BCC Minutes 05/13/2014 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
May 13 , 2014
May 13, 2014
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 13, 2014
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 districts as have been created according to law and
having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m.,
in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Tom Henning
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tim Nance
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Tim Durham, Executive Manager of Business Operations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
i I I,
L I.
r -
(41
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3" Floor
Naples FL 34112
May 13, 2014
9:00 AM
Commissioner Tom Henning - BCC Chair, District 3
Commissioner Tim Nance - BCC Vice-Chair, District 5
Commissioner Donna Fiala - CRAB Chair, District 1
Commissioner Georgia Hiller - District 2
Commissioner Fred W. Coyle - CRAB Vice-Chair, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC PRIOR TO 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.
Page 1
May 13,2014
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."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING 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, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
B. April 8, 2014 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. April 22, 2014 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Page 2
May 13, 2014
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 11 through May 17, 2014 as Salvation Army
Week. To be accepted by Salvation Army Major Dan Proctor, Regional
Coordinator; Major Francina Proctor, Associate Regional Coordinator; and
Chris Nind, Director of Development and Community Relations. Sponsored
by Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating the month of May 2014 as Motorcycle Safety
Awareness Month. To be accepted by GW Clark and Nancy Noy of
American Bikers Aimed Toward Education (ABATE), and Will "Riffraff'
Breen, Safety and Legislative Director. Sponsored by Commissioner Nance
C. Proclamation designating May 18 through May 24, 2014 as Water Reuse
Week. To be accepted by Dr. George Yilmaz, Public Utilities
Administrator, Lisa Koehler, Big Cypress Basin Administrator, Beth
Johnssen, Wastewater Department Director, Joe Bellone, Director of
Operations Support, Public Utilities and Peter Lund, Manager, Customer
Service & Utilities Education and Compliance. Sponsored by Board of
County Commissioners.
D. Proclamation designating May 18 through May 24, 2014 as Collier County
Emergency Medical Services Week. To be accepted by EMS Chief Walter
Kopka and staff. Sponsored by the Board of County Commissioners.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month to Gulfshore
Insurance, Inc for May 2014. To be accepted by Michelle Gleeson,
Executive Vice President and COO, Jack Powers, Senior Vice President of
Sales, Denise Williams, Controller and Crystal Hoover, Director of Brand
Management.
B. Recommendation to recognize Adam Northrup, Procurement Specialist,
Purchasing Department, as the Employee of the Month for April 2014.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
May 13, 2014
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Item 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Item 9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to appoint three members to the Animal Services Advisory
Board.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners agree to
restructure the management of the Community Redevelopment Agencies
(CRA) under the County Manager or his designee to improve synergies,
communication and staff support of community projects and to ensure grant
compliance and quality control. (Commissioner Henning)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve the proposed Collier County Innovation
Accelerators Business Plan and authorize the County Manager to execute the
Plan. (Bruce Register, Office of Business and Economic Development
Director)
B. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to determine whether
to rescind, hold in abeyance, or retain and assess the La Peninsula Municipal
Service Benefit Unit (MSBU). (Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation
Modes Director)
C. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) Agreement and First
Amendment to this Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) to receive reimbursement in the amount of
$8,043,930 for Construction services to the County's CR951 (Collier
Boulevard) six-lane improvements from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate
Page 4
May 13, 2014
Boulevard; and to execute a Resolution memorializing the Board's action
and authorize all necessary budget amendments. Project No. 68056.
(Marlene Messam, Transportation Engineering Senior Project Manager)
D. Recommendation to award a Term Contract from Invitation to Bid (ITB)
#14-6232 Asphalt, Milling and Related Items, on an as needed basis with
fixed unit prices to Preferred Material Inc., as the primary contractor and
Ajax Paving Industries of FL. Inc., as the secondary contractor. (Travis
Gossard, Road Maintenance Superintendent)
E. Recommendation to direct staff to bring back an expedited amendment to
Land Development Code (LDC), Section 2.03.07.G.6.b, adjusting the date
for program participation regarding Immokalee Nonconforming Mobile
Home Parks to January 9, 2020. This item was approved for reconsideration
at the April 22, 2014 BCC Meeting, Item 10A. (Nick Casalanguida, Growth
Management Administrator)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to attend a settlement
meeting tentatively scheduled for May 15th in Tallahassee involving the
potential challenge of a Consent Order entered into between the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the Dan A. Hughes Company,
L.P., and to direct the County Attorney to hold off filing a Petition until the
Board has had the opportunity to review the County Attorney's report of the
meeting.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Presentation by the Clerk's Office
regarding requested records and pending course of action.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
Page 5
May 13,2014
approve the sale of eighteen (18) CRA owned mobile home lots to
Love & Legacy LLC, for the construction of single-family homes;
authorize the CRA Chairman to execute all documents necessary to
facilitate the sale and authorize staff to deposit the funds received
from the sale into the appropriate account and authorize necessary
budget amendments.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Current BCC Workshop Schedule
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. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to hold a public hearing to
consider vacating the 60-foot County road right-of-way, as described
and recorded in Official Record Book 590, page 1304 of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida, also being a part of Section 15,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (Petition
VAC-PL20140000611).
