practices and continued efforts to promote waste reduction and
recycling.
The greene team promotes environmental awareness and sets a
positive example for others. Their initiatives will have a significant
effect on sustaining the usable life of the Collier County Landfill and
Page 10
April 28, 2009
protecting the environment.
Thank you very much for all your work.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Sir, if you'd step forward and accept the
proclamation and get a photo in front of the commission dais, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we'll have another one for them as
well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Get more pictures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All kinds of things. Now I want to see
who's got the third hand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now we'll take another picture.
(Applause.)
MR. MORGAN: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you tell us why you
deserve that?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir, we will.
MS. MORGAN: Do you want me to just step over here?
MR. OCHS: Yes, please.
MS. MORGAN: Hello. First of all we want to thank the Collier
County Commissioners for recognizing our efforts, and we'd also like
to thank a couple of individuals that helped us get this award. They
are John Berry of Berry Recycling, and Jack Morgan. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY, 2009 AS
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH. TO BE
ACCEPTED BY RUSS UEECK, PRESIDENT, GATOR ALLEY
CHAPTER, DARRIN BROOKS, SECRETARY AND
Page 11
April 28, 2009
LEGISLATIVE TRUSTEE, GATOR ALLEY CHAPTER, TINA
LOY, STATE DELEGATE, GATOR ALLEY CHAPTER, RICK
LOY, STATE DELEGATE, GATOR ALLEY CHAPTER AND
DAVE RICH, PR TRUSTEE, GATOR ALLEY CHAPTER -
ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, your next item is 5B (sic). It's a
proclamation designating May 9 -- excuse me -- May, 2009, as
Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. To be accepted by Russ Ueeck,
president Gator Alley chapter; Darrin Brooks, secretary and legislative
trustee, Gator Alley chapter; Tina Loy, state delegate Gator Alley
chapter; Rick Loy, state delegate, Gator Alley chapter; and Dave Rich,
PR trustee, Gator Alley chapter.
Come forward, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Come on down. You guys do a lot of
good work in this community. Thank you. We appreciate that.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 28, 2009 AS
NORMAN NADEL DAY, IN CELEBRATION OF OLDER
AMERICANS MONTH. TO BE ACCEPTED BY NORMAN
NADEL - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating April 28,
2009, as Norman Nadel Day in celebration of Older Americans
Month. To be accepted by Norman Nadel. Mr. Nadel?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Nadel, our Commissioner Halas has
just been singing your praises up here. I'm just excited to be shaking
Page 12
April 28, 2009
your hand.
MR. NADEL: Well, thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Nadel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you'd turn it around, Norm, so
that we can see the ray. The other way.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to say a few words?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You can say it right over there at
that microphone as you go back.
MR. NADEL: After a while we older people move more slowly.
I wish to thank the county commissioners and the county and my
wife and the other people who have been involved with my own
activities in the arts here and elsewhere. You've been very kind. I
appreciate this very much. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING COLLIER COUNTY
HEAL TH DEPARTMENT AND COLLIER COUNTY CDES
DEPARTMENTS FOR THEIR EXEMPLARY EFFORTS IN
STRIVING TO MAKE THE IMMOKALEE HOUSING
INITIATIVE THE SUCCESS IT HAS BEEN. TO BE ACCEPTED
BY DR. JOAN COLFER, NANCY FREES, KITCHELL SNOW
AND THE TEAM FROM IMMOKALEE CODE ENFORCEMENT,
ALAMAR FINNEGAN AND WANDA WARREN - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation congratulating Collier
County Health Department and Collier County Community
Development and Environmental Services Department for their
exemplary efforts in striving to make the Immokalee Housing
Page 13
April 28, 2009
Initiative the success it has been. To be accepted by Dr. Joan Colfer,
Nancy Frees, Kitchel Snow, and the team from Immokalee Code
Enforcement, Alamar Finnegan and W anda Warren.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Joan?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you all done in Immokalee?
You all done in Immokalee? You're not?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean Dr. Colfer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is something that all
residents of Collier County can be extremely proud in. Immokalee
has been a challenge for many, many years, and the progress that's
been made has been absolutely unbelievable, and that's why I asked
for this proclamation today.
Joan, or would one other person from this staff like to make some
comments after we take this final picture? Did you want to get a
picture? You're all set. Thank you.
DR. COLFER: Thank you very much.
Good morning. While folks are taking their seats, just a few
quick comments.
This was a joint effort between code enforcement, community
development, and our staff in the health department at the site out in
Immokalee, and they certainly have worked for -- actually for a couple
of years now to try and improve migrant housing.
There's no reason for people to live in deplorable conditions and,
you know, with adequate staff, we can certainly make those
improvements. You know, some -- some pretty historical places
actually are no longer there anymore, and we're really very proud of
that.
We had diseases coming out of some of these homes, and they're
no longer a site for that, so we're really proud of that. Thank you for
the opportunity to improve that housing.
(Applause.)
Page 14
April 28, 2009
MR. SNOW: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you very
much for the proclamation.
I was riding with my wife in the community yesterday and she
looked at me and said, you know, this doesn't look that bad. And I
was like -- I never really thought of it in that perspective before, but I
think she's right. I think we've -- code enforcement, along with the
other agencies, have stopped blight in our community; and I would
urge the board, rather than with the upcoming budgets, to maybe think
about adding staff rather than cutting staff, because we have to prevent
this, and we've stopped it so far, and I think we all need to be proud of
that. If you go to the other counties, you can see a big difference.
So thank you very much for the support that we receive.
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 8, 2009 AS THE 85TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE DATE COLLIER COUNTY WAS
CREATED. ACCEPTED BY THE BROWNS AND ROBERT'S
FAMILY MEMBERS FROM IMMOKALEE, STORTERS FROM
EVERGLADES, JOHN MORGAN, MARCO ISLAND, COLLIER
F AMIL Y REPRESENTATIVES FROM MILE'S SIDE AND
JUDY'S SIDE, SAM COLDING FOR HWY 29, LAVERN NORRIS
GAYNOR, AND MARY WATKINS, NBYH AMBASSADOR
HONORING THESE PIONEERING FAMILIES - ADOPTED AS
AMENDED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4E is a proclamation
designating May 8, 2009, as the 85th anniversary of the day Collier
County was created. To be accepted by Browns and Roberts family
members from Immokalee; Storters from Everglades; John Morgan,
Marco Island; Collier family representatives from Miles' side and
Judy's side; Sam Coling for Highway 29; Lavern Norris Gaynor and
Page 15
April 28, 2009
Mary Watkins, NBYH ambassador, honoring these pioneering
families.
If you could please all come forward, and I know Chairman Fiala
would like to read the proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I sure would, and I want to say -- oh, look
at all these great people that have started our community, been the
backbone of our community, and it's our 86th year. Got a little typo
there. And also, I believe we had Collier County first entry into the
20th year Florida History Fair, we have Seacrest Country Day
School's Constantine Baumgartner who entered a history paper on the
face of John Brown, and home school student, Ian Cox, and will they
come up as well, presenting a web site on Hernando De Escolonte
Fontinoda -- I didn't pronounce that right -- his life with the Calusa of
Southwest Florida.
And with that. Thank you all for being here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Whereas, Naples Cultural Landscape and
its educational arm, Naples Backyard History, in cooperation with the
Economic Development Council, Convention Visitor's Bureau, the
Greater Naples and Everglades, Marco Island, and Immokalee
Chambers of Commerce are calling upon the citizens of the great
County of Collier to recognize May 8th as the official birth of this
great County of Collier; and,
Whereas, on May 8, 1923, the Florida State Legislature approved
the new county of Collier, naming it after Barron Gift Collier, III, and,
Whereas, Barron Collier's past, present, and future caretakers
were, are, and will be intent upon safeguarding the unique memories
of our pioneers who made and continue to make our county a better
place to live and a charming place to visit; and,
Whereas, the pioneer families and old-timers who settled here
and were born of the passion to make their town better for all call
upon all of our citizens to join in learning about the unique history of
Page 16
April 28, 2009
these individuals, as well as the history in their own backyard; and,
Whereas, upon the memory of Barron Collier, III, Collier
County's past caretakers and the desire of the present stewards of the
great County of Collier, we call upon all to celebrate the county's
heritage, culture, and memories on this special birthday celebration;
and,
Whereas, the Smithsonian Institute's Cultural Heritage Tourism
Study determined approximately 68 percent of guests to a destination
city choose authentic areas as their first choice to visit. May will
become an economic opportunity for the County of Collier and its
supporting museum, parks and preserves located in the diverse areas
incorporating the County of Collier, greater Naples, Marco Island,
Goodland, Everglades City, Chokoloskee, Highway 29, and
Immokalee; and,
Whereas, we affirm our commitment to safeguard and promote
our defining cultural landscapes, our unique history and heritage that
have and will continue to distinguish the great County of Collier as the
preeminent destination in Southwest Florida to visit, the world-class
place to locate a business, and the county that takes pride in
showcasing the magic in this place that we have the honor of calling
home.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that May 8, 2009, be
designated as the official 86th year when Collier County was birthed.
Done and ordered this 28th day of April, 2009, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala, Chairman.
And, Commissioners, I make a motion to approve this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a resounding second from
many.
Page 17
April 28, 2009
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And thank you
for all that you do for us.
(Applause.)
MS. COLDING: As our guests are taking their seats, and these
wonderful pioneering families, I would just like to say on behalf of
Ms. Gaynor and me how delighted we are, and we thank you so much
for your support.
And we'd like for you to be on the lookout because there's a
history quiz that's going to be coming online in the Naples Daily News
so you can learn more about the history in your own backyard. So
thank you very much.
Item #4 F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 3RD THROUGH MAY
9TH, 2009 AS COLLIER COUNTY FIREFIGHTER
APPRECIATION WEEK. ACCEPTED BY JIM SQUITTERI, MDA
COORDINATOR, GOLDEN GATE FIRE DEPARTMENT-
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4 F is a proclamation
designating May 3rd through May 9, 2009, as Collier County
Firefighter Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Jim Squitteri,
MDA coordinator, Golden Gate Fire Department.
Page 18
April 28, 2009
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Item 4G is a proc- -- oh, excuse me.
MR. SQUITTERI: I'll make it quick. I just wanted to say I'm
honored to accept this proclamation on behalf of not only the
hard-working firefighters of the Golden Gate Fire Department, but all
the firefighters and EMS throughout the county, and this proclamation
recognizes their hard work and their willingness to do the things that
need to be done to help these families with these diseases.
And we'll be out there in the streets again. So we'll see you out
there and help fill the boot. Thank you.
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 6 THROUGH MAY 12,
2009 AS NATIONAL NURSES WEEK 2009. ACCEPTED BY
KARLEEN HANNA, CAROLYN KLOOSTERHOUSE, PAT
MARKET, DENISE MCNULTY, JUDY NULAND, JACKIE
PERRINE AND ELAINE WADE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4G is a proclamation designating May 6th through
May 12,2009 as National Nurses Week. To be accepted by Karleen
Hanna, Carolyn Kloosterhouse, Pat Market, Denise McNulty, Judy
Nuland, Jackie Perrine, and Elaine Wade.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who accepts this? Thank you. I was
waiting for somebody to come up with a nurse's cap on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Keep them on their feet, right?
(Applause.)
Item #4 H
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 17 THROUGH MAY
23,2009 AS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE
Page 19
April 28, 2009
WOMEN WEEK. ACCEPTED BY BELINDA ZIVICH -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4 H is a proclamation designating May 17th
through May 23, 2009, as National Association of Insurance Women
Week. To be accepted by Belinda Zivich.
(Applause.)
MS. ZIVICH: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #41
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY, 2009 AS JILL AND
DAN BURZYNSKI MONTH IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR
UNIQUE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM LINKING NAPLES HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH AREA ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY RESIDENTS. ACCEPTED BY JILL AND DAN
BURZYNSKI-ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 41 is a proclamation designating May, 2009, as Jill
and Dan Burzinski Month, in recognition of their unique scholarship
program linking Naples High School students with area assisted living
facility residents. To be accepted by Jill and Dan Burzinski.
(Applause.)
MR. BURZINSKI: Thanks.
MS. BURZINSKI: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
As elder law attorneys here in Naples, we see every day the
wonderful contributions and stories that the senior citizens of the
community have to tell, and we decided it would be a great way to
give back to the community if we could arrange a scholarship
whereby Naples High seniors would write biographies of senior
citizens in the nearby assisted living community of Homewood.
Page 20
April 28, 2009
And this is the first year that we've done this. We awarded four
scholarships to seniors at Naples High, and the biographies were
written. They were fabulous. They were much better than we ever
expected them to be, and we hope to do this every year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4J
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING TOURISM WEEK IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY JACK WERT - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 4J is a proclamation designating Tourism Week in
Collier County. To be accepted by Jack Wert.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've done this once before.
MR. WERT: Yeah, maybe.
Thank you so much, Commissioners, for this recognition on
behalf of the 31,000 people and Collier County residents of our great
community here. Thank you. This is a wonderful recognition of this
industry .
And we will actually have an opportunity to have Chairman Fiala
read this at our tourism luncheon on May the 13th. We'll be
recognizing some wonderful stars of our industry, some -- for some
really great contributions that they've made to make our visitors feel at
home while they're here. So thank you so much for this.
(Applause.)
Item #4 K
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 26, 2009 THROUGH
MAY 2, 2009 AS COLLIER COUNTY CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS
Page 21
April 28, 2009
WEEK. ACCEPTED BY LORIE EASH, COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SHAINA HICKS, PROJECT HELP AND
BETTY ARDA Y A, STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4K is a proclamation designating April 26,
2009, through May 2,2009, as Collier County Crime Victims' Rights
Week. To be accepted by Lorie Eash, Collier County Sheriffs Office;
Shaina Hicks, Project Help; and Betty Ardaya, State Attorney's
Office.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
CLAY CROSS OF ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
WILL PROVIDE UPDATED INFORMATION ON THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6-LANE HIGHWAY BETWEEN
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AND DAVIS BLVD.
LINKING POLL Y A VENUE TO THE EXISTING SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD. PROJECT INCLUDES ROADWORK,
UTILITY LINES, STREET-LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS,
DRAINAGE PONDS AND LASIP CANAL WORK - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That moves us to Item 5, our presentations, ma'am.
First presentation is project manager Jack Morgan of Astaldi
Construction Corporation to provide an update and information on the
construction of the new six-lane highway between Rattlesnake
Hammock Road and Davis Boulevard linking Polly Avenue to the
existing Santa Barbara Boulevard.
This project includes roadwork, utility lines, street-lighting,
sidewalks, drainage ponds and the Lely Area Storm Improvement
canal work.
Jay Ahmad, your director of transportation, engineering, and
Page 22
April 28, 2009
construction management, will begin the presentation.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
For the record, I'm Jay Ahmad. I'm your director of transportation,
engineering, and construction management.
With me this morning is Clay Cross with Astaldi Construction
who will present to you the status of this project.
This project, as it was read into the record, is the new
construction project that started from Rattlesnake north to Davis
Boulevard. It's essentially six-Ianing a new six-lane highway that
would connect with the current construction projects north of Davis
that -- also six-Ianing to Golden Gate Parkway.
The project started on December 1st this year, and we expect
completion by October -- by April of next year, 2010.
There are a few things I'd like to mention about this project, that
staff and -- we have a lot -- realigned our staff -- and Joe Delate is the
project administrator with your staff -- to do the CEI in-house.
Construction engineering inspection was traditionally done by
our consultant community, and due to shrinkage of our work program,
we have realigned staff, and actually now we are doing the inspection
and the fieldwork with your staff, with our in-house staff. That saved
us approximately $2 million that is available for our work program
and other projects.
Additionally, Joe Delate has initiated saving taxes by direct
purchase of material, such as pipes and other material. To date we
saved approximately $106,000 in just tax savings, and we're pleased
that those are things that are happening.
Without due delay, 1'11 introduce Clay Cross, who will explain to
you the project. The project is on time, and actually due to the savings
we've been doing, it's under budget. And Clay.
MR. CROSS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Clay
Cross. I'm with Astaldi Construction. This is project number 60091,
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Page 23
April 28, 2009
Joe's putting up a diagram here, a picture, of the project. Goes
from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock. This project consists
of a six-lane highway with -- the project includes roadwork, utility
lines, street-lighting, sidewalks, drainage improvements, ponds, and
the LASIP canal work.
Currently we have one pond fully excavated, another pond will
be done in a couple weeks, and the canal is fully excavated with
pictures here showing our road widening.
This is another photograph here of the project with the noise
wall. This is to reduce the -- there's a subdivision behind the project
here -- to reduce the noise.
In addition, this is another project of the pond excavation. This is
the southernmost pond. This is the project -- this is the picture here of
the weir, which is part of the LASIP canal.
One of the things I'd like to mention here, the project has an
original budget of$18,947,979.l2. The new budget -- the revised
budget now is $17,071,884.37. This is due to the county purchasing
the material for all the utilities in the project. It gave a tax savings of
$106,000, which allows you guys, the county, public residents, to put
the money back in for future transportation projects.
This is one of the efforts that the county came to us with to
initiate this, and this worked well. A contractor doesn't really like to
see his budget -- or his contract reduced, but in the effort here to help
everyone, it's something we believe in doing.
This is also part of a partnering effort that the project team,
Astaldi, ourselves, have had a partnering session which was
developed, and basically it's an effort to reducing the impacts as far as
delays, time, stuff like that, and I feel that our relationship has done
very well.
One of the other things is the green initiative which we received
the award for earlier. To expand on that, what we've done there is we
have the material from the clearing grub and debris, which is trees,
Page 24
April 28, 2009
stuff like that, we've recycled and put back into the median.
As part of this effort to go green, another thing that we've done is
we've reduced the amount of paperwork as far as hard paper going
back and forth by utilizing email transmissions, CDs, because, you
know, with projects there are boxes upon boxes of paper, so that's one
of the issues -- or one of the initiatives we've done.
And that's about it. Any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It cannot be said too many
times, the process the county has used on this particular contract and,
in fact, we've been using on many contracts over the years, for the
county to purchase certain materials and thereby avoid the payment of
sales tax resulting in savings to our taxpayers, we've been doing this
for years, it's working fine. Both you and Jay mentioned that. I think
it needs to be emphasized again, particularly in our difficult economic
times where the county is working to try to make sure that taxpayer
money is spent wisely.
And now with that, I'd like to ask if Astaldi would be willing to
round off that revised budget and drop the 37 cents.
MR. CROSS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. More savings for the
taxpayer. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I told you he brought along his sense of
humor.
Thank you so much for a great report, and you're doing a good
job. I just went down there to take a look yesterday, and, man, it looks
wonderful. Thank you.
MR. CROSS: We do our best, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #5B
Page 25
April 28, 2009
PRESENT A nON REGARDING THE SWINE FLU OUTBREAK,
BY DR. JOAN COLFER, COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH
DIRECTOR - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, your next item was an add-on.
That's Item 5B, and that is a presentation regarding the swine flu
outbreak by Dr. Joan Colfer, Collier County Public Health Director.
Dr. Colfer?
DR. COLFER: Thank you, Mr. Ochs.
Good morning. For the record, I'm Dr. Joan Colfer, director of
the Collier County Health Department.
Thank you for this opportunity to update you on the swine flu
situation which is a rapidly evolving event.
Last night the Wodd Health Organization raised their pandemic
alert phase to Phase IV. That's in recognition of the fact that this is a
novel virus which means that the human population has no immunity
to it.
It also recognizes that it has the potential for large community
outbreaks such as what you're seeing from Mexico.
Currently there are an unknown number of cases of swine flu in
Mexico, and deaths. Certainly less deaths are being confirmed by
CDC than what you're actually hearing in the media. But nevertheless
that certainly heightens our concern.
In the United States, there are now 40 cases in five different
states that have been confirmed by CDC. I know the media, again, is
reporting more cases than the 40, but on the CDC's website, I left -- I
looked again before I left the house -- they're still reporting 40. It's
entirely possible when they update that later today that it may go to an
extra few cases.
There are also a handful of cases in other countries. There are no
cases in the State of Florida, no cases in Collier County right now that
we know of.
Page 26
April 28, 2009
The good news is we do have a plan. It's part of the federal plan,
it's part of the state plan, and part of your local county emergency plan
here, here in this area.
I'm going to just real quickly give you the broad-brush version of
it. It's got two parts, and we are in the first part, and its focus now is
on rapid case finding and case control. So what that means is if we
find a case, just like we control cases of other respiratory diseases like,
for instance, tuberculosis. We'll find the case, we'll isolate that case at
home. They'll be treated with anti-virals, and they'll be asked to stay
at home until they're no longer infectious, and that way we hope to
contain this disease.
We'll also treat their contacts, if they have some, and hopefully
we'll be able to not have this spread into the general community.
Now, we can do that for a certain number of cases, but at some
point it may become unmanageable. If we have hundreds and
hundreds of cases, it will outstrip the ability of the health department
even though we have trained additional staff in other areas other than
our typical epidemiology functions to be able to do this.
If that happens, if we have an overwhelming number of cases that
we can't manage, then we would have to move to community controls,
and that's what you're seeing on television in Mexico. They've lost the
ability to control the outbreak, and that's when you will see us ask for
other measures, other more stringent things for people to do. That's
when you go to things like canceling public meetings, closing down
schools, and asking the general public to wear masks when they go
about their business.
Right now there's no reason for anybody to be wearing a mask
unless they're sick, unless they are coughing. And we have told
healthcare facilities, you know, if people come to the doors, you
know, with a cough, with a fever, with influenza-like illnesses, put the
mask on the patient, okay? But at the moment, we feel like the
community is safe. You should be able to go about your business as
Page 27
April 28, 2009
usual. If that changes, 1'11 be back here to tell you about that.
So what else have we been asked to do and what else are we
doing? On Friday the state health department asked all the counties in
Florida to increase their surveillance. It's usually the first step in any
kind of an outbreak.
So on Friday we sent information to hospitals and physicians
asking them to obtain specimens on cases that met the definition,
which is basically an influenza-like illness, people that have a fever
over a hundred and a cough and with a specific traveling history,
travel to Mexico, travel to the affected counties, primarily California
and Texas, or exposure to somebody else that's traveled to those areas.
So those are the people that we want specimens on so that we can find
any cases.
But I want to stress again, we have no cases today, and we're still
in a case-finding case-containment mode.
Okay. So what can you do? What can the general public do here
to protect themselves? And Susan, if you'll put up on the visualizer.
There's a lot of things you can do. These are the things your mother
taught you. I'm not going to talk about all of them, but just a few.
Avoid close contact with people that are sick. If people are out
there coughing, you don't want them coughing in your face. Move
back. And CDC's now recommending 6 feet. Move at least 6 feet
away from these folks.
If you are sick or your children are sick, stay at home. Please do
not go out. If you need to seek medical care, call your doctor's office
and -- so they meet you at the door with a mask.
Cover your coughs and sneezes. We've been trying to teach
people to cough into their sleeve. Don't cough into your hands. So
you put your hands on the doorknob, somebody else touches it, they
rub their eyes and nose, and then they can get infected. And wash
your hands; wash your hands often throughout the day.
Also, now is the time to build your home flu kit. We've also been
Page 28
April 28, 2009
trying to teach people to do this. We have an upcoming hurricane
season. If this becomes -- if this is just a mild flu, you'll be able to use
those same supplies for hurricane season.
But when you're at the store, buy some extra cans of things like
ginger ale, crackers, easily digestible soup, chicken noodle soup. Buy
some extra boxes of Kleenex, because if you're a case, you will be told
to stay at home, and you won't be able to go out and get those things.
You can also go to our collierprepares.org website where you can
find information on building your flu kit. We also have plenty of
brochures already made up, English and Spanish, for what to do, and
you can get this brochure off the website. I'll put these outside on the
table there.
In addition, we have opened this morning a swine flu information
line at the health department, and the number -- Susan, if you can go
back to the first one -- the number's on the bottom of that page. It's
252-6220. That is for all questions regarding the flu.
And I think I'll stop there and answer any questions that you may
have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dr. Colfer, as you mentioned, one
of the reasons something like this spreads so rapidly is through travel.
We have a highly mobile population with hundreds of thousands of
people flying from place to place every day.
DR. COLFER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Some of the airports in the orient
are actually scanning passengers to detect those who have fevers.
Is the CDC planning to do anything or issue any guidelines
concerning that, or is there any intent to try to provide some regulation
to the airline industry?
DR. COLFER: That's a good question, and actually we have our
own staff, some of our own staff trained to participate in that if the
CDC decides to do that.
Page 29
April 28, 2009
To date they have not. The only thing they have done in concert
with the Secretary for Homeland Security is to advise people not to
travel to Mexico at this point. But no, they are not doing anything
more than what they routinely do, which is if people come off of the
plane sick, telling them that they do need to seek medical care. So no,
they have that capability but they haven't done it yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it better to do it early than after
it's spread?
DR. COLFER: Wisdom would suggest that, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there anything we could do to
encourage them to do that?
DR. COLFER: Certainly the health director is on our daily
conference calls with the state health department to do that. The usual
means of communication, we communicate to the state, the state talks
to the CDC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're never going to get
that done.
DR. COLFER: Well, we'll see. You know, it's just last night at
five o'clock that the World Health Organization raised the alert level
to four. That might move them a little bit more along those lines.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The next step is what? What are
the consequences of moving it to the next step?
DR. COLFER: It -- really the things that Florida is already
doing. Florida on conference call yesterday was really taking a much
more proactive step. We really believe in the case control and the
case confinement. We do this kind of thing every day. And we think
with the public's cooperation we will be able to contain these folks at
home if we have any cases. Nobody wants to make anybody else sick,
and we're hopeful that we can contain it.
You know, Mexico is a very different place than Collier County.
I lived there for a number of years. They have a very poor public
health system. They also -- Mexico City's got 21 million people, and
Page 30
April 28, 2009
at least a million or two live on the outskirts in hovels. They just don't
have the ability to control that. At least they've now recognized it and
moved to the community controls, closing everything down for at least
two incubation periods and seeing if they can get a grip on it. We
really hope they can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a couple questions also.
DR. COLFER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mentioned that they have now, the
World Health Organization is -- has listed it as Phase IV. Could you
tell me -- I don't know what Phase IV is. I don't know if there's 50
phases or five phases. I don't know where it is.
DR. COLFER: Good question, thank you. There's actually six
phases to this, and Phase IV means, again, that it's a, you know, novel
virus, no immunity to it. It means that there is a potential pandemic,
which pandemic means global, that this, you know, has the potential
to become a global event but they're not calling it that yet because we
don't have -- you know, we don't have widespread human-to-human
transition. We've got that in Mexico, but we don't have that yet in the
United States. We've got these little pockets of what they're calling
sustained human-to-human transmission.
If they go to Phase V, it's widespread, human infection; and
Phase VI means that, you know, we truly do have a pandemic and that
-- you know, that it will spread, it will be everywhere. But we're not
there yet, and we're hopeful that we don't go there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second question I have is, is the
United States of America putting tighter controls on our borders now
to try and prevent those trying to escape Mexico from whatever is
going on there who might also be infected coming across the boarding
here into the U.S.?
DR. COLFER: The first reports that we heard on Friday were
that in certain border crossings they were trying to do that. Mexicali
Page 3 1
April 28, 2009
was one. I can't remember, you know, all the others. But in certain
places I think they have tightened up the borders.
But, again, they're not going to that next step yet, which is what
Commissioner Coyle mentioned, which was looking at, you know,
every single person that gets off a plane. So, you know, we'll see
through the day whether this changes a little bit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Dr. Colfer. Thank you
very much for taking the time to come here today --
DR. COLFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because when it comes down
to a possible disaster such as we're talking about, it's going to be local
resources that are going to come into play. It's not going to be a
federal government or the state government that's going to be stepping
in to provide this type of help.
I understand that you have already scheduled sometime in the
past, and it just happens to coincide with this, a workshop on how to
react in time of a pamademic (sic), and it's going to be for medical
professionals. Did you want to mention what it is in case we have
some medical professionals out there that would like to contribute to
it?
DR. COLFER: Certainly. I think you're referring to the
pandemic influenza drill --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
DR. COLFER: -- that is scheduled for May 6th, and that is--
was an opportunity to practice with our other partners here in the
community, many of which have worked with us for years on this. I
mean, this is not unexpected. We've been, you know, drilling this
thing over and over and over again. So hopefully -- you know,
hopefully we've got it right.
But yes, that is scheduled for the 6th. We're sort of in a
Page 32
April 28, 2009
wait-and-see mode. If this thing escalates very, very rapidly, we may
not be able to do the drill. We may be doing the real thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
DR. COLFER: But thank you for bringing that up. And
certainly, you know, if we can keep that on schedule, I would
encourage anyone that's been invited to that to participate at the
highest levels. Don't send the lowest-level person in your
organization. You need to come to that drill if we can keep it on the
schedule for May 6th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Dr. Colfer, for always
protecting all of us in Collier County. We appreciate you being here
today.
DR. COLFER: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I might just add for the public's
benefit, we will be running that hot line number as a crawl on our
Collier television station, Channel 97, and also linking to the
collierprepares.org website through the county's website.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JANE BILLINGS OF THE
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ON AGING, AND KATHLEEN
P ASSIDOMO OF THE SENIOR FRIENDSHIP CENTER, TO
DISCUSS LEASE OF THE GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY -
MOTION TO ADVERTISE AND BRING BACK TO THE MAY
26, 2009 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to your public petitions. First petition
is 6A. It's a request by Jane Billings of the Leadership Council on
Page 33
April 28, 2009
Aging, and Kathleen Passidomo of the Senior Friendship Center, to
discuss lease of the Golden Gate Library.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Commissioners. We are so
excited to be here. My name is Kathleen Passidomo. My colleague,
Jane Billings, who is a vice-president of the Community Foundation
of Collier County and I are here on behalf of the Leadership Council
on Aging and the Senior Friendship Center of Collier County to
present to this board an exciting and innovative program for a senior
resource center in Collier County which we believe will be of great
benefit to all of the people of Collier County.
With us today are also members of the Leadership Council on
Aging and others who have come in support of the program.
Would all of you please stand.
Wow. Thank you all so much for coming. You can sit down
now.
(Applause.)
MS. P ASSIDOMO: I'm going to turn it over to Jane Billings
who's going to give a brief overview of the concept.
MS. BILLINGS: Thank you for the opportunity to present today.
A lot has happened in 16 months, so I thought I would bring you up
to date as to why we're here.
The Community Foundation of Collier County was established in
1985 by a group of local visionaries who believed in helping people
create charitable legacies to meet the immediate and future needs of
our community.
Last year from the invested earnings of its endowment, the
foundation was able to grant over $4 million back to Collier County
non-profits that served the citizens of our community.
Being one of the major funders and supports of the non-profits,
the foundation is in the unique position of being able to encourage
collaboration between organizations and to leverage private funding
through public/private partnerships.
Page 34
April 28, 2009
In the foundation's world, understanding gaps in community
services and available resources is critical to non-profit effectiveness.
Recent research commissioned by the women's initiative of the
community foundations has shown that seniors, particularly senior
women in our community, are one of the most underserved
populations.
I'd like to share a few eye-opening findings. You will find the
detailed list under Tab 2. Some of the facts we uncovered were: 73
percent of senior households in Collier County have no retirement
income other than social security. Senior women account for half of
the households headed by women that are below the poverty level.
The median income for senior women over 65 is $23,000. This is the
lowest median income in Collier County and is 37 percent less than
the median income for senior men.
Older adults living above the poverty level but with no income
other than social security are our community's hidden people.
Because of advances in medical care, seniors are living longer, but
they are suffering from more chronic disease. Of particular concern is
the growing population of adults 50 and older who are not eligible for
Medicare or social security or who are out of work.
The Department of Elder Affairs reports a 20 percent increase in
elder abuse since 2,000. There's great reluctance to report elder abuse,
and it's estimated one in five cases are unreported. And in case of
financial elder abuse, it increases to one in 25.
Regrettably, as I'm sure you're aware, we have a tremendous lack
of resources for our seniors in Collier County. In our seven-county
region, Collier County is the only county that doesn't have a senior
center. Of the 67 counties in Florida, 52 have 211 citizen's resource
hot lines. Collier County is one of only 15 counties without a 211
system.
There's limited accessible transportation, no organized means to
advocate for our seniors, and unfortunately no one person or
Page 35
April 28, 2009
organization has a clear picture of what is happening to our seniors.
Then if you look at the demographics age-wise, in 20 years, 52
percent ofthe population in Collier County will be 50 and older,
compared to 44 percent today.
The number of primary care physicians is declining dramatically.
One-third of family physicians are 55 and older and are planning on
winding down or closing their practices.
What do our resources look like in the future for our seniors?
Seventy-four percent of all Collier County households have no
retirement income other than social security.
There is no county funding for seniors other than state and
federally mandated programs; and county, state, and federal budgets,
as you know, are being slashed.
From this information and many personal interviews, the
Women's Initiative Grant Committee quickly concluded that in
addition to a severe lack of support programs for seniors, there was a
lack of infrastructure and communication for senior service providers.
The outcome was the commitment in September, 2008, to form
the Leadership Council on Aging. The Leadership Council on Aging
-- and this is who you see here today -- is a partnership between the
community foundation, the Area Agency on Aging, United Way,
Senior Friendship Center, and 50 other institutions representing local
nonprofits, businesses, faith-based groups, hospitals, law enforcement,
and county, state, and federal agencies. You will find a complete
listing under Tab 3.
Since September, the Leadership Council on Aging has been
working hard and arrived at five key goals for our community. First
one was to initiate a community-wide resource assessment. This is
currently underway in partnership with FGCU and the Area Agency
on Aging, and a private funder.
Second was to form a communications network for all our senior
service providers both internally and with one voice to advocate. This
Page 36
April 28, 2009
is why we're here today.
Third was to develop a parish nursing program. This is being
pursued and plans are underway in partnership with Naples
Community Hospital.
The first three goals are underway. What brings us here today is
goal four and goal five. We would like to implement a local 211 hot
line for all citizens to connect to resources and services. I have
hundreds of signatures of support, but 1'11 share that with you at
another time.
We'd also like to operate a senior resource center offering many
resources, including affordable medical and dental care for citizens 50
and over with limited income.
Since our original proposal, which you have in your packet,
we've had much dialogue with community institutions, including the
Golden Gate Rotarians, the Kiwanis, the civic association, the library,
and the library advisory board. We have found their comments
extremely helpful, and we have updated our proposal to reflect their
feedback, and this is what we present to you today. You will find that
under Tab 4.
We would like to propose that the senior resource center and
health clinic be located at the old Golden Gate Library and be a
private/public partnership of the Leadership Council on Aging, the
Senior Friendship Clinic, and the Golden Gate Library.
The primary resources provided at the center would be the new
citizens' resource and referral 211 hot line, an easy to remember phone
number linked to a central source of information that helps connect all
citizens to critical services and resources. You have more information
under Tab 5.
We'd like to have a healthy aging resource section for seniors.
This book -- this section would contain books, information, and
pamphlets. We'd like to house Volunteer Collier, we'd like to have
shared meeting space that we could share with the library's programs,
Page 37
April 28, 2009
and we would like to house the lighthouse organization, an
organization dedicated to helping people of all ages that are
challenged with vision loss.
And lastly we'd like to house the senior friendship clinic which is
dedicated to older adults. And I'd like Kathleen to tell you a little
more about that since she has volunteered hundreds of hours of her
time and has a very personal and passionate family interest in this
program.
Kathleen?
MS. PASSIDOMO: Okay. I'm running out of time. Could we
have a little more maybe?
Yeah, Senior Friendship Center is a medical/dental clinic, and it's
one of the hidden jewels of Collier County. It's currently located in
downtown Naples and provides health, dental, and medication
assistance to individuals aged 50 and older who are living at 200
percent of the federal poverty guidelines.
The services are provided by a staff of more than 30 volunteer
physicians and dentists supported by volunteer nurses, pharmacists,
clerical, and a very small-paid staff. It provides primary and some
specialty care using retired licensed physicians under an agreement
with the health department. It operates on grants and donations and it
saw almost 3,000 patient visits last year.
As unemployment increases and the number of individuals
requesting service is increasing, from January of this year until now,
their services have been up 40 percent. It's become clear though that
the Senior Friendship Center has to move because the building is
literally falling apart. It would require substantial funds to be
repaired. The location in downtown Naples might be great for a
restaurant or an upscale clothing store, but certainly not for medical --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I respectfully request the Chair
if she would grant another minute so we could --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You betcha.
Page 38
April 28, 2009
MS. PASSIDOMO: We may need three. I'm a lawyer.
So in any event, we really think it needs to be moved, and it
needs to be moved to an area where the patients come from, and the
majority of the patients who come to the Senior Friendship Center are
from East Naples and Golden Gate, and that's why we thought the
government campus in Golden Gate would be ideal because it's on the
CAT system, many of the patients could walk, and all the services that
would be provided to the seniors would be located in one area.
It's anticipated that the clinic would sell the downtown Naples
building and then take those proceeds to the Golden Gate Library.
Jane, I think you want to --
MS. BILLINGS: No. I think you've covered it, unless you want
to wrap up, most of the benefits.
MS. PASSIDOMO: Yeah. So -- okay. So what are we looking
for? The Leadership Council on Aging, in concert with the Senior
Friendship Center, is requesting the Board of County Commissioners
to work with us to create a senior resource center at Golden Gate -- the
old Golden Gate Library to include the 211 system, the Senior
Friendship Medical/Dental Clinic, and the coordination of programs
and services to be provided throughout the county to serve our senior
population.
Several private funders have approached the community
foundation expressing great interest in the project. The community
foundation would also be leveraging its own grant-making dollars
with those of the Area Agency on Aging, the Senior Friendship
Center, for-profit healthcare businesses, and state and local funding.
Weare not asking the county to contribute any funding for this
project.
The seniors of Collier County have always been the stewards of
our community. This morning, in several of your proclamations, you
recognized the work of the early pioneers of the citizens of Collier
County .
Page 39
April 28, 2009
They came here as we did, young and energetic, and they built
this community into what many would say is the premier community
in Florida. They were the original artisans and builders, service
people and professionals, parents and teachers, public service
employees, and, yes, even county commissioners. They deserve in
their retirement years to be treated with dignity and respect.
They are asking for services available to all other members of our
community be made available to them. Our forebears deserve no less
than that. We're asking for your help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me tell you right now, and to
everybody in the audience, we can't make a decision today because
this has to be noticed to the whole community and everybody can be
invited to speak on this.
We can only ask to bring this back. The commissioners can ask
to bring this item back to discuss on a regular agenda.
I don't remember which one was first here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'm going to
make a motion to direct staff to work with the foundation to find
ample space. And as far as the Golden Gate Library, this is part of my
motion is, as long as there's no net loss of library space for the citizens
of Golden Gate, was promised by this board, to restore what they were
originally told.
But I also think that there's -- I talked to Ms. Passidomo, there are
other areas that the county owns property in District 3, if that's where
you want to be, that they can locate in, so give some latitude.
But my main concern is there's no net loss of library space for not
only seniors but the children which make up the vast majority of
Page 40
April 28, 2009
citizens in Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you ask to bring this back, did you
say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, for staff to work with the
foundation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And bring it back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, I would
second it, because I can -- but I do have a problem with the
terminology we're using on it.
Net loss would be what? What was some number -- does the
present library, the new library that was built, does that meet the needs
of what we were talking about? We're talking about the senior centers
being built. They're going to have to devote space in that to be added
to the library; that I'm not clear on what the motion is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in our AUIR, it has a net
square foot in, you know, like Immokalee, Golden Gate Estates, East
Naples, and Golden Gate, and I don't want a net loss of that square
footage for the Golden Gate Library.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, once again, the library as
it's been built now, does it meet the needs as far as what you're
saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I can't support your
motion. I would have to hear everything, rather than pre-qualify it at
this point in time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I -- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I'm going to make a
motion that this item be brought back for an advertised public hearing
at our next meeting. I think that there are a lot of issues that can be
resolved through coordination with the staff and the Golden Gate
Page 41
April 28, 2009
community and Commissioner Henning's input.
So rather than putting pre-conditions on hearing it, I say let's
bring it back, get everybody involved, have a public hearing. We'll
get everybody's opinion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and work it into the mix and try
to come up with a solution.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Halas, your buttons are
on. Do you want to just wait until it comes back?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1'11 wait till it comes back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 1'11 do likewise.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Not to belabor this, but with the coordination and
some of the meetings that might be required in giving our agenda
deadline, if Commissioner Coyle might consider the meeting of May
the 26th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would, yes.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. I have a motion on the floor
and a second.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you have a second on that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the -- bringing it back the 28th?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty-sixth?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The 26th?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yes, second agrees with
that. I'm sorry. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
Page 42
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can't believe that
everybody has a short memory about the citizens of Golden Gate
fighting for the square footage of library space. And I know that
building is not being utilized now because of the economic downturn.
That's going to change sometime in the future. We don't know that.
But, you know, the -- I know there's going to be a lot of citizens
from Golden Gate here when this does come back. I was trying to
give it some latitude. Now we're focusing on just one building, and I
don't want to see the foundation lose because of that one direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think the motion was just so that
there aren't any restrictions put on it, and we're going to bring it back
to discuss it fully at the May 26th meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the foundation is asking
for the Golden Gate Library.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the motion reflected --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to bring it back based upon
their request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's going to be at the Golden
Gate Library or not.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That will be the discussion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If the building is presently not
being occupied, there's a couple of commissioners that sit on this
board that have already had -- where we had to close libraries on
certain days. So I think that everything should be put on the table for
discussion in regards to what is the best for all the citizens in Collier
County .
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Page 43
April 28, 2009
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That was a 4-1 vote. We'll see you
on the 26th.
(Applause.)
Item #8C (Discussed with Item #6B)
ORDINANCE 2009-19: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2003-37 (CONSTRUCTION IN
THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF - WAY), AS AMENDED - ADOPTED
AS AMENDED BY TRANSPORTATION
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, your next public petition is 6B, and
this item -- this item is to be heard in conjunction with Item 8C. I
would ask that we hear 8C and then give the petitioner a chance to ask
their questions and make their presentation.
Item 8C is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve amending ordinance number 2003-37,
construction in public rights-of-way as amended.
Mr. Norman Feder, your transportation services administrator,
will present.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Leo.
For the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
What I want to present to you is some changes that I've just
Page 44
April 28, 2009
passed out, and I apologize for the late hour of that material to you.
You've got 338 pages in this handbook, the right-of-way
permitting handbook. The first portion of it up till Page 93 is the
roadway portion, and then from there on is the landscaping portion,
the two handbooks, and we had come to you previously with approval
to separate the handbook into those two sections.
The changes I handed out to you, the first is recognizing the
number of citations within the landscape, which is pulling together all
the various previously approved material into one spot, had utilized
our old Land Development Code numbering, and so there are some
changes I want to note to the record.
The references to Section 2.4, the Land Development Code on
pages 138 and 166 of the 338 Paragraph F, prohibited plant species,
and on pages 140 and 168 of the 338 pages, Paragraph I and K,
respectively. Mulches should be changed to Section 4.06.00,
landscaping, buffering, and vegetation retention of the Land
Development Code.
Additionally, the references to Section 4 -- 2.4.4.16 of the Land
Development Code in Paragraph C, site distance triangles on Page 162
of338, and Item 5, site distance triangle diaphragms on Page 172 of
338, should read, Section 4.06.01 D.l.
Additionally, on Page 169 of338, we're modifying the reference
to pavers, that there is a requirement for one inch, not one-half inch of
leveling sand to bring that consistent with the graphics on Page 90.
Beyond that we are bringing appendices A, B, and C that are
currently Pages 331 through 338 at the end of the document, also
added to follow the roadway portion as it relates to both of them and
as they need to stand somewhat separately but collectively in the
ordinance, to Pages 65, 66, and 67, be deleted, after you bring those
forward after page 64, and all the numbers to follow then be adjusted
accordingly. The executive summary recommendation acknowledges
the ordinance.
Page 45
April 28, 2009
It needs to also acknowledge that these appendices A, B, and C
are adopted as part of the ordinance. And then the last item is to
delete one I on Page 36 of 338 dealing with culverts in the public
rights-of-way. There was some reference, ability to change it by the
transportation administrator even if permits and other things have been
issued. That's inappropriate, and we're asking that that be removed.
Other than that, what you do have, and I know the essence of the
discussion today, 1'11 call your attention to Page 334, and then 335 and
336, which are the appendices as I noted previously, move forward as
well.
The 334 on Paragraph 21 provides for the as-builts, and then on
Appendix B, it specifically goes through the requirements of the
as-builts. And 1'11 call your attention on Page 335 to the middle under
survey accuracy. Give you a second to get there. But that accuracy is
to be within 25 one-hundredths of a foot, which effectively is 3 inches,
one-quarter of a foot. So that horizontal and vertical is 3 inches.
We're requiring the GPS.
And just as a quick background, what we have in our
right-of-way permitting is basically a line diagram that's provided to
receive the permit. We have in the past, until we make this change,
have not gotten as-builts at the end, which quite often out in the field
there are adjustments made to that general permit provision.
And it's very important, as we finally have gone through the
process with some great pains, as I'm sure you're quite aware, of
building all the new roadways and finding surprises underground, that
we now have a set of as-builts that I wish I had -- my successor, my
predecessor, had given me, successor maybe as well.
But with that we now have a set of as-builts. And what we need
to do, when it's my own in-house traffic operations staff or other
divisions, we need to be in a position to maintain those as-builts. And
so, therefore, under right-of-way permit, anybody who makes a
change to the network, particularly underground, but anywhere in the
Page 46
April 28, 2009
right-of-way, that needs to be captured, needs to update the as-builts to
keep those ongoing and consistent.
We don't believe that the standard 3 inches is unusual. We do
have Orlando and others that are utilizing the process. And the other
thing we're doing is for jack and bore, since it changes some in the
process as you go through, we're requiring every hundred feet that we
get a locate and any time you change direction. So we're trying to
make this reasonable.
The last thing 1'11 point out to you is we are not asking the utilities
who utilize the county's rights-of-way to go back and identify
everything out there. A lot of it we've done through this construction
process. But as they go to change forward, prospective, that they
provide these as-builts as well as our own people and anyone who's
making changes in the right-of-way so we maintain the as-builts up to
date.
Any questions, we'll be happy to answer them or defer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I just have a question from Leo.
Where do you want to insert the 6B?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: After -- after Norm, before the speaker, or
how do you want to do that?
MR. OCHS: I would ask you to take your speaker under 8C,
because there aren't speakers allowed under public petitions. And then
before you vote on this item, give the opportunity for the petitioner
under 6B to be heard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay, very good.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Norm, on Exhibit B--
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I think it would be a little clearer
and possibly eliminate some misinterpretation if you were to say .25
feet rather than using an asterisk to identify feet. An asterisk really
Page 47
April 28, 2009
isn't the proper symbol to identifY a foot.
MR. FEDER: We'll make that change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you just say .25 feet, in
parentheses, 3 inches, okay, that would make it clearer, I believe.
MR. FEDER: Yes. I think the reference to 3 inches needs to be
in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. FEDER: I had that discussion with your chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He also felt that way yesterday when he
was talking to me about the same thing.
Let's hear from the speaker, right now, and then--
MS. FILSON: Trisha Dorn.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you have three minutes.
MS. DORN: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners. I am
Trisha Dorn with LCEC. I'm the key account executive.
I am here to speak against the county's proposed amendment to
ordinance 2003.37, construction in the public right-of-way,
specifically of the as-built policy being considered today by the board.
The cost to implement this policy with the accuracy and data
format requirements would be in the tens of thousands of dollars for
the hardware, software, and training.
At an economic time when the budget cuts and hiring freezes are
occurring, the impact would have to be passed on to the customers in
higher fees for electric service.
The accuracy requirements proposed does not make sense for
underground construction methods used currently by LCEC.
In the directional boring process, we would be asking the
surveyor to certify the accuracy to less than 3 inches when they cannot
visually see the cable and are dependent upon the process that does
not have that degree of accuracy.
In addition, it is our understanding that the data format
requirements for the as-built can be easily inserted into the county's
Page 48
April 28, 2009
GIS system.
Now, from a technical perspective -- bear with me -- LCEC can
continue to utilize the same GIS software as the county, but there are
no means specified to supply the data in the native GIS format. We
would have to export the data out of GIS to a CAD format, apply the
numerous CAD standards to it so that it can be imparted back into the
GIS format where the CAD standards no longer apply.
We respectfully ask the commission to table the proposed policy
until a more reasonable and less restrictive policy can be developed
that will not so adversely affect LCEC and the public.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And now we'll also hear
from --
MR. OCHS: It would be --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Would you stay
here for a minute. We have some questions for you. Oh, I'm sorry,
thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm -- I've got my light on for
the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Later on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Later on, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What level of accuracy do you
currently provide?
MS. DORN: And I'm going to bring Stuart Dunlap from LCEC,
who is our technical expert in this area, to answer that question for
you, if you don't mind.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, if anyone's wondering what LCEC is, it's
the Lee County Electric Cooperative.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. DUNLAP: Currently we just show positional accuracy. We
Page 49
April 28, 2009
don't follow a 3-inch accuracy for that. We do have the capability to
provide sub-meter accuracy with the equipment that we currently
have. That would be less than 3 feet.
We don't feel that that probably is accurate enough, but for every
inch of accuracy, you know, there's dollars associated with that. And
to try to get 3 inches of accuracy for something that is below the
ground that you cannot see or visualize doesn't really make a lot of
sense.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, sometimes when you're
digging a trench to try to find the utilities, sub-meter accuracy is not
necessarily accurate enough. What level of accuracy can you provide,
and what level of accuracy do you think the industry standard should
be?
MR. DUNLAP: I can't speak on the industry standard, but I
believe a sub-foot accuracy within one foot -- be reminded that any
buried cables will have to be located prior to any kind of construction
also, so we are basically providing you with a basic location of where
our equipment is, and, you know, excavation would be needed
anyway because of the distances that are required for people to stay
clear of power lines.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you can provide sub-foot
accuracy?
MR. DUNLAP: With current equipment we have, we cannot.
The cost for equipment that can provide that would be less expensive
than trying to get a surveyor out to get the 3-inch accuracy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you, can you quantify
the difference in cost impact for you from going to sub-one- foot
accuracy to a 3-inch accuracy standard?
MR. DUNLAP: I don't have the costs on that right now, but it
does not require the same types of equipment and the same availability
of GPS correction information, because you have to -- any time you
get that type of accuracy, you have to have -- pay for a correction of
Page 50
April 28, 2009
your accuracy. To get that 3-inch accuracy, that has to be paid for.
Sub-foot accuracy, there are means of getting that accuracy
without --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DUNLAP: -- equipment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When you say sub-foot, what are
we talking about, 11.9 inches or are we talking about 6 inches?
MR. DUNLAP: That's --like I say, you're measuring something
that may not even be within 6 inches of where the locater is telling
you that cable is because, like I say, this -- the directional boring
process will, you know, put cable underneath, and you have a person
standing up top following that cable, and he's giving you an
approximate depth and an approximate location. So he may not even
be within a foot himself, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How does sub-foot accuracy
impact our requirements?
MR. FEDER: Very greatly, and we went to the 3 inches in
response to industry concern. We've had quite a few meetings with
other representatives as well as these folks.
The concern raised, first of all, on the jack and bore. That's why
we provided for a look within 3 inches every 100 feet and on any
directional change, because we recognized that when you do a jack
and bore, you might be starting down, let's say, 4 feet. You may find
100 feet later that you're at 2 feet. And then at least we'll now know
that there is some variation, whether that occurred immediately in the
jack and bore or further down, you're alerted to the fact that this is not
consistent within that 100 feet, but we have a general idea.
The equipment that's being related to can get down to the 3
inches, but the difficulty in a lot of use of the equipment as opposed to
working with survey issues, especially with what we have out there,
the network now and GPS, is that you can get horizontal, but not
vertical, to any good accuracy.
Page 51
April 28, 2009
And to your question, Commissioner, if I'm off, let's say, a foot
one way or the other, if it's down, suppose we state it as being 3 feet
down, your larger equipment comes in for the first 2 feet and then
your individuals with a shovel come in after that. If it turns out it was
only a foot and a half down, the big equipment's already busted
through it. When I'm talking fiberoptics, which is a big issue for these
people, that is critical.
So saying I can get it by locates, which will give me generally
some idea ofvertical-- I don't know what level of accuracy, but
generally vertical, but not -- I mean, horizontal but not vertical, is the
major problem we have. And we've experienced that on every
construction job we've had. That's why we're trying to get good,
accurate as-builts holding ourselves to the same standard, and as
changes are made to the system, holding it within 3 inches.
When I'm talking about fiberoptics, that's still a little bit of a
guessing game. And if it's done by jack and bore, I may have issues
between those 100 feet, but at least I know where they generally are if
I have it 4 feet here and I have it 2 feet here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this the only person who installs
things underground who has a problem with this issue?
MR. FEDER: The only one that's raised the issue to us.
We had discussions -- as I said, this has been over a year and a
half we've gone through with the industries on this. There were some
concerns about wanting to have to move to the technology. As I said,
what we get is a sort of stick diagram right now and a request for a
right-of-way permit and nothing to follow up as to where it got built
out there. So most of the industry seems to be satisfied with it now
with the changes we've made. I understand that these folks still have
the concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Finished?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I guess so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Halas.
Page 52
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The end result is, when we--
when the utilities give us an idea of where the -- their stuff is located,
and like you said, we start to try to get into this -- move it or to dig
around it, and we end up breaking a fiberoptics cable, what does it
cost the taxpayers here in Collier County to replace that?
MR. FEDER: Considerably. They tend to go after whoever hit
the cable, especially if they gave a locate, even though it's only
horizontal, not vertical.
And I can defer to some of my experts here, but it's very
expensive if you hit a fiberoptic, as an example. You not only put
people out of service, but then the cost for the repairs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to when we were
building the Vanderbilt Beach Road, how much of the cost of building
that road was incorporated in what it cost to locate and the time that
we lost on that road trying to locate all of the utilities that were buried
underground?
MR. FEDER: Our major impact, as it turned out, was more time,
although it cost us some, obviously, and time is money, as we're still
debating on that issue with the contractor and the underground
contractor.
But I will tell you the major issue is time. And I'd rather not even
think about the time delays that we had on Vanderbilt Beach Road
because of the issues of underground locates.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a real concern when we go
out there and try to locate these utilities that are underground. I can
understand the jack-and-bore method, but a lot of times when they lay
cable, they go out there with a trencher and lay cable, and I would
think that they could give us pretty good accuracy with a trencher
versus a jack and bore.
MR. FEDER: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think that what you've done
in this executive summary is you gave them some leeway in the jack
Page 53
April 28, 2009
and bore principle. But what we're talking about, when you use a
trencher and start laying cable -- and I think that there should be
demands in regards to where that accuracy is. And why should we,
the county, every time we go out there to get involved in some kind of
a problem and find out that the end result is, we didn't get the right
information from the utilities, and then we end up severing the cable
or severing the service, and then it's up to us to fix that at a -- at a
premium price. I understand where they're coming from, but I don't
have any real sympathy.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And right now we'll hear from Linda
Griffin on her concerns with this as well.
Item #6B (Discussed with Item #8C)
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY LINDA GRIFFIN TO
DISCUSS PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR AS-BUlL TS OF
UNDERGROUND FACILITIES - DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That's Item 6B, Linda Griffin, to
discuss permitting requirements for as-builts of underground facilities.
MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you. Good morning. I'm -- my name is
Linda Griffin. I'm a professional land surveyor in the State of Florida,
and I'm here to speak on behalf of Embarq Corporation, who is a
provider of telecommunications for the public, and obviously for a
fee.
I would like to speak against the Appendix B provisions, not only
for as-builts, but also for construction, for construction plans.
Typically a design is required if you're going to be building drainage,
sewer, water, because we have to figure out -- the engineer has to
figure out where the available space is, what the proper slopes are
going to be. They have to be sure for drainage purposes where the
installation of the curb inlets are going to be.
Page 54
April 28, 2009
So that really requires a survey where you would be meeting the
standards that are called for in Appendix B. That calls for specific
requirements, specific layering, specific mapping, very specific
information that would be provided by a survey.
Now, typically, people like Embarq and some of the other utility
companies that have very small facilities that are going in place don't
have a survey. They go out, and they use the GIS that's provided by
the county that shows the right-of-way and it shows the edge of
pavement. So it shows two major factors that are going to be involved
in where the installation is going to have to occur.
Now, this room -- I think this -- I think this is probably about 14
feet. This whole room is probably maybe 40 feet wide. To be able to
determine that you're going to have to put a half-inch fiber optic
within 14 feet, which is basically what this area is here, doesn't require
a surveyor to figure out where that fiber optic is going to go.
Obviously it has to go around trees -- it can't go under the roots
of the trees, it can't cross utilities that are already in place. A lot of the
utilities are physically marked on the ground by either indicators or
utility poles or curb inlets or sanitary manholes where the designer of
the quarter-inch or half-inch fiber optic or maybe a 4-inch diameter of
pipe is -- has to be placed in this wide swath of land.
So there's really two things that this Appendix B is talking about.
Not just talking about as-builts. It has requirements for design that's
going to require surveying at all.
Now, there was some reference to the documents that are being
provided by the utility companies that go along with the permit, and it
was implied that there are stick drawings. I'd like to show you one of
the stick drawings. This is one by Embarq. It not only shows a jack
and bore going under Airport-Pulling Boulevard (sic), it has the
inverts of the pipes, it shows the depths underneath and above the
utilities, it shows depth provisions. There's a lot of information.
These are not CAD drawings that are specified in here to the
Page 55
April 28, 2009
accuracies that are specified, but they are how the -- how the
construction is going to take place. That's the primary purpose ofthis
is to install the utility.
Now, as far as the as-built-ing of the utility, I think that that's
very important, and I think that the standards are wonderful for the
kind of utilities that the county is going to be responsible for,
responsible to maintain.
You need to know where that water valve is, you need a State
Plane Coordinate for where that is so that maybe somebody can go out
and put that information in their locater and walk right up to where the
water valve is. Or for a half-inch cable or even for a 4-inch diameter,
which is the largest facility that Embarq puts in, that kind of accuracy
is not going to be required. Nobody is going to be basing their design
or their construction on what's shown in the GIS.
GIS is super valuable. It's going to basically show a basic,
general idea of where the facility is. It's going to be shown that it's on
the north side of the road. It's going to be shown that it's between the
ditch and the edge of pavement. It's -- that's the kind of information
that you need on the GIS.
No one is going to design from the information that's in the GIS.
Those are going to be surveyed documents that are prepared. People
are going to be designing the facilities based on mark-outs of the
utilities, not based on what's shown in the GIS.
So I'm here to speak against the adoption of Appendix B totally
for privately owned, privately maintained facilities. I don't think that
it benefits the public, I don't think it benefits the county, I don't think it
benefits those people who use these facilities to know within 3 inches
of where that half-inch fiber optic cable might be, and we are
respectfully asking that the Appendix B be excluded for privately
owned, privately maintained facilities such as Embarq. I appreciate
your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 56
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Are our standards any more
stricter than anybody else in the State of Florida in regards to location
of these? Norm? This is for Norm.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, we went around and asked. We
understand that Orlando's using pretty much the same standards and
has for quite some time. We do know in talking with the utilities as
we went into this, that a lot of places aren't requiring this right now.
But the nature of what we're requiring is not atypical.
I would point out that the graphic that you see here, as pointed
out, is an idea of the intention of where they will put it out in the field.
What we do not get, which is what we're asking for, is actually
what ended getting placed at the end, because as was pointed out,
different things come up, different requirements to alter. And to the
other part as to what you truly need and what you were designed to,
unfortunately design plans that are trying to assume from a general
area from side edge of pavement to the swale, somewhere in that area
is a quarter-inch or a 4-inch pipe, is an impossible task and one that
has brought us pretty much to task, shall I say.
What we're trying to do now is to make sure that what we've
done in getting as-builts that meet those standards, as we get
construction finished, that we keep those up to date.
I would think the industry also needs to know that when they
come in with this request for permit, because then they know where
the other utilities are to work around. As our right-of-ways become
more and more crowded with utilities, it becomes harder and harder to
work around the other utilities to get placement in.
So I should think this information would be invaluable to the
industry as they try to modify their network as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you -- one other question. Do
we charge a franchise fee for the people that use our right-of-way?
MR. FEDER: With a little bit of editorial, unfortunately, not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then I don't see why -- that if
Page 57
April 28, 2009
other counties are using this type of system that we're adopting our
new ordinance to and we don't charge any franchise fee, I think that
they're getting away pretty clean here. So I can't really feel -- like I
said earlier, I don't have the sympathy for this, because it costs us one
heck of a lot of money to go out there and locate all this stuff when we
were out here designing and building roads.
And I feel that this is something that we should demand and
make sure that it's done right so that in the future when we have items
of this that come forward, that we don't have to spend a lot of money,
a lot of time and hold up the production of building roads without
having the proper information given to us to move forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This gets more and more complex
for me. But I guess what bothers me is that, Norm, you've said that
you went through this with all of the utilities and they had plenty of
time for them to speak and that we have two here who have serious
objections to them.
And we've got two problems. One is that we're dealing with a lot
of old installation where we have bad information. That's what's
caused us most of the problems. It's not current installations, I don't
believe, because we've got a pretty good way of doing current --
identifying current installations.
But our problem is, as you pointed out earlier, when we go out to
build a road or widen a road, we need to know where all these utilities
are so that we don't tear them up.
Now, I know it's primitive, but a lot of places I know use detect
wires. If you've got a water pipe, you put it at 4 feet. You lay a detect
wire along with it, which gives you reasonable left and right
definitions, and then you put a foot of dirt on top of that, and then put
in a warning tape so that when you're digging into that ground, the
first thing you're going to come up with is a plastic strip 4 inches wide
that says, there's a power line underneath here. That's why the big
Page 58
April 28, 2009
power equipment knows when to stop digging.
Are we doing that?
MR. FEDER: There are cases of that, and generally is it helpful
in many cases, even the medallions. A lot of times they don't operate
correctly. One of our difficulties is our high water table in this area,
and that's why vertical is particularly bad. They're very good for
horizontal. They're a little less useful for the vertical. But I appreciate
your statement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm not concerned with the
medallions. I understand the shortcomings.
MR. FEDER: I understand that, and the strips. For instance
though on your fiber optics, you don't have the opportunity to put
those metal strips on that half-inch fiber optics and the like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, maybe you need to consider
a different standard for directional bores than you do for standard
trenching.
MR. FEDER: And we have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I don't see it on --
MR. FEDER: Our standard is 3 inches for every 100-foot
indication. We're not expecting that between those 200 feet that we
know exactly within 3 inches consistently, but what we know is every
hundred foot within 3 inches, vertical and horizontal, where that utility
IS.
If it was jack and bored, as I noted, it might change, obviously,
there, and it may have changed at the very end, the very beginning.
That doesn't tell us everything but gives us a good indication in that
area there's a change from, let's say, 4-foot to 2-foot elevation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me back up.
MR. FEDER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you use -- do we require locate
wires for nonmetallic installations?
MR. FEDER: We have them throughout, and as I understand it,
Page 59
April 28, 2009
the industry pretty well uses them, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do we require warning
tapes in trenching 12 inches above the line, power line?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do?
MR. FEDER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do not.
MR. FEDER: I'm told we do not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: The utility typically provides it for their own use.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But we're the ones who are
going to be digging it up when the time comes.
MR. FEDER: Us and them, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me take this one step
further. If there are industry standards or reasonable measures that the
utilities should use to help identify these things such as a locate wire
and a warning tape and we go in there and we start digging and we
come up with neither and we damage the line, why are we elig- -- why
are we responsible for paying for it?
MR. FEDER: Because by your Sunshine State One Call they
will give you an indication line on the surface. They will not commit
to depth, and therein lies the biggest rub because they provided it.
They tell you, due caution.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, the problem is, I don't
care what the depth is. If they've got a warning tape there, I can dig
till I reach China. If I don't run into a warning tape, I'm not responsible
if! cut that line, okay. That would be my position to the utilities.
MR. FEDER: That's our position. We've tried that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so what I'm saying to you is,
you're suffering from a really bad historical problem and some of them
are not doing it properly now and you want to improve it, but is it -- is
it necessary that we use a sledge hammer to do this? Is it possible to
Page 60
April 28, 2009
accomplish it with a little more tolerance?
MR. FEDER: First of all, on a directional bore, there's no tape
and you're not going to have your warning strip or anything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, already said. Deal with that
separately.
MR. FEDER: And on a trench situation, there should be no
difficulty whatsoever providing what we've asked for within 3 inches.
The industry standard is there relative to GIS and GPS locates.
We have in this county a very good system that assists any landscape
-- excuse me -- land surveyor to be able to utilize that system.
And so if I'm talking about a trenching, which is predominantly
what you've discussed, there should be absolutely no question that you
can get within 3 inches. It's open there for you, it's very easy to
determine. The jack-and-bore is where I need every hundred feet and
directional change.
The one thing I will slightly note as different, a statement, is that
our situation is not that much better now than it was previously. Now,
it is true the larger companies will utilize these techniques, as you
outline especially trench situations. They are not the ones that are
here with concern because they realize that they need that accuracy as
well. So there's nothing that they have any concern coming within 3
inches that I've heard of. And in the trenching situation, that should be
very easy. In the jack and bore, we recognize the change, and that's
why we provided for every hundred feet and directional change.
But the standard within plus-or-minus 3 inches is really pretty
critical, because if you look at how much we have out there in our
network already within the right-of-way and the ability to go around
that, even to design something new, either us or the utilities, you have
to know what's out there to do a good design to start with, and then the
key that we're talking about, in the end you need to tell us what
actually happened because there's always adjustments in the field.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. One more question. I'ma
Page 61
April 28, 2009
going to end this.
I've got a start point, and I give you the depth to within 3 inches.
I bore or install that line, and at another hundred feet I give you a
depth to an accuracy of 3 inches. Now, in the middle I might have
varied 6 inches. You don't care about that?
MR. FEDER: I do care, but from a practical sense -- and again,
this is back to what we're saying, we've got to be reasonable on it. So
if I know I started, as I said in the example at four, and I end up at two
at the hundred foot, I have a clear indication that somewhere along
that line it varies. And it's going to have slight variance in it.
But if I have the 3-inch at a hundred foot increments, then I've
got a pretty good idea of what I may be experiencing out there in
between, and that's what we're asking for.
I'm not asking for, in a jack and bore, that it be within 3 inches
for the full length of that hundred feet. That's not practical and by the
situation. So that's why we're asking for every hundred feet so I know
where it's changing in between.
If I get four and four, I'm going to assume that it's pretty much
stayed online. If I get four and two, I know somewhere along there
that thing varied on itself very quickly, or very gradually, that we'll
have to go around and be careful in those areas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Here's what I'm going to do right now.
We should have taken a break at 10:30 for our court reporter because
her fingers are about to drop off. Commissioner Henning is ready to
speak. Would you like to wait until after the break?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was just going to make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. To approve, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was -- that was what you
were supposed to do on the last motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And what is your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion is to approve with
Page 62
April 28, 2009
the amendments read by Mr. Feder, and the reason is, if it's good for
the public to do as-builts, it should be good for the private. I mean,
that's -- just doesn't make sense, and I can't believe that Jim DeLony's
bearing valves in the right-of-way. I would imagine all his valves are
accessed. So that argument just doesn't make sense to me. I
apologize.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion on the floor -- no, I'm
sorry, you're done.
MS. GRIFFIN: I have three more minutes. I'd like those three
minutes, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then just a minute, please. I have a
motion on the floor to approve with Norm Feder's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amendments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- amendments, and a second from
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Finish your three minutes, please.
We've got to get our court reporter out of here. Just finish your three
minutes, please.
MS. GRIFFIN: The purpose of the as-builts, as stated in the
Appendix B, is to show on the GIS system. Everybody's talking about
utilities being designed, utilities being installed. Nobody is going to
use this GIS system to install or design utilities.
I work for an engineering company. I've been doing as-built and
construction layout for 15 years. I have never once, in Orange
County, City of Orlando, or any other county in the State of Florida,
been required to provide design and as-builts for privately owned
facilities such as Embarq.
And it does not make sense to have a privately owned and
maintained facility who's going to be responsible to do the repairs and
to maintain it, to maintain their facility, to go by these standards that
are specifically for the liability and protection of the people of Collier
Page 63
April 28, 2009
County.
We're not talking about people of Collier County when you're
talking about these private facilities. That's what I think the difference
IS.
And we, again, respectfully ask exclusion for privately owned
utilities to have to meet the requirements of Appendix B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're finished?
MS. GRIFFIN: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
Aye.
Thank you. We're going to take a ten-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We1come back from our break.
MR. OCHS: Get you one more on the dais, ma'am. There's two.
We're ready to go.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2009-108: RE-APPOINTING GEORGE MOHLKE
AND N. REX ASHLEY TO THE HEAL TH FACILITIES
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
That takes us to Item 9 on your agenda. 9A is an appointment of
Page 64
April 28, 2009
members to the Health Facilities Authority.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We -- to appoint two members to
the Health Facilities Authority.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1'11 make a motion that we go with
the committee's recommendation. That's George C. Mohlke and
Norman Rex Ashley.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all four.