2) Recommendation to approve an extension of one year for completion
of site development plan improvements associated with Naples
Grande Clubhouse (SDPA AR-10788) in accordance with Section
10.02.03 H of the Collier County Land Development Code.
3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Marsilea, (Application Number
PL20130001985) approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Page 6
May 13, 2014
performance security.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Artesia Naples, Phase 3,
(Application Number PL20130002538) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Riverstone - Plat 6,
(Application Number PPL-PL20130002629) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Brandon, (Application Number
PL20130001578) approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
7) Recommendation to approve a release of lien with an accrued value of
$113,080.29, for payment of$530.29, in the code enforcement action
entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Manuel Olvera, Code
Enforcement Board Case No. CESD20110010712, relating to
property located at 1823 43rd Street SW, Collier County, Florida.
8) Recommendation to approve a release of lien with an accrued value of
$50,362.91 for payment of$562.91, in the code enforcement action
entitled Board of County Commissioners v. Paul F. McNealy, Special
Magistrate Case No. CEPM20120018578, relating to property located
at 3543 Grand Cypress Drive, Collier County, Florida.
9) Recommendation to approve two releases of lien, the first with a net
accrued value of$194,116.50, for payment of$7,200; and the second
Page 7
May 13,2014
with an accrued value of$196,312.20, for payment of$14,400 in
Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Nos. 2007050876 and
CESD20100020024, both of which cases are styled Board of County
Commissioners v. Tatiana E. Tannehill, relating to property located at
2121 41st Terrace SW, Collier County, Florida.
10) Recommendation to approve two releases of lien, the first with an
accrued value of$91,312.29, for payment of$562.29, in Code
Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. 2007-100659; and the
second with an accrued value of$53,780.57 for payment of$80.57, in
Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEVR20110016570, both of
which cases are styled Board of County Commissioners v. Lonny
Moore, Trustee of the Morrison Living Trust, relating to property
located at 120 7th Street SW, Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve a Transportation Post Project
Maintenance Agreement between the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County for the maintenance of
brick pavers installed on SR 951 (Collier Boulevard) from milepost
16.205 to 16.843 & SR 84 (Davis Boulevard) from milepost 5.493 to
6.464 upon completion of Financial Project #195416-5-58-01, and a
Resolution authorizing the Chairman to sign the Agreement.
12) Recommendation to approve an Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement
for Vanderbilt Drive from 111th Ave. N to Wiggins Pass Road, with
two (2) recognition signs at a total cost of$150 with the volunteer
group, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP.
13) Recommendation to approve one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program
Agreement for Goodlette Frank Road from Golden Gate Parkway to
Creech Road, with two (2) recognition signs at a total cost of$150 for
the volunteer group, Bruce Rosenblatt d/b/a Senior Housing Solution.
14) Recommendation to award ITB #14-6233 for the Traffic Signal
Upgrade at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway at Sunshine
Boulevard /47th St. SW to Highway Safety Devices, Inc. in the
amount of$309,858 for Project #60172.
15) Recommendation to approve a PUD amendment zoning fee reduction
request for the Mirasol PUD petition.
Page 8
May 13, 2014
16) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Artificial Reef
Program Promotional Fund Grant Award Agreement, modifying the
scope of work and completion date for the County's construction of
artificial reefs, accept the grantors first extension after-the-fact and
authorize the Chairman to sign the amended Agreement.
17) Recommendation to approve the naming of the Frank Halas Bridge
and the Memorial Pathway along Vanderbilt Drive.
18) Recommendation to approve an easement agreement for the
acquisition of a temporary construction easement required for the
construction of a replacement bridge on 28th Avenue Southeast over
the Miller Canal. (Project No. 60123) Estimated Fiscal Impact: $650.
19) Recommendation to approve the ranked list of design professionals
pursuant to RFP No. 14-6228, "Collier County Beach Renourishment
15-year Permit," authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top
ranked firm for subsequent Board approval, and make a finding that
this item promotes tourism.
20) Recommendation to approve the ranked list of design professionals
pursuant to RFP No. 14-6256, "Naples Beach Renourishment,"
authorize staff to negotiate a contract with the top ranked firm for
subsequent Board approval, and make a finding that this item
promotes tourism.
21) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Contract No. 14-6227 for the Development and Updating of Collier
County's Floodplain Management Plan for $75,000 to Amec
Engineering and Infrastructure, Inc.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Request that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) acting in its capacity as the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve a second 180-day extension
to the previously approved grant agreement between the CRA and
Paralegal & Notary Multi Services, Inc. for the reimbursement of
$20,000 in facade improvement expenses as administered under the
Page 9
May 13, 2014
Immokalee CRA Commercial Facade Improvement Program.
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve a Commercial Building Improvement Grant Agreement
between the CRA and L.T.A. Associates, Inc. in the amount of$3,500
for property located at 1780 Commercial Drive and within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle area
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) #13-6148,
"Analytical Laboratory Services," to Pace Analytical Services, Inc.
and Florida Spectrum Environmental Services Inc. to provide
laboratory testing services for the Public Utilities Division's Water
and Wastewater Departments, and for the Growth Management
Division's Pollution Control Department in an annual estimated
amount of$170,000.
2) Recommendation to approve a Resolution and Satisfactions of Lien
for the 1995 and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services
Special Assessments as the County has received payment in full
satisfaction of the liens. Fiscal impact is $38.50 to record the
Satisfactions of Lien.
3) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid Number 14-6239 in the
amount of$225,045 for Project Number 70034, "North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant 6-MG Ground Storage Tank Repair,"
to Crom Engineering & Construction Services, LLC.
4) Recommendation to authorize advertising an ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 2002-17, the Collier County Water Irrigation
Ordinance, to maintain compatibility with the South Florida Water
Management District's Mandatory Year-Round Landscape Irrigation
Conservation Measures, as amended, and providing for the repeal of
Ordinance No. 2000-61, as redundant.
5) Recommendation to approve a contract with Atkins North America,
Inc., in the amount of$261,874 under Request for Proposal Number
14-6221, "CEI and Related Services - U.S. 41 from C.R. 951 to
Greenway Road," (Project Numbers 70045 and 73045).
Page 10
May 13, 2014
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to accept a Federal Transit Administration Section
5310 Grant award in the amount of$367,715, authorize the necessary
budget amendments and approve the purchase of four (4) paratransit
vehicles using those funds.
2) Recommendation to approve a Grant Agreement with the Florida
Department of Children and Families to implement a three-year
Criminal Justice Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment
Grant Program in the amount of$853,316.71 and approve
subrecipient agreements with the David Lawrence Center for
$367,140.80, the Collier County Sheriff's Office for $333,123, and
the National Alliance of Mental Illness of Collier County, for
$106,686.
3) Recommendation to waive competition and authorize a single vendor
waiver request for Florida Power & Light (FPL) for the conversion of
residential and commercial power service aerial to underground from
the street to the electric meter within the Vanderbilt Beach Municipal
Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) boundaries for the MSTU Utility
Conversion Project Phases II, III and IV and authorize payment up to
$60,000 to FPL.
4) Recommendation to approve an Amendment and an Attestation
Statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc.
d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida for the Older Americans
Act Program Title III to ensure grant compliance. There is no new
fiscal impact associated with this action.
5) Recommendation to approve an Amendment and an Attestation
Statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc.
d/b/a Senior Choices of Southwest Florida for the Nutritional Services
Incentive Program (NSIP) to ensure grant compliance. There is no
new fiscal impact associated with this action.
6) Recommendation to approve Amendments and Attestation Statements
with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. d/b/a Senior
Choices of Southwest Florida for the Community Care for the Elderly,
Page 11
May 13, 2014
Alzheimer's Disease Initiative, and Home Care for the Elderly
programs to ensure grant compliance. There is no new fiscal impact
associated with this action.
7) Recommendation to approve an "after the fact" submittal of the
attached project proposal to the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) for the State Discretionary Transit Service Development
Program for a total funding request of$50,000.
8) Recommendation to approve County participation in the 5th annual
World's Largest Swim Lesson event on June 20, 2014 and authorize
the Chairman to sign the World's Largest Swimming Lesson Host
Facility Liability and Publicity Release form. Fiscal impact: $4,000.
9) Recommendation to accept the Conservation Collier 2013 Annual
Report.
10) Recommendation to approve a State Housing Initiatives Partnership
(SHIP) release of lien in the amount of$3,626.62 for an owner
occupied affordable housing dwelling unit that has been repaid in full.
11) Recommendation to approve a satisfaction of mortgage for the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program in accordance with
the Board's Short Sale Policy, accepting $1,431 to satisfy the SHIP
mortgage.
12) Recommendation to approve two mortgage satisfactions for the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) loan in the combined amount
of$36,750.
13) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to the Home
Investment Partnership Program Subrecipient Agreement with Big
Cypress Housing Corporation to update budget language, amend
project milestones, revise existing exhibits and to make other
insubstatial modifications to the agreement providing for construction
of ten single family rental housing units for income qualified renters.
The proposed amendment does not change the established project
budget.
14) Recommendation to make a finding that the expenditure of$7,080 to
Page 12
May 13, 2014
re-thatch the Seminole style chickee/interpretive kiosk at Barefoot
Beach Preserve Park promotes tourism.
15) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #14-6242 for
Purchase and Deliveries of Non-Bulk Chemicals and Pool Supplies to
Commercial Energy Specialists as the primary vendor with
Recreonics Inc., as secondary. Estimated annual spend is $150,000.
16) Recommendation to approve budget amendments in the amount of$
968,610 to allow continuous operation of the Community Care for the
Elderly, Alzheimer's Disease Initiative, and Home Care for the
Elderly grants for the Collier County Services for Seniors program
from the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc. d/b/a
Senior Choices of Southwest Florida prior to the execution of a
funding award.
17) Recommendation to approve a substantial amendment to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Community
Development Block Grant FY 2010-2011, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
Action Plans to redirect funds to a new project for Direct
Homeownership Assistance and Project Delivery in the amount of
$203,868.
18) Recommendation to approve the electronic submittal of Senior Corps
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) application for FY14-
15 grant funds to the Corporation for National and Community
Service, and appropriate a budget amendment to allow continuous
operation prior to the execution of funding award (Net Fiscal Impact
$71,036).
19) Recommendation to approve the write-off of an account receivable in
the amount of$22,500 associated with a reimbursement promise from
the Friends of the Collier County Museum to purchase a WWII
Sherman tank.
20) Recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the Home
Investment Partnership Program Subrecipient Agreement with
Community Assisted and Supported Living, Inc., for the Multi-Family
Property Acquisition Project, providing for project updates.
Page 13
May 13,2014
21) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing a policy, process
and fee schedule for the Collier County Museum to provide a guided
adult group tour service and a historic photograph reproduction
service.
22) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to add an
additional meal site to the 2014 Summer Food Service Program
(SFSP) at a net cost of$2,856.
23) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment for $5,080 for the
design, permitting and construction bid plans for a wildlife
observation tower at Tigertail Beach and make a finding that this
expenditure promotes tourism. The total project cost is $30,800.
24) Recommendation to: (1) award Request for Proposal #14-6259 "NSP
Multi-Family Property and Program Assumption," to NR Contractors,
Inc., (2) authorize the Chairman to execute a Developer Agreement
with NR Contractors, Inc. conveying the six Gilchrist Apartment
buildings, and (3) approve a one year extension to the waiver of the
legal non-conforming status of the properties ending on March 25,
2016 (4) reject all bids received as a result of Invitation to Bid #13-
6031 "Gilchrist Windows, Doors, Roofs and Miscellaneous Services".
25) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to the Subrecipient
Agreement with Community Assisted and Supported Living, Inc.
(CASL) for the Community Development Block Grant Property
Acquisition Project in order to update budget line items, deliverables,
and method of payment.
26) Recommendation to accept the donation of the E. George Rogers art
studio and approve its relocation, preservation and reuse at the Collier
County Museum at no public cost.
27) Recommendation to consider the Ad Hoc Public Transit Committee's
recommendation to continue meeting for an additional twelve months,
to extend all current member terms through that period and to approve
a Resolution adopting the extension.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
Page 14
May 13,2014
1) Recommendation to award ITB #13-6166 "Electrical Contractors" to
three vendors: Simmonds Electric of Naples Inc., as primary, Hart
Electric Inc., as secondary, and Technical Management Associates as
tertiary for on-call electrical services.
2) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation claim files settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the
second quarter of FY14.
3) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate the revenues for
Special Services to the Facilities Management Department and
approve necessary Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Budget Amendment.
4) Recommendation to authorize the necessary Budget Amendment for
limited security improvements in the Main Collier County Jail.
5) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
6) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 09 to the Agreement
with Collier County District School Board for the Driver Education
Program.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve a report covering a budget amendment
impacting reserves and moving funds in an amount up to and
including $20,000.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Adopted Budget.
3) Recommendation to approve an Economic Development Grant and
Funding Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and
the Collier County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) providing
for the remittance of historical and future bond issuance fees to
Collier County for use in fostering the County's project specific
Page 15
May 13,2014
economic development program efforts.
4) Recommendation to approve the award of Request for Proposal (RFP)
#14-6230 — "Management Services for Pelican Bay Services
Division" to Dorrill Management Group, LLC., and Authorize the
Chairman to execute the related agreement.
5) Recommendation to approve a resolution supplementing Resolution
No. 2003-89 which, among other things, authorizes the issuance of
Gas Tax Revenue Bonds from time to time; authorizing the refunding
of a portion of the County's outstanding Gas Tax Revenue Bonds,
Series 2005; authorizing the issuance of a not exceeding $90,000,000
principal amount of Collier County, Florida Gas Tax Refunding
Revenue Bond, Series 2014 in order to effect such refunding;
authorizing a negotiated sale of said bond pursuant to the low
responsive bid proposal of STI Institutional & Government, Inc.;
delegating certain authority to the Chairman in connection with the
approval of the terms and details of said bond; appointing the Clerk as
paying agent and registrar for said bond; authorizing the execution
and delivery of an Escrow Deposit Agreement and appointment of an
Escrow Agent thereto; and providing an effective date.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to reappoint Mr. Estil Null to the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
2) Recommendation to appoint one member to the Public Transit Ad
Hoc Advisory Committee.
3) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Black Affairs
Advisory Board.
4) Recommendation to reappoint one member to the Water and
Wastewater Authority.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Page 16
May 13, 2014
Attended the East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on April 17,
2014. The sum of$18 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to approve the FY 2014 State Criminal Alien
Program (SCAAP) letter delegating authority to Sheriff Kevin
Rambosk, or his designee, to be the official grant applicant and
contact person, to receive and expend program funds and to make any
necessary budget amendments of the FY 2014 State SCAAP grant
funds.
2) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of April 17, 2014 through
April 23, 2014.
3) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of April 24, 2014 through
April 30, 2014.
4) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of May 1, 2014 through May
7, 2014.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion for Final Judgment in the
amount of$110,000 for the acquisition of Parcel 114FEE in the
lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. New Plan Florida Holdings,
LLC, et al., Case No. 13-CA-238 (US 41/SR-CR-951 Intersection
Improvement Project #60116). (Fiscal Impact: $52,770)
2) Recommendation to approve an Assumption and Amendment
Agreement with 1250 Pine Ridge Road, LLC in order to continue
participation in the Fee Payment Assistance Program, which was
Page 17
May 13,2014
originally approved for Advanced Medical Center, LLC, for the
remaining term of approximately 3 years and 5 months, based on the
overall economic benefit created by the construction and operation of
the upscale medical office building. On February 11, 2014, the
County Attorney was directed by the Board of County Commissioners
to negotiate with the current owners of 1250 Pine Ridge Road on the
matter of the terms and obligations of the Fee Payment Assistance
Agreement executed between Collier County and Advanced Medical
Center, LLC, for a mutually agreed upon solution.