MS. FILSON: That was 4-0?
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2009-109: RE-APPOINTING ANTHONY PIRES
AND JOHN SOREY; AND APPOINTING JOSEPH MORELAND
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9B is appointment of members to the Collier
County Coastal Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion to
nominate Anthony P. Pires for re-appointment, Joseph A. Moreland,
and John F. Sorey.
Page 65
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a question. Why not the
committee's recommendations?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we presently have one
person from Pelican Bay that -- and I think it would be nice to have a
representation from another source in the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That makes sense to me,
because I was wondering why not James Hoppensteadt.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. We have Jim Burke--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand what you're saying.
1'11 second your motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we have Jim Burke who
represents that district now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2009-110: APPOINTING JAMES E. LA VINSKI
(CURRENTL Y AN AL TERNA TE AND FULFILLING THE
REMAINDER OF A VACANT TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 14,
2011) AND NICOLAS PIERRE HEMES; APPOINTING
Page 66
April 28, 2009
HERMINIO ORTEGA AS AN AL TERNA TE (FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 14,2010)
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9C, ma'am, is appointment of members to the
Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
MS. FILSON: And, Commissioners, on this particular item, after
-- usually if we get another resignation before I get the executive
summary done we make those appointments, and I'd already had the
executive summary on the agenda, and we have received an additional
resignation. So if you want to appoint -- if you want to fill that
position, you have done that in the past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, 1'11 make a motion to
appoint Jim Hoppensteadt then. I mean, he's a District 3 resident. It's
not a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're on Item 9e.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I thought she said CAe.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. It's Contractor's Licensing Board--
code enforcement, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Code enforcement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, we can move Mr.
Lavinski, who has been the alternate and had perfect attendance, we
could move up to a regular position, but then we need to fill the
alternate position. So we have two regular, one alternate; is that
correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes. You can appoint two regular members and
one alternate if that is your wish.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Nicholas Hemes has been
-- served on Code Enforcement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before, yes.
Page 67
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 1'11 make a motion to move
James Levinsky and Nicholas Hemes to the regular Code Enforcement
Board, and Mr --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ortega.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Ortega as alternate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2009-111: APPOINTING STEPHEN C. MAIN TO
THE HALDEMAN CREEK MAINTENANCE DREDGING
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9D is appointment of member to the Haldeman
Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 1'11 make a motion that we approve
Stephen Main --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to that position.
And a second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
Page 68
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2009-112: APPOINTING DIANA A. WATSON,
WILLIAM L. MCDANIEL JR., AND DAVID H. FARMER;
APPOINTING NICOLAS PIERRE HEMES AS THE ALTERNATE
TO THE HORIZON STUDY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9E is an appointment of members to the Horizon
Study Oversight Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to approve
Diane Watson, William McDaniel, and David Farmer as the members
of that committee, and as an alternate, Nicholas Pierre Hemes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did we need --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even though I probably
pronounced the name wrong.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You did a great job. We knew who you
were talking about. He was the only one left so we knew who you
were talking about.
I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 69
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed by Commissioner Henning.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2009-113: APPOINTING ANNISA KARIM (TERM
EXPIRING FEBRUARY 11,2012) AND ROBERT W. DORTA
(TERM EXPIRING FEBRUARY 11,2010) TO THE LAND
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9F is an appointment of members to the Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the committee's
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2009-114: RE-APPOINTING LOWELL LAM TO
Page 70
April 28, 2009
THE WATER AND W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9G is appointment of member to the Water and
Wastewater Authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Lowell Lam.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2009-115: APPOINTING GINA D. DOWNS TO
THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: And 9H, appointment of member to Library
Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Gina Downs as
the committee's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
Page 71
April 28, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
Item #10A - Discussed and then continued to later in the meeting
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION
TO DRILLING FOR NATURAL GAS AND OIL WITHIN THREE
MILES OF THE SHORELINE OF FLORIDA
MR. OCHS: And that takes us to item lOA, which was your first
add-on. lOA is a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adoption a resolution in opposition to drilling for
natural gas and oil within three miles of the shoreline of Florida.
Jack Weft, your tourism director, will present.
MR. WERT: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item.
As we all know, there's been a great deal of discussion over the
last few years about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for natural gas and
oil. And it has -- it's truly been literally all over the map.
I put up here on the visualizer a depiction here of where there are
current wells, where there are current drilling locations in the Gulf of
Mexico. As you can see, most all of them are off the coast of
Louisiana or Texas. And then what has recently been proposed really
within the last few days has been that area that you can see the -- that
hatched green line that runs along the coast, along the Panhandle of
Florida, and then down the Gulf Coast, including Collier County.
And this is the concern that we have, that there might, in fact, be,
early on, drilling rigs and later then wells just off the coast of our
shore. And, of course, as a coastal community that truly relies on our
beaches as our number one asset and draw for our visitors, this
Page 72
April 28, 2009
certainly is a concern.
And when this legislation came up in the state legislature actually
late last week, as late as Friday evening, this started to move very
quickly. But before that it had been nothing more than just doing a
study, and suddenly we saw this as a possible threat to our area.
So we wanted to bring this resolution to you. Actually in
December, the Tourist Development Council looked at this issue.
They did make the recommendation at that time that the county take a
position of opposing or keeping drilling in existing leases, so well off
the coast of Florida.
This has obviously now changed quite a bit. And so the
resolution that we bring to you today is really in opposition, and when
it was drafted in opposition of House Bill 1219 -- which as oflate last
night, actually did pass on third reading, the vote was 70 yes, 43 no.
So you can see there's a good deal of controversy about this issue.
At this point the Senate has not had a companion bill, but as fast
as this house bill moved from Friday in committee to actually taking
the vote on the floor yesterday evening, we would like to have this
resolution on file, send it to Governor Crist and to the president of the
Senate and the house speaker as well, and to our delegation in
Tallahassee that Collier County is opposed to drilling within three
miles of the shore. And that is the resolution we're bringing to you for
-- with the recommendation yesterday from the Tourist Development
Council at their regular meeting and now today to all of you for
consideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Did you have any indication
from our elected representatives that this was going to be coming up
and how it may affect the tourist industry here in this county?
MR. WERT: Unfortunately, Commissioner Halas, I did not, and
we've been in direct contact with them on many different tourism
issues. This one really did take us all by surprise on Friday. And in
Page 73
April 28, 2009
fact, the delegation voted in favor of this proposal in the House late
last night.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Leo, do you know if the County
Manager or his office, since you're sitting here today, was there any
indication that this bill was going to come up on the floor of -- in
Tallahassee?
MR. OCHS: From our local delegation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From our local delegation.
MR. OCHS: No, sir. I'm not aware of any contact to our office.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It really amazes me that -- and I
believe they voted in favor of this; is this correct --
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- so far?
MR. WERT: Yes, sir, that is correct, yes. And if I might add,
you know, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion in
Tallahassee about balancing their budget, much like we're going to go
through with our budgeting. This has a lot to do with money and
future revenue to the state.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I didn't think that the whole State
of Florida was up for sale.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of course it is. They're doing it
with Alligator Alley and everything else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've said enough. I'm going to get
myself in trouble.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, probably -- we haven't got
contact from any of the legislation delegation is because of our
relationship with that body up there. But this is really party politics.
And even the resolution is not correct. It states, whereas, HB, House
Bill 1219, if passed by the state legislature, would allow near-shore
gas and oil drilling of submerged lands under territorial waters in the
Page 74
April 28, 2009
state. That's not true, because what it does, it gives the governor and
the cabinet the right to approve or not approve. So that's all that bill
does.
And besides, I took the initiative to talk to one of our legislators
in Tallahassee. Although he has concerns about it, he stated to me,
what this is really all about is, in the Panhandle there is a lot of natural
gas that could be drilled in the future. Nobody has done any
exploration down here.
Did you want to say something, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. Why is that dotted line all
the way down here to Collier County? I got a real problem with this.
And if those people up in Tallahassee do not listen to what the people
here in this county want, let me tell you, I got a real problem with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a three-mile line,
Commissioner Halas --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a three-mile line, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to answer your question.
The second thing is, the Democrats in Washington D.C. said they
were going to fix this problem and nothing has been done.
Now, would you rather have Washington D.C. dictate or give
some latitude to our governor to provide natural resources that we can
use for fuel sources? Because the Democrats just hasn't done anything
over the last two decades to address this.
And if you have some latitude, at least we can get to what the
issue really is, is we need some -- we need to provide our own energy,
so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Once, I want to confirm
something. This is within three miles?
MR. WERT: Three miles or more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In the past, every time
Page 75
April 28, 2009
this issue's come up before, we were talking about considerable
distance out into the Gulf, if I remember correctly.
MR. WERT: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, tell me, I know you
probably didn't ask the question, but would the Tourist Development
Council be opposed if it was outside that three-mile limit?
MR. WERT: Actually, when the Tourist Development Council
looked at it in December, the proposal at that point was, and what they
supported was, that leased lands already out in the Gulf or that area
that was proposed beyond 10 miles that could be developed, that's the
area that they wanted to see developed first, and that doesn't seem to
be part of this proposal, that suddenly new areas would be -- would be
looked at for exploration and future leases. And--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, while I'm not a
tremendous supporter for harvesting the oil and gas within our
shorelines, I think we'd be best served if we left it lie where it is for
some future time when it's going to be a much more important
resource than it is today, but I never could agree to allowing it within
three miles. So I can support what you're asking for.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's take a closer look at this.
And just as a general guideline, a bad decision by a Republican is still
a bad decision, okay. Leasing Alligator Alley is a bad decision. I don't
like the fact that that's left up to the people in Tallahassee to decide.
So I'm going to oppose that.
But this particular issue is a very critical one. And I don't think
you want to send a resolution opposing a specific bill that would allow
near-shore drilling within three miles of the Florida coast because then
somebody can say, okay, we'll approve it 3.1 miles off the Florida
coast, and look, we listened to you. We did exactly what you asked us
to do, and that's the game those people will play. So what I'm
suggesting to you is we need to determine what is an acceptable limit.
Page 76
April 28, 2009
Now, we just had a discussion about directional boring for
utilities. Directional boring has been used in the oil industry for
decades. They can sit 10 miles offshore and still drill into whatever
oil reserves are closest to shore.
So we need to decide how far offshore is acceptable. Is 25 miles
offshore acceptable? Is 10 miles offshore acceptable?
There are two things you want to guard against. You don't want
big oil derricks sitting off the beach out there that everybody can see
them. That's going to hurt your tourists business, and it's going to hurt
the real estate values. You don't want oil spills that are likely to
pollute our beaches. They have substantially better controls nowadays
over those, but nevertheless.
I think we need to say something like, we oppose oil drilling off
the coast of Florida within 25 miles. I don't care what bill it is. I don't
care --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1'11 second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's -- okay, was it 25 miles?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-five miles.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the motion I've got to make?
Okay.
All right. I would -- I would suggest a resolution that we oppose
any bill which would permit oil drilling within 25 miles of the Florida
coastline, the Collier County coastline at least.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you've got a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- second by Commissioner Halas. And I
have one speaker. And then Commissioner Henning and Fiala will be
up.
MS. FILSON: I just thought you were going to call the question,
I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's all right, that's all right.
Page 77
April 28, 2009
MS. FILSON: Do you want to wait for--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I want to get the speaker.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners.
Appreciate this opportunity to be heard.
I'm a 30-plus-year resident of Collier County. I actually came
down here on another matter, but this last minute item to the agenda
had to do with something I was going to petition the board to be heard
on anyhow. I was going to be petitioning the board for a resolution
from the board opposing the current position of our House of
Representatives as outlined in the subject bill.
I have here a copy, that I went back and got and then came back
down here, of that agreement or that house bill. There are other items
in here that are of serious concern. Offshore facilities require onshore
support, pipelines, storage tanks, pumping stations. There's nothing
here that provides secure -- in this bill that provides protection for the
comm- -- onshore communities from the events that would happen. If
anything, they loosen up the requirements. They make it real easy for
the oil companies.
Some people might suspect that this bill was written by the oil
companies, for the oil companies. But this is really a bad piece of
legislation.
It further opens the door -- and I can prove it. I have it right here
-- for drilling in our parks, because there's a provision for onshore
drilling as long as -- in parkland as long as it does not occur within
three miles of a municipality.
And if you give me the time, I can show that to you here. I know
I only have three minutes, but maybe this is something that you want
to bring back next week in a more concise format.
The arguments that have been brought forth to promote this bill:
One, no oil spills after Katrina and Rita. That is contrary to the truth.
The U.S. Mineral Resources Department put out an after-storm
Page 78
April 28, 2009
report that indicates how much oil was spilled. It was spilled from
both onshore and offshore facilities.
If you look at what's happening in San Padre Island, that
happened in San Padre Island after that spill, you will see what could
happen down here to Marco Island, Sanibel Island, simply from what
is carried by the currents.
I would ask your forbearance here to let me finish. I won't be
much longer.
There's a provision in this bill that alleviates responsibility of the
oil companies for any oil spilled that may be carried by currents
beyond three miles from the oil company facility.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. BILLINGTON: Our tidal currents are such that you can
drop something off coast here, and it will end up on the other coast of
Florida like what happened to those poor fishermen that ended up
dying from a boating accident.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for bringing this --
MR. BILLINGTON: This isn't a partisan issue. This is a garage
piece of the legislation that needs to be addressed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Billington, for bringing
that up. It was great of you to go out and seek that out and bring some
of these other --
MR. BILLINGTON: I would be happy to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Okay. Now, next commissioners to speak -- I had actually put
myself in line there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead. Ladies first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. And I just wanted to ask --
and a correction. I'm looking for corrections here. I thought we had a
bunch of oil wells in Alaska, and they're not even allowed to use
those. Don't we have oil wells dug all over that are sitting there
capped because we're not allowed to use them and yet we want to drill
Page 79
April 28, 2009
more and more? I don't understand that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want me to try?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, I don't have full knowledge
about all that. I can tell you that there are oil reserves in Alaska, and
the oil companies are not permitted to exploit those oil reserves.
And the real problem here -- there are a lot of oil leases where oil
companies are not drilling oil, but one of the -- one of their long-range
planning problems essentially is this. If you're going to put billions of
dollars into oil exploration and drilling, you want to make sure that
you've got plenty of places where you can drill that oil and you will
not be stopped from drilling that oil because once you put in the
infrastructure and you spend the money for the equipment and doing
all this, you need to be assured that you'll be able to do it for a long
period of time.
So that's one of the reasons they're trying to get as many leases as
they can, because they're talking about drilling for the next 50 or 75
years, and they just don't want to have somebody stop them sometime
in the future, and their investment then would have not paid off to the
extent they expected. So it's a business decision, and it makes sense in
some cases.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I look at this coastline of the other states
and I'm thinking -- and look at ours. It looks so beautiful. Just think,
we can have all that -- all that stuff all over ours and we'd never be the
same. Our tourism would be hurt tremendously.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: "Drill, baby, drilL"
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jack, could you get me a picture of this,
and also send one to the Naples Daily News just so that they might be
able to publish that?
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle
brought up a good point. If they -- if they can do laterally (sic)
Page 80
April 28, 2009
drilling in 10 miles, then why not provide -- instead of just saying no,
why don't you provide other solutions besides just saying no. But
Commissioner Halas? Did you want to say something?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you hear the motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty-five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The motion was for 25 miles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that's what the second
was, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard it, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But provide solutions to
legislators, is, you're going to get more support for that than just to say
no to everything.
A second thing is, I think the resolution needs to be corrected
anyways. First thing, the House already voted on it, so -- and the
second thing, the bill -- the bill doesn't provide for the legislators to do
the drilling. It's up to the governor and cabinet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, did you have your
button on again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I did. And Commissioner
Henning makes an important point, and I would like to maybe suggest
a revision to the resolution.
I think you should include in the resolution a whereas that would
say, better solutions are generated if legislative delegations will
consult with their local constituents in advance of supporting or voting
for bills.
And secondly, we might want to make a resolution that instead of
leaving any such decision up to a governor or cabinet, that it should
require a referendum by the people of Florida. But those are the --
those are the two additional whereases I would suggest that we
consider for the motion.
Page 81
April 28, 2009
Now, the other concern is, if we proceed -- if we do not proceed,
the legislative session is going to be over before we meet again
probably, but -- so we need to do it now, and we need to agree on
what to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in -- that's in my second. I
think that's a great opportunity for us to make sure that we get this --
this motion clarified, get the verbiage down correctly and send it on to
not only our legislative body up there, but I think that we need to
make sure that the Speaker of the House and the Senate also get a
copy of this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the governor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. WERT: And the governor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if! could just say, Jack, if you
could work on this thing and wordsmith it.
MR. WERT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're not doing anything for
lunch anyway. So get that done this afternoon and we could review it
and take a look at it and make a final decision; is that okay?
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MR. BILLINGTON: What about the voice of the public? What
about having the environmental --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, you can't really talk -- sir, you can't
really talk from the audience.
MR. BILLINGTON: Just because things are rushed in
Tallahassee don't mean they have to be rushed here. This is
ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to then vote on this motion
now or that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's postpone the motion until we
get it word-smithed --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 82
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then bring it back this
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so we could table it and then
take it off the table this afternoon and reconsider it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay. Then we'll move on--
we'll just table this one and move on to the next item.
Item #lOB
RESOLUTION 2009-116: ADOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
HUD ONE- YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FY 2009 - 2010 FOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG),
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AMERICAN
DREAM DOWNP A YMENT INITIATIVE (ADD I) AND
EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) PROGRAMS;
AUTHORIZE THE BCC CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPROVED
RESOLUTION, CONTRACT TEMPLATES REQUIRED HUD
CERTIFICATIONS, SF 424 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE, AND SUBMISSION TO HUD - ADOPTED
W /CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. The next item is lOB, formerly 16D3.
That is a recommendation to approve a resolution adopting the Collier
County HUD one-year action plan for 2009/2010 for Community
Development Block Grant, Home Investment Partnerships, American
Dream Down Payment Initiative, and Emergency Shelter Grant
Programs, authorize the BCC chairman to sign the approved
resolution, contract templates required, HUD certifications, SF424
application for federal assistance and submission to HUD.
Ms. Colleen Greene from your County Attorney's Office will
present.
Page 83
April 28, 2009
MS. GREENE: Good morning, Commissioners. Colleen Greene,
Assistant County Attorney.
The reason I'm here today is we have three contract templates
attached to this housing item for your review and approval today.
Upon final review of these items and, unfortunately, after they went to
the printer, we found a few tweaks that we needed to make, and I
wanted to present them to the board for approval.
The first one was recommended also in compliance with the
Clerk of Court, it applies to all three contracts, and it is the contract --
the section for time of performance.
The underlined section has been added. I've placed it on the
visualizer to assist you in following along.
Under Section 3, time of performance, the contract currently
reads, the effective date of the agreement between HUD and Collier
County shall be, and we'll enter the date there. The new sentence is,
sub-recipients are authorized to incur eligible expenses after that date
and prior to execution of this agreement subject to HHS prior written
approval. The remainder of the paragraph remains the same. This
change was made in conjunction with the Clerk's Office.
The second change is specific to the ESG agreement where we
need to add a definition for program beneficiaries. This is found in
Section 8, Sub-section C, program beneficiaries. The words
underlined have been added. Those persons who are homeless or who
are at risk of becoming homeless as defined in 42USCl1302.
Another change to the ESG agreement is to add Section 6L,
match required. The sub-recipient must match ESG grant funds dollar
for dollar pursuant to 24CFR576.51. The match funds can come from
the grantee or recipient agency or organization, other federal, state,
and local grants, and from in-kind contributions.
And the final change, Commissioners, is on the HOME
agreement where we had a reminder to do additional research, and we
just need to strike the language. Please strike from Section 11,
Page 84
April 28, 2009
reversion of assets, real property.
It's my opinion, Commissioners, that these minor edits do not
change the meaning of the agreement. This language is for
clarification purposes only.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean the Clerk is saying
that -- to make payments on items prior to the agreement being
signed?
MS. GREENE: Yes. I've worked with this with Crystal Kinzel
and her staff in reviewing these agreements. This is actually provided
for by HUD. And the date of the agreement with HUD in Collier
County is one date; the date of the agreement with Collier County and
the sub-recipient is a later date just by the sequence of events.
HUD authorizes the sub-recipients to incur these expenses, and
so does Collier County, prior to or pending HHS prior approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are these going to be
administrative agreements so it's going to be processed administrative
(sic), or are they going to come to the Board of Commissioners?
MS. GREENE: The goal, Commissioner Henning, is for these
three templates to be standard templates, which will be signed by the
Board of County Commissioners, but rather than putting each 20-page
agreement on every agenda, we're only going to add the scope onto
the agenda, basically to save paper and to save space on the agenda.
That's why we're trying to have form agreements approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's no discretion in
allowing staff to pay things prior to the agreement being ratified?
MS. GREENE: I'm not sure I understand your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm glad we have
sub-agreements that we're allowing staff to execute.
MS. GREENE: No, no. Commissioner, they will be executed by
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 85
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But not by the Board of
Commissioners?
MS. KRUMBINE: They will be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Every one of these will
be on the --
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- board's agenda?
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes. For the record, the idea actually was
just to save time, paper, and energy up front. And with the action
plan, you have the contract template, and the first 20 pages will
always remain the same except for the sub-recipient and the amount.
So what you will see and what you will approve as a board is,
let's say, the sub-recipient's name and amount and then the scope,
which is the individualized service. So the board will see that. You
just won't see the 20-page template that will be the same over and over
again. And then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: -- we do this on a number of our grants,
Commissioner, and that is, the program year might start, let's say July
1, which is the case for HUD; however, because of the summer
schedule or the schedule with working with sub-recipients, we might
not be able to get the contracts back to you until September.
But once we know that this is -- the projects are approved and
everything is a go, that it actually allows the sub-recipient to start on
the project prior -- with our approval, July I, with the program year,
with the awarding of the grant from HUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, question, Marcy, and I'm
probably taking this out of context. But where it says match required,
that was in there before and you just changed the language?
MS. GREENE: Yes. Commissioner Coletta, actually the CFR
Page 86
April 28, 2009
was referred to, you know, the federal regulation; however, we never
spelled out the language in the federal regulation, so it's really just a
clarification. It doesn't change the meaning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what we have before us
will allow us to be able to have smoother sailing from the time that
they complete their contract to the time this check is issued by the
Clerk's Office.
MS. GREENE: That's the goal, Commissioner, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I -- did we make a motion
for approval yet?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then I'll make one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second it with the
changes added by Colleen.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that's correct with
the changes.
What is that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Entertainment is coming forth.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to sing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Must be getting hungry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor to approve
with the changes. This was -- the motion was made by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign?
Page 87
April 28, 2009
(No response.)
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, I don't know if you want to take
public comment now or reserve that till later in the day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Let's reserve that till later and let's
go to 14.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF AN ASSEMBLAGE OF COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA; AUTHORIZE THE CRA
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT;
AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO COORDINATE
WITH APPROPRIATE ENTITIES TO SECURE AND
STRUCTURE FINANCING TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY. SITE ADDRESS: 6.29 ACRES WITHIN
THE GATEWAY MINI-TRIANGLE - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am, very good. That takes us to Item 14A.
That is a recommendation from the Community Redevelopment
Agency to approve the purchase of an assemblage of commercial
property located in the Gateway Triangle redevelopment area.
Authorize the CRA chairman to execute the real estate contract,
authorize the executive director to coordinate with appropriate entities
to secure and structure financing to complete the sale of the subject
property. Site address, 6.29 acres within the Golden Gate (sic)
mini-triangle.
Fiscal impact, $7,500,000. And Ms. Jean Jourdan, your project
manager with Bayshore/Gateway Triangle, will present.
Page 88
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have to change the gavel for this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. I can do it right from
here. Does that work?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we're fine. So yes, please go
over the presentation, and if there's any questions, I'm sure my fellow
commissioners will interrupt you at that time.
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. Jean Jourdan, project
manager for Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Triangle.
The item before you today is to permit the CRA to enter into a
contract to purchase 6.29 acres located within the Gateway
mini-triangle at a purchase price of $7,500,000.
As you are all aware, the CRA has been trying to work to acquire
this very important triangle as part of the catalyst project for the CRA
redevelopment area.
I'm here to answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If! may, the six acres, it's right
in the center of the triangle?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's priced right at this point in time.
But where are you going to be able to get the money to be able to do
this when you already have a debt out there that you still need to
cover?
MS. JOURDAN: Actually, entering into the contract provides us
with approximately 63 days for due diligence and also to acquire
financing.
Weare in the process of engaging conversations with several
banks. There is still a little more work that we need do; however, this
contract is contingent of obtaining finance.
Weare very certain and have very good probabilities that we will
be able to obtain this financing well within this time period.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 89
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concerns are the same
thing, that is regard to financing, especially in these economic times.
Are you going to have -- are the interest rates going to be such
that it's going to be difficult for you to obtain this money?
MS. JOURDAN: It's not so much as -- the interest rate right
now. It's more the options that we have been given. The interest rates
are good interest rates.
The main issue is that we are carrying the loan on another
particular piece of property; however, there are so many different
options that haven't been looked at as yet as far as the CRA's
capability to incur debt, and these are other things that we have to
work on.
There are two options where we have basically been given
approval that the bank would approve us for these loans, but there
were some discussions with the finance committee here for the Board
of County Commissioners. But all these things are being addressed.
And entering into this contract, at this point we're not entering __
we're not actually entering the finance stage. We've talked with the
property owner, and that's why we've -- he's given us a rather good
due diligence period in order to see if we can acquire this debt.
Now, if the finance committee, after we've spoken to these
different banks -- and we have a couple other few options that the
finance committee's not aware of yet -- if they still, within this time
period, within this 63 days, feel the CRA is not capable to incur this
debt, that would be brought back to you. We will not be going
forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That was my concern,
because with the advent of property values falling, obviously the
amount of income that the CRA is going to get, that might be a huge
deficit to try to overcome to try to payoff this land, unless you can get
some kind of terms whereby they can carry this out over a period of
years -- and maybe like ten years or 15 years.
Page 90
April 28, 2009
So hopefully that option is available and that the banks won't be
too stringent in regards to how you're going to get the financing and
what the finance charges are going to be, et cetera.
MS. JOURDAN: Yes. That is what the CRA staff will diligently
be working on within these 60 days. It's not acquiring the loan but it's
the terms of the loan. So we're going to be negotiating that, and we
feel that we will be able to come to some amicable decision with this
and the financing terms.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then we'll have another bite at
the apple, right?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to say that
these are all issues that have to be resolved before this will happen,
and it will have to come back to us and it will have to be acceptable to
us before this proceeds.
All we're saying to them is, let's get the process started. We're
not giving up anything at all. The values that we're paying for these
properties are now at a very lower -- low point.
As a matter of fact, it's far less expensive than the offer we had
made for this property last year. And so it's important that we at least
proceed to evaluate ways that we can make this work, because once
this property gets broken up into pieces again, we'll never put it back
together, and there will never be the kind of redevelopment in this area
that you would like to have.
So all we're doing is just authorizing them to proceed with it,
evaluate alternatives and come back and report to us --
MS. JOURDAN: Those are all valid points.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- what you've found, okay.
MS. JOURDAN: You said it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to
Page 91
April 28, 2009
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
The only thing I wanted to mention was the fact that by this due
diligent period, we have time to be able to evaluate where we're going
to have an income coming in. By then we should have an idea what
we've got for the budget from there. Also, too, you have the ability to
be able to see what kind of financing's available that might be able to
bridge it from one year to the next.
MS. JOURDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0, and I turn the
meeting back over to Commissioner Fiala.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we have no other items for this
morning's agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good. Well, we'll be back at one --
MS. FILSON: I do have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
Page 92
April 28, 2009
Item # 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MS. FILSON: I do have one speaker under public comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Is the speaker here?
MR. OCHS: We said we were going to hold that till later, but if
you want to do public comment now --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, Commissioner Fiala, I
do know someone that wants to come in at the end of the meeting, if
we could open it again at that time for another person.
MR. OCHS: Great.
MS. FILSON: Elizabeth Fleming.
MS. FLEMING: Good morning. Elizabeth Fleming from
Defenders of Wildlife, for the record.
The transportation folks who were in here just a while ago would
know something about this, so -- here they come.
I am here today to ask for a letter of support from the Board of
County Commissioners for a high-priority project that we submitted to
Congressman Mario Diaz- Balart as -- for the proposals he was taking
that were due April 24th.
I saw a number of you at the roundtable meeting, the
transportation roundtable meeting in Naples, and county staff from
transportation and the County Manager's Office were there, as were
Commissioners Fiala, Henning, and Halas, and we all talked about the
various projects. I know you submitted your priorities, five projects,
also on Friday.
The letter of support that is needed, I had expected to get that
from FDOT. It is a -- it's a project we've been working on with them
for over a year. They funded part of it, transportation enhancement
funding, and they've just issued a new policy to not issue letters of
support. But the congressman was very encouraging of us to submit
Page 93
April 28, 2009
this, so I was going to ask if a letter would be forthcoming.
I can explain more. I've drafted a letter. It is about installing
wildlife crossings and fencing to protect panthers, wildlife and drivers
at Turner River on U.S. 41 in an area of chronic accidents involving
wildlife and vehicles.
And so I would ask direction from you of how to proceed. I have
drafted a letter. If there's time, I could read that into the record, if
that's helpful, or --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You've only got a few seconds left.
MS. FLEMING: Can I -- should I do that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Within your time limit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It might save her time if we put it
on the visualizer, and then we could all read it very quickly.
MS. FLEMING: Can you see that? Dear Congressman Mario
Diaz-Balart, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
endorses the proj ect submitted for consideration in the next surface
transportation bill titled Constructing Wildlife Underpasses on U.S. 41
at Turner River and Big Cypress National Preserve to reduce panther
mortality, increase habitat connectivity, and protect human safety.
A high-priority project application was submitted by Defenders
of Wildlife and is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, as well as other agencies, organizations and citizens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We'll have to stop you there,
but we can read it as we go.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, for the ones who couldn't
make the meeting, articulated very well, Mario Diaz- Balart was
excited about this project, and my opinion is, it's a very good project.
Usually we try to bring these back, but this is -- this is an
urgency. As the congressman stated, you need to submit your
applications by -- what's the deadline, April 28th?
Page 94
April 28, 2009
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's today.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MS. FLEMING: Well, it was April 24th.
MR. OCHS: For the original deadline, but they have to then
process beginning the 28th. She can make a late submission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: She'll still be eligible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to support -- I'm
going to make a motion that we direct our staff to have the chairman
write a letter of support for this project, and I also want to say that,
you know, if we're going to live with the panther, we might as well,
you know, bone up and try to support projects that help the survival of
the panther.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. There's a motion on the floor, and
I'll second it for the sake of discussion.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Even though I support the
Defenders of the Wildlife on just about everything, this is shortsighted
in the fact that you realize at this point in time we have lost a
tremendous amount of access for people that like to fish in the canals
along the roads.
There has been no provisions made, and there's no provisions
planned at this time, and I'm bringing you back a report at the MPO
meeting to explain the amount of access that we have lost.
If this thing was accompanied with access rights where people
could access through those canals into the wildlands behind, like
they've been traditionally doing for years -- these fences make it look
like a third-world country when they put them up. They don't take
any provisions to set them back a hundred yards from the road which
would provide even more safety for the panthers because of the fact
now if a panther gets caught between the fences, it's a ricochet effect.
Page 95
April 28, 2009
They've got no place to escape to be able to reconnoiter where they
are and find a way to escape.
You then -- also, too, you take away that access to the canals.
There's hundreds, if not thousands, of people that fish those canals,
and a lot of them fish for substance. And mile by mile, we are taking
this right away from them, when the simple provisions of openings in
the fence that could be used by people and animals wouldn't be able to
access them would allow for a dual use that would be able to protect
the panther and allow for that access for the people that have been
traditionally doing it.
So this is the item that I asked if I could get staff time to be able
to bring it back before the commission, the MPO, when we have that
meeting. And making this proclamation at this point in time without
that information to consider would be doing a great disservice to the
people that have access to that area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am concerned about only one
thing. The mention of funding is here, and I just don't want anyone to
interpret this as a -- an agreement to participate in the funding in any
way. If it just clearly states that. If we're trying to get federal funding,
that's wonderful, I'm all for it, but we don't have any money to put
toward this.
MS. FLEMING: There is no fiscal impact intended for Collier
County. We can make that clear.
If I could just answer what Commissioner Coletta had brought
up. In the letter, it does go on to state, public input meetings are being
scheduled for later in Mayor early June, and there will be public input
throughout the permitting process if it gets that far.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate that, and
they've given that same opportunity time and time again, but they still
put the fence up without any access, portholes of any type. There's
many different things that can be done to modify it; however, there
Page 96
April 28, 2009
seems to be no willingness on the part of Florida Department of
Transportation or the Fish and Wildlife people to make for this small
amenity to people that have enjoyed this recreational pursuit for years.
MS. FLEMING: If the area is 2.2 miles, and there and -- it's a
conceptual design at this point, talking about putting it on the other
side of the canal, so the access at least from the road wouldn't be an
issue, and there is room. All the people will be invited, recreational
users, anybody with an interest in the preserve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm going to be meeting
with Fish and Wildlife, Paul Souza, in the next couple of weeks or so.
We're setting up an appointment. He wants to come over and talk to
me personally. I can tell you that every talk that has gone with that
direction to offset the fence has been turned down for the simple fact
that the cost of trying to move it back and put an access road to the
fence has been prohibitive.
Maybe Mr. Feder would like to address it. I see him standing
there with the answers at the tip of his tongue.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, obviously we talked about, and we're going to
bring to the MPO, as this board asked and authorized you to try to do,
what our options are to maintain access, whether it's a spring gate with
a second gate that allows access and ensures that at least it won't be
left open, or some other portal opportunity. And we are committed to
try and look at that and bring that to you.
To Commissioner Coyle's comment, I think that's very important.
If, in fact, this board decides to support this, we need to make it clear
that we're not committing any county funding nor staffing to manage
it. It would be a Florida DOT project.
And then lastly, we may want to make it clear that we're not
putting this up in competition with the ones that we've submitted
specifically for funding for the county.
Page 97
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility that we
might find this in competition? Because I mean, when it comes down
to the final thing, it's going to be the people in Washington D.C. that
will make this decision.
MR. FEDER: I would hope not, but I think we need to recognize
that, that we're not necessarily stating our support in competition to
what was submitted but that we do see it as a good project and would
encourage that it be considered for funding, as long as it's understood
that it be a Florida DOT project and that all funding be obtained by the
grants or provided supplementally by others other than the county.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if! could support
my own motion. I think Commissioner Coletta brings up a very valid
point. Is this time sensitive where we can't discuss this at the MPO?
When is our next MPO?
MR. OCHS: Next MPO meeting, Norman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Friday?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second week in -- second Friday in
May, I think. Second week.
MS. FILSON: It's May 8th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May 8th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Couldn't we wait till May 8th,
Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes. Yes, you can, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to remove my
motion so we get more information to make a sum. judgment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So with that then, we will break for lunch.
We'll be back here at 1:05.
Page 98
April 28, 2009
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, and thank you all
for being here this afternoon. As we begin, we are going to go back to
the resolution; is that correct, Leo?
Item #10A - Continued from earlier in the meeting
RESOLUTION 2009-117: BOARD OF COUNTY A RESOLUTION
IN OPPOSITION TO DRILLING FOR NATURAL GAS AND OIL
WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE SHORELINE OF FLORIDA -
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that would be Item lOA, untab1e 10A.
Mr. Sheffield's passing out the revised version of the resolution that
the board discussed this morning.
Commissioners want to take a few minutes and look at that, see if
that meets their intent?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, does that capture the
essence of what we spoke of this morning?
Jack, would you like to speak on this subject while we're --
MR. WERT: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Jack
Wert, your tourism director.
We did take the direction that you gave us just before the break,
and added the preamble there that it would be (sic) drilling within 25
miles of the Collier County coastline. We kept in the reference to the
Bill 1219. Even though it's been passed, we wanted to be on record
that we were in opposition to that. And then we add the two
whereases, first of all, that we would ask the governor and cabinet to
make that final determination through local referendum, and that --
and we would then send this on.
Page 99
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And also to check with our --
MR. WERT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- local county commission --
MR. WERT: County commission first, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- before representing us?
MR. WERT: Those two additional whereases.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners?
Yes, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I just have a
question concerning clarification. On the top of the second page, the
whereas -- County Attorney, I need your help on this. We're talking
about, would best serve the citizens of the State of Florida by putting
the issue in the local referendum. Aren't we really saying putting it in
a statewide referendum?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And other than that, I don't
-- I don't see any variances from what we previously had discussed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion's still on the floor; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It can be removed from the table,
as I understand it, right, okay, by the Chair? You can remove the
motion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Okay. I will remove the motion--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From the table.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that we had tabled.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we could call for a vote.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we already have a motion
and a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Already have a motion, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is to the -- to the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Updated referendum.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- updated -- thank you -- updated
Page 100
April 28, 2009
referendum.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, to this resolution.
MR. KLATZKOW: The motion is to approve this referendum as
changed from local to state.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Resolution.
MR. KLATZKOW: Resolution, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So -- and you were the motion
maker?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He was the motion maker. I was
the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, okay.
Any further discussion?
Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, I'd like to try to
find solutions than adversarial (sic). You know, if we're going to
communicate better with our delegation, I think we should probably
start it on our side also because everything that we do here is to inform
the legislation/delegation what we're doing, because that's what we're
asking them to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But, you know, I -- and I -- I understand,
and that's a nice way to do things, but when we go up there and we ask
them for things and we talked to them about, please oppose the tolling
ofI-75 or whatever, they -- we listen -- we talk to them and they don't
do it anyway.
So it seems like it's falling on deaf ears. And of course, obviously
from this, they don't contact us either. So it's not that we haven't tried.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, there was
a time that we did have a good rapport with our legislation/delegation.
I think we've got our -- we should work on that so we can have our
voices heard in Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is a whole new delegation up there,
Page 10 1
April 28, 2009
too. Anyway, we won't argue that now.
Yes, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to address that. I
think we have tried. You know, we have pre-legislative hearings with
our delegation, we have post-legislation hearings with our delegation,
we go up there and we meet with them, staff provides them
information on a continuing basis. We are working through the
Association of Counties, Florida Association of Counties, to present
our positions to the legislators.
And I'm going to ask that the county staff at our next meeting
have a chart that shows our legislative priorities and compare it with
our legislative delegation's priorities.
I want -- I want that shown, and I think what you'll find is that
everything we say to them is of little consequence. And the only way
we're going to get things done in Tallahassee that are important for our
community is to make sure that the voters of Collier County
understand what is happening. If we keep trying to cover up what is
going on there because they happen to be in our party, the longer we're
going to get the same kind of substandard service. And I think we
need to start letting the voters know what's happening here.
And -- so I'm going to ask that the staff come here next meeting
prepared to show a comparison between our legislative requests and
our priorities and our delegation's own priorities and what they have
done. I think we ought to even start regularly showing the votes that
have been taking place on various pieces of delegation that are
destroying our home rule and inhibiting our ability to serve our
constituents here in Collier County.
So, you know, we have to deal with this head on. We can't go
around patting people on the back and expect to get this solved.
We've tried that part.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe I was
Page 102
April 28, 2009
misunderstood. It's not that we're trying to reach out for staff and
meet with them. What I'm talking about is potshots on this dais to the
legislators. And I don't want to deny anybody of their opinion,
because whatever their opinion, is their opinion. I'm just saying, you
know, we need to reach out individually and collectively to our
legislators to make things happen to our residents.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have asked staff already to
let us know how they're voting in regards to what we've tried to
accomplished here to retain our home rule, whether it's transportation
concurrency, when it's impact fees, whether it's tolling of highways,
whatever it is, in regards to what we feel is the important priorities for
the citizens here in Collier County.
I have asked staff to start giving us what the vote is in regards to
people who represent us up in Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that we need to debate
this any longer, but just -- I think we must make sure that it is
understood that each of us has gone to Tallahassee and sat down
across the table with legislators and asked them to please do not
support a certain piece of legislation only to be told, well, this is a
collegial organization. You know, we have to get along to go along,
and I guess it is, and maybe we can't change that, but we certainly
seem to debate things among ourselves. We're not afraid to say, this is
my opinion, even if the other members of the board disagree.
I believe you can have debate on issues, and if you can't have
debate on issues in Tallahassee because you're afraid you're going to
lose your committee chairmanship, then, you know, it isn't working up
there and it's hurting us, hurting us very, very badly.
So we have to -- we have to speak out. It's not -- we can't be
afraid to rock the boat. It's that simple.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have a motion on the floor to
Page 103
April 28, 2009
approve the resolution as amended. The motion was made by
Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners, very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Jack.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2009-20: PUDA-2007-AR-11546: LONGSHORE
LAKE FOUNDATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY ROBERT L.
DUANE, AICP OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REQUESTING A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT TO
LONGSHORE LAKE PUD ORDINANCE NO. 93-3, SECTION 3.2
B. TO ALLOW AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN FOR SATURNIA
FALLS (AKA TERAFINA PUD) IN LONGSHORE LAKE, UNIT
5C, TRACT B; OR, IN THE AL TERNA TIVE TO ALLOW THE
OFF- SITE PREMISE SIGN TO BECOME AN ON-SITE PREMISE
SIGN FOR LONGSHORE LAKE; TO REINSERT P ARTIALL Y
OMITTED TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 5.2,
STIPULATIONS SUBSECTION 2; TO REINSERT OMITTED
TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 5.2, STIPULATIONS
SUBSECTIONS 3 AND 4 AND ADD SECTION 8: DEVIATIONS.
THE SUBJECT SIGN IS LOCATED ON A .5 ACRE PROPERTY
Page 104
April 28, 2009
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
LONGSHORE LAKE PUD, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AND
LOGAN BOULEVARD IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION
TO APPROVE W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS - FAILED;
MOTION TO RECONSIDER - APPROVED; MOTION TO
APPROVE W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to your advertised
public hearings. The first one is Item 8A. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
This is PUDA-1207-AR-11546, Longshore Lake Foundation,
Inc., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc.,
requesting a planned unit development amendment to Longshore Lake
PUD ordinance 93-3, Section 3.2 B, to allow an off-premise sign for
Saturnia Falls, also known as Terafina PUD, in Longshore Lake unit
5C, Tract B; or, in the alternative, to allow the off-site premise sign to
become an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lake; to reinsert
partially omitted traffic requirements; Section 5.2, stipulation
Subsection 2; to reinsert omitted traffic requirements, Section 5.2,
stipulation subsections 3 and 4, and to add Section 8.
Deviations: The subject sign is located on a .5-acre property
located on the southeast comer of the Longshore Lake PUD at the
northwest comer of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Logan
Boulevard in Section 20, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Folks, if anybody wishes to speak on this
particular subj ect, we're going to be -- you must get in your speaker
slips now because if -- after we've sworn everybody in, you don't get a
Page 105
April 28, 2009
chance to hand any speaker slips in, okay.
So with that, will the court reporter please swear in anyone who
wishes to speak on this subject.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And ex parte from our commissioners.
We will start with Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, ma'am. On 6A (sic) I have
had correspondence, and it's in my file if anyone would like to see it.
8A, excuse me. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Kevin Ratterree from
GL Homes, received emails from Longshore Lake community's HOA,
and correspondence from Nancy Gundlach. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I have -- I just have one
piece of correspondence here, and I've spoken to staff.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you very much. I had
some correspondence from the Longshore Lake's homeowners, and
I've also talked with staff and the attorney on this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence
and emails concerning this. They are all contained in my public file. I
have had no meetings with individuals concerning this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. DUANE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Robert Duane representing Longshore Foundation today. I'll be very
brief. I have with me Kevin Ratterree from GL Homes today; I also
have Bill Bates, the former president of the Longshore Lakes (sic)
Foundation; and I have the current president, Sally Kirk, of the
Longshore Lakes Foundation.
As your manager, assistant manager said, this is a request to
locate an off-site premises sign for Saturnia Falls. Some of you may
Page 106
April 28, 2009
know that as Terafina. It's on the Logan Boulevard, or what will be
the extension of Logan Boulevard north of Immokalee Road.
The sign, based on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission, which supports the petition, will allow the sign to revert
to an on-site premise sign for Longshore Lakes upon the completion
of the extension of Logan Boulevard. That sign, when it reverts to an
on-premise sign, will meet all the requirements of our Land
Development Code, and it will give Longshore Lakes some signage
exposure that they presently really do not have today other than a very
small sign located at their entrance, so they see some benefits to
getting a little better exposure to their community.
I'd now like to have Mr. Ratterree make a few comments, and
then either one of us or representatives from the foundation will
answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
MR. RATTERREE: Good afternoon. For the record, Kevin
Ratterree with GL Homes. Effectively we have a concern regarding
our ability to market the Saturnia Falls project. As you probably have
heard, the Parklands Ronto project, which was north of our project,
has gone into receivership with the bank. That PUD was obligated to
build Logan Boulevard from Immokalee up to Bonita Beach Road.
Our community, which is separated from Immokalee from the
Olde Cypress community, effectively will have to build the road up to
our entry which will serve as basically a mile-and-a-half-Iong
driveway because that will be the only project with their main entry
located off that road.
So we had requested through Longshore Lake to utilize a portion
of their property which has frontage on Immokalee Road for the
purposes of a sign that will give people an indication to turn on that
road relative to coming to our project.
We entered into lease agreements with them. We've been in those
lease agreements for approximately a year and a half, two years
pending the outcome of this hearing.
Page 107
April 28, 2009
And my final note is, the recommendation of the zoning
commission was that this sign, once Logan connects and becomes a
public road from Immokalee up to Bonita Beach, i.e., that it would be
built by the developer of the Parklands Ronto projects, it would
convert to an on-premise sign for the Longshore Lake community.
Effectively they would remove the Saturnia Falls moniker off the sign
and just put on Longshore Lake.
That's it, unless there's any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And staff?
Sue, how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: For this item, two.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, principal planner with the department of land development
reVIew.
And this petition was heard by the CCPC on March 19th, and
they recommended approval of all three amendments to the Longshore
PUD amendment. Staff is in agreement with two of those
amendments, and the two amendments that we are in agreement with
is the request to reinsert omitted transportation commitments and also
a request to allow an existing land use for a landscape maintenance
building to become a permitted use within the Longshore Lakes (sic)
PUD.
Staff is not in agreement with the proposal for the sign. The sign
is, as previously mentioned, it is located a mile away from the
Terafina development. And if -- the proposed sign grants special
privilege to the applicant that others do not have in Collier County. It
also has no land-related hardship.
The CCPC at their meeting voted 6-1 to approve the sign, and the
sign, as previously stated, would become an off-premise sign -- it is an
off-premise sign that would become an on-premise sign once the
Logan Boulevard extension is constructed.
And staff -- it's in staffs opinion that the CCPC, by recognizing
Page 108
April 28, 2009
that the sign should terminate as an off-premise sign at that time when
the Longshore Boulevard extension is constructed, is a -- it's no longer
a -- a long-term hardship for the Terafina PUD.
And it's also in our opinion that there's no hardship for the
Longshore Lakes PUD. Longshore Lakes is about ten to 20 years old.
The signage has been in place for equally as long. And this sign
would become an on-premise sign for Longshore Lakes; however, if
the board should be inclined to approve this sign, we suggest a
modification to the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Specifically we recommend that the sign be approved as a temporary
measure. And our recommendation would be that once Longshore --
once Logan Boulevard extension is constructed between Immokalee
Road and Bonita Beach Road, that the off-premise sign would
terminate. It would -- it would continue -- cease to exist at that point.
And as previously stated, we are recommending approval of the
other two amendments to the Longshore Lakes PUD, which is the
reinsertion of the omitted transportation commitments and the
insertion of the landscape maintenance building as an existing use.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And our speakers?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Bill Bates. He'll be followed
by Sally Kirk.
MR. BATES: Bill Bates from Longshore. There are other
reasons that we support the sign for GL Homes and that is, obviously
it would contribute to the success of the proposed Terafina PUD and
Saturnia Falls development, which would benefit Longshore residents
by providing a north/south route roadway accessible from Longshore's
eastern boundary should the Saturnia Falls development be completed
and the Logan Boulevard extension be completed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all?
MR. BATES: That's all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you, Mr. Bates.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sally Kirk.
Page 109
April 28, 2009
MS. KIRK: Good afternoon. I concur--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could you speak in the microphone,
please, and give us your name.
MS. KIRK: I'm sorry. Sally Kirk, I'm the president of
Longshore Lake Foundation.
I concur with Mr. Bates. We -- I think that if, anyone who's been
to that location, they will see that the sign, if anything, will improve
the looks of that corner. Right now the -- the corner is vacant, and
Longshore, as previously mentioned, has no sign other than a very
small sign at the entrance of Valewood Drive.
It would be a significant improvement to the area, and Longshore
would obviously benefit from having a sign in many regards,
especially once the sign is turned over to us. We'd have our own sign
at GL Home's expense.
So with that, that's all I have to say. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, question for Nancy. Was
there -- was there any opposition at the neighborhood information
meeting?
MS. GUNDLACH: No, there was no opposition at the
neighborhood information meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there -- is there any health,
safety, or visual blockage if this sign is erected?
MS. GUNDLACH: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's -- is that the
reason -- I'm reading in my executive summary. It's saying increased
signs as well as certain lighting of -- distract the attention of the
motorists, and it goes on. That's not the case here?
MS. GUNDLACH: The primary arguments from the CCPC
hearing is one of the commissioners was concerned that there would
be a proliferation of signage, and the sign that's proposed is slight --
Page 110
April 28, 2009
well, it's 41 square feet bigger than the sign code prescribes sign -- or
size for an off-premise sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- you said if the board
approves it that you would like to have the language of temporary sign
-- temporary measures in the sign would not be utilized after that, but
is this on Longshore Lake's property?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it wouldn't be an off-shore
-- off-site -- boy, I'm getting confused with the other issue. It wouldn't
be an off-site sign then, would it?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. At that point it becomes an on-site
sign for Longshore Lakes, and staffs recommendation is, it's just too
-- it's -- well, our recommendation to you, if you're so inclined to go
along with the CCPC's recommendation, is to terminate the sign after
-- at the point when the off-premise sign is removed, then the sign's
completely removed and doesn't go to an on-premise sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of how big it is; is that
what it is? Because it is on their property, Longshore's property.
MS. GUNDLACH: The recommendation is so that it's more of a
temporary measure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that. I'm just
trying to follow your logic of it being -- because we're saying it's a
deviation for an off-premise sign, but what GL is saying and
Longshore is saying, and the Planning Commission, once the road
from Immokalee Road to Bonita, then it doesn't become an off-site.
They move that sign to T erafina.
But what the folks at Longshore are saying -- correct me if I am
wrong -- then, if they put a sign that says Longshore community, is
that really an off-premise sign?
MS. GUNDLACH: Once it -- once the words Longshore Lakes
go on that sign, it is an on-premise sign for Longshore Lakes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, okay. So what size --
Page III
April 28, 2009
what I'm needing from you is, if the board approves it, can we put
conditions on the Longshore sign once it becomes an on-site? How
big should that sign be?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, once we -- what's interesting about the
code is the on-premise sign is actually bigger than the off-premise
sign, and that particular sign, as it is proposed, meets the criteria for an
on-premise sign. It does not meet the criteria for an off-premise sign.
It's bigger. An off-premise sign's only allowed to be 12 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So then I already
answered my question. It's not really a deviation from the code at that
point when the Terafina or Saturnia Falls sign is put on?
MS. GUNDLACH: I just have to remind you of something. It
would be an additional sign for Longshore Lakes --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: -- above and beyond what the code would
allow them to have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I was reading through this, it
seems to me that this -- first of all, why wouldn't they come in for a
sign ordinance change variation and -- instead of changing the PUD?
That's number one, I guess.
MS. GUNDLACH: It can't be brought in as a variance because
variances are only for dimensional requirements, and -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then the other thing is, from what I
read -- now, correct me if I am wrong -- it says that this sign, and
including the wall that it would be on, would be 270 square feet. And I
believe also it says that this exceeds the -- our sign requirements by
about 206 percent.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, is that coming from the staff
report or the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe it is.
MR. RATTERREE: It's a little bigger than this sign.
Page 112
April 28, 2009
MS. GUNDLACH: If it is, the sign was significantly reduced
from the time of the staff report. It was reduced after the CCPC
hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was? Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I read in here that it was
270 square feet that was -- that you were looking at, and -- so that's
why I was concerned on that one.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's it down to now? What's the
size of the sign?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's 57 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fifty-seven square feet. From the
207 -- or 206 percent?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
MR. RATTERREE: Commissioner, if! can interject. The
standards that you're seeing in terms of percentages are based on the
off-premise sign requirements, not the on-premise sign. As staff has
already acknowledged, the sign as proposed meets the criteria for an
on-premise sign in your existing code.
So when you see a 200-something percent, it seems like a huge
number, but in reality you're dealing with a code that only allows a
12-square-foot sign as an off-premise sign. So just to make that point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going to have some
notation that says, Saturnia Falls one mile ahead?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, remember the -- the Saturnia Falls'
entry is off Logan one mile ahead. I think a picture actually says a
thousand words.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. I know where the
entrance is. The question is that if you're putting a sign at the corner
Page 113
April 28, 2009
of Longshore Lake PUD and the sign says, Saturnia Falls, that doesn't
indicate where Saturnia Falls is, then how is that achieving your goal
of getting exposure to a potential market?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, our marketing to potential buyers
would include newspaper, direct mailing, all the other things that go
along with development of a project which would include a locational
map which would tell you to turn left at Logan Boulevard or presently
Olde Cypress Boulevard to get there.
What we wanted to have was at least some acknowledgment that
you're coming up to where you need to be turning relative to the
Saturnia Falls because you'd have acknowledgment, okay, well, there's
a sign for Saturnia Falls. But there are other advertising that we would
provide associated with the project that would direct people to go
farther north on Logan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I were driving down that road
and I saw Saturnia Falls, I would not know whether I should continue
to pass it and take the next right or what I should do. It seems to me
that if you truly want to get people to Saturnia Falls, you should have
a directional sign that says one mile that way.
MR. RATTERREE: Well, you know, I understand the comment,
but unfortunately those are things that we don't have control of. So we
do have control over trying to get a sign that has at least frontage on
Immokalee so that people know to -- that they're coming up to an
intersection, and then hopefully our direct advertising will direct
people to that location.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And are you saying that the county
will not permit you to put an arrow that says one mile?
MR. RATTERREE: I don't believe -- staff would have to answer
that question, but I don't believe that you do signs for individual
projects that tell you which way to go. So I know in the particular
case of the three communities that are off the roadway to the east,
there's a small sign about this big that sits in the median of the road.
Page 114
April 28, 2009
So you would have to have turned left to even know that you're on the
right road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, it would be confusing
to me, but I guess I'm just a dumb driver.
MR. RATTERREE: Well, I probably would tell you that at least
it's an acknowledgment of something that you, okay, well, at least I'm
coming up to where I need to be turning left and I know from the
material I got from GL Homes I need to turn left on Logan Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Kevin, where is the sign going
to be placed?
MR. RATTERREE: It's actually -- the Olde Cypress controls the
two corners. So Olde Cypress has that sign, which you see in the
picture which is a relatively large sign, which is -- I'm always
backwards. So it's the northeast corner of the intersection. They
control -- there's a small lake that's at the corner. It's on the other side
of the lake. It's about 150,200 feet in off the intersection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's going to be -- so it's
going to be at the intersection. It's going to be right at that sign?
MR. RATTERREE: It's going to be proximate to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it will be right by that pond,
right on --
MR. RATTERREE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Northwest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle does
make a good point, is, why not put an arrow there? Saturnia Falls,
then an arrow to kind of direct people there?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, you know, you get into a sign that's a
V -shaped sign and you put an arrow on it. You're not going to be able
to tell from the arrow which -- does that mean go straight or does that
mean turn left? We just wanted to at least acknowledge that Saturnia
-- you're getting close to where you need to turn at Saturnia. I think
Page 115
April 28, 2009
the arrow would actually confuse people more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- yeah, okay. It doesn't -- it
doesn't accomplish it.
MR. RATTERREE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, Madam Chair, I'm
going to make a motion to approve the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which means they have to take the sign
down after they're finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. They have to -- the
Planning Commission's recommendations, Saturnia Falls' sign goes
away.
MR. RATTERREE: It goes to Longshore Lake and becomes
their sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I -- Kevin, I'm
understanding that you are compensating Longshore for the use of
their property?
MR. RATTERREE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
approve --
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- within the CCPC recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner Henning, could you restate,
just clarify your recommendation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approve the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. So the sign will revert over to
Longshore Lakes as an on-premise sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, thank you.
Page 116
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And a second from
Commissioner Coletta.
Okay. I have Commissioner Halas up next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to say that I
stand corrected. It says that the full sign wall area has been reduced
from 270 square feet to 210 square feet, and the height of the proposed
sign has been reduced to -- from 12-and-a-halffeet to 8 feet. And it
says, please note, these changes have reduced the number of requested
deviations from six to four.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question of staff. Your
recommendation was different. You were suggesting that you -- that
we approve the sign as a temporary sign and then it would revert at the
point in time when the road was completed to Saturnia Falls. Is that
essentially what you were saying?
MS. GUNDLACH: Something like that. What we were saying
is the sign would only be an off-premise sign for Saturnia
Falls/Terafina PUD, and then once the road is constructed, that's
Logan Boulevard extension between Immokalee and Bonita Beach
Road, the sign is removed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. How is that different from
the recommendation by the Planning Commission?
MS. GUNDLACH: The Planning Commission recommendation
gives them the option of keeping the sign as an on-premise sign for
Longshore Lakes, and then it could potentially be there forever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just change the name.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So what you want to do is
have the sign completely disappear?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. It would only say Saturnia Falls for
a period, and then once that's done, the sign is removed.
Page 11 7
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what's your justification for
wanting that to happen?
MS. GUNDLACH: Just as a temporary measure, to keep the
sign temporary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no. What is your justification
for wanting it to disappear? You don't think that the sign should stay
as an on-premise sign to Longshore Lake?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. There is no hardship to Longshore
Lakes because they haven't -- they already have used all their sign
privileges for their signs on site currently.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And with that, we will close the
public hearing, and I will call for the motion.
The motion has been stated by Commissioner Henning and
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that's a 3-2. What does that mean?
MR. KLATZKOW: Fails. It needs four.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It fails.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You could make another motion if anyone
wanted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion that we approve
staffs recommendation, which would permit Saturnia Falls to put the
sign there, and then when the sign -- when the road is completed, the
sign would be removed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
Page 118
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I ask a question? Is there -- you said
that the sign that we see in this picture is for what, the one that's on
this picture right there?
MR. RATTERREE: That's the entry sign for Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So it doesn't even say Longshore Lakes
out there?
MR. RATTERREE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that Longshore Lakes would have had
this sign had we voted for it, but once Saturnia Falls does not need it
anymore -- but now they have no sign?
MR. RATTERREE: Well, the easiest way to describe that is
Longshore Lake has about three-quarters of a mile of frontage on
Immokalee. The only sign on Immokalee that acknowledges
Longshore Lakes is about that big. And it's a greene sign in the
median of the road immediately to the west. It's on Valewood. So
you would have to turn on Valewood, go up approximately a mile, and
then turn right into the community.
So there's no formal acknowledgment of that community. It's got
a long wall that sits there, but there's no acknowledgment that that's
the Longshore Lake community.
The thought process was that you've got Olde Cypress at the
corner that's got identification, you've got other communities that have
frontage up there that have identification, but this particular
community which has a considerable amount of frontage has no
identification up on the road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I was concerned with is that
then they have no presence whatsoever.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had a -- in view of that, I had a
follow-on question about that. Can I follow up with my --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, do you mind
if he goes before you?
Page 119
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, he can. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You see, that wasn't clear
from before, because the staff is telling us that the number of signs has
been used up, that this would be an additional sign that goes beyond
the number of signs that could be used for Longshore Lakes.
MR. RATTERREE: Under the existing PUD document
Longshore Lakes permitted n I don't know if Susan wants to say what
she needs to say. But under the existing PUD document, Longshore
Lakes was not permitted an on-site corner identification sign. A lot of
the PUDs that you see come through the approval process that have a
significant amount of roadway frontage, also include, in addition to
their project entry signage, corner identification signage.
And so the entry sign for Longshore Lakes is actually located on
Valewood about three-quarters of a mile north of Immokalee Road.
And as I said, the only thing that's on the corner is a sign that's about
this big that names the three communities that have an entry off
Valewood.
So the point was -- and I think the community wanted to have
some acknowledgment that their community -- that was their
community. You have no way of knowing that that's actually
Longshore Lake when you're on Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coyle, I was also told
by staff that although their denial was there, it was a very soft denial.
It was only because they wanted to keep within the, you know, a
certain letter.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Does the -- does Longshore
Lakes have the opportunity to come in and get a new sign if they
want?
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, Susan Istenes, for the record.
Let me see if I can clear this up. Longshore -- you'll have to sit down
Page 120
April 28, 2009
until the Chair acknowledges you. Sorry. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And not only that, but the public hearing
is closed. I'm sorry. We cannot have any other speakers.
MS. ISTENES: Longshore Lakes currently has a sign, and I
believe it's on Immokalee Road. But Bob, can you provide some
clarification for that? Is that --
MR. DUANE: Yes. For the record, Robert Duane. It is at the
entrance of Immokalee Road and Valewood Drive. There's a sign that
identifies --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's Valewood Drive?
MS. ISTENES: Okay. I've got it on the visualizer. This is -- I'm
sorry. I want Valewood. This is Immokalee Road here, and this is
Valewood that comes -- runs -- oh, I'm sorry. Am I upside down? I'm
looking at that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that the main entrance?
MS. ISTENES: The main entrance is actually a little bit up on
Valewood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But they have a sign out there on
Immokalee Road?
MS. ISTENES: Correct. The--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If they have a small sign,
can they come in and get another --
MS. ISTENES: They can have as much signage as the code will
allow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And is it -- is the -- the amount that
the code allows larger than they have now?
MS. ISTENES: I don't know that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or they could come in and if it --
MS. ISTENES: They could come find out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They could find out.
MS. ISTENES: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or they could come in and get a
Page 121
April 28, 2009
new sign, and if they needed a sign larger, then they could come in
with a sign variance; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: That's correct, Commissioner.
The other point we wanted to make and why we were saying that
there really is no hardship here is we're not sure why a sign in this
corner of Longshore Lakes is valuable to Longshore Lakes in that the
entrance is way over here. So that was kind of the reason.
We understood the hardship with Terafina, although we didn't
think it was an extreme hardship; nevertheless, after the Planning
Commission, we accepted the fact that if the board was so inclined to
approve it, at least by approving it as a temporary measure for
Terafina, once the road was extended, that hardship would go away.
Longshore Lakes is an existing community. It would just be
excess signage, and not that many PUDs have multiple signs on
Immokalee Road or any road, for that matter, unless they have very
extensive frontage, and we're talking at least a mile or two.
Typically your staff will recommend denial of any additional
signage above and beyond the code requirements unless there's some
extreme amount of frontage, at least in excess of a mile or two, has
been our consistent application.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sally? I need ask to Sally --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Sally Kirk a question. If
you'd stand up to the microphone. Thank you.
MS. KIRK: If I might straighten this out. At the entrance to
Valewood, there's a sign that's approximately 3 feet wide by maybe 4
feet tall that says Quail Creek Communities. Beneath Quail Creek
Communities are smaller sign -- is another smaller sign that says
Longshore Lake. Weare considered a part of the Quail Creek
Communities, but it is not a sign that is dedicated just to Longshore
Lake. And if it would make things easier, we would be happy to
Page 122
April 28, 2009
remove the Longshore Lake sign beneath the Quail Creek
Communities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess what I'm hearing from
staff is, you can always come in and get an interpretation of what you
can do to keep that sign. If the motion stands what it is, Susan, is that
correct, they could still -- with the motion supporting staffs
recommendations, they could still come in and --
MS. ISTENES: Sure. They always have the opportunity to
come in and evaluate what they have versus what the code allows and
then change it accordingly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sally, the issue is, is you need
four commissioners. So what I'm trying to tell you is, do you want
nothing or do you want it all? Or can you settle with something and
then go to staff later on and, if you wanted that -- the Longshore sign
to stay in place of the Saturnia's, how to make it happen?
MS. KIRK: Well, I think that I -- in speaking on behalf of the
community, I think that we would probably prefer the sign down at the
-- where the Terafina sign is and remove the Longshore Lake sign on
Valewood, if that's what it takes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. KIRK: There's the -- the sign down on Valewood is quite
small, and I don't know that -- in fact, originally we were -- I think we
had to fight to get our name on that sign because we are not Quail
Community per se.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand that. The
problem that I have is, you need four votes, and if we don't support
this motion, then you're going to lose your lease?
MS. KIRK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to lose all the
other benefits.
MS. KIRK: The other benefits, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, okay.
Page 123
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're going to lose their lease?
MS. KIRK: We're leasing that property to GL Homes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In a temporary --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure. You're the Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So if the sign, where it sits now, to be a
temporary sign, when they finish, now the other commissioners want
it removed and staff says that isn't the entrance anyway, could that
sign then be moved over to the other entrance and then --
MS. KIRK: There's no room for that over there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see.
MS. KIRK: It's a very -- the one on Valewood is a very, very
small sign.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I've never even seen your name up there,
to be honest with you.
MS. KIRK: That's what I'm saying. It's an insignificant sign, for
want of a better word.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I try to clarify this thing and
maybe move us on a bit? My motion was not intended to deprive
Longshore Lakes of an identification sign for their community. But
when staff told us they had already used up all their signs, my motion
was an attempt to make sure that we didn't grant special privilege to
someone and then have other developments coming in and asking for
the same grant.
But hearing that Longshore Lake's other sign is a very small sign,
I think they're entitled to the same kinds of identification that others
are. And if all we're quibbling about is a small sign at Valewood, then
I will remove my motion and vote for the first one. It's just that when
I was told that Longshore Lakes had already used up all of their signs
and we would be granting them a special privilege if we approved this
other one, I assumed that that was entirely correct information, but
Page 124
April 28, 2009
clearly their sign at Valewood is nothing in comparison to this sign or
to a sign that they would be otherwise entitled to get.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I can't tell you if Longshore
Lakes has maximized their current sign allowance with their current
sign because I just -- I'm not that familiar with the size and the
dimensions of the sign.
They have the right to maximize their sign out to the amount that
the current code will allow. Approving the amendment will give them
an additional sign over and above code requirements, more than
likely, and that is not common to other PUDs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Susan, is it -- is there -- you're
sure that they would have more signs per our code, or is it an
assumption?
MS. ISTENES: It's an assumption.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. Most developments will max out their
sIgnage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Well, with all due
respect, how can we get the right information when it gets to our
level?
MS. ISTENES: Do you have the details on the signage, Bob, as
far as whether or not it meets current code?
MR. DUANE: My understanding is they're entitled to a -- two
32-square foot signs or a 64-foot sign, and I believe that relates to the
copy area.
My understanding was that this sign, notwithstanding the little
plaque that they had at the entrance, meets the requirements of the
Land Development Code for an on-site premise sign, and that has
been my understanding, that's the discussion we had before the
Planning Commission, and I think that was partially the basis of the
recommendation that they made that it be -- come forward with you
Page 125
April 28, 2009
with a recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, with that said, and
answering my question, Jeff, what do we do with the motion that
failed now that it appears it has support?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I mean, either Commissioner Halas or
Commissioner Coyle could make a motion for reconsideration, and
then we could move back on to the original motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion and a second for reconsideration.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the reason is, I think that they
still have the ability to come in if they wanted to and come up with
their own sign at the entrance of Valewood, and that would be
normally where you would have the signs when you go into a gated
community.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I wanted to apologize. It was an
assumption, and I apologize we didn't have the factual numbers for
you. I suspect my assumption is correct, but in the future I'll certainly
have that information for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know you will. Thank
you.
Madam Chair, I make a motion to approve the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
Page 126
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2009-21: PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046: 1M COLLIER
JOINT VENTURE, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH, ESQ., OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN,
JOHNSON, YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A., AND WAYNE
ARNOLD, OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, IS
REQUESTING A REZONE OF THE MIRASOL PUD FROM THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT
TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ZONING DISTRICT (RPUD) TO REMEDY THE SUNSETTED
STATUS OF THE PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH LDC
SECTION 1O.02.13.D.6. THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
ORIGINALL Y APPROVED, 799 DWELLING UNITS, IS NOT
PROPOSED TO CHANGE; ORDINANCE NO. 01-20 WILL BE
REPEALED AND A FIVE ACRE TRACT WILL REVERT TO
AGRICULTURAL ZONING. THE SUBJECT 1,543 ACRE TRACT
IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD,
BORDERED ON THE EAST BY BROKEN BACK ROAD AND
FUTURE COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22,
Page 127
April 28, 2009
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, your next item is 8B. This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
PUDZ-A-2007-AR-12046, 1M Collier Joint Venture, Richard D.
Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich,
Koester, P.A., and Wayne Arnold ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates,
is requesting a rezone of the Mirasol PUD from the planned unit
development's zoning district to the residential planned unit
development zoning district, RPUD, to remedy the sunsetted status of
the project in compliance with LDC Section 10 dash -- excuse me --
.02.13.D.6.
The number of dwelling units originally approved, 799 dwelling
units, is not proposed to change. Ordinance number 01-20 will be
repealed, and a five-acre tract will revert to agricultural zoning.
The subject 1,543-acre tract is located on the north side of
Immokalee Road bordered on the east by Broken Back Road and
future Collier Boulevard in Sections 10, 15, and 22, Township 48
south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me say that at this point, I would
appreciate if everybody handed in their speaker slips because from
this point on, we won't be accepting any more, okay.
Will you swear in all the people who wish to speak on this
subject?
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who doesn't want to speak?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, ex parte?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, ma'am. Met with Karen
Bishop, January 3, 2001; January 11,2001; February 26, 2001; April
17,2001; November 17,2003; met with Karen Bishop, Don Mulrick
Page 128
April 28, 2009
(sic) -- how do you pronounce it -- Rick Barber, September 26,2005;
teleconference with Karen Bishop, May 4, 2004; met with Richard
Yovanovich, Don Mulrick (sic), Richard McCormick, Tim Hall, Rick
Barber, and Steve Kempton, November 14,2005; met with Richard
Yovanovich, April 27, 2009; met with Brad Cornell, April 27, 2009;
met with Nicole Ryan, also on April 27th; and talked to staff
numerous times about it, and also had meetings, had other
correspondence and emails and phone calls, and everything's in my
folder.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did a site visit and had
correspondence from staff. I had meetings and voluminous numbers
of emails, and they're all in my communications file if anybody
wishes to look at them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I, too, have a file full of
emails that I've received, as well as correspondence. I've met with
most everybody that Jim Coletta has just mentioned, Rich
Y ovanovich, Bob Claussen, Andy Bowman, Nicole Ryan, Gary
Davis, Brad Cornell. I've gone out for a site visit, and I've spoke when
staff.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you. Met with Rich
Yovanovich, Steve Kempton, Wayne Arnold, November 10, 2003;
met with Karen Bishop, May 6, 2004; met with Brad Cornell,
September 22,2005 and November 9,2005; met with Bob Claussen,
January 31, 2007; teleconference with Don Gunther, April 2, 2007;
met with Donna Caron, April 7, 2009; and met with Rich Y ovanovich,
Bob Claussen, and Don Mulrick (sic), April 23, 2009; and also had a
passing acquaintance with Brad Cornell last night as I was leaving the
office.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I talked to staff, and that's it.
Page 129
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, in addition to all the
many meetings and site visits concerning this property that I held in
response to previous hearings, I have the following additional ex parte
items to disclose: a meeting with Brad Cornell, meeting with Nicole
Ryan and Gary Davis, and a meeting with Don Milarcik, Bob
Claussen and Rich Y ovanovich, is it? Rich Y ovanovich, that's it.
I also have lots of correspondence, emails, and telephone calls,
but those are the only meetings I've had.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. And now we will not
be taking any more speaker slips, so everybody be aware of that.
Thank you. And, Rich, you're up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. I have a lot of
people here who can answer questions. Not all of them will speak, but
I will give you their names real quick. I have Bob and Chris Claussen
here. They're with the developer. Don Milarcik is also with the
developer. Karen Bishop has been involved with the project from day
one. Tim Hall is our environmental consultant and has been involved
in the project since day one. Rick Barber is the engineer and has been
involved in the water management system from the beginning.
Wayne Arnold is one of the professional planners on the project.
We have Dick Tomasello who did the modeling for the water
flows who will be able to -- who will be testifying and answering
questions you may have regarding water flow issues, and Harvey
Harper will also be here to testify to water quality issues and answer
any questions you may have regarding those issues.
Reed Jarvi can answer any transportation questions. I don't think
there will be any since we have a DCA in place. And finally, I have
Steve Walker and Andy Bowman from Lewis, Longman and Walker,
who represented the developer in the environmental challenges
regarding the Water Management District permit and the Army Corps
Page 130
April 28, 2009
of Engineers permit that can answer any questions you may have
regarding those permits.
On a couple preliminary matters. I delivered to you all ten days
prior to the hearing documents that we wanted to be included in the
record. I have brought a set for the court reporter, and I promised her
I'd help her bring them to her car later since they're pretty voluminous,
but I want to insert those into the record and have that be part of the
record.
And also we received yesterday a copy of the Conservancy's
letter that was delivered to the chairperson. It looks like the letter that
was delivered was not complete, the referenced attachments to it that
were not provided as part of the letter, but we had prepared a response
to that letter that I would like to insert into the record and hand out a
copy to the commissioners. I know you can't read it. We will go over
it, but just for purposes of responding to the Conservancy's letter, we
want that to be part of the record as well.
And Madam Chairman, I can either give you the copies or we
can -- I can just go over them and we can make it part of the record.
Would that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just go over them, because even if you
gave them to me, not everybody could see them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. We'll do that with the court
reporter as well at the end of the hearing.
Just by way of introduction, the Mirasol PUD was originally
approved on April 24, 2001. The approval was for 799 units, 36 holes
of golf on approximately 1,558 acres. The project then and now was
partly within the urban area; 340 acres was in the urban area, 1,217
acres was in the rural area.
The density allowed under the then existing Comprehensive Plan
was 1,606 units. Obviously the project was approved for 799 units so
it met the density requirements in effect at the time.
On May 8, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners had an
Page 13 I
April 28, 2009
agenda item to discuss the extension of PUD under the sun setting
provisions with the Land Development Code. Also on that same
agenda was a Developer Contribution Agreement to address road
impacts associated with the 799 units within the Mirasol PUD.
The DCA was approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
And assuming that the requirements were fulfilled by the developer,
the project would be vested for 799 units.
The developer has fulfilled the obligations under the Developer
Contribution Agreement, so the project is, for purposes of
transportation concurrency, vested for 799 units.
As you all are aware, prior to that May 8, 2007, meeting, various
environmental groups had raised concerns with regards to the PUD
that was approved in 2001. They had requested a couple of things.
One, they wanted the manmade flow-way to be removed from the
project and, two, they wanted the then existing PUD to be analyzed
for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan in effect on May 8,
2007.
We agreed to go through the PUD amendment process to review
the currently approved PUD for consistency with the currently
adopted Comprehensive Plan.
So today's hearing -- and I believe those terms were agreed to by
the Board of County Commissioners, and it certainly was agreed to by
all that spoke on that day in 2007. The sole purpose today is to review
the PUD for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
We're not here to re-review whether the PUD should have been
adopted in the first place. That decision was made. We were --
successfully went through the PUD review criteria. So today's hearing
is limited to -- limited to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
I've put on the visualizer the two master plans, if you will. The
one on the right is the currently adopted master plan that includes the
manmade flow-way. The manmade flow-way is in blue. And the one
on the left is the proposed PUDs master plan to be adopted. You can
Page 132
April 28, 2009
see under them they're virtually identical except that the flow-way and
the impacts associated with the flow-way have been removed from the
PUD and the PUD master plan.
The PUD amendment before you today is 799 units, 36 holes of
golf on 1,553 acres.
The project in 2001 and the project today impacts approximately
580 acres of wetlands. That fact was clearly pointed out in 2001 when
the PUD went through the process, that there were over 580 acres of
wetland impacts, and I believe we provided you copies of the minutes
related to the original adoption. So there's been no hiding of the fact
that this project has a number of wetland impacts.
At the original hearing in 2001, you all determined that those
wetland impacts were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
there was no opposition from any groups regarding the number of
wetland impacts in 2001.
The only objection was to proposed development at the time that
was scheduled to be in this Section 10 of the PUD. And the
environmental groups basically said, get out of Section 10, and we
did. So in 2001, the development that was in Section 10 was
removed, and this master plan was adopted and approved by the Board
of County Commissioners without any development in Section 10.
The project today is also within the urban area, the same 340
acres is in the urban area, and the balance of the property is within the
rural area. It's now designated rural fringe mixed-use district, which is
a change from what existed in 2001, but essentially it -- well, it's
designated neutral lands in the rural fringe mixed-use district. And as
you all are aware, the neutral land designation was intended to keep
the same development rights that existed prior to the adoption of the
rural fringe mixed-use district on those lands designated neutral.
Development rights that were taken away from a property owner
were designated sending lands. Those lands where additional
development was to be encouraged via the transfer of development
Page 133
April 28, 2009
rights program were designated receiving.
So this property in 2001 and today has always been slated for
development under the Comprehensive Plan.
The project before you today utilizes the density blending
provisions within the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, more native
vegetation is required under the project today than was originally
required in the project in 2001, and if we didn't use density blending,
less native vegetation would be required than we're currently
proposmg.
Under the original PUD, only 25 percent of the native vegetation
was required to be retained on site. Under the density blending
provisions, you look at the entire site, the urban area as well as the
rural area together, and you retain 60 percent of the existing native
vegetation, not to exceed 45 percent of the site as native vegetation.
Based upon the numbers that you've seen in your analysis, we were
required to keep 60 percent of the existing native vegetation on site for
the project.
If we were not using density blending, we would be required to
retain 25 percent of the native vegetation that's in the urban area and
60 percent, again, not to exceed 45 percent of the site in the neutral
area. So from a mathematical standpoint, the project before you today
under the Comprehensive Plan is required to retain more native
vegetation than previously existed.
In addition, although we don't agree with the staffs interpretation
of the Comprehensive Plan, because we are doing density blending,
we are required to provide mitigation for the wetland impacts and we
are providing mitigation, one acre per one acre. So for each acre of
wetland impacts, we are providing mitigation -- and that is above and
beyond the mitigation required by the Corps and Water Management
District permits. If we were not doing density blending, we would not
have to provide that mitigation in the rural area.
Your staff has reviewed this project in great detail. We've had a
Page 134
April 28, 2009
lot of scrutiny through various challenges, and the project, your staff
has determined, is consistent with today's Comprehensive Plan in all
respects. I won't bore you with the numerical details. They're all in
your executive summary regarding the amount of native vegetation
and the impact.
In addition, the Water Management District permit has been
issued for the project. It was originally issued in 2002, I think is the
correct date. It was issued in 2002. When that project was originally
approved in -- when it went through in 2002, there were no challenges
by anybody to that permit, including to the footprint or the amount of
water management -- I mean, wetland impacts.
In two thou- -- there was a challenge when we revised the permit
to take the flow-way out. That challenge resulted in an -- in an
administrative hearing. That administrative hearing lasted almost two
weeks. At the conclusion of the administrative hearing, the
administrative law judge issues the recommended order, and then a
final order is issued. The permit was upheld, and that was not
challenged or appealed.
So the permit is a valid permit from the Water Management
District, and it has not been challenged by any -- anybody.
In addition, the Corps permit for the revised project with the
flow-way removed was issued. There was a challenge filed. That
challenge has not been resolved, but under the law the permit is valid
until a court says it's not valid, so there is a valid Army Corps of
Engineers permit.
Now, some of the information you've received is not totally
accurate in how it portrays what happened with the Corps of
Engineers. What happened with the Corps of Engineers originally
was the project was going through with the inclusion of the manmade
flow-way. There were objections to the manmade flow-way.
And what the Corps of Engineers basically said, since that
manmade flow-way is not necessary for the Mirasol project, it needs
Page 135
April 28, 2009
to be removed from the permit application, Mirasol needs to come
through under its own -- for its own review, and if someone wants to
do this manmade flow-way in the future, that someone would be the
Water Management District.
The Water Management District needs to apply for that permit,
because what the flow-way did is it addressed historical issues that
had occurred, flooding issues in the Bonita Springs and the North
Naples area that had occurred in the mid '90s, and that flow-way was
intended to address some of those issues.
Needless to say, there were challenges to the flow-way, and that
flow-way was removed. It was not removed because it was part of the
Mirasol project. It was removed because it should not have been part
of the Mirasol project, according to the Army Corps of Engineers.
So that was removed, the project was re-reviewed without the
manmade flow-way and the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit
for the Mirasol project and its impacts.
As part of both the Corps permit and the Water Management
District permit, there's, quote, avoidance in minimization that occurs
when you're dealing with wetlands and other impacts that occurred, so
contrary to some of the statements that have been stated, there has
been an avoidance and minimization analysis done related to the two
permits that have been currently issued, and both of those permits are
consistent with the amended master plan.
In addition, we did avoidance and minimization early in 2001
when development was removed from Section 10. Development was
allowed to occur in Section 10, but we were requested to remove that
development out of Section 10, and we have carried forward that
commitment to today, although under today's Comprehensive Plan, we
could develop in Section 10.
So we have also done avoidance and minimization regarding
potential impacts through the -- through the design of the previous
PUD master plan and the current PUD master plan.
Page 136
April 28, 2009
We've heard comments about the actual number of wetland
impacts. Again, we didn't receive those comments in 2001. But I will
point out that your Comprehensive Plan does not talk about numbers
when it deals with wetland impacts. What it talks about is the
retention of native vegetation.
So the way the Comprehensive Plan works is, if you're in the
urban area, you have to retain 25 percent of the existing native
vegetation on site, and you are allowed under the county's
Comprehensive Plan to impact 75 percent of that existing native
vegetation.
Now, that's also subject to the permitting rules with the Corps
and the Water Management District. But from the county's
Comprehensive Plan perspective, it's looked at as percentages.
When you get to the rural area, as I discussed, and the neutral
area it's a 6- -- you retain 60 percent of the native vegetation and up to
45 percent of the site. So it talks about percentages, not numbers.
So when you look at our project, you will see that the
percentages are in line, and that's what the commission has to look at
when it's looking at the proposed project.
I will tell you that we are impacting 45 percent of the wetlands
on our site, and I will also tell you that that's not unusual for projects
in Collier County. And one of my favorite examples is,
coincidentally, a county example of wetland impacts, and, you know,
the North County Regional Park, the water park where we all go to, is
an example of what's become I will call the norm or custom for
wetland impacts. And in that particular case, there were 160 acres of
wetlands on site, and 80 acres was impacted, so it was a 50-percent
wetland impact.
So from a percentage standpoint, you will see that our project is
certainly at least equal to, if not better than, the norm than what's
occurring on site and clearly is consistent with the current
Comprehensive Plan.s
Page 137
April 28, 2009
There's been a lot of comments from a couple of environmental
groups regarding Objective 2.1.d of the Comprehensive Plan that are
-- those are the interim watershed requirements for Collier County.
I'll briefly go over those issues, but Dick Tomasello will go over
them in greater detail regarding what we are doing.
But as your staff has pointed out, 2.1.d was intended to address
the flow of water and the quality of that water as it flows through
certain areas. It was not intended to be another wetland regulation.
You have plenty of wetland regulations in your objectives and policies
found in, basically, objective 6 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Your staff agrees that that was the purpose of this rule. And what
Dick Tomasello will show you he did with the water modeling and
how the water is flowing today and how it will flow in the future --
and what he will tell you is, based on the model, the project footprint,
the actual impact area, is outside of the normal flow of water. So we
are not developing in a flow-way. We are not impeding the flow of
water with our project footprint. So we are consistent with policy
2.1.d.
The Water Management District permit confirms that as far as
the staging of the water, it's the same as it is historically today, and as
far as the speed at which the water leaves our site, it is the same as it is
today with the proposed project.
Water quality. Dr. Harvey Harper will address the water quality
issues. He has done the required analysis under both the Water
Management District and Corps permit requirements, the required
analysis under the county code requirements, and has even done the
most recent methodology of analysis for water quality even though it's
not required under any of those requirements, and he will tell you that
the water quality is -- meets all permitting requirements.
Your EAC has found this project consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan and has recommended approval of the project.
Your Planning Commission has found the project consistent with the
Page 138
April 28, 2009
existing Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the
project. Your staff has found this project consistent with the existing
Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of the project.
We are asking -- we -- to my knowledge, we have no
neighborhood opposition. We've had the required neighborhood
meetings, and we are requesting that the board approve the project as
consistent with today's Comprehensive Plan.
With that, those are my -- that's a summary of the project and
where we are. I'm going to ask Dick Tomasello to come up and
explain the water flow issues briefly, and then after him, Dr. Harper
will address water quality issues. And then, Madam Chairman, if you
have -- however you want to answer -- do the questions, either after
public comment or before, whatever you desire.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. We're going to -- after them, then
we'll hear from staff, then we'll have public comment, then we'll have
questions.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Unless one of the commissioners feel that
they need to ask a question at that point in time, they'll just be making
notes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: The court reporter, ma'am.
You holding up?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe after -- after the two other
gentlemen, then we'll take a break. Would that be okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
DR. TOMASELLO: Good afternoon. My name's Dick
Tomasello, for the record, from Tomasello Consulting Engineers in
Jupiter, Florida. I was asked today to briefly describe the modeling
efforts that we did for this Mirasol project and some of the findings.
Page 139
April 28, 2009
If you look on the right-hand side, the model is the basic -- what
we call -- what we call the watershed model. This is on a larger grid,
and it covers the area all the way up to Lake -- you know, all the way
up into Hendry County and Lee County. And this model actually
shows the simulations of, you know, the flows and water levels. It
was calibrated to all the water level data we had available for the
period, which was a four-year period.
This model was used to generate flows at the upstream end of the
Cocohatchee basin which, as we come over here, this is the
Cocohatchee basin model that would include the Mirasol site, and we
brought the flows in. And that's calculated by the watershed model to
simulate what was happening during the long-term simulation as well
as the design storm's 25-year and 100-year storms.
What we did was we ran the model for existing conditions, then
came back and applied the Mirasol site as a developed condition with
a weir allowing water to flow through in the flow-through system.
We balanced the modeling to show that the water levels upstream
of the Mirasol project would have the same long-term as well as the
design-event water levels.
One of the findings was that the flows under normal conditions
come down through the slough across the north side. There's -- they
stay within their preserve areas through here and down along the west
side. Those are the normal flows that are occurring in the model under
existing conditions and, of course, they continue.
During the design events, actual flood events, water backs up
behind the weir here, this discharge weir going into the Cocohatchee,
and it backs into the Mirasol site under existing conditions.
That storage that occurs during those design events was
compensated for in -- as part of the project designs.
So I think that's really all I had to present. Oh, I did want to
mention though, you might remember our name because we're also
involved in the flood studies as a flooding n in our flood mapping
Page 140
April 28, 2009
partner with the county staff, the Water Management District, and
FEMA.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I wanted to point out -- and within
the letter that you received from the Conservancy -- I think it was the
testimony portion of the letter -- there was a reference to a figure 14,
which they identified as the map that identifies flow-ways, and I
believe this is the -- is this the Cocohatchee Slough I was referring to
in the letter? The Cocohatchee wet slough.
Now, we got a hold of the map they were referring to, and I'll put
it on the visualizer for you. And I've got that blown up, so if you want
to see it on a blow-up. But what that map shows in the red circle, and
you'll see a white area and you'll see a black area and a yellow area.
The yellow area is Mirasol. The portion -- oh, let me point. This is --
this is the Mirasol project.
The portion that's in white is the area that is not considered a
flow-way based upon this map, and that is the actual building or the
footprint of the project. The portion to the north in the black area is
actually the preserve area, and that is where the map that the
Conservancy is saying is the flow-way map, it will show you that our
project envelope is not within the flow-way as Dr. Tomasello's model
has shown, as well as documentation referred to by the Conservancy.
So the project is not within the flow-way, and the building
envelope -- let me take that back. The building portion of the project is
not within the flow-way and, therefore, there's not an impact to the
flow-way from the proposed project. The flow-way is maintained
within the preserve area of the project, and Harvey Harper will talk to
you --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, let's just take a break right now, and
then we'll be back and hear from Harvey, okay?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
We'll be back at 20 to.
Page 141
April 28, 2009
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think Dr. Harper was next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought I sent you down to the car.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm quicker than I look. Do we want to
wait for Commissioner Coyle or do we --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think he left for the afternoon.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He might be able to hear us. We have
some speakers back there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I think we left offwith -- Dr.
Harper was going to come up and discuss water quality issues related
to the project.
DR. HARPER: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, good
afternoon. My name is Harvey Harper. I am currently president of
Environmental Research and Design in Orlando, Florida.
During 2006 I was retained by the applicant to conduct a water
quality evaluation of the proposed Mirasol development and
particularly perform a pre-versus-post analysis of nutrient loadings
discharging from the site.
I conducted this analysis originally using a 2003 report that we
had written outlining this methodology, which really is nothing more
than an accumulation of long-known engineering concepts. But this
methodology was reviewed by peer review, some comments were
made, the valid comments were incorporated into a revised document,
which was issued in 2007. And I evaluated this project under both of
those documents.
Under predevelopment conditions, it's simply a matter of
estimating the amount of runoff that's generated from this parcel on an
annual basis and multiplying it by a representative concentration for
nitrogen and phosphorous.
Page 142
April 28, 2009
I modeled the predevelopment runoff volume, I took actual water
quality data from Corkscrew Swamp north of the property, and you
simply multiply those two together to get the mass loadings that
discharge under predevelopment conditions.
This does not include any water that may flow through the
property that originates off site, simply water that falls on the parcel
itself.
Under post-development conditions, I did the same type of
analysis, and under post-development conditions, that the site will be
developed into a variety of different land use categories.
I have put an overview of the stormwater systems up here on the
overhead. Following development, runoff generated in developed
areas will be diverted into a series of wet detention ponds. They are
indicated on this figure as the light blue ponds. These ponds are
designed for 150 percent of the required pollution control volume by
the South Florida Water Management District.
These ponds provide substantial detention time for the runoff.
Detention times in these ponds range from 100 to more than 1,000
days. So there is ample opportunity for biological, physical, and
chemical processes to occur in these ponds for the runoff that
discharges into them. These ponds are interconnected in series
eventually discharging out into the canal system at the outfall from the
property.
My analysis, which was a very conservative analysis, all
indicated that the treatment provided in these ponds will be sufficient
such that the post-development loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous
from this site after it's developed will be less than the loadings that
occur under predevelopment conditions, under existing conditions.
As I said, this is a conservative analysis because it does not take
into account a number of things that the applicant has proposed to do.
First of all, the applicant has implemented a stormwater management
plan which restricts the use of fertilizer and pesticides within the
Page 143
April 28, 2009
basin. He has implemented or agreed to a street sweeping operation.
All of those will reduce the concentrations of constituents in
stormwater compared with what I estimated. Those were not included
in my analysis.
The ponds in light blue discharge into the flow-way series of
ponds in dark blue. And, again, my analysis does not include any
additional uptake which may occur in those ponds as it migrates
through the property.
So my conclusion was that the project meets the criteria for
post-development discharges to be less than predevelopment
discharges for nitrogen and phosphorus. Also, in addition, there are
current water quality impairments for iron in the outfall canal, and it
has exhibited chronic low levels of dissolved oxygen. Both of these
are characteristics of water which discharges from wetlands.
The water that discharges from the property after development
will be well aerated and low in iron, and those existing water quality
impairments should no longer exist in the vicinity of the property
following development.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Both Dick Tomasello's and Dr. Harper's
testimony are related to the overall requirements of Obj ective 2.1, and
2.1 not only address the flow of water, but it addresses the quality of
the water and the timing of the flow of the water. So they both -- their
testimony shows further consistency with Objective 2.1. And I
believe your staff, when they make their presentation, will agree that
we have fully met the requirements of all of the aspects of your
Comprehensive Plan from a water management and a water quality
standpoint.
We do have an exhibit that will basically show you where this
property is in relationship to the estuary out by the Gulf. And I think
you'll be able to see from this exhibit -- if we turn it upside up. Don
will point to Mirasol. And you can see that it takes quite a while
before you get to the estuary to the west, and there's a lot of
Page 144
April 28, 2009
development between us and them to that area.
And the -- our Water Management District permit and Corps
permit make sure that we properly treat the water before it gets to the
estuary, which I know has been a concern and has been an issue raised
in letters from the opposition.
That's an overview of our project. There's more detail, and
you've been provided affidavits from Dr. Tomasello and Dr. Harper
regarding their testimony. They've summarized that for you. We
certainly can go into greater detail if you need us to, but we wanted to
highlight the issues that we heard as objections through the hearing
process, and the objections we kept hearing is, water quality and the
potential for creating flooding by the -- by the Mirasol project. And
it's clear that the water quality has been properly addressed and
consistent with all permit requirements including the county's and the
-- as far as the staging of the water and making sure that the water
flows as it has historically flowed has also been addressed.
With that, that concludes our initial presentation. And with that,
I guess if you'll go to staff or us, whichever you prefer, Madam
Chairman, we'll --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll go on to staff then, if you've
concluded, very good.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem, and I'm a principal planner with the zoning section in
Collier County Government.
And I believe you have a copy of the executive summary and the
staff report that was prepared for the Collier County Planning
Commission as well.
In the executive summary it tells you that staff is recommending
that this petition be found consistent with all elements of the Growth
Management Plan, and we do have a considerable evaluation of the
issues as we see them. There is an evaluation of the FLUE, there is an
evaluation of the transportation element, and there is an evaluation of
Page 145
April 28, 2009
the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
And in all of this evaluation, along with the EAC
recommendation for approval and the CCPC recommendation for
approval, staff also recommends approval.
There are various staff members here that can address those
aspects of the Growth Management Plan. We have Robert Wiley, Bill
Lorenz, and others here that are available to respond to any questions
you may have.
And I won't put anything more on the record other than that, and
I'll let you address your questions to those persons that are expertised
in the area with your questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, did you want to ask now or wait till the
speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We have 19 speakers. And
with that, Sue -- speakers, you have three minutes each.
MS. FILSON: Mayor Ben Nelson. He'll be followed by Nicole
Ryan.
MAYOR NELSON: Good afternoon. It's nice to be on this side
of the podium for a change, I think, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think I'd rather be on that side today,
too.
MAYOR NELSON: Well, thank you for allowing me this time,
Commissioners. Good afternoon. And for the record, I'm Ben
Nelson, mayor of the City of Bonita Springs.
The development challenges that we all face, we all face them
together. They don't know any boundaries, water, traffic; they don't
know any boundaries.
So we do, we do face them together. Geographically, socially,
commercially, economically, environmentally, the City of Bonita is as
much a part of Collier County as it is Lee County. All of us who have
Page 146
April 28, 2009
lived here a long time know that. Weare. We share a lot in common.
The city council wants me to make it clear, make it very clear to
the Collier County commissioners, that we do not object to this project
m any way.
What I'm here for is to bring your attention to something that
we've been working on with the Water Management District for quite
some time. We're finishing up the South Lee County Watershed
Study, and the purpose of this study was to develop strategies which
would lead to a fair apportionment of stormwater runoff that is
originating in the Corkscrew basin, something that we all share
concerns about and want to protect.
The Imperial River, as you all know from the news reports and
everything else you've seen, and Imperial basin in Bonita Springs, has
accepted, without argument, I think, a disproportionate share of that
stormwater runoff, an increasingly disproportionate share just because
of development towards the north and whatnot.
One thing that's missing in this study that we've been working on
is an analysis of how much of that sheet flow is being blocked by
Bonita Beach Road that used to go to the south of the Cocohatchee
River.
And so, what we're looking for is to, in the future, work towards
getting that study extended to figure out if there is any more that
should come to the south of the Cocohatchee or not. And so we're
looking for your help in that regards.
The Bonita Springs City Council and our citizens would like to
invite you to work with us to develop a workable strategy and
solutions regarding the fair apportionment of stormwater runoff and
sheet flow that originates in our shared system, the Corkscrew basin.
I want to thank you for hearing me today and invite you to come
to the City of Bonita Springs some day, and hope we get to work
together in the future.
Thank you very much.
Page 147
April 28, 2009
MS. FILSON: The next -- the next speaker is Nicole Ryan.
She'll be followed by Jennifer Hecker, who ceded her time to Gary
Davis.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy is requesting that you deny the Mirasol PUD
amendment based on the project's inconsistency with the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element, Objective 2.1, and Policy 2.3.6.
As part of the Conservancy's presentation, we have land use
policy expert, Gary Davis, and our consulting hydrologist and
professional engineer, Dean Mades. They'll be speaking in depth
regarding water quality, conveyance, and floodplain compensation.
But I wanted to begin with a more general overview about
watershed management planning and its applicability to the Mirasol
project because when Mirasol was initially approved, these policies
weren't in place, but they are now, and Mirasol must comply.
They require the county to look at how a project will impact not
just the development footprint, but how the activities at the site level
impact the watershed as a whole, the existing and approved residential
area surrounding the project, to upstream lands, and the downstream
estuaries.
The resources that require protection in the case of Mirasol are,
first, its location within the middle of the historic Cocohatchee Slough,
which has been significantly narrowed due to development, but is still
a functioning and important slough system, which reinforces the
importance of protecting and restoring those remaining portions.
The county also must consider Mirasol's receiving water bodies,
and Mr. Davis will speak to that.
But you have a CCME Objective 2.1.d, which is really one of the
most pertinent sections of the CCME for this project, and it clearly
states that for projects located within specific areas, to which Mirasol
qualifies, the county shall require the applicant to first avoid direct
Page 148
April 28, 2009
impacts to wetlands or, when not possible, to assure minimization and
compensation, but avoidance first. Directly impacting 586 acres of
wetlands for 799 units and 36 holes of golf within the Cocohatchee
Slough is in no way avoiding direct impacts, as this objective requires.
Our experts will testify the project does not even provide
compensation for a floodplain storage or conveyance.
How can the project be brought into compliance? It can be
redesigned to avoid wetland impacts, eliminate the 36 holes of golf,
further consolidate the residential development.
And reducing impacts is not a new idea. The Conservancy and
others have been advocating this for many years, including the u.s.
Environmental Protection Agency, which sent a letter in 2006
requiring or requesting that Mirasol change their footprint to reduce
impacts.
The bottom line is that you have both the authority and the
obligation to protect the public's interests regarding watershed and
estuarine resources by ensuring that projects are consistent with the
watershed planning guidelines.
The project before you does not meet this test; therefore, we're
asking that you deny the Mirasol PUD as proposed based on its
inconsistency with Objective 2.1.d and other policies my colleagues
will expand upon. We ask that you direct the applicant to redesign the
project to further avoid impacts to the Cocohatchee Slough and
resubmit at that time.
And Mr. Davis and Mr. Mades will further expand upon this, and
I will submit into the record the cover letter which was sent to you on
Friday.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Davis, and Jennifer
Hecker has ceded her time to him; and the next speaker will be Dean
Mades, and he has three people, Susan Calkins, Michael Seef, and
Marisa Polgas, who ceded their time to him.
Page 149
April 28, 2009
MR. DAVIS: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of
the Commission.
In no way in six minutes could I refute all the points that were
made by the applicant and its experts here today. I'm going to focus
on the consistency with the CCME, and Nicole has alluded to part of
that.
And just for the record, I'm Gary Davis. I'm an environmental
attorney and policy specialist dealing with land use and environmental
policy, as well as a chemical engineer.
First of all, you've heard about CCME Objective 2.1.d. This is
the most important one we're dealing with here today. The language
is extremely clear. First avoid, then, when not possible, minimize and
compensate. And we've reviewed carefully the application that has
been provided to you. There's no analysis of avoidance in that
application. There's no documentation for avoidance at all. And as
Nicole said, the 596 acres of wetland impacts is not avoidance.
This is the site. And what you see in yellow is what would
remain after -- of wetlands after not only the Mirasol development
would be included, but also Parklands, Terafina, and as you go further
south, there's a fairly new development called Preserve Estates. And
-- so we have seen tremendous encroachment on the Cocohatchee
Slough already.
This shows the Mirasol site as further significantly encroaching
into the Cocohatchee Slough. You're going to hear more from Mr.
Mades, a hydrology and professional engineer, about how the
removing storage and how removing conveyance is not consistent
with your CCME either.
And these objectives, 2.1.b, 2.2.c, deal with the compensation
requirements for storage and conveyance that would be 10st by filling
the 596 acres of wetlands and further blocking the Cocohatchee
Slough.
And 2.1.e is for flood impacts through adjoining properties. The
Page 150
April 28, 2009
applicant did not demonstrate consistency with these objectives. Just
merely getting a Water Management District permit or 404 permit
does not demonstrate consistency with these objectives. These
objectives are different and more stringent, as is 2.1.d, than what the
Water Management District's basis of review requires or what the
Corps requires under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Looking at these, there's an additional factor that Mayor Nelson
alluded to but did not mention specifically that I want to bring up is,
there is this update being done to the South Lee County Watershed
Plan, and there was a presentation last week in Estero about that by
the modeler, the hydrologic modeler who's working on this, with
funding from the Water Management District, and from Lee County.
His name is Roger Kopp (phonetic).
And what Mr. Kopp presented was an overall recommendation,
and part of his overall recommendation, based upon modeling of
South Lee County, which stops at the border, is that 200 cubic feet per
second of new water be sent into Collier County into the Cocohatchee
Slough from the Imperial River basin.
Now, it's still in a draft stage, this report, but that is without
significant analysis or modeling in a detailed fashion, which we would
need, of the Cocohatchee Slough, of this area where Mirasol is
intended to be located.
As you know, there was the proposal for the Mirasol canal, or
they call it the flow-way, that would have taken more flow. I don't
know that it would have taken an additional 200 feet per second from
Lee County, but that was denied by the Corps of Engineers. Without
that canal, there has to be a reduction in footprint, and this additional
200 cubic feet per second of water that Lee County is now looking to
send to Collier County would certainly exacerbate the problems that
we now have.
Looking at water quality briefly. We have two objectives, we
have Objective 2.2 and Policy 2.2.2 we're looking at here, and we
Page 151
April 28, 2009
have impaired waters. And this map shows that the Cocohatchee
Canal is impaired for low dissolved oxygen and with nutrients,
nitrogen and phosphorous as a cause of the pollutants, and the
Wiggins Pass estuary and the Cocohatchee River downstream are also
impaired. The river is; the estuary's not. But the estuary is in
outstanding Floridian waters, and the outstanding Floridian waters
require no degradation.
The applicant hasn't demonstrated this in their submittal to the
staff. We haven't seen what Dr. Harper may have submitted to you all
for this particular meeting, but going to 2.3 and 2.3.6, three is a
requirement of a pre-versus-post analysis, and that was done, at least
what was submitted to staff, based on Harper's 2003 methodology, not
the most recent methodology, and that methodology has been peer
reviewed by the EP A as highly discredited in addition to being
outdated.