3) Recommendation that the Board direct the County Attorney to
advertise for a public hearing an ordinance amending the
Conservation Collier Ordinance to continue the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Advisory Committee and authorize the Committee
to review and make recommendations to the Board on the
management and programs of the preserved land.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit
against the Orange Tree Utility Company ("OTU"), Orangetree
Associates and any related parties in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida, to
enforce the County's right to integrate OTU into the Collier County
Water-Sewer District and to recover damages.
5) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment in the amount of$1,446,923.30 for the
acquisition of Parcels 108FEE, 108TCE 1 and 108TCE2 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County, Florida v. H & V Realty Corp. of Brooklyn, et
al., Case No. 13-CA-461 (US 41/SR-CR-951 Intersection
Improvement Project #60116). Fiscal Impact: $665,093.30
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
Page 18
May 13,2014
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.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
May 13,2014
May 13, 2014
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, everybody. Welcome
to the Board of Commissioners regular meeting.
If you would silence or turn off your cell phone and pager, that
would help us in our proceeding. Which reminds me, I need to do the
same thing.
We're going to have invocation given by Pastor Michael Bannon
of Crossroads Community Church of Naples. And following that
would be the Pledge of Allegiance.
So would you all rise.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR BANNON: Let's pray. Lord God, it's because we
believe that you are and that you care about us and that you are able
that we come before you now in prayer. In fact, your word tells us
that we ought to pray for those in authority over us that we might be
able to lead peaceable lives, and so we do that.
I pray for our County Commissioners, that you would bless them
with the wisdom and insight that they need to manage our affairs well,
that you might be glorified. And I pray for ourselves also as citizens
of this beautiful county in which you've given us to live in. I pray,
Father, that you would help us to be good citizens, cooperative,
working for the betterment of this community. Thank you for blessing
us with this place, and thank you for this opportunity.
I pray that as we hear and we speak, that what would be on our
minds is your glory. And so I ask this for the glory of your name,
Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 2
May 13, 2014
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EXPARTE DISCLOSURE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, would you walk of
walk us through today's change sheet.
MR. OCHS: It would be my please, Mr. Chairman. Good
morning, Commissioners. These are your proposed agenda changes
for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of May 13th, 2014.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 16.C.4. It's an
advertisement for a proposed ordinance amending your water
irrigation ordinance. And that was made at Commissioner Nance's
request. That continuance will be to the next meeting.
Next proposed change is to continue Item 16.D.2. That is a grant
agreement. We had a late notice yesterday that one of the
sub-recipients is unable to participate, and we will recast that
agreement and bring it back at your next meeting. That's a staff
request continuance.
Next proposed change is to move Item 16.D.11 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11 .F under County Manager regular
agenda. That's an item having to do with the consideration of the
Board's short sale policy. That's moved at Commissioner Henning's
request.
We have one agenda note this morning Commissioners, it's
Item 16.D.19. There was a typographical error in the agenda index.
Although your executive summary read correctly, your index
mistakenly listed the price of the receivables right off at 22,500.
It should be 32,500. Again, your executive summary was correct.
That correction is at staffs request.
Page 3
May 13, 2014
You have four time-certain items scheduled to be heard today,
Commissioners. The first is 9:30 a.m. on the La Peninsula MSBU.
At 10:00 a.m. you'll hear the proposed business accelerator
executive summary.
At 10:45 you will take Item 13.A from the Clerk of Courts
regarding requests for some assistance in procurement of records.
And Item 11 .E will be heard at 11 :30. That was the
reconsideration item brought forward previously by Commissioner
Hiller, having to do with non-conforming mobile home parks and SIP
process.
And we have court reporter breaks scheduled at 10:30 a.m. and
again at 2:50 this afternoon, if necessary.
And your public comments are heard at no sooner than 1 :00 p.m.
Mr. Chairman, that's all the changes I have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, any further
changes today or ex parte communication on today's agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No further changes. I have ex parte
disclosure for Item 16.A.6. I met with Rich Yovanovich in reference
to the Brandon PUD, and I reviewed the staff report for that PUD.
I'VE also received some emails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, do you have any
changes to today's agenda or ex parte communication?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir, I don't. But ex parte, I have
16.A.3, correspondence and updates from staff. That's on the Marsilea
PUD.
And 16.A.4, Artesia Naples, I have no disclosures.
On 16.A 5, I have updates from the staff, correspondence and
emails.
And 16.A.6, this was the Brandon PUD, I have meetings,
correspondence and emails. And I met with Rich Yovanovich, Mark
Page 4
May 13, 2014
Waller, Patrick Vanasse and Wayne Everett. But that was on the
Brandon PUD and so I didn't know if that needed to be mentioned
here, because this is the final plat, so I'm mentioning it anyway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I have no ex parte
communication or any changes to today's agenda.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I have no ex parte
communication. And I'd like to have Item 14.B.1 set as a time-certain
for 1 :30, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 14.B?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 14.B.1, which is the CRA
discussion on the sale of the mobile home lots.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At 1 :30.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. I don't believe we have
any time in the morning, so I'd like to have it as a time certain for the
afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Hiller, would you object to marking
it to be heard immediately after your public comments this afternoon,
in the event that you finish all your other business and you have public
comments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would only in that if public
comment -- I don't know how many people will speak, if there's a lot
of public comment, if it would run into the time that I have to leave at
2:30.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Perhaps the sooner of the conclusion of
public comments or 1 :30, whichever is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is acceptable. That would be
great.
MR. OCHS: I just don't want a gap between 1 :05 and 1 :30 if--
Page 5
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't have a problem with
that. And that's assuming that we're back from lunch at 1 :00. The
reason I picked 1 :30 is that if for some reason our discussion goes
beyond noon and we come back after 1 :00 that, you know, that we're
not backed up on a time-certain at that time. So I don't have a
problem with that proposal, County Manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have no ex parte communication,
sir, and no further changes, and I will move approval of today's
agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Nance,
second by Commissioner Hiller. All in the favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 6
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
May 13, 2014
Continue Item 16C4 to the May 27.2014 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to authorize advertising an
ordinance amending Ordinance No.2002-17,the Collier County Water Irrigation Ordinance,to
maintain compatibility with the South Florida Water Management District's Mandatory Year-Round
Landscape Irrigation Conservation Measures,as amended,and providing for the repeal of Ordinance
No.2000-61,as redundant. (Commissioner Nance's request)
Continue Item 16D2 to the May 27,2014 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a Grant
Agreement with the Florida Department of Children and Families to implement a three-year Criminal
Justice Mental Health and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant Program in the amount of
$853,316.71 and approve subrecipient agreements with the David Lawrence Center for$367,140.80,
the Collier County Sheriff's Office for$333,123,and the National Alliance of Mental Illness of Collier
County,for$106,686. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16D11 to Item 11F: Recommendation to approve a satisfaction of mortgage for the State
Housing Initiatives Partnership(SHIP) Program in accordance with the Board's Short Sale Policy,
accepting$1,431 to satisfy the SHIP mortgage. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Note:
Item 16D19: Title on Executive Summary should read: Recommendation to approve the write-off
of an account receivable in the amount of$22,500$32.500 associated with a reimbursement promise
from the Friends of the Collier County Museum to purchase a WWII Sherman tank. (Staffs request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11B to be heard at 9:30 a.m.
Item 11A to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 13A to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 11E to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
5/13/2014 8:27 AM
May 13, 2014
Item #2B & #2C
MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 8, 2014 AND APRIL 22, 2014
BCC/REGULAR MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve April 8th,
'14 regular meeting and the April 22nd, '14 --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by the same. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Now we move to proclamations.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 11 THROUGH
MAY 17, 2014 AS SALVATION ARMY WEEK— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Item 4.A is a proclamation designating
May 11th through May 17th, 2014 as Salvation Army Week, to be
accepted by Salvation Army Major Francina Proctor, Associate
Regional Coordinator. And this item is sponsored by Commissioner
Page 7
May 13, 2014
Coyle. If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, excuse me, if we could get
you to stand in front of the commissioners for a photo, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation?
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MAY 2014
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY AWARENESS MONTH — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating the month
of May, 2014 Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. To be accepted
by G. W. Clark and Nancy Noy of American Bikers Aimed Toward
Education and Will "Riffraff' Breen, Safety and Legislative Director.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Nance. Please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. CLARK: This is very important to us --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, whatever you have to say, after
we get pictures can you step to the podium?
MR. CLARK: Sure, absolutely.
(Applause.)
MR. CLARK: I'm G. W. Clark. I'm the public relations
communication officer for ABATE of Florida Gator Alley Chapter.
Governor Scott declared May Motorcycle Safety and Awareness.
And I'd like to thank the Commissioners and their staff for helping me
get this through. It's very important to us.
Last May we had more fatalities, which is horrendous. But it's to
be expected. More people are riding motorcycles because of the fuel
crunch and it's Florida, you know, you can ride 10, 12 months out of
the year.
And so this means a lot to us because we try to educate people.
Page 8
May 13, 2014
Just look twice. I mean, we're all guilty of--whoa, I almost did
something awful. But on a motorcycle that's bad news. I'm going to
give Will "Riffraff' a chance to say a couple things.
MR. BREEN: Thank you for having us, Commissioners, and
ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. May is in fact, yet again
Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month. My position on the board of
directors with the Gator Alley Chapter of ABATE, Florida is, I am the
legislative trustee as well as the safety representative. We do as much
education as we possibly can. We do community outreach. Tim has
seen me frequently doing varieties of outreach within the community.
It is absolutely essential that motorcycle safety is not dictated
simply to motorcyclists. It's extremely hard to argue that motor
vehicle safety and motor vehicle safety is a responsibility that we all
must share. It is simple reality.
I'd like to thank you. And those who know me, they're going to
be very surprised because I'll be brief today. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think you're doing a wonderful
job on your campaign of education. I see all the bumper stickers out
there. It's made a lot of people aware of people on two wheels out
there to make sure they're aware and I am of that precaution. Be aware
of your surroundings whether it be bicycle or motorcycle. Thank you.