The final point on this is that 2.3.6c required the county by 2008
to evaluate the pre-versus-post methodology and to decide whether it
should be used. And as far as we know, that hasn't happened. And so
we can't just accept the analysis that the Water Management District
accepted or that the Corps accepted. We need an independent analysis
by staff. We recommend that you deny this. We request that the
Mirasol site be found not consistent with the CCME.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dean Mades. And as I
mentioned, he has three people ceding his (sic) time. Following Mr.
Mades will be Lori Beall.
MR. DAVIS: Excuse me one second. We had some copies to
put into the record and to distribute to the commissioners of the
testimony including --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You need to speak into a --
MR. DAVIS: I apologize. We have some copies of the written
testimony, including all the exhibits, to be submitted for the record.
Page 152
April 28, 2009
We brought copies for the commissioners in case you would like to
refer to them. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: And following Mr. Mades will be Lori Beall and
Tom Mueller, who have ceded their time to Jason Lauritsen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who were the three that gave up their --
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to read the three that gave up
their time to him?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Marisa Polgas, Michael Seef, and Susan Calkins.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marisa who?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Seef(sic).
MR. MADES: For the record, Dean Mades, HSW Engineering,
senior technical consultant at HSW Engineering.
My comments this afternoon are in opposition to the amendment
proposed for the approval. An information packet is being distributed
here with an opinion that I've prepared in regards to the project.
This opinion is based on a review of a substantial amount of
information supplied by the applicant in support of the applications to
South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of
Engineers. My review is based on 31 years of experience as a
hydrologist, the last 14 of which as a Florida professional engineer.
A quick overview of the project will illustrate, again, the
infringement of the Mirasol PUD within the Sections 10, 15, and 22,
predominantly 15 and 22. Mirasol is one of four developments
approved by South Florida Water Management District since 2002.
To the northwest you have the Parklands; across to the west Terafina,
now known as Saturnia Falls; and to the south, the Olde Cypress
Preserve.
The slough is intercepted here by the Cocohatchee Canal, which
directs water from east to west. It's, as earlier indicated, been
identified as potential flow-way for as much as an additional 200 CSF
Page 153
April 28, 2009
as part of that South Lee County Watershed Plan.
As Mr. Davis had discussed, we believe that the project is not
consistent with applicable elements there of the CCME, particularly
the direct impacts to the slough. Avoidance has not been
demonstrated. We're looking at 567 acres of proposed impact. It has
not been minimized. As a matter of fact, there's 27 more acres
identified in the modification to the ERP, the Environmental Resource
Permit, than originally permitted, and the conveyance here, the flow-
way, has not been maintained.
In addition, discussed 2.1.2b, the objectives band c, which deal
with the slough and floodplain storage factor. There has been a loss to
that store-way (sic) -- to that storage, and in addition, sheet flow has
not really been adequately addressed.
There's been evaluations of peak discharges of 25-year and
100-year floods, but not necessarily the more common instances here.
Conceptually, this diagram shows water as its directed from the
northeast to the south and southwest and swings around here into that
portion of the slough in which this development would take place. A
key thing to point out is that there will be a perimeter berm around the
hatched area that represents the Mirasol development here, roughly
800-acres plus or so.
There will be weirs installed at the north end and the south end of
the development that will allow some flow to pass through into the
development. The white line labeled a cross-section here is a setup for
the next slide that will illustrate what you would see as you stand there
in the slough looking to the southwest towards the entrance.
Conveyance is, in common terms here in hydrology, would be
the slough's capacity to transmit water. Flow rerouting will change
the conveyance of the Cocohatchee Slough. Water levels will rise in
response to that.
The topmost section here in the top graphic shows the existing
condition with a broad, narrow ball-shaped cross-section, water from
Page 154
April 28, 2009
side to side. With the construction of the development and the
placement of the embankment and the weir that you see in yellow
here, that's the middle section, that will show the new proposed
section. Water until it reaches a certain level will be directed to the
west and around that flow -- around the development.
The bottom graphic then illustrates there that at some sufficient
water level rise, water then will begin to be diverted in part into the
development.
We talk about storage. What is storage? Storage is that volume
in the channel between two locations along a river channel or in this
case at different ends of the slough.
Benefits of storage is, in traditional hydrology, it reduces and --
the flow rate and extends it over a period of time. It's illustrated in the
top -- in the bottom two graphics there where you see hydro-graphics.
These are just conceptual diagrams that illustrate how much water is
flowing past the location at a function of time.
The solid lines in both the left and right represent the inflow
hydro graph as it would be approaching the slough -- I mean
approaching the north end of the development. In a system like the
existing system that has a greater amount of storage, the outflow at the
bottom will be depressed. You'll see it squished down and broadened,
same volume of water; however, when less storage is provided, you
tend to have higher peaks and the narrower response that would typify
the existing condition.
How do we know that there would be a storage change? Well, it
has been mapped as part of the information supplied with the
applications for these authorizations. In red you see the delineation of
wetland impacts here. These are areas where there will be either fill
placed to levels of at least 3 feet above natural grade, or there will be
dredging to create some of the lakes that will be part of the
flow-through system and stormwater management system that you
heard about earlier.
Page 155
April 28, 2009
A quick calculation will show that an estimate of the volume of
storage created by this project will be on the order of 470 acre feet. In
contrast, the amount of dirt brought in to create the fill here for the
sub-grades and roadways and the golf course and the buildings
themselves will total on the order of 1,800 acre feet.
So when you look at the net change here within the footprint of
the development itself, you're talking about a net change in storage of
something like 1,330 acre feet. That equates to 2 feet of water over
one square mile or, in essence, 58 million cubic feet.
Modeling. Spoken to you earlier by Mr. Tomasello, is illustrated
here in these last few graphics here. What you have illustrated in this
graphic are conditions under the existing no-project, which is the
skinny line at the bottom of the graphic. I wish I had a better one, but
it is what it is. It's taken from information supplied to the Water
Management District.
In yellow you see the cumulative impacts of the Mirasol
development together with Terafina and Parklands. You'll notice here
-- and in between it's just Mirasol alone in the solid black line. And
what you see in the contrast here is that these hydro graphs, these
graphs that depict water level versus time, under a presumed condition
of a design storm that happens once every 25 years in response to a
three-day rain, that they're different, that what conceptually you
anticipate what -- the loss of storage you see here with the results of
their computer modeling. The peak has been shifted to occur sooner.
The rise, as evidenced by the black line and the yellow lines, is earlier
at the beginning. And subsequent to the flood, you see in the dark
solid line a more rapid decline in water levels.
Another way to look at this is, where does the water go? And
this is, again, illustrated here by effects simulated by the applicant.
What we have is -- in the bottommost graph, is the water that would
be directed into the flow-through system that would pass through a
development. And you'll notice throughout the earlier part of this
Page 156
April 28, 2009
25-year design analysis that there is no flow, that, indeed, it's not until
roughly hour 113 that you begin to see water levels rise enough to
where there will be water diverted into this development.
In the meantime, prior to that, all of that water has been diverted
and then squeezed to the west and the outside of the development
there in what remains the Cocohatchee Slough at that location.
Relatively speaking, the two hydro graphs there that you see --
you can combine them to see what the total response is through -- to
that 25-year storm -- peaks at about 510 CFS. Again, as a recap,
there's no flow during the early part of that storm event, and it's not
until you get to the peak that you have about 40 percent of the water
that would be directed into the flow-way, and subsequent to that, then
the recession that, although subtle, still is a little quicker in its
movement through the flow-through system than what you see with
the existing conditions out there.
So in summary here for recommendations, as alluded to, it's
recommended that this project footprint be reevaluated, again, for the
primary purposes of focusing on minimization of wetland impacts,
that we also look carefully at this loss of storage that has been roughly
calculated by me but is capable of being calculated more clearly and
distinctly with the tons of data that have been collected here.
We also recommend that these simulations, instead of focusing
on the design events that occur just once in 25 years, once in 100
years, that they also look at long-term simulation, similar to what was
done to calibrate the model. Calibrations took place over two years
and verifications over four years. So it would seem incumbent
utilizing data that exists, additional hydrologic data that are -- have
been collected on the downstream ends within Mirasol itself and at the
Preserve Estates there, that there -- there's five -- three to five more
years of hydrologic data that are available that long-term simulations
could be compared and contrasted to on the southern end of this
slough here.
Page 157
April 28, 2009
And we've also heard that we have a potential of additional water
being diverted here under the current evaluations here for the South
Lee County Watershed Management study, as much as 200 CFS. The
implications of that are not understood. There's the opportunity here to
better evaluate that and, particularly, the impacts of this project's
footprint on that.
And, again, rather than focusing strictly on a design event in a
peak stage or a peak water level not being exceeded pre-versus-post, I
would also encourage that we look at long-term simulations to
evaluate hydro periods and sheet flow, which is something that will
occur much more frequently and routinely during the wet and dry
seasons.
That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jason--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on, just a question.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, would you state your
qualifications, and then if you're a lobbyist, then I think -- I don't
know if you've signed up, you know, registered with Clerk of Courts.
MR. MADES: Oh, excuse me. I'm a senior technical consultant
with HSW Engineering. I'm an environmental consultant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And are you a registered
lobbyist?
MR. MADES: I am not, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think he has to register,
doesn't he?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think there might be on
both sides that are not registered lobbyists, and it's clear to me this is
going to the court system, so that might be a factor in our decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MADES: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jason Lauritsen, and as I
Page 158
April 28, 2009
mentioned earlier, Lori Beall and Tom Mueller have ceded their time
to Jason. Following him will be Alan Keller.
MR. LAURITSEN: Thank you for hearing us today. My name
is Jason Lauritsen. I'm the assistant director at Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary. I also act in the capacity as science coordinator for
Audubon of Florida's Big Cypress ecosystem, and for several years
I've been the principal researcher in ongoing wood stork research
studying habitat and foraging of those birds, particularly emanating
from the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
Commissioners, I'm here to urge you to deny the Mirasol permit
and highlight a few of the important wetland functions that have been
severely discounted by the applicant's characteristic of the Mirasol
property.
Over the last three years I've spent hundreds of hours studying
wood storks that are foraging in Southwest Florida, their habitat use
all across the area, and I believe that I know more about wood storks
and their foraging needs here in Southwest Florida than anybody.
Mirasol is roughly 90 percent jurisdictional wetlands. Most of
that is made up of shallow wetlands. Mirasol's very close to
Corkscrew. As you see on the -- as you see on the screen, it's about
four miles from Corkscrew. The colony itself is about just over five
miles from the Mirasol property. That is well within the core foraging
radius established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of 18.6 miles.
It's very close.
We've already lost over 70 percent of our shallow wetlands
within this core foraging area. These are -- once were abundant
wetlands, shallow wetlands, and now they're scarce.
It is my professional opinion that the loss of shallow wetlands has
caused the wood storks' population to decline. Ifwe fail to project the
remaining shallow wetlands, especially those close to Corkscrew, we
could lose the largest colony in the nation.
Common sense tells you that we've lost more shallow wetlands
Page 159
April 28, 2009
than deep ones. We build where it's higher and dryer. I bet -- only
recently have we had access to mapping tools that have allowed us to
measure these losses and compared them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service didn't have these numbers, nor did the Water Management
District, when they reviewed the permits. You do. I've provided you
with that information. We've lost 70 percent of our shallow wetlands,
over that.
These shallow wetlands grow fish and crayfish which become
available to wood storks early in the year at a time in the dry season
when it's important to establish early nesting.
Without adequate shallow wetlands, the wood storks nest late and
are far less productive. Early nesting is essential for a productive
colony at Corkscrew.
We've been told that the Melaleuca Trees are so dense on Mirasol
that wood storks could not access the fish that are produced there.
This is not true.
I took this aerial photograph that you see on the screen on
October 6th of2008. It is from Section 15, which is in the center of
the Mirasol property looking south. Here you see a landscape covered
by a sheet of water clearly visible beneath a canopy of native South
Florida slash pines.
While there are Melaleuca on the site, including a few dense
patches which may, indeed, preclude stork access, it's my professional
opinion that wood storks could access fish across the majority of the
Mirasol PUD property, not just through the many roads and trails that
crisscross the site, but also directly through the canopy.
I understand you've also been told -- in fact just today -- that
Mirasol doesn't support sheet flow on the southern two sections.
Again, this is not true. The sheet of water that you can see in this
photograph was flowing south to the 60- foot weir that is along the
southern edge of the property and seven culverts that were also in the
berm on the southern edge of that property.
Page 160
April 28, 2009
I've been told by the applicants, and I've had other people tell me,
that the applicants have said, that berm backs up water on their
property, and they can't get it off fast enough. It flows through those
culverts, it flows out of that 60- foot weir.
This sheet flow that I witnessed this past year persisted for an
extended period, and it does so in many years, covering the entire
Mirasol site except for a few of the upland islands that are on the
property, not just the western edge, as has been -- you have been told.
Typically I pass that outfall two times a day every weekday.
Last fall I witnessed more than four weeks of flows out-falling
through those culverts and that weir, and many times I saw wood
storks and other wading birds actively foraging on the prey that were
being swept through those water control structures. That's prey that's
being raised and conveyed from the Mirasol site.
Because the entire property is regularly covered by sheet flow for
weeks or months at a time, it must be considered a functional portion
of the existing Cocohatchee Slough wetland flow-way system
emanating from the Corkscrew Swamp on CREW.
The berm that's on the south end of that property was created by
the Big Cypress Basin in part as a water table restoration to offset the
drawdown effects of the Cocohatchee Canal.
While an operable gate in that berm could allow greater
flexibility in conveying water during storm events, it isn't required to
achieve sheet flow. That undeniably exists already in Sections 15 and
22. The 586 acres of shallow wetlands at stake here provide other
important functions as well.
During the average wet season, they represent, in my estimation,
on average 300 acre feet of natural water storage. You just heard from
the hydrological engineer that it's far higher than that, and I would say
that during storm events, it, indeed, would hold much more than 300
acre feet per year.
These are the floodplains of the Corkscrew Marsh. Your
Page 161
April 28, 2009
decision involves whether to convert almost 600 acres of floodplains
into two golf courses and 800 associated housing units, nearly 800.
The deep lakes that Mirasol plans to build to compensate for the
lost floodplain storage will not replace the important ecological
functions supported by the existing scarce shallow wetlands.
I know many of you are wondering why the county should deny
a project that the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service okays. The Fish and
Wildlife Service looks at the population as a whole. I know the
recovery staff, I know the wood stork biologists around the nation,
they view our region as a very unstable portion of the wood storks'
range. They're not counting on the wood stork population in
Southwest Florida at Corkscrew Swamp to save the species. They're
banking on gains in Georgia and South Carolina, not here.
If wood storks nesting at Corkscrew are going to remain, it's
going to be because the county deemed their habitat worth protecting;
it will be because you recognized the largest historically most
important colony in the nation, the Corkscrew colony, a colony which,
when active, attracts thousands, if not tens of thousands of out-of-state
and international visitors to Collier County.
This is a local issue. These are our birds. It's up to us; it's up to
you guys to see that they're protected.
So please deny this permit, consider the full suite of functions
performed by the scarce shallow wetlands that are at risk here. If you
do, I trust Mirasol will be back with another site plan. I sincerely
hope there will be a redesign that preserves the sheet flow or
recognizes the faulty logic of building in floodplains and constricting
flows, something, by the way, that all of our planning studies and
hopefully the pending Collier Watershed Management Plans urge us
to avoid.
I hope a redesign acknowledges the number of empty golf
courses and clubhouses and decides that we have enough of those. I
hope that they come back with a plan that clusters the residential
Page 162
April 28, 2009
portion that builds up and not out, that leaves a significant legacy of
shallow wetlands preserved in perpetuity for the dozen of species
which rely on them, including the wood stork.
I also would just like to say that one-to-one mitigation for
impacts, it implies that you are getting an acre for an acre. They are --
they are having 586 acres of direct impacts, and the mitigation plan
does not create new wetlands. It's enhancing over 600 acres of
wetlands. It's taking the Melaleuca Trees off of them. It is not
acre-for-acre impacts for mitigation.
So with that, please deny this permit application, and thank you
for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Alan Keller. He'll be followed
by Brad Cornell who has two people ceding to him, which I'll
announce when he gets up.
MR. KELLER: Good afternoon. Alan Keller, president of
Collier County Audubon Society.
I only wish to make it clear that we do not, Collier County
Audubon Society, does not oppose any development whatsoever on
the site, but we certainly continue to oppose the most recent
incarnation of the project for reasons just given by Jason and about to
be given by Brad.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Brad Cornell, and
Candace Forsyth and Bob Krasowski have ceded their time to him,
and following Brad will be Judith Hushon.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society
and Audubon of Florida, which owns and operates the 14,000-acre
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. I'm here to share our comments
regarding this petition that we've been discussing today, RPUD rezone
called the Mirasol project.
Based on extensive review, expert inquiry, and research that
Page 163
April 28, 2009
Jason Lauritsen that you've just heard from has been the director of,
and evidence and policy analysis, Audubon recommends this petition
be denied. Audubon believes there could be alternative designs that
may meet ecological and public interest requirements for this area, but
the current design does not.
This recommendation is also based on the evidence which
suggests the project does not satisfy at least nine of the RPUD rezone
criteria in your executive summary. Those include numbers 1,3, 7, 9,
10, 16,23,24, and 26. I'm not going to read those. I'm going to give
you a letter that actually details those, but I want to make sure I put on
the record that there are nine criteria, at least nine criteria, for PUD
rezones that this project does not meet.
Our summary conclusions have a range of issues that were
detailed very well by Jason Lauritsen, our research director. Audubon
concludes that the new Watershed Management Planning interim
policies found in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element,
Objective 2.1, subparagraph d, which Nicole Ryan very-well
described to you, obligate the county to require any development in
critical wetlands, sloughs, and flow-ways, including the Mirasol site,
to avoid destroying wetlands or, when not possible, to replace the
conveyance capacity lost.
County staff recommendations to approve are based on the
erroneous understanding that sheet flow and the existing Cocohatchee
Slough do not extend over the entire Mirasol site. Audubon has
presented photographic and expert testimony, which you heard from
Jason Lauritsen, to refute that and confirm the entire site is, indeed,
functioning today as part of the sheet flow in Cocohatchee Slough.
Further conclusions are summarized now. The entire site has
jurisdictional wetland determinations. So the one-foot criterion that's
listed in the CCME, Objective 2.1, subparagraph d, is not necessary.
You don't need to go out there and measure a one-foot difference.
You already know that the jurisdictional determinations have shown
Page 164
April 28, 2009
most of the site is wetlands.
County staff have interpreted the above policy -- oh. Because of
that, the policy's avoidance requirement applies to the entire project's
wetlands.
County staff have interpreted this policy, 2.1, to pertain only to
conveyance of water, but public dialogue in the drafting of this interim
policy over the past two years clearly indicated the county's wetland
avoidance efforts applied to the full suite of wetland functions,
including habitat, recharge and flood protection.
These Watershed Management Plans were very much intended to
be much more than just stormwater management plans. And I
attended those meetings, and clearly -- and we all understood that.
The Mirasol wetlands to be destroyed are uniquely valuable as
scarce, shallow wetlands of the type documented by Audubon
research to be vital for the successful nesting of wood storks at
Corkscrew's rookery, the largest in the nation, as Jason has told you.
Their destruction was deemed inconsequential by state and
federal agencies due to those agencies' statewide perspective or even
regional perspective, but they are critical to the survival of this
particular rookery at Corkscrew Swamp.
Mirasol's current design forecloses on flow-way and sheet flow
restoration and enhancement opportunities through the product --
throughout the project site, enhancement of much more than just
conveyance and storage functions of this existing slough, particularly
habitat functions.
While Mirasol does have state and federal permits, it must be
remembered that their review and interests are statewide, those
agencies. These agencies have indicated on numerous occasions both
through direct communication and by their actions that they cannot
address local concerns such as local slough, Wood Stork Rookeries,
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Colonies, or even panther habitat.
Collier County has wisely taken this into consideration in
Page 165
April 28, 2009
establishing such programs as the Rural Land Stewardship Area and
the TDR program and, hopefully, the pending Watershed Management
Plans.
Audubon urges you to follow the direction and authority given
you in your CCME Objective 2.1 in denying this Mirasol RPUD
rezone petition. It is important to point out that such a denial could be
viewed as a request to the applicant to redesign the project to address
the public's interests in full functional protection of existing
endangered species habitat and sheet-flowing slough wetlands.
For example, Mirasol could delete the two golf courses and save
as much as 300 acres of wetland slough. That would be just one
measure, but obviously there are a lot of facets to redesign of this
project that we encourage you to ask the applicant to do.
This is Audubon's perspective in terms of redesign and is also our
recommendation for denial.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judith Hushon. She'll be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MS. HUSHON: Hello. Judith Hushon, and I'm speaking for
myself today.
I visited the site, and I heard the presentation at the EAC on
Mirasol, and I voted against it for several reasons that I'd like to share
with you.
The Watershed Management Plan policies in the GMP required
the developers to avoid impacts. This is a 1,558-acre project of which
1,281, that's three-quarters, is wetlands. That's huge. They're
planning on compensating 586. That's about one-third of the wetlands
on the site. Again, a very large number.
The design of the connected lakes for conveying the water north
to south functions more like a canal than a trickle filter. You saw the
land -- the water sitting on the land. That's what I call a trickle filter.
That does huge recharge. It has the pot- -- that's where we get our
Page 166
April 28, 2009
recharge. We don't get recharge out of these lakes. We get recharge
from trickling. You're losing the recharge of this area. There's not
enough time for that.
There's also better water purification if it runs over than if it runs
through the lakes. Also, if it runs through the water retention ponds
on the site, it's going to be picking up things from the site. These are
pesticides, these are fertilizers, these are things the people are using on
their properties. Even though they've said they'll have a management
plan, it will still pick up things while it's there.
The maintaining of the Cocohatchee Slough has been identified
as a high property for historic restoration for the Everglades and --
which is the Everglades Restoration, the part that's scheduled for us in
Southwest Florida. So this was a critical -- this slough, they thought,
was critical. We need to think it's critical, too.
Another reason I voted against it was because of the wood storks.
They really need that shallow land, that shallow water-covered land
for fishing. They're touch feeders, and they need to feel their fish.
And it's hard for -- it's hard enough for them to find those fish, and if
they take away the wetlands, it gets even tougher; therefore, I ask you
to please deny the Mirasol PUD as being inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan Section 2.1.d. Collier needs to -- does not need to
sacrifice critical wetlands for two 18-hole golf course. We already
have a hundred.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Robert Brown.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton, representing
the Florida Wildlife Federation.
We've been engaged with this project for a long time. This was
the project, remember back in 1995, 1996, they tried to move the
urban boundary so that they could increase their density. This is the
project that helped spark a lot of interest in this community about
Page 167
April 28, 2009
growth and the impact on our natural environment.
This project was submitted just before the deadline of the final
order in June of 1999, and it was approved in April of2001 before the
planning effort was completed as mandated by the final order. That's
why it's neutral land. It's not neutral land because it doesn't have
environmental value. It was already going through the process under
the Growth Management Plan prior to June of 1999.
So the implication that Mr. Y ovanovich gave that this was
neutral land because it doesn't have environmental value was false.
Also, Mr. Y ovanovich was not present, did not participate in the
April, 2001, hearing. I did, and I'll speak for myself rather than have
Mr. Y ovanovich characterize our comments.
Florida Wildlife Federation was under the impression and had
been told that this project was a restoration project, that this would
enhance habitat for wood storks, similar to what was done at Twin
Eagles as a result of the resolution of that growth management
challenge. That didn't happen.
But if you go back and read the minutes, which apparently Mr.
Y ovanovich didn't, ours was a conditioned approval of this project
based upon what the wood stork experts at Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary said; and therefore, based on what Jason said, we continue
to have concerns about this project and we urge you to deny it by
invoking CCME Objective 2.1.
We have participated in the watershed management studies, the
planning process, and it was never presented to us as a drainage
project, as a stormwater project. It was a Comprehensive Plan to look
at watersheds and not as drainage boundaries, but as watershed
holistic boundaries to deal with a variety of issues and not just storm
conveyance.
We urge you to think about wetlands for their money-saving
natural values. They assist flood control, water storage, water quality,
stormwater management. These are important things.
Page 168
April 28, 2009
I heard earlier today about home rule and how important it was
for us to be in control of our destiny, and I think that's what we have to
do here. We have to take control of our own destiny, control our own
wetlands and our habitat issues and not rely upon West Palm Beach,
Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Atlanta, or DC to make our decisions for us.
Again, I urge you to deny invoking Objective 2.1, and in you're
deliberations, please think about what my colleagues have said to you
today. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Brown. He'll be
followed by Jerry Flanders.
MR. BROWN: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Robert
Brown. I'm the director of the regulation department with the South
Florida Water Management District in West Palm Beach.
I'm, quite often, asked to speak on behalf of projects throughout
the 16 counties we cover with the South Florida Water Management
District, and speaking on behalf of those projects does not mean that
we endorse those projects.
I never go to a government agency and say, this is a good project
or a bad project, but what I will tell you is that this project meets state
law. This project first came before the district's governing board in
2002, as you heard previously. That permit was approved by our
governing board, was not challenged. At that time there was a flow-
way to the west that was included in that proj ect.
Subsequent to that, a modification came in to delete the flow-way
as a result of issues with the Army Corps of Engineers. Again, that
project met state law. And when an ERP, which is an Environmental
Resource Permit, is reviewed, we look for three main things. We look
for water quality, water quantity, and we look for the wetland issues.
And in this case, I can't think of a project in my 25 years, this --
let me back up -- in this immediate area of Collier County that's been
placed under more scrutiny in the last three to four years with the large
number of projects in this immediate area. This project was really
Page 169
April 28, 2009
reviewed in detail. And not only that, but then it was challenged. It
went before an administrative law judge from Tallahassee and, again,
our permit was upheld.
So what I'm telling you today is that this project meets state law,
and we looked very closely at water quality, water quantity, and
wetland issues, some of the same issues that were brought up today.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Brown. Oh, I'm sorry.
Jerry Flanders will be your next speaker. And Madam Chairman, he
will be your final speaker.
MR. FLANDERS: Just very quickly. I'm Jerry Flanders from
Worthington Country Club. I'm the president there representing 799
families. We are a bundled community. We are very much in support
of Mayor Ben Nelson's posture and position in regard to this project.
We also are in favor of this project because we believe it will-- has a
strong possibility of keeping the flow-way alive.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That concludes the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The public hearing is now
closed.
Are there any other scheduled speakers or presenters?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No? Questions by Mr.
Y ovanovich? Are you walking forward to present something?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know when you would prefer, Mr.
Coyle, when we should do rebuttal and -- or do you want to ask
questions, and then maybe that will elicit some of the rebuttal? It's up
to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning has been
waiting for some time. What would you prefer to do, Commissioner
Henning?
Page 170
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ask a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Please go ahead and ask the
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the main issue is about
our Growth Management Plan, so I think our staff needs to assist us on
either changing their written stance or explaining the different
policies.
MS. DESELEM: Again, for the record, Kay Deselem. The
Growth Management Plan seems to be the most prevalent issue in this,
is the water management, and I would ask that Robert Wiley come up
and speak to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You want to take a break?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can do that.
MR. WILEY: We're getting there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We could just take a ten-minute break
right now until you find it. Okay, ten minutes.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I guess all we
needed was a little walk around, didn't we?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. Now we're going to hear from
staff.
MR. WILEY: Yes. For the record, my name is Robert Wiley.
I'm with your engineering and environmental services department, and
I'm the one who did the review for this famous or infamous, or
whatever word you want to use for this particular objective, in the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
So what I want to start with this evening or this afternoon is just
an overall picture, and let's get a grasp of the purpose for having this
objective in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
Page 171
April 28, 2009
When we put that element, that object into the element, it was to
address the department's requirement out of Tallahassee that, since we
had not developed the Watershed Management Plans over the number
of years, we had to put in interim requirements, and one of the interim
requirements was to address conveyance. So we did not have
developments blocking off sheet flow in particular at the higher storm
frequencies, to address the lower storm frequencies, but also the
higher.
So what I want you to look at here is a picture, getting back a
little bit further perspective, a shot from the satellites, to give you an
indication of what I used to help in the evaluation.
You're looking at the north end of the county, and where the
cursor is -- Mirasol is in this area, right through here, where the little
crossed area is located. This puts you up into Lee County. This is
Collier County, Lake Trafford. You can see there's a huge wetland
system that flows down. This splits out, goes on out into the Bonita
area, through here, up into the Estero area, through here. There's also
a portion of it that sweeps down, comes into Collier County. The
county line runs along through here and sweeps on around, comes
through.
Now, that's a satellite taken a few years ago. Keep in mind, this is
not a true color imagery. This is -- this is color enhanced. This was
distributed by the South Florida Water Management District years
ago, and they've put out various iterations of this map. But this one is
a good indicator of where the bulk of the water goes and where it sits
when it doesn't want to go anywhere.
So in 100king at the flow that's coming down through here,
you've got to notice several things that the old ago fields, right through
here -- which some of these have now gone through development.
There's different activities that have taken place out through here.
This is the old Mule Pen Quarry. It's the Heritage Bay site that
was approved by the county . You have Twin Eagles through here, the
Page 172
April 28, 2009
Old Pipers Pasture, as I knew it years ago when I first came to work
here. You have the Bonita Bay Golf Course area through here.
So you can see what used to exist all through here. It was water
that had the ability to come down.
I have on the visualizer over here another -- well, I just hit the
button. There you go. This is a map which is sort of a combination of
things. The map that you look at from the top is the aerial imagery,
and then as you get down into Collier County, you're beginning to see
superimposed overtop of the aerial, the elevation lidar. Now, this is
lidar taken back in 2001. This is from the property appraiser's
information. Hopefully within just a couple of months we'll have
updated lidar, but we're not there yet.
But this is starting to show you from the color bands you see the
bluer something is, the lower the elevation. The more red, the higher
the elevation. You begin to see as you go through a color transition
from blue up into the greens to the yellows to the oranges to the reds,
you're going from a southwest to a northeast direction.
And in the particular situation through here, what we have is
Mirasol outlined through here. So you can see, the historical ability
for water, which is out there today, the flow-way to pass the water in a
sheet flow configuration down.
Now, this water gets down to a certain point. It's going to butt up
against -- you have Olde Cypress here. This is what Terafina looked
like before it was ever built. So you can see it was low.
Now, I want you to notice something here, how the elevations
don't necessarily change a foot, a median. This is what's called
corrugation and lidar from different flight lines. So you have to learn
to sort of work with that and understand it. We don't have one-foot
vertical differences in a straight line.
Parklands through here and up through here. And we can see on
this development that's already taking place in what used to be nothing
but ago fields on the other map that I was showing you before.
Page 173
April 28, 2009
So based upon that, I'm looking to evaluate the application as
submitted to me, went through the review process. I rejected it the
first time and I said, you need to address the floodplain compensation
and these very flow-way concepts that we're talking about.
So the applicant provided me with a big thick document. It
basically was nothing more than a response they had put together for
the Water Management District. I went through it and looked at it
very carefully to see. Now, what they have proposed to do is, as Mr.
Tomasello described, they evaluated what is the flow coming down
towards the project from the whole watershed that you're seeing here
on your screen.
Well, let me back that up. Not necessarily everything on the
screen, but the watershed that would come towards it from what's on
the screen. They came up with a flow, current conditions, they came
up with a flow after they built. And what they have done is, in lieu of
leaving it alone, they put together a plan which incorporates somewhat
of a collector swale during not real peak, but somewhat lower water
elevations. They bring that to a weir, which is a hundred feet long.
It's elevation of 14.95, if! remember the elevation correctly.
So that when water stages up trying to flow from the north to the
south, it's going to stay in the existing wetlands area and it's going to
flow around the north end of Mirasol and down between the western
boundary of Mirasol and the eastern boundary of Terafina, supposed
to work its way down past Olde Cypress and eventually come to that
thousand-foot-Iong weir that's on the north canal bank of the
Cocohatchee Canal.
That is designed so that during normal wet-season-type
situations, not peak storm event, it will pass the flow without causing a
lowering of water elevation, dewatering of all the wetlands upstream.
That's good. That's what you want to see.
But we're looking at what happens when you have the big storm
events. So they provided the model routing that shows that that weir
Page 174
April 28, 2009
that they have on their north perimeter is designed to take the flow
overtop and then pass it through that central lake system that was on
the screen earlier, the darker blue lakes, and pass it through a series of
lake interconnects which are some very large culverts. They're -- I
think they're 8-foot-square box culverts and they're in different
configurations -- pass it from north to south so that as water stages up
in the wetlands flow from the north to south, it will closely imitate --
and you always have to say closely imitate because you can never
exactly imitate anything as soon as you change something. But it
closely imitates the stages that -- the existing conditions.
Now, there's been a lot of discussion because we looked at this
also years ago back when they had the flow-way, and the flow-way
concept was to give additional capacity coming in through there.
That's really not what our policy and objectives say we're to address.
We're supposed to address existing, not some predicted desirable
situation in the future.
So I evaluated against what's existing using their information
provided to us, looked at it, and I said, does it meet what it's supposed
to do? We looked at it for the floodplain compensation issue. There is
the issue that I asked them, are you an importer or an exporter?
Meaning, basically, from the Water Management District criteria, if
you put a 100-year storm straight on that property, does it generate a
higher water level, assuming no discharge, than existing conditions are
observed? And they turn out to be an exporter because there's less
water standing on the property under existing conditions that will pass
on through and go into the canal than what the property itself would
generate strictly from the rainfall. So it's an exporter, which at that
point means they have to account for the storage on the property and
then release it through the control structure, but they don't have to
account for any taking of additional water onto their property because
the water is less than what they generated themselves through all the
time this property is discharging water. We looked at it from that
Page 175
April 28, 2009
way.
Now, the question's come up, could they do things differently?
Sure. You can always do things differently, but they met criteria.
I talked to the Water Management District staff, and in particular,
to the Big Cypress Basin staff. What were their thought on this?
Because basically what they have done is come up with a system that
is able to pass the flow through and give it direct discharge right into
the Immokalee Road canal, and that's what the district, through the
Big Cypress Basin office, wanted to see. They wanted to see the
capacity of the water being able to get to the canal and not create a
backed-up condition for adjacent properties.
Now, when we went to the Planning Commission, there was a
statement that was made, and then I got some follow-up to it. And the
proposal that you had before you here is interesting in what it says in
the package I was given in that they are addressing Mirasol's impacts.
Now, what was presented to you before by Mr. Mazes -- I don't
remember. Sorry I said your name wrong, sorry. But in the one
illustration and graphic that he provided to you, he's talking about, less
than two-tenths of a foot difference but it shows an increase, post
Mirasol. But you notice the little fine print talked about not just
Mirasol but the other adjacent developments in there. So what they're
really showing is, they're handling the impacts that they are creating,
but they're also providing information that other developments coming
in, if they choose to fill in floodplain issues, it's going to have an
impact by raising it just under -- well, I want to say it's about 2 inches.
Now, how far will that 2 inches back up? Well, you've got quite a
few miles to go with the roughness of the wetlands and everything
through there. You get upstream a very short distance, you're not
going to notice it, but technically there is the potential, not from
Mirasol, but Mirasol plus everybody else that's proposed to do
developments through the Parklands and Terafina, there is the
potential to have maybe up to a two-inch increase in water at that peak
Page 176
April 28, 2009
storm event.
Quite frankly, at that peak storm event, 2 inches is going to mean
almost nothing to anybody because it's water everywhere out through
there at that point. So I looked at it and said -- and I talked to the
district. The district said they considered that as very minimal to not
even being impactive, and they were in agreement to it.
So with that review, I did. I said, it meets criteria, and at that
point I signed off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Robert. Yes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have -- there's objections that
it doesn't meet our Objective 2.2 and 2.2.2 of our Growth
Management Plan, and 2.3.6. And, Robert, I'm not sure if that pertains
to you.
MR. WILEY: Well, I'm here for 2.1. 2.3.6, ifI'm -- and I'm
going from memory, so please correct me, but I think that's the one
dealing with the water quality evaluation from the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. WILEY: Okay. Let me give you an update on that. We
have, as a county, not undertaken that evaluation for the reason that
we know that the state is right now, and has been for some time, going
through a massive re-evaluation and they're calling it a water-quality
rule for the state. They're taking a lot of information that we would be
doing. We did not feel at staff level that we ought to just simply
repeat the effort that the state is doing across the board. So we're
waiting to see how this new water-quality rule comes in to determiner
whether or not we think it's sufficient, and then do we need to add to
it.
But we feel like the state is right now is addressing what that
requirement was, so we don't really think that's an issue with us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a policy or -- in the
Land Development Code that implements 2.3.6.b as water quality?
Page 177
April 28, 2009
MR. WILEY: Well, I would have to see that one then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I said, do we?
MR. WILEY: 2.3.6.b where is says, excluding single homes, any
project impacting five acres or more of wetlands must provide a pre
and post development water quality analysis to demonstrate no
increase. That is what we rely upon from the Water Management
District when we get their permit. We rely upon them for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you -- you reviewed that,
what you just stated.
MR. WILEY: Okay. Now, I personally did not review that, no,
sIr.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bill is here to talk about that.
MR. WILEY: But Bill Lorenz is here.
MR. LORENZ: Thank you. Bill Lorenz, for the record,
engineering environmental services director.
I believe, Commissioner Henning, you asked whether the 2.3.6.b
was in the Land Development Code?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no.
MR. LORENZ: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not in the Land
Development Code, right? That's in the Growth Management Plan.
MR. LORENZ: Well, this policy in the Growth Management
Plan, it was amended -- let me back up. The EAR amendments added
biochemical occupant demand (sic), total suspended solvents, lead,
zinc and copper loading. We did not have in the Land Development
Code just nutrients. So we have not yet incorporated that -- the other
nutrients in the Land Development Code, but the other -- this policy is
in the Growth Management Plan, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you apply that policy
when you approve a project?
MR. LORENZ: We have -- the policy requires an analysis of
post-development versus predevelopment using methodologies that
Page 178
April 28, 2009
are acceptable to the agencies.
The one methodology that's -- that has been used and been
reviewed by staff and required to be submitted for certain
circumstances is typically the Harvey Harper analysis. Dr. Harvey
Harper provided testimony earlier.
That analysis is the analysis that we have -- we had required for
nutrients for the Mirasol development, in which case we reviewed as
part of the EIS, just for nutrients though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The Objective 2.2 and
Policy 2.2.2 did not demonstrate the discharge, it would not degradate
the receiving quality in the Cocohatchee Canal, which is already
impaired in the Cocohatchee River and Wiggins Pass estuary.
So what the Conservancy's saying is that analysis or -- doesn't
meet that objective. Do you agree with that?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the way I would -- the way I would
answer that question is, when we do a post -- pre-versus-post analysis,
what you're saying is that you're delivering the pollutant loading to
that receiving body that's no greater than what -- after development is
no greater than what was predevelopment. So essentially you're
saying, you're limiting yourself so you won't have any additional
pollutant loading going into the water body. And there's a -- used to
be a term of anti-degradation. You could almost think of that as being
anti-degradation. That's not going to degrade the water body any
further because you are -- you're not increasing your pollutant loading
to the water body.
So we use that as an indication for us to then conclude that there
would not be any degradation of the receiving waters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I have a question
for Rich, but I'll wait until Commissioner Halas is done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And what I wanted to do was
finish up.
Now, is that all from staff?
Page 179
April 28, 2009
MR. WILEY: Well, I'm here to answer questions if you have
them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I just wanted to find -- Kay, is that
all the presentation from staff?
MS. DESELEM: We have no further presentation. We're
standing on what's in the executive summary and the CC(sic) staff
report and the EAC staff report as far as our analysis and our findings
of fact that support our recommendation.
We're here simply to answer any questions or address any issues
that you wish us to address.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Don't go anyplace because we'll
have some.
And Rich, did you want to wind up also?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, what we were at, we were
at the question-and-answer stage, and then we were going to put on
some additional testimony.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: After all the -- after the questions?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's kind of how we started down
this road.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
Then Commissioner Henning, did you want to finish?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
Mr. Y ovanovich, you had a -- on the overhead, your first exhibit,
and the -- above the development, it didn't -- yeah, that's it. Above the
development it really didn't -- I really didn't catch what that parcel was
all about, the green.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The green in this is the preserve area for
the project. It is within the development, but that is all preserve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's going to be -- that's
going to be a conservation easement over to the district and Collier
County?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, right. And ultimately that land will
April 28, 2009
ultimately go to CREW, once it's been cleaned up, we've met the
success criteria, and we have posted money so that CREW gets the
land and can take care of it. So we actually give them money for them
to maintain this land in perpetuity as a conservation area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to deed it over to
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To CREW.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to CREW? And you're going
to clean it up first?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We clean it up first, we make sure that
what we plant meets the success criteria, then we give them
appropriate monies to make sure that they can maintain it and it's re-
vegetated, cleaned up -- that's about 900 acres? There's an adjacent
piece, Section 11, that totals with this 900 plus-or-minus acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, from what I seen, that's
going to be a heck of an undertaking to clean up the piece of property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Don, I know you beat me with how much
money that was. Was it seven million? About six and a half million
dollars to clean that up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Robert Wiley, your analysis
-- first of all, let's go to your picture that was on there before this one.
Can you go back to the one that you had there.
Okay. The little square box down there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's got it up there, Leo.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The little square box down here,
blue box. That's Mirasol?
MR. WILEY: Mirasol is located where the cursory is located. I
can zoom in if you want to, but I was trying to show you the overall
picture.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 181
April 28, 2009
MR. WILEY: But Mirasol -- what you see, these are from the
old Mule Pen Quarry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right.
MR. WILEY: That's known as Heritage Bay now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: So Mirasol is located just to the west over through
here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So Mirasol is down in this
area here, okay. All that area. What are we looking at acreage-wise
of all of this wetland that's behind it? How many acres would you
estimate that this is?
MR. WILEY: This acres through here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All of that.
MR. WILEY: Several hundred sections.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thousand?
MR. WILEY: Several hundred sections we're talking about here
in square miles.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: You're talking about quite a bit of land, because
it's going way up in through here, picking water down and it's all
rolling down. You've got water that at certain times even from Lake
Trafford can come across and roll in through here, so it's a massive
watershed through there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So where other -- where's the other
part of this that -- there's the water flow to the west out of this big
huge area?
MR. WILEY: Okay. In looking on the screen--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this the only place that water can
escape this whole massive wetlands?
MR. WILEY: No, no, and that's what we're saying. This is the
portion of it that comes down through Mirasol. There is a portion of it
which comes down and goes through Heritage Bay. There is a small
Page 182
April 28, 2009
portion which comes down along in between Twin Eagles and Bonita
Bay Golf Course, works its way down into the Cocohatchee.
In the Lee County side, this is where it comes down into the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The Imperial River?
MR. WILEY: Imperial River, through Bonita. You've got it all
the way coming up into Estero, some pop off points through here. So
this is Flint Pen, this is the Corkscrew area. So you're seeing the water
trying to get its way through the developed portion along the coastline
and work its way through what will be the remnants of the old stream
systems, but they're pretty choked up in some places.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's where I was going with
this is that it looks to me like the water flow over the years has been
choked down because of development where it's been filled in; is that
correct? Would that be a correct statement?
MR. WILEY: It's a way to say that development is now
restricting the places, but as to whether the capacity is choked down or
not, that's beyond what I've evaluated.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In your assumptions, when
you looked at this, was anything taken into -- into the thought process
of the additional 200 cubic feet per second of water flow?
MR. WILEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And where would the 200 extra --
200 cubic feet of water flow go in regards to -- if Bonita Springs is
looking for a way to alleviate that -- the pressure so they don't have
flooding?
MR. WILEY: If Bonita is going to be successful in that, it's
going to take some cooperation with various entities, not just Collier
County, but the Water Management District, to coordinate this.
There's going to have to be a way for them to prove that you can
actually get the water, which is -- when you come through Bonita
through here, it's going to be -- have to show how they can get it to go
south.
Page 183
April 28, 2009
Now, to do that, you've either got to back it up till it, on its own,
comes in the end of the ago fields through here, you have to eliminate
some development through here by scraping down or putting some
kind of a flow-way through here, because you've got to get the water
to come out of Lee County into Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, what you're
saying is, is that probably Collier County is going to end up with the
impact of the additional 200 cubic feet per second flow coming into
the Immokalee canal and into the Cocohatchee River; is that what
you're -- what you're trying to tell me here?
MR. WILEY: If this draft document gets through and is
approved for a reasonable plan, yes, that would be, the proposal, to put
an additional flow, instead of coming out into the Lee County side,
would move down into Collier County.
At that point there also has to be a decision made as to where it's
going to go. Before the county and the district -- the counties, and the
municipality and the district could come together with a joint
agreeable plan, you have to identify, if you're going to bring it into
Collier County, where's it going to go? Is it going to be through
increasing conveyance through Heritage Bay, increasing conveyance
around Mirasol?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the end result, it's going to end
up in the canal, and that's going to go out to Wiggins pass?
MR. WILEY: Well, again, let's back up here and look at it from
the standpoint.
If you were able to bring it -- let's just say that it's a go that we're
getting additional water coming into Collier County. If you're able to
bring it through this point along the side of Twin Eagles, which is not
very likely because it would sort of have to come uphill -- and water
doesn't flow uphill very well around here -- but to get water to come
this way, at the location it would hit the Immokalee Road canal, you
would have the potential to then take it slightly to the east, bring it
Page 184
April 28, 2009
down through and into the Cypress canal.
At that point, through manipulations of the Golden Gate Canal
system, you could move it and get it to go in different places.
Probably it's going to end up in Naples Bay, which is not where you're
going to want water to go either.
So the question comes up, are you even going to want to agree to
take an additional 200 CFS out through the Wiggins Pass area? But
that's not the issue that I'm looking at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that. I'm just trying to
get --
MR. WILEY: I'm just saying this is the overall big picture.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm looking at the whole picture
here.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I appreciate your indulgence
in this. I'm just trying to figure out, if we look at this map, if we have
a 25-year event, with the amount of square -- the acreage that we have
here, and you have a 25-year event, what are the impacts to the
communities that are to the -- that are going to be adjacent to all of
this wetlands?
MR. WILEY: The impacts proposed by Mirasol--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the rest of the
thing.
MR. WILEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Mirasol is saying that they
can take care of the water that they have, but they can't take care of
this whole square footage -- this whole area back here.
MR. WILEY: Well, they're modeling -- and the purpose of their
weir and the pass-through lake system is to receive that water as it
comes down into Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A 25-year event?
MR. WILEY: Up to a 100-year event, sir.
Page 185
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Really?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is
-- I'll give this -- ask this to Rich, if you'd give me a second here.
Right now you're proposing 799 homes -- and you and I had this
discussion in the office. And do you feel that two 18-hole golf courses
can be supported with 799 homes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you wouldn't be willing to
take out one golf course to create that as an additional wetlands?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, let me -- and I'll give you the
answer that I gave you in the office. It hasn't changed. But there's a
couple of -- couple issues related to that request.
First of all, if you look at it from a water quality and a water
quantity analysis, will the removal of the golf course do anything to
improve the water quality and the water quantity that this site will
accommodate?
And the answer to that question is, it will make no difference to
remove the golf course. It will not provide better water leaving the
site and it will not address water quantity issues leaving the site.
We've already appropriately addressed the design of the system.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm looking to see if we can save
additional wetlands that a golf course would take up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The second issue is -- related to that is,
we have our Corps permit, and all the listed species and all the
wetland impact analysis has been done. We meet the legal
requirements, and any changes to the permits require us to go back
and start over again with the Corps permitting process.
We've been in this process for ten years and not anxious to start
over again when we're -- and the analogy I use is we're basically at the
goal line. I know some people believe we would just be pushed back
a few yards to maybe the 5-yard line, but it's the wrong 5-yard line
Page 186
April 28, 2009
that they think they're pushing us back to. We have to go past the 50
and go all the way back to our own goal line, and we're not interested
in doing that because we have all the permits, we've met all the legal
standards, and it will add no additional benefit from a water quality
and water quantity standpoint at this -- at this point to change the
permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there any truth to the rumor that
I heard that you're actually going to flip this piece of property and then
possibly come back, whoever picks this up, and tries to come back to
get it rezoned for I,SOO homes instead of the 799 homes?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is there any --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is something in the wind on that?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know that there -- and I don't know the
status of it. There has been a contract for the property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as -- do you think that we're
going to end up where there is going to be coming back to us where
they're going to want an additional amount of homes here to equal
I,SOO?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't believe you can get there under
the Comprehensive Plan. I think the Comprehensive Plan number is
1,606.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we could go up to 1,606
then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you can't do that without a couple
of things, one, going through the same -- you'd have to go through an
amendment to the PUD process and you would have to amend and
revise your Corps permit and possibly your Water Management
District permit. But I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we make a motion, could we
probably put something in to the effect that if this property does get
sold, that it's contingent on, that this will never come back us to or
increase in density?
Page 187
April 28, 2009
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That -- what would that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Don't stutter now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll give you the quick answer: No. You
don't do that to anybody else. Why would this property owner accept
-- he doesn't -- you don't know what could happen in the future, and
you're saying that we should be able to tell you today that nothing's
ever going to change.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said there was a contract out
there. You think there might be a contract out there. I'm just
concerned that we're going to be visiting this again, and I'm looking at
the impacts, what we got at the present time --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and then what's going to be
generated there whereby we're going to end up with additional
rooftops, with impervious ground, and not having enough recharge.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What I have in front of you today is a
PUD for 799 units, just like you had in 2001. All of those impacts
have been analyzed. If there's a change in the future, all those very
same impacts will have to be analyzed, and we'll go through the same
hearing process we've gone through in the past, EAC, Planning
Commission, Board of County Commissioners, and we'll have to go
ahead and analyze those to the satisfaction of the legal requirements.
And we'll -- if, if that ever happens, that's what we'll have to do.
But right now before you is the preservation of the existing
zoning that's on the property, like we committed to do, we would go
through for review under the Comprehensive Plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I guess that's why I've got
some concerns if you're not willing to alleviate one of the golf courses,
because I don't believe that 799 homes can support two golf courses,
two 18-hole golf courses, and that's just -- that's just me, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Page 188
April 28, 2009
Mr. Klatzkow, if! may address a question to you. We just heard
Commissioner Halas' concern. We -- my understanding on how this all
works is that any rules made by man at some point in the future could
be changed by man. Other than laws of nature, there's very little we
can guarantee some certainty; is that correct, or is there some way that
there could be some certainty of this to give Commissioner Halas that
comfort level that he needs to be able to move on this one way or the
other?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that Mr. Yovanovich said that he
wasn't willing to make any stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. But even ifhe made a
stipulation, would that prevent someone ten years down the road
bringing this back to another commission for consideration?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that they could bring it back. At that
point in time the commission could say, wait a second, there's a
stipulation here and we're going to enforce it, or another commission
could waive it at that point in time. It would be up to that Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that Board of County
Commissioners could also waive it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be nothing more than a
suggestion for somebody in the future to be able to follow?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a little more than a suggestion. I think
it's something that a Board of County Commissioners can insist upon a
commitment made to them, but I think a Board of County
Commissioners can also waive it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm just trying to see
how this whole thing balances out. I can understand both ends of the
argument. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, on that issue, I think
Page 189
April 28, 2009
transportation concurrency's going to take effect. I mean, even when
Don Scott was here, that was -- the contingency of building
Livingston Road to the north is going to take some pressure off of
Immokalee Road, and I don't see that changing. Even with the six lane
-- what Don Scott was saying, even with the six-lane, it has very little
capacity for future development along that Immokalee Road corridor.
So that's something that -- hopefully that won't change in the future,
the concurrency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Transportation concurrency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: After Commissioner Henning's
done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Y ovanovich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At some time in the future, if
someone, be it Collier -- Conservation Collier or be it some other
entity out there would wish to purchase the golf courses at fair market
value, is that anything that your client would be interested in doing?
Let me put it this way --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. If someone wants to come
buy the property, I'm sure, the right price, we'll listen to any --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you've got options open for
any entity out there that wants to preserve something in its entirety
forever and be assured the fact that, unless they change their minds,
that it would be able to stay at that point in time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if there are environmental groups
that would like this property to stay as it is, submit all written offers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, how much of this land is
already going to be placed in preserve or environmental conservation?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There will be 941 acres.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Doesn't mean enough. What
Page 190
April 28, 2009
kind of percentage?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: All right. Well, there's 1,558 acres. That
940 includes 160; 55 percent of the property will be placed in
preserve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the place where the
golf courses are planned, before that could ever be developed, that
would have to come back before some future commission?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If someone changed their mind
down the road and wanted to have consideration for the golf courses to
be built on, that would have to come back, go through the whole
process all over again?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. If we wanted to eliminate the
golf courses and increase the number of units to be built within this
site, we would have to go through a PUD amendment process and a
complete review, including Water Management District and the Army
Corps of Engineers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But you said it was 55
percent?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Fifty-five percent of the site today will be
m preserve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's -- it's going to be more open
space, but 55 percent of it will be preserve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And your client would be, if
made an offer, I'm sure sometime in the future, if it was fair market
value, they'd be willing to sell it to whatever environmental entity out
there that would like to buy it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think they would not listen to a
serious fair-market value offer on the property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. County Attorney?
Page 191
April 28, 2009
MR. KLATZKOW: The developer does not have to put a golf
course in here, all right. The way this is being zoned, they could do
all residential if they wanted to. There is no commitment to putting a
golf course on this master plan. They've got the alternative to put in
two golf courses with 799 units or just 799 units without the golf
courses. That's my understanding of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'll tell you, right now I'm still
having a problem with the wetland impact, and so I would make a
motion to deny because I just feel that it impacts the wetlands more
than I can vote for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'm going to ask a question, because
if that's going to be the reason for the denial, it must be based upon a
new rule, because that rule didn't exist in 2001. And in 2001 580-plus
acres of wetland impact was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
You're telling me it's too much, and what I'm trying to figure out,
because as a lawyer and as a professional consultant, I'm supposed to
be able to tell my client what your Comprehensive Plan requires, and I
need to know what your Comprehensive Plan requires.
Your environmental group basically said, ah, make them go do
better, yet they provided no details of what in their mind was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
I don't know -- your staff has told me we met it. I need to know
specifically how we're not meeting it, and I need to know specifically
how to meet it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'll tell you --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So I could make good use of our time if
we're going to get a denial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The way I'm looking at it, 2.1.d, right,
says -- and maybe it's all in interpretation. Maybe staff interpreted
one way. I'm just looking at the words. The county shall require the
applicant to avoid direct impacts to these natural wetlands, flow-ways,
Page 192
April 28, 2009
or sloughs. That's what it says. I can't interpret it any other way than
what the words actually say.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we've got to keep reading because
we don't get to stop at that sentence. And if you give me a second to
find that page.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When not possible, to ensure any direct
impact is minimized and compensated for.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: By?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: By providing the same conveyance
capacity lost by the direct impact, and I don't -- I just -- I just do not
see that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, what ended up happening is your
staff --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Instead we have two golf courses.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But remember, what it says is -- your
staff has already testified and you've seen -- you've seen the flux map,
and there are, I think it's kind to say, isolated wetlands -- I mean
isolated uplands on this project. So it is not possible to get to those
uplands without impacting wetlands.
So we know it's not possible. We're going to do an impact. And
what your Compo Plan says is when you impact, you need to
compensate for lost, I think, conveyance and lost storage capacity,
correct, resulting from the impacts to the wetlands.
And there's been no testimony. The Water Management District
says we have done that, your staff has said they've done a thorough
review of everything we've provided to the Water Management
District. The gentleman who testified says he did a quick review, not
a detailed review.
So the people who did the detailed review after a two-week trial
determined that we have met the standard of compensating for our
impacts from a conveyance and capacity -- and storage capacity
standpoint. This rule does not say you cannot impact wetlands. It
Page 193
April 28, 2009
says, if you do, you've got to address the impacts from a water flow
issue, and your staff has told you that this is a water flow rule, and
we've satisfied those requirements.
I understand. I mean, some people don't like the number of
wetland impacts. I know you don't like the number of wetland
impacts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are members of the Planning
Commission who said, we don't like the number of wetland impacts,
but it's consistent with the rules. And if it's consistent with the rules --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, I don't read it that way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- you've got to approve it. And if you
don't want -- if you don't like the rules -- and that's basically what you
heard from the objectors, take control, local home rule -- well, you've
got to change your Comprehensive Plan first. You can't do it petition
by petition.
We're before you with a petition that has been deemed consistent.
And ifthere's going to be a denial, there needs to be an explanation of
exactly how we meet it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know if! want to get in the
middle of this thing because I'm not going to advocate for the
development, but I do want to be fair.
There have been a lot of things said here today that are simply
not true, okay, simply not true, and this is one of them, and I'm not
going into the others unless somebody presses me on this issue.
But we have a staff member who wrote this, this paragraph. And
let me read this and let's look at it very, very carefully, because we
don't want to get into trouble here.
The county shall require the applicant to avoid direct impacts to
these natural wetlands, flow-ways, and sloughs or, when it's not
possible, to ensure any direct -- when it's not possible, you ensure any
Page 194
April 28, 2009
direct impact is minimized and compensated for by providing the
same conveyance capacity.
It doesn't require that you mitigate the wetlands that were
destroyed, okay. The remedy is conveyance, and that is consistent
with Robert Wiley's statement in the executive summary.
The purpose of Subparagraph d was never intended to serve as a
wetland impact minimization evaluation tool, but that is the way it has
been presented today, and that is an incorrect and inappropriate
interpretation.
If there was a -- if there was an intent to mitigate for the
destruction of the wetlands themselves, then the remedy would have
included off-site mitigation or some other dedication of wetlands to
replace those that were destroyed. That is not mentioned here.
The only remedy that is mentioned here is capacity. So in my
estimation for this particular item to result in disqualification of the
petition, you would have to have something different in this
paragraph, and it's not there.
It's very clear to me, and I think it's very clear to anybody who
reads it carefully and objectively, that it says only if you impact
wetlands, you have to compensate for that by making sure you've got
the same amount of water flowing through there after development
that you had before development.
And I have seen the staffs analysis. I have listened to what has
been said here. I find nothing that will refute the fact that there is not
at least the same amount of water that can flow through there after
development that flowed through there before development.
And I'll violate what I said at the beginning. I am going to go a
little bit further.
The idea that you want to just let the water sit there in sheet flow
during a storm event rather than getting it moving on out is completely
contrary to the entire water quality concept we used in Freedom Park.
There what we do is we take the stormwater runoff and it goes
Page 195
April 28, 2009
through a series of lakes, and impurities are settled out before it goes
into the Gordon River basin.
It's just not true that a series of lakes does not provide the same
level or better level of purification of the water.
The allegation that we're going to flood Bonita Springs -- you
know, you've got to move the water if you're not going to flood Bonita
Springs because there is more development happening here, so you've
got to provide some way for it to get out.
So these are things that are all contradictory. And I think if we're
going to make a decision -- and quite frankly, I don't care which way
it goes. I'm not advocating for the developer. I really am not. It
would make everybody feel a lot better, I think, if we preserved more
land. But if we're going to deal honestly -- and that's the thing that
bothers me is honesty and not distorting the truth, and I've seen too
much of that from one group the past two weeks -- that we're going to
have to -- we're either going to treat people honestly or we're going to
pay for it, and that's the only thing I'm going to say. And I don't care
which side it is, we've got to treat everybody honestly here.
And what I see happening with some of this testimony really,
really disappoints me and -- I've finished. I'm sorry for going on so
long.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd like -- I think we'd all
like to minimize wetland impacts or remove golf courses, but that's --
that takes two parties to agree to.
But on Page 36 of our executive summary -- and I would imagine
Robert Wiley wrote this, and it has a figure in Objective 2.1.d, in
reviewing the Mirasol, staff has evaluated these criteria to determine if
the proposed development activities could comply with the overall
purposes, objectives. Knowing that, that the county initiated that -- the
development of a Watershed Management Plan, and it goes on.
Page 196
April 28, 2009
But the policy is about a watershed management, not a wetland
protection. We -- as we stated, previous arguments about the policies,
we defer to the agencies about wetland impacts, and those mitigations
of those impacts are taken care of there.
I don't want to purchase this policy. Although I'm not too happy
with certain elements of it, I don't see any reason why we should deny
it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I read on Objective 6.2 -- and
maybe the County Attorney can clarify because I'm not an attorney,
okay? It says, the county shall protect and conserve wetlands and the
natural functions of wetlands pursuant to the appropriate policies
under goal 6. The following policies provide criteria to make this
objective measurable. County's wetland protection policies and
strategies shall be coordinated with the Watershed Management Plans
as required by Objective 2.1 of this element. 2.1 is the thing that
we've been discussing most of the afternoon.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right. And what your staff is telling you is
that it's a stormwater plan. That was the intent, that it's not a wetlands
plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it says, it shall protect and
conserve wetlands and the natural function of the wetlands pursuant to
the appropriate policies under goal 6.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that, but your staff has testified
-- Mr. Wiley can correct me if I'm wrong -- that when he wrote that,
the objective was stormwater management.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the following policy provided
criteria to make this objective measurable. The county's wetland
protection policy and strategies shall be coordinated with the
Watershed Management Plan.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would put the question to Mr. Wiley.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If! can just quickly point out -- that's my
Page 197
April 28, 2009
point, Commissioner Halas. This is the policy and objective that deals
with amount of wetlands and what you do when you impact wetlands.
This is the policy that your staff said you've got to go by wetland
mitigation. It wasn't policy 2.1 or Objective 2.1. It was the policies in
the 6.2s that are dealing with the amount of wetlands you retain and
what you do when you impact it. 2.1 is the water flow.
MR. LORENZ: If I might make a -- take a shot at it. Yes,
Objective 6.2 is an overall wetlands objective --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. LORENZ: -- and it does -- it does have a cross-reference to
the -- I just want to make sure here -- to the Watershed Management
Plans in terms of certain functions.
If you go down -- if you go down to policy 6.2.5, that policy
directly talks about wetland protection within the rural fringe
mixed-use district, which requires the -- or allows the county -- excuse
me -- allows the county to provide or require mitigation. That's what
we have required in this particular situation for wetlands.
So the wetlands policy does address wetland mitigation. It
cross-references the watershed management policy because one of the
-- one of the functions of wetlands, of course, is their ability to store
stormwater.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And recharge the aquifer.
MR. LORENZ: But the actual wetland mitigation requirement is
in policy 6.2.5.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so are we getting one for one?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On site, at that location, or are we
mitigating to another county?
MR. LORENZ: Oh, excuse me. I'll have to have Susan -- let me
have Susan Mason -- she has all the numbers, and I don't have the
numbers in my head.
MS. MASON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Page 198
April 28, 2009
Susan Mason with Collier County Engineering and Environmental
Services Department.
Included in your packet -- unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have
page numbers on it -- it's the application for public hearing, the
supporting documents. The applicant did supply all the math to show
that it was one-for-one acreage; however, some of it is in a mitigation
bank, and I do not know what county that is in. It's -- you'll have to
check with the applicant on that, because I don't know that county.
The other 71 acres that they still have yet to be identified would
be an SDP approval. There isn't a requirement for us to say that that
has to be in our county. You could make that a condition of approval,
and then we would enforce it at the SDP review.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're saying that the
mitigation is somewhere else other than in this -- in the locale of this
area?
MS. MASON: The way staff applied the acre for acre was that
the Growth Management Plan and LDC require a minute acreage that
they have to keep in preserve. We did not allow them to include any
of that acreage that was a minimum-required preserve to be -- to go
towards the mitigation for the mitigation impacts.
They do have wetlands that they're restoring above and beyond
what our requirement was for the minimum preserve. We gave -- we
allow them to have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where's that being done at?
MS. MASON: That's on their site. That's within the boundaries
of the PUD. They have --let me take a look here because there's a lot
of -- 500 -- just under 512 acres are being used to meet the
minimum-required preserve by the county requirements. That left
remaining 433 acres that could then be used after they restore it as
wetland mitigation, acre for acre, but they still had a deficiency
because they need 586 acres.
Part of their deficiency was made up with 82 acres of credits that
Page 199
April 28, 2009
they're going to be getting from the wetland mitigation bank, and that
still left a deficit of 71 acres, and that was a condition of approval that
staff said that they could decide where that was going to be and
provide that information at SDP.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So where's the 71 acres going to
be?
MS. MASON: That's not been identified at this point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That could be anyplace?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, we don't have an
objection to that requirement being in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's not where it was going to
be?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's nothing in your code that says
where it has to be. That's one of the problems with the code. If it's a
concern of the commission that you want the mitigation to occur
within Collier County --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of course.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- we can certainly -- and I'm offering it
up as a stipulation that that 71 acres would be in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it should be close by to where
this land is, in that general proximity of what we were looking at and
not someplace else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will do it in Collier County and we
will -- we will seek it out. It will be a condition of the permit, of the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess the question I have
before I take a minute to try to explain my position and some
suggestions is, did what Commissioner Halas just hear give him
enough comfort level that he would withdraw his second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm still thinking about it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I suggest we take a
Page 200
April 28, 2009
ten-minute break?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No fair spilling your coffee cup though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're empty.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. It's good thing, too.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta was on the -- it was his turn. I was going
to say on stage, but then I thought, awe, well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stage left. Actually right and
you're facing it.
In any case, I just -- I just wanted to find out before I go through
the rationale of why we should be looking seriously of approval, I'd
like to ask Commissioner Halas if he's made up his mind one way or
the other.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's been a hard decision, and if we
can come up with some type of agreement that the additional acreage,
the mitigation will be done in the general area of this -- where this
wetlands is, I'll pull my second.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, I can tell you that
we will commit that the mitigation will be within the watershed as
Robert Wiley has described it and within Collier County. So the
mitigation will be in the watershed that we're, quote, impacting, and it
will be within Collier County so you don't have to worry about going
to Hendry Count- -- portions of the watershed that are not within
Collier County's boundaries.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, I'll tell you, I have not changed my
mind. I realize I don't have a second. But I am very, very concerned
about Corkscrew Regional ecosystem watershed, to be perfectly
Page 201
April 28, 2009
honest with you. I'm on their board.
I'm concerned with -- we have the largest stork population in the
entire country. I worry about what's going to happen to that. And so I
cannot change my feelings. So I'm just right up front with you and
letting you know that.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- however we vote on this
thing, there are some things that, I think, bother us all. If there is
concern about wetlands being destroyed, whether we convey the same
amount of water through it or not, it is, perhaps, irrelevant for some
people, but -- and I think we should be protecting wetlands. And if it
is not provided in this plan, I think it should be provided in a change to
our Growth Management Plan.
So there are issues here that are confusing to people who don't
understand why we -- we spend so much time debating this stuff. We
have a list of reasons that our attorney tells us we must use in order to
make this decision. And if there is not a preponderance of
overwhelming evidence to demonstrate that this is not in compliance
with our Growth Management Plan, we have to approve it. It's as
simple as that. Is that a fair characterization?
MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I have told everybody that I
talked with, if I could hear a clear and convincing argument that this
proposal violated our Comprehensive Plan and I could legally support
it, then I would vote against it, and I haven't heard that.
This -- this project has been under review for at least seven years
that I know of. It's been through court hearings, it's got a South
Florida Water Management District approval and review, it has Corps
of Engineering approval and review, it has Fish and Wildlife Service
approval and review. It's gone through our Environmental Advisory
Committee. They've recommended approval. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval.
Page 202
April 28, 2009
And I -- I cannot accept some of the arguments I have heard here
today to provide me with irrefutable, legal evidence that it does not
comply with our Comprehensive Plan.
So I think that needs to be said. We just don't make these things
up as we go along. If you can't provide us good, sound arguments that
are defensible in court as to why these things should be disapproved,
then we have no choice.
But I do believe we need to tighten up a number of criteria in our
Growth Management Plan if we want to continue to try to save
environmentally sensitive land. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not a Rhodes Scholar, but from
what I read here -- and I didn't get any backing from staff -- I felt that
what's been in print here -- and my thought process -- as I said, I'm not
a lawyer -- but as a common-sense person, I felt that this is what it -- it
was telling me to regards to trying to preserve wetland and yet I
couldn't get that from staff.
And so I feel that there wasn't -- I'm in a predicament. And I
don't agree with it, but I guess I'm going to have to live with it. And
like I said, I'll pull my second --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 12 what would it be -- Kay?
Staff recommendations, Planning Commission, or did you incorporate
the Planning Commission's recommendations?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem. Our
recommendation would incorporate both the EAC recommendation
and the Planning Commission recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
to approve staffs recommendations and also to add -- there's one other
thing that we forgot to discuss. Also add that the mitigation will be in
the Corkscrew --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: In that --
Page 203
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- system.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That watershed that Robert Wiley says is
the watershed, but within Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That watershed that Robert
Wiley said that's in Collier County.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the map that Robert --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see if we could even
discuss about the possibility, if this is flipped that there's some way
that we can make a stipulation that we don't see this again to come
back for more density, because I'm sure they're going to take those
golf courses off of there and use that for additional building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not concerned about
that, because I think the traffic concurrency's going to take care of
that, personally.