Next proclamation?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 18 THROUGH
MAY 24, 2014 WATER REUSE WEEK — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.0 is a proclamation designating May 18th
through May 24th, 2014 as Water Reuse Week. To be accepted by
Dr. George Yilmez, Public Utilities Administrator; Lisa Koehler, Big
Page 9
May 13, 2014
Cypress Basin Administrator; Beth Johnssen, Wastewater Department
Director; Joe Bellone, Director of Operations Support; and Peter
Lund, Manager, Customer Service and Utilities Education and
Compliance. And this item is sponsored by the entire Board of
County Commissioners.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Lisa, you want to say a few words?
MS. KOEHLER: I would love to, thank you.
Commissioners, thank you for taking the time to present this
proclamation this morning. On behalf of Blake Guillory, our
Executive Director, and Rick Barber, our Big Cypress Basin Board
Chairman and the rest of the Basin board members, thank you for your
time in investing in alternative sources of water and protecting our
potable sources of water. It is with your vision and implementation of
your staff that makes you the leader for all the 16 counties of South
Florida Water Management District.
So again, just want to say thank you for all of your efforts and
continuing as we work on additional projects for the future. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 18 THROUGH
MAY 24, 2014 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES WEEK — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating May 18th
through May 24th, 2014 as Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Week, to be accepted by EMS Chief Walter Kopka and his
EMS staff. And this item is sponsored by the entire Board of County
Commissioners. If you'd please step forward.
Page 10
May 13, 2014
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Very important service that you
provide, right? Thank you.
CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning. For the record, Walter Kopka,
Chief of Emergency Medical Services.
Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you for this proclamation.
Thank you for taking the time to recognize the EMS professionals that
we have.
I want to thank several people. First obviously the County
Commissioners for sponsoring this proclamation, County Attorney's
office for their support, County Manager's office, administrator
services, emergency management, who truly give EMS the support
that we need to make this a successful venture that we have.
This group is a fraction of the dedicated professionals that truly
exceed the expectations of their patients, the public and allied
professionals that we work with. I want to thank all of them, from the
team that work behind the scenes to the boots in the field, I'm truly
proud of them. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve today's
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Nance,
second by Commissioner Hiller.
All in the favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 11
May 13, 2014
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S BUSINESS OF THE
MONTH TO GULFSHORE INSURANCE, INC. FOR MAY 2014.
ACCEPTED BY MICHELLE GLEESON, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT AND COO, JACK POWERS, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT OF SALES, DENISE WILLIAMS, CONTROLLER
AND CRYSTAL HOOVER, DIRECTOR OF BRAND
MANAGEMENT — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 5 on your agenda this morning,
Commissioners. 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County Business
of the Month to Gulfshore Insurance, Incorporated for May, 2014.
The award to be accept by Michelle Gleeson, Executive Vice
President and COO; Jack Power, Senior Vice President of Sales;
Denise Williams, Controller; and Crystal Hoover, Director of Brand
Management. Congratulations.
MS. GLEESON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, county staff,
we want to thank the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce and
Board of County Commissioners for inviting us here today.
Gulfshore Insurance is honored to be recognized as the Business
of the Month.
Gulfshore Insurance has been part of the Collier County business
community for over 44 years. We've grown in tandem with the
growth of Collier County and managed the business and personal risk
of many businesses and residences.
The key to our success though is our people who are passionate
about what they do and who they serve. This award recognizes the
dedicated kind-hearted associates at Gulfshore Insurance.
Beyond their daily work our associates truly give of their hearts
and are committed to create meaningful change in Collier County
through community leadership, employee volunteerism and
Page 12
May 13, 2014
fundraising support.
We would like to thank our entire staff for their hard working
dedication that allowed this to happen. To the Great Naples Chamber
and our County Commissioners, thank you again. We at Gulfshore
Insurance are truly honored to receive the award. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE ADAM NORTHRUP,
PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, PURCHASING DEPARTMENT,
AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL 2014 —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5.B is a recommendation to recognize Adam
Northrup, Procurement Specialist, as Employee of the Month for
April, 2014.
Adam, if you'd please step forward and receive your award.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Stand right there, Adam, while I tell the Board a
little about you, all right?
Commissioners, Adam's been with us since 2012, among his
regular responsibilities includes daily determination of the most
appropriate means of procurement which will ensure compliance with
county and state regulations, meets his users needs and certainly
always attempting to obtain best value for the county.
Adam was nominated by two fellow staff members for his offer
of assistance during a massive review of county-wide architecture and
engineering contracts. He offered to help by developing a large email
merge for letters, emails and contracts. And his innovative idea saved
the department over 80 hours in productive time in the endeavor.
He always goes well and above his responsibilities to assist his
Page 13
May 13, 2014
co-workers, save the department valuable time and money, and is a
true definition of a team player. He's certainly a valuable asset to the
organization and very deserving of this award.