But before I close my motion, Madam Chair, Mr. Y ovanovich
and I talked. This was in the original PUD. It can go up to 50-foot
stories, and what I've asked is for no 50-foot-story buildings be on
Immokalee Road. That would be the first 1,200.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And 50 feet. We agreed -- I think we
said three -- it couldn't exceed three stories within the first 1,250 feet
of Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's a part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have a second from Commissioner
Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just going to provide
Commissioner Halas with some comfort. If it comes back at the
higher density, I'm not going to be voting for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Neither will 1.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So--
Page 204
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we might -- you know, we're
not the young chickens anymore. It could come back -- let's face it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It could come back in two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Speak for yourself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just trying to get some comfort
here to make sure that we protect the citizens that live here all
year-round in regards to this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Speak for yourself about young chickens.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second to approve,
including the 71 acres to remain within Collier County.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
Aye.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry, Margaret.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who's that?
MS. COOPER: Next time.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're back on Item 11. I believe we
wanted to take a second bite at the public comment section for
anybody in the afternoon that wanted to register to speak.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coletta, I don't have an additional
speaker under public comment. You had mentioned that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The person that wanted to
come to speak was in relation to the other public speaker that we had.
But since that's moved off to the MPO meeting, they're going to wait.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So I have no public comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I appreciate the opportunity
for the public.
Page 205
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICA nONS
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, then. Did you have anything to
talk to us about?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, just two quick items. This is just
informational. I received a letter from the City Manager Steve
Thompson in Marco Island. When you had -- at your last joint
meeting with the City of Marco Island, they had suggested another
joint meeting in May. Mr. Thompson's letter, in effect, is asking that
we postpone that joint meeting until we have a fuller agenda of topics,
and he's asking that we don't meet jointly with the Marco City Council
in May and that we do at a later time. And he's taken on the
responsibility of getting that agenda put together at a later date.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's probably a good idea, especially
since we haven't talked about budget yet anyway, and I think
everybody's -- that budget, no matter whether it's Marco or Collier
County, is going to impact tremendously anything we discuss.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: This next item, again, is just by way of a quick
status report. At your last meeting you'll recall that the board had
directed the County Attorney and I to approach the Clerk with the idea
of sitting down and negotiating an interlocal service agreement for
various services that the Clerk provides to the board.
We have attempted to do that. So far we've been unsuccessful.
You can see the answer there that we got to the initial request, which
Page 206
April 28, 2009
was that he was going to have -- the Clerk was going to have legal
counsel contact us regarding the meeting.
We haven't heard yet, and the only reason I bring it up now is
part of the direction was that we were supposed to come back at the
first meeting in May with an answer about where we were, and I don't
know that we'll have that for you. But we're -- I wanted you to know
we're still trying to get that meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They're asking legal counsel to set up our
meeting?
MR. OCHS: Well, the only communication back we had was the
email from the Clerk's secretary where she says that, you know, hi,
Judy. Our legal counsel will be contacting you regarding the meeting.
We haven't yet heard from the Clerk's counsel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, legal counsel is up in Tallahassee.
Maybe that's the reason.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, one of them, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR.OCHS: So if we don't -- if we don't have the meeting, we
would already have board authorization to proceed with soliciting for
an investment manager, and we would go ahead and proceed on that
basis if we don't have any other communication for the 12th, and then
we could talk some more on those other items on the 12th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When do they finish session up in
Tallahassee?
MR. OCHS: Well, they're supposed to finish May 1st, but we
just got word that they're extending the session at least through May
Sth to work on trying to finalize the budget.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay.
MR. OCHS: That's all I have, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what we authorized is to
go over to the Clerk to see if they want to write the state attorney
Page 207
April 28, 2009
general to find out what the board can do as far as those items.
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: The idea was that -- excuse me -- the
County Manager's Office and I would sit down with the Clerk, we
would inquire about getting into an interlocal agreement setting forth
the fees and the duties he would do for the county, and if we were able
to get an interlocal agreement, we wouldn't have any dispute with the
Clerk at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if you didn't--
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifwe didn't at that point in time, we'd ask
the Clerk, would you join with us in getting an opinion from the
attorney general, and we would proceed that route.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And ifhe said no, we would still
get an opinion. That's my understanding of what the board's direction
was.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. We haven't had a chance to sit
down with him yet.
MR. OCHS: I believe it was Commissioner Coletta who actually
was the person who mentioned attorney general and what we wanted
to do. I don't know if it was clarified --
MR. KLATZKOW: My preference is to sit down with the Clerk
sometime after the legislative session and, you know, see if we could
amicably, you know, just resolve these differences with an interlocal.
If we have to start going towards the attorney general on
everything else, we may be looking at another litigation round, and I
don't think that's in the best interest of anybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thanks for the
clarification.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's all, Leo?
MR. OCHS: That's all from me, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. How about you, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I've said enough.
Page 208
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's start with Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I do have three
items, and I'll try to be quick because I know everybody wants to get
out of here.
Number one, a suggestion, I'd like for your consideration in
changing the name of code enforcement to code compliance. We
seem to be going more towards that direction. That seems to be the
general mood out there.
And Diane Flagg has been absolutely wonderful to deal with, and
I've heard nothing but compliments. I think over a period of time, if
we could get to it -- in other words, you've got to use up whatever
stationery you have, and if we could eventually come to that name as
being the name that we use, it's more user friendly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo, did you have a comment on that?
MR. OCHS: It is -- it is more use friendly. My concern, and the
commissioner alluded to it, was the -- at least the short-term costs, and
maybe we could mitigate that over time. But you've got vehicles that
are all marked, you've got ordinances that refer specifically to the code
enforcement department. We've got uniforms, stationery, all those
kinds of things. So, you know, in a climate when we're scratching for
pennies, you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, I would never suggest
that we remove one sign off one car, but as cars are replaced. I mean,
we could do it over a three-, four-year period as the opportunity
presents itself. Use up what inventory we've got of the literature,
whatever, but anything new that comes aboard would have that word
code compliance rather than code enforcement. That would be a
suggestion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We would have to bring it back to discuss
. . h?
It, ng t.
MR. OCHS: If that's the will of the board, we can certainly
move in that direction.
Page 209
April 28, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Board members? Do you want to bring it
back or do you want to just decide on it here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I really think that just as long as
you have Collier County on it, that should be sufficient. That way the
vehicle can be used throughout the whole system of government
instead of just being specifically for one area. That's my feeling.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we -- how do we have to do that? I
mean, he's got a good idea there, but what do we have to do about
that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I would recommend you bring it back so
that the County Manager can give you some sort of fiscal impact of
what it would be and how we could mitigate that fiscal impact. It
could be a consent item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And even if everybody likes the idea, just
to make sure that it's in agreement with all five, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I want to be careful. I don't
want to take ownership of this. Scott Stamish (phonetic) was the one
that came up with the suggestion at a breakfast meeting we had a
couple days ago, and I just absolutely thought it was a wonderful idea.
By the way, Scott also told me that he's in the process of retiring.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's taking advantage of the
early-out.
I have two more items, and I'll try to be quick. One, I wanted to
update the BCC on the access issue of county-maintained Bums Road.
As you know, some time ago I mentioned the fact that we were going
through this issue with the parks system over them claiming that the
road was in their right-of-way and that they had responsibility for it.
What happened was is they put some no-parking signs up on the
county-maintained road, and effectively were enforcing that and --
Page 210
April 28, 2009
even though they had no jurisdiction.
I met with them once with the County Attorney, and they claim
that they still had ownership to it and that we never documented the
fact that we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who is they?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. The Big Cypress
Preserve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: National Preserve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Pedro Ramos.
Jeff, I -- on this, you might be able to give a little more insight.
What we're looking for is just a little bit more staff time. I'd like to be
able to meet with the Big Cypress Preserve.
Brian McMahon thinks he's got a solution that will work out for
everyone and -- but I -- I need to be able to have someone from the
County Attorney's Office and someone from transportation to assist
me.
Jeff, do you want to add something else to this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. One of the possible things we can do
-- and if you look at the monitor, when you go up Burns Road past the
lake and then up, there are lots along those roads.
MS. ASHTON: There's the lot.
MR. KLATZKOW: And then there are access points into the
Big Cypress National Preserve; the people use ATVs or they just go
hiking on.
One possibility is, if we can work with the state on that, is to get
access to one of the lots close to the trails, see if we can put in a
primitive parking area so that people can drive in, park their cars, and
then recreate.
But we'd have to sit down -- we need some staff people, our time.
We're just asking the board if that's an idea you'd like us to pursue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Do I have enough--
Page 211
April 28, 2009
okay, great.
And the other item has to deal with Delate Drive, which is a
private road in the eastern part of Collier County. They're coming
together and they're showing a lot of interest for forming a beginning
MSTU to tax themselves to be able to help maintain their roads,
something similar to Rock Road.
I've had one meeting with them. There's a tremendous amount of
interest. They're out gathering the petitions to be able to qualify for
the 51 percent plus one or 50 percent plus one petition. They're also
interested in forming a civic association, which has nothing to do with
this commission, and I'll take that on myself.
But I need some staff time for this next meeting, which will
consist of someone from County Attorney's Office, someone from
code enforcement, and possibly somebody from transportation. But I
believe code enforcement, the way they set up these MSTUs for that
department would probably be able to cover it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my understanding that we
got pre-forms for them to give them and for the petition drive to create
an MSTU. Why would you need staff time to do that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's a lot of questions
that always come up with these forms and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But you're a good guy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm very knowledgeable and
could make do as I went along, but they might catch me at the next
meeting when I give them a different answer. So it's always good to
have a professional person from the County Attorney's Office and
from code, and I would like the permission of this commission to be
able to have staff work on this with me with the understanding that
we're not going to involve them in the collecting of petitions or in any
way with the civic association part of this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll tell you, I wouldn't have a problem
Page 212
April 28, 2009
with that, especially if they could come here to talk with staff rather
than staff having --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that doesn't work. These
people are all working people. The meetings have to take place in the
evening. We've got the fire station already reserved on 13th, which is
fairly close to where they are. And it's something that staff has done
in the past for different organizations when they wanted MSTUs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo, any guidance on that?
MR. OCHS: We're happy to work with the commissioner on
this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How about Norm? Here he comes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Norm. You're halfway
here. Well, you are now.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. We'll be happy to help, but I do need to point out,
we've already worked some with the Delate Drive folks. They're
taking a strong initiative. But one of the concerns we have is looking
at the MSTU. They will not produce, even with three mills, a lot of
revenue, and so we need to know that going in, and they need to
understand that going in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they do, Norm. The truth
of the matter is, at this point in time they're maintaining their own road
with a couple thousand dollars a year -- this is a mile road -- doing
nothing more than just filling the holes as they come in with sand or
whatever's available. If these funds are available, everybody'd be
taxed evenly across the board, even if they were only 6,000 or
$10,000. They'd be able to buy crushed rock to be able to start
building up the road base over a period of time. It gives them the
ability to be able to raise themselves up by the bootstraps.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, okay. We've got agreement from
staff.
Any problems with our commissioners here?
Page 213
April 28, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could this be some more limerock
that we're going to have to blacktop in about a year or so?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we're just going to get the
money from district -- your district, that would be it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one mile.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. FEDER: Again, that would be Michelle Arnold with the
alternative transportation modes, not code enforcement, that would be
dealing with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Looks like you've got agreement
on that. What is the last thing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Coyle
looks like he's troubled.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not going to require street-
lighting and median-scaping, is it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. We don't believe in street-
lighting out in that part of the county. We like to get the after effect of
the glow from Naples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's the way it ought to
be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, off the clouds.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one thing. Since there has
been a little bit of change in the County Manager's Office, instead of
referring to Leo as deputy County Manager, can we just call him
number two?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As long as it doesn't get mixed up
with number one.
Page 214
April 28, 2009
MR. OCHS: Still have concern about that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think assistant County Manager sounds
good.
Leo?
MR. OCHS: Sounds good to me, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or Leo. Leo sounds good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about Junior?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Junior? I am a junior.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Very briefly. We talked about this
earlier today. There have been some updates since we talked about
the swine flu situation. There has been one detected case of swine flu
in Orlando brought into the country by a tourist from Mexico on a
flight.
Governor Schwarzenegger has declared an emergency in
California to give his healthcare people a chance to start dealing with
the situation. There have been 45 cases in New York identified.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: New York?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In New York City, yeah. And Cuba
has even taken action to say, we're not going to be accepting any
flights from Mexico.
And so I'm not going to be an alarmist because this still doesn't
mean that there's a pandemic, but it is spreading faster than people
thought.
And all I'm suggesting we do is to try to encourage our leaders in
Tallahassee and Washington to start giving some consideration to how
you can contain this by doing some cursory review of passengers on
airplanes. In the orient they're reviewing people who are getting on or
off airplanes to see if they have a fever or flu-like symptoms.
And it's something maybe we should start thinking about here,
because with the number of people we've got coming into our country
Page 215
April 28, 2009
from other places where this might be prevalent, it could spread very,
very quickly. And my feeling is, we ought to take these precautions
before it spreads rather than take them after it's spread and try to
contain it.
So all I'm suggesting is that we maybe ask the chairman to send a
letter to the governor and to the president urging them to move
quickly on trying to curb the spread of the swine flu by instituting
some controls about who comes into our country.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I totally agree. Not only that, but we're
coming out to the end of the school year. A lot of the Mexican
residents who live here go back and visit their families in the summer,
and then they're going to want to come back home. And maybe we
should somehow encourage them to stay here this year so they don't
get infected.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just send them to Mexico and tell
them they can't come back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I think we do need to -- I'll write that if
I have agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one little thing. If I may
suggest, just to make sure we're factually correct, if we could -- if you
could consult with Dr. Colfer before you send that letter to make sure
it's most current that it can be, because there may be some
circumstances --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo will do that for me, right, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, we will.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And a copy to CDC.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hmm?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Copy to CDC.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Copy to CDC as well. That's
fine with me.
So when we write it, we'll send a copy to all of you before I mail
Page 216
April 28, 2009
it just to make sure. If anybody has any problems with it, you get
back to me, okay? But otherwise, we'll get that out of here tout de
suite. Very good.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope, nothing. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's good. And from me, before I say
goodbye for the day and to end this meeting, I want to say to Jim
Mudd, whom I'm sure is sitting here watching us right now, Jim, we're
all thinking of you. We think of you all day long, and we're hoping
you're -- you've got a smile on your face and coming back to us soon.
May I have a motion to adjourn this meeting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 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.
****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Halas
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BRISTOL PINES, PHASE 1 - W /RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Page 217
April 28, 2009
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2009-101: AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY'S
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, SECTION 2-11 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2009-102: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA UNIT TWO, PARK OF
COMMERCE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED -
W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
AWARD BID #09-5193, "NUISANCE ABATEMENT SERVICES",
TO NEAL'S LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC. AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MOWING, INC., IN THE ESTIMATED
COMBINED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $100,000 - FOR CODE
ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS WHEN PROPERTY OWNER'S
FAIL TO MEET COMPLIANCE AND ALL LEGAL NOTICES
AND DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET
Item #16B1
PURCHASE OF 2.5 ACRES OF UNIMPROVED PROPERTY
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
Page 218
April 28, 2009
STORMW A TER RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND FOR
PHASE II OF THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION
PROJECT NO. 60168, PHASE II (FISCAL IMPACT: $69,544.00)-
GUTIERREZ PROPERTY LOCATED ON 10TH AVENUE NE
BETWEEN EVERGLADES AND DESOTO BOULEVARDS
Item # 16B2
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
TWO (2) ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL
COST OF $150.00 - FOR LITTER REMOVAL BY SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA'S RUFF RYDERS M.C. ON IMMOKALEE ROAD
FROM WILSON BOULEVARD TO ROCK ROAD
Item #16B3
AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ENGINEER
CONTROLS SYSTEM CORP., FOR BID #09-5176-
"GOODLAND BRIDGE (#030184) REPAIRS AND SCOUR
REMEDIATION PROJECT (CR 92 OVER MARCO CHANNEL)",
IN THE AMOUNT OF $542,998.20. PROJECT NO. 66066 -
RECOGNIZING AND REPAIRING STRUCTURAL
DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN FDOT'S BIENNIAL BRIDGE
INSPECTION REPORT
Item # 16B4
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FORA WATER SAVINGS
INCENTIVE PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED
TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
(SFWMD) AGENCY FOR A WATER SOURCE CONVERSION
PROJECT FROM POTABLE TO IRRIGATION QUALITY
Page 219
April 28, 2009
WATER IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,733.75 - REQUIRING A
$83,733.75 LOCAL MATCH FOR WATER CONVERSION ON
LIVINGSTON ROAD NORTH FROM CARL TON LAKES TO
THE LEE COUNTY LINE
Item #16B5
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO BRING TO THE
BOARD A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 91-107,
AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT (MSTU), TO AMEND THE MSTU'S ORDINANCE TO
INCLUDE PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
"SIDEWALKS" AND TO ADDRESS "BEAUTIFICATION"
WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES - ENHANCING AESTHETICS AND
IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WITHIN THE
COMMUNITY
Item #16B6
A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD)
INVOL VING A CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY THE SFWMD
TOTALING AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.00 TO
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.'S
(CONSERVANCY) FILTER MARSH PROJECT, WHICH IS
ADJACENT TO THE GORDON RIVER GREENEW A Y PARK,
AND TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
CONSERVANCY WHEREBY THE COUNTY WILL ACT AS AN
AGENT BETWEEN THE SFWMD AND THE CONSERVANCY
FOR DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ON THE PROJECT AND
Page 220
April 28, 2009
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - FOR A
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT COVERING AN
AGREEMENT PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS
Item #16Cl
RESOLUTION 2009-103: SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE
SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNT WHEREIN THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIEN IS
SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMP ACT IS $28.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN -ACCOUNT #127802 (FOLIO
#64920280001)
Item # 16C2
IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR THE
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UTILITY
PURSUANT TO A RULING BY THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION REQUIRING WATER UTILITIES AMONG
FINANCIAL ENTITIES THAT MUST HAVE A WRITTEN PLAN
IN PLACE BY MA Y 1, 2009 - KNOWN AS THE "RED FLAG
RULE" TO PROTECT AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
FRAUDULANT ACCOUNTS AND TO ENSURE PROTECTION
OF EXISTING UTILITY ACCOUNTS
Item #16C3
PURCHASE AND INST ALLA TION OF TWO CLARIFIER
MECHANISMS FROM MITCHELL AND STARK COMPANY,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $419,355.00 FOR THE NORTH
Page 221
April 28, 2009
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF)
TECHNICAL SUPPORT PROJECT #73968 - REHABILITATING
CLARIFIERS NO.2 AND NO.3 BY REPLACING MECHANISMS
TO MEET OPERATIONAL AND RELIABILITY NEEDS
Item # 16C4
SCHEDULE B OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT FOR DEMAND
SIDE MANAGEMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC ENERGY
CONSERVATION OPTIONS/MEASURES AND AUTHORIZE
NEEDED FINANCING IN THE AMOUNT OF $351,812.
AUTHORIZATION IS ALSO REQUESTED FOR PUBLIC
UTILITIES DIVISION EXPANDED P ARTNERING WITH
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND THE ADDED
PARTICIPATION IN THIS PROGRAM BY OTHER COUNTY
DIVISIONS - SAVING ELECTRICAL POWER WHILE
UPGRADING FACILITIES
Item #16Dl
AWARD BID #09-5168 "EXPENDABLE VETERINARY
SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT" TO THREE VENDORS
INCLUDING: FORT DODGE ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES,
MWI VETERINARY SUPPLY AND TW MEDICAL
VETERINARY ON A LINE-BY-LINE BASIS WITH ESTIMATED
ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF $151,400 - PROVIDING
MEDICAL CARE FOR ANIMALS IN THE PROTECTION OF
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES
Item # 16D2
Page 222
April 28, 2009
MODIFICATION TO A DISASTER RECOVERY GRANT
INITIATIVE AGREEMENT #07DB-3V-09-21-01-Z01 BETWEEN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
(DCA) AND COLLIER COUNTY BY ADDING NEW
ACTIVITIES TO UTILIZE GRANT FUNDS PREVIOUSLY
AWARDED ST. MATTHEWS HOUSE - PROVIDING A SIX
MONTH GRANT EXTENSION; AND INSTALLING AN
ADDITIONAL 15 HURRICANE RESISTANT DOORS AT THE
MAIN FACILITY LOCATED AT 2001 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH
AND A GENERA TOR AT THE EMERGENCY SHELTER
LOCATED AT 2691 AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH, NAPLES
Item #16D3 - Moved to Item #10B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D4
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION
FOR THE EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY CENTER TO THE
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM - THE $119,170
PROJECT COST IS 75% FUNDED BY FEMA WITH A COUNTY
SHARE OF $29,793 AND INCLUDES HURRICANE SHUTTER
AND WATER BARRIER WALL INST ALLA TION FOR THE
FACILITY AT 3500 THOMASSON DRIVE, NAPLES
Item #16D5
AWARD BID #09-5221, "MODULAR HOMES FOR HOUSING
AND HUMAN SERVICES", TO IDYLL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $344,259.00 PROVIDING REPLACEMENT
HOMES USING DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE FUNDS
TO FOUR (4) HOUSEHOLDS WHOSE HOMES WERE
Page 223
April 28, 2009
SEVERELY DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE
WILMA - THE FOUR UNITS WILL PROVIDE HOUSING FOR
NINE INDIVIDUALS
Item # 16D6
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $77,999 TO RECOGNIZE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING AWARDED FROM THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING UNDER THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT
GRANT AND AUTHORIZE ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES PRIOR
TO THE EXECUTION OF THE AMENDMENT - PROVIDING
IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE COUNTY'S FRAIL
ELDERLY; TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE THE GRANT
NEEDS TO BE EXPENDED BY DECEMBER 31, 2009
Item # 16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TOTALING $18,465 TO RECOGNIZE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE AWARDED IN THE SERVICES FOR
SENIORS PROGRAM FROM THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING
FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA GENERAL REVENUE
PROGRAMS AND AUTHORIZE ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES
PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE AMENDMENT -
PROVIDING IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES TO THE
COUNTY'S FRAIL ELDERLY; TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE
THE GRANT NEEDS TO BE EXPENDED BY JUNE 30, 2009
Item #16El
REJECT ITB #09-5191 FOR COURT REPORTING SERVICES,
AND EXTEND CURRENT BID #04-3685 FOR 180 DAYS OR
UNTIL A NEW BID IS AWARDED - THE SOLICITATION AND
Page 224
April 28, 2009
SCOPE OF SERVICES DO NOT ADEQUATELY REPRESENT
COUNTY DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
Item # 16E2
RATIFY A DELETION FROM THE 2009 FISCAL YEAR PAY
AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN MADE FROM JANUARY 2,2009
THROUGH MARCH 31, 2009 - DELETING THE OBSOLUTE
CLASSIFICATION: ASSOCIATE DATABASE ADMINSTRATOR
Item # 16E3
AWARD REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) #07-0358 FOR THE
INST ALLA TION AND REPAIR OF FENCING IN VARIOUS
LOCATIONS IN COLLIER COUNTY - AN INITIAL ONE YEAR
CONTRACT WITH: TRI-COUNTY FENCING, INC. (PRIMARY);
HOMESCAPE CONSTRUCTION, INC. (SECONDARY); AND BQ
CONCRETE, INC. (TERTIARY) FOR PURCHASES UP TO
$350~000 ANNUALLY FOR EACH VENDOR
Item #16E4
A LETTER AUTHORIZING EMERGENT DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC. AND EMERGENT DEVELOPMENT GROUP II,
LLC, TO INCLUDE COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY IN THEIR
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COUNTY'S GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ADD PROPERTY TO THE
EXISTING RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL
SUBDISTRICT, PETITION NO. CP-2008-2 - IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING AT THE
INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND RANDALL
BOULEVARD THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DIVISION OF
Page 225
April 28, 2009
FORRESTRY'S EXISTING FACILITY MAY NEED TO BE
RELOCATED FROM ITS'EXISTING FACILITY ON THE
CORNER OF RANDALL BOULEVARD AND 8TH STREET NE
Item # 16E5
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE AN EXPENDITURE NOT TO
EXCEED FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($54,000.00)
FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST FUND TO THE GOLDEN GATE
FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SIXTEEN MOBILE DATA TERMINALS - THIS
NEW EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE WILL HELP IMPROVE
FIREFIGHTER SAFETY AND RESPONSE TIME DURING
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Item # 16E6
AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE AN EXPENDITURE NOT TO
EXCEED FIFTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY
AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($50,370.00) FROM THE GAC LAND
TRUST FUND TO THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE PURCHASE OF
SIX MOBILE DATA TERMINALS - THIS NEW EQUIPMENT
AND SOFTWARE WILL IMPROVE FIREFIGHTER SAFETY
AND RESPONSE TIME DURING EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Item #16E7
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONCERNING THE SALE AND DONATION OF ITEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS AUCTION HELD
ON MARCH 28,2009, RESULTING IN GROSS REVENUES OF
Page 226
April 28, 2009
$537~062.00 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F1
MODIFICATION TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009 EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE GRANT
ACCEPTING $18,834 AND APPROVING A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE THE
REVENUE - AGREEMENT #09-BG-20-09-21-01 FOR THE
PERIOD AUGUST 1 ~ 2008 THROUGH JULY 31 ~ 2009
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2009-104: APPROVING BUDGET
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET - COVERING
BOARD APPROVED ITEMS THROUGH APRIL 14~ 2009
Item #16F3
AFTER- THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT'S PARTICIPATION IN A PARTNER
AGREEMENT TO BE INCLUDED WITH A GRANT PROPOSAL
THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR A READINESS AND EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT GRANT OFFERED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S OFFICE OF SAFE AND
DRUG FREE SCHOOLS-TO CREATE AND IMPROVE
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANS IN THE COUNTY'S
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Page 227
April 28, 2009
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO FUND A JUVENILE DRUG
EDUCATION AND PREVENTION PROJECT (BA #09-233)
Item #16G1 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RFP #09-5154 TO RWA, INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF
UPDATING THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MIXED USE OVERLAYS
(FISCAL IMPACT $263,500) - TO REFLECT THE CURRENT
NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ADDRESS SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES IN THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Item #16G2
COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND A
GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA (3185
VAN BUREN AVENUE) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $662.54 FOR
PROPERTY OWNED BY VAN BUREN CENTER~ LLC
Item #16G3
RESOLUTION 2009-105: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO "MASTER
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 2009-A" WITH THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO FUND
PROJECTS AT EVERGLADES AIRPARK, THE IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT, AND
Page 228
April 28, 2009
APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16G4
AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO UTILIZE $140,700.99 FROM THE
IMMOKALEE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 497 FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF THE T-HANGAR BUILDING AT THE
EVERGLADES AIRPARK DAMAGED BY HURRICANE
WILMA AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ENTITLEMENT
FUNDS FOR EVERGLADES AIRPARK WILL BE
TRANSFERRED TO THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT
FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS TO REPLACE THE
FUNDS USED FOR HANGER RECONSTRUCTION AT THE
EVERGLADES AIRPARK - COVERING A SHORTFALL OF
FUNDS DUE TO A DEFICIT IN INSURANCE PROCEEDS
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE BOY SCOUT'S
TOAST FOR LEADERSHIP WINE AND FOOD FESTIVAL
FUNDRAISER ON SATURDAY, MARCH 21,2009, AT THE
BA YFRONT IN NAPLES, FL; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - 1221 5TH
AVENUESOUTH~NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
Page 229
April 28, 2009
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE EASTERN
COLLIER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST ON
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1,2009, AT THE SEMINOLE CASINO IN
IMMOKALEE, FL; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - 506 SOUTH 1 ST STREET,
IMMOKALEE
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED AND SPOKE AT
THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER "CAMPAIGN FOR LEADERSHIP"
ON APRIL 24-25,2009 AT THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE BUILDING IN NAPLES, FL; $35.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- 2390 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH~ NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE MIGRANT
MATRIX X MEETING ON FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2008, IN
IMMOKALEE, FL; $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE GUADALUPE
CENTER IN IMMOKALEE~ FLORIDA
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
Page 230
April 28, 2009
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB
NEAPOLITAN NIGHT ON FEBRUARY 22,2009 AT THE
ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB IN NAPLES, FL; $45.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
7035 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH~ NAPLES
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE ROTARY CLUB OF MARCO
ISLAND SPIRIT OF MARCO ISLAND AWARDS ON APRIL 17,
2009 AT THE SAN MARCO CATHOLIC CHURCH PARISH
HALL ON MARCO ISLAND, FL; $45.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - 851 SAN
MARCO ROAD~ MARCO ISLAND~ FLORIDA
Item #16H7
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED A LUNCHEON WITH MEMBERS
OF THE PELICAN BAY CLUB BOARD OF DIRECTORS ON
TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009, AT THE PELICAN BAY CLUB IN
NAPLES, FL; $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - 707 GULF PARK DRIVE~ NAPLES
Item #16H8
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
Page 231
April 28, 2009
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE IS ATTENDING THE ANNUAL
DINNER MEETING AND INSTALLATION OF COLLIER
COUNTY MEDICAL STAFF OFFICERS ON SATURDAY, MAY
9, 2009 AT THE GREY OAKS COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES,
FL; $50.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - 2400 GREY OAKS DRIVE~ NAPLES
Item #16H9
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 7, 2009 AS NATIONAL
DAY OF PRAYER - ADOPTED
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: None Submitted for the BCC Meeting of
April 28, 2009 per Agenda
Page 232
April 28, 2009
Item # 1611
AN APPROVAL LETTER FOR THE THIRTEENTH YEAR
STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SCAAP)
GRANT FUNDS - ENDORSING AND DESIGNATING SHERIFF
KEVIN RAMBOSK AS OFFICIAL SIGNING AUTHORITY FOR
THE FUNDS
Item # 16J2
CAPITAL ASSET DISPOSITION RECORDS FOR TIME PERIOD
OCTOBER 1, 2008 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2009 - ITEMS
DEEMED NO LONGER USEFUL OR HA VING VALUE
Item #1613
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 4, 2009
THROUGH APRIL 10, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 11, 2009
THROUGH APRIL 17,2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
REPORT STATUS OF BOARD DIRECTION TO INITIATE
CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MILANO
RECREATION ASSOCIATION, INC., IN RELATION TO THEIR
REFUSAL TO ALLOW RESIDENTS OF IMPERIAL GOLF
Page 233
April 28, 2009
ESTATES TO ACCESS LIVINGSTON ROAD, AS AGREED TO
IN THE REZONING FOR THE ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K2
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS WAIVE THE POTENTIAL APPEARANCE
OF CONFLICT IN THE RETENTION OF GREGORY H. WOODS,
ESQ., AS LEAD COUNSEL FOR COLLIER COUNTY IN THE
CASE STYLED G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES ASSOCIATES IL LTD.
Vs. COLLIER COUNTY; CASE NO. 09-2451-CA, IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2009-17: AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMP ACT FEE
ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED THE
"COLLIER COUNTY INDEXING METHODOLOGY STUDY,"
DATED MARCH 11,2009, WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO
THE ADOPTED "COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEE INDEXING
STUDY"; AMENDING SCHEDULES FIVE THROUGH TEN OF
APPENDIX A BY APPLYING THE INDEXING PERCENTAGES
AND THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE NEW IMPACT FEE
RATES AND RE-ORGANIZING THE LAYOUT OF THE
SCHEDULES TO A USER-FRIENDLY FORMAT; PROVIDING
Page 234
April 28, 2009
FOR RE-ORGANIZA TION OF SCHEDULES ONE, THREE AND
FOUR IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A MORE USER-FRIENDLY
FORMAT; AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE
DATE OF JULY 27,2009, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A 90-DA Y
NOTICE PERIOD REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.31801 (3)(D),
FLORIDA STATUTES AND DIRECTION PROVIDED BY THE
BOARD ON MARCH 24, 2009
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2009-106: PETITION: V A-2008-AR-14017 MERIT
PETROLEUM COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY BERT THOMAS,
IS REQUESTING FIVE VARIANCES FROM THE MINIMUM 50-
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) SUBSECTION 5.05.05,
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS, FOR TWO GASOLINE
PUMP DISPENSER ISLANDS AND A CANOPY IN THE
GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4) AND MAIN STREET
OVERLAY SUB-DISTRICT (MSOSD) TO ALLOW A REDUCED
SETBACK ALONG WEST MAIN STREET TO 48 FEET AND 31
FEET FOR THE DISPENSER ISLANDS AND 38 FEET FOR THE
CANOPY; AND ALONG 7TH STREET SOUTH TO 33 FEET FOR
THE WESTERNMOST DISPENSER ISLAND AND 41 FEET FOR
THE CANOPY. THE 0.45-ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 617 WEST MAIN STREET, IN SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, IMMOKALEE,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CTS
Item #17C - Continued to the May 12,2009 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 235
April 28, 2009
PETITION: VA-2008-AR-13977 TIM CHESS OF MCDONALD'S
USA, LLC, REPRESENTED BY JEFFREY SA TFIELD OF CPH
ENGINEERS, INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE SUBSECTION 4.06.02, BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, IN
THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-4) AND GATEWAY
TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT (GTMUD-MXD), TO
ALLOW A MODIFICATION OF THE REQUIRED 7.5-FOOT
WIDE BUFFER ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY;
AND TO REDUCE BUFFER WIDTHS ON THE PROPERTY'S
NORTHERN SIDE FROM 15 FEET TO 10 FEET, THE EASTERN
SIDE FROM 7.5 FEET TO 5 FEET, AND THE SOUTHERN SIDE
FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET. THE 0.86-ACRE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2886 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, IN
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CTS
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2009-18: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2001-43
AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH
MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU), TO INCLUDE
PROVIDING UNDERGROUND TRENCHING AND BURIAL OF
UTILITY LINES FROM THE STREET OR TRANSFORMER TO
PRIVATE RESIDENCES AND, AS NEEDED, ARRANGING TO
LOCATE THE BURIAL OF SUCH POWER LINES ALONGSIDE
ANY EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENTS BUT EXCLUDING THE
EXPENDITURE OF MSTU FUNDS FOR ADDITIONAL WIRING,
INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS OR UPGRADES TO
CONNECT SERVICE TO RESIDENCES REQUIRED BY
CURRENT CODE OR RESULTING FROM ANY OTHER
Page 236
April 28, 2009
HARDWARE NONCONFORMITY
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2009-107: APPROVING BUDGET
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 23 7
April 28, 2009
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5 :33 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIA~. B ISTRl. CTS; U~DER ITS CONTROL
!JJ~ d~
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGH'F:E:.BROCK-, CLERK
" ''''J , ~.
t-., "
. ~ -
~: ~Js~~~o.(..
,ftIItIN.. OI:,t'-
These ,minutes 'Wproved by the Board on ~ 7.V I ~, as
presented V or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 238