It's my honor, Commissioners, to present Adam Northrup, your
Employee of the Month for April, 2014. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2014-98: APPOINTING AIMEE LETEUX
(VETERINARIAN/VET TECH CATEGORY) TO A TERM
EXPIRING APRIL 13, 2016, MARY BAKER (PET RETAIL
CATEGORY) TO A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 13, 2018 AND
JAMES SEABASTY (AT-LARGE CATEGORY) TO A TERM
EXPIRING APRIL 13, 2018, TO THE ANIMAL SERVICES
ADVISORY BOARD — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 10 on your
agenda this morning. Board of County Commissioners, Item 10.A is a
recommendation to appoint three members to the Animal Services
Advisory Board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll make a motion that we take
committee recommendations of Aimee Leteux. And Mary Baker, plus
James Seabasty for the at large position.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The French pronunciation of that is
Leteux.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, there's a motion by
Commissioner Fiala. Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Nance.
Page 14
May 13, 2014
And all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item?
Item #1 OB
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AGREE TO RESTRUCTURE THE
MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES (CRA) UNDER THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO IMPROVE SYNERGY, COMMUNICATION AND
STAFF SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY PROJECTS AND ENSURE
GRANT COMPLIANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10.B is a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners agree to restructure the management of the
Community Redevelopment Agencies under the County Manager to
improve synergies, communication and staff support of community
projects and to ensure grant compliance --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
MR. OCHS: -- and quality control.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
Page 15
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Nance.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I see that that's already -- I'm
wondering, because our CRA here on the East Trail seems to be doing
so well. They always work with the County Manager and with all of
his staff.
And I realize that sometimes you would prefer Immokalee to
answer directly to the County Manager, but it seems the East Naples
group is doing just fine working with him rather than answering to
him. And they consult with him and with everybody on the Board.
I was going to make a different motion, but obviously I haven't
had an opportunity to even speak until now. And I was going to say
that just to maintain the advisory boards and continue working with
the County Manager, as they've been doing anyway. And then
knowing the County Manager will make available the growth
management division and other departments under his control and the
ability to confer with the County Attorney at any time is also their
ability to do. And I just felt that -- I don't know why you're trying to
change this department. I'm not quite sure. I mean, being that they
already do this, why -- what is behind wanting to change the wording?
Could anybody tell me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's why the item is on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And to answer your question, you're
right, they are working with the County Manager and staff. So it
seems most appropriate to have, you know, those employees under the
County Manager. There's no executive director and there's no
anticipation of having an executive director for either CRA. So it
makes perfect sense.
Page 16
May 13, 2014
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think we had a very
productive workshop the other day, and I thank Commissioner
Henning for bringing this item forward. It's clear there is not a need,
nor any rational justification that I can find for hiring executive
directors for the CRA as we have done in the past. That's not to say
that in the future if the economy recovers and the CRAs adequately
recover from the recession that we wouldn't want to reconsider that.
But seeing that the CRAs work so directly with the county, I
think there's every reason to capitalize on that synergy and put them
directly under the County Manager and that way, upper management
of the CRAs know who they will be responding to and they can
communicate clearly and more directly with county staff that they
have to work with so closely. So that's why I'm supporting this. I
think it just memorializing basically what we're doing at present and
it's going to make things a lot easier and better.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning, I
commend you for bringing this forward. This is really a motion that
comes out of the very productive workshop that we had with the
CRAs and their advisory board. And I think that the comments made
by Commissioner Nance are on point. It makes absolute sense to
move the oversight under the County Manager's Office and to take
advantage of all the efficiencies that will be brought to the table as a
consequence of using our existing staff instead of going out and
wasting taxpayer dollars on hiring staff where no additional staff is
needed.
The current CRA staff is doing a very good job, and
supplemented with county staff and the County Manager's excellent
oversight we are going to see nothing but even more productivity and
success out of those CRAs than we have today.
Page 17
May 13, 2014
So thank you for bringing it forward. And I know that the CRA
staff is supportive, and thank you County Manager for agreeing to
take this on. It's a great move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would like to see an
accounting of the efficiencies that are likely to take place here. I've
asked the County Manager if there will be any savings in staff or
otherwise, and none are identified in the fiscal impact of this item. So
I have to presume that there will be no savings and perhaps no
additional efficiencies resulting from this move.
However, I believe that the community redevelopment agencies
should be dealt with in -- with respect to the purpose for which they
were created. They are community redevelopment agencies, they are
not Collier County redevelopment agencies. And they should reflect
interests and priorities of the community. And you get that done more
effectively if you have an organization that is specifically responsible
to that community for the redevelopment in that area.
We have in the past had problems with support, adequate support
being given by county staff, and that resulted in the CRAs developing
their own staff to do things, because they felt they were more
responsive.
Now, I don't doubt that our current County Manager could
manage those efficiently, but I do agree there's no need to get
executive directors for those organizations at the present point in time.
So there is no quarrel in my mind about the fact that we let the people
who are in charge right now continue to do the work.
And if you want to treat the two agencies differently, I think
that's entirely appropriate. If the commissioner for Immokalee CRA
wants to have it administered by the County Manager, that's perfectly
alright. But administration of the Community Redevelopment Agency
along Bayshore and surrounding areas, if commissioners wanted that
Page 18
May 13, 2014
to be administered by current staff, I think that's entirely appropriate to
proceed and leave it the way it is for that particular CRA.
But I think it's a mistake to try to just eliminate both of them as
independent CRAs and turn it over to the county government.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
The Bayshore CRA is doing just a great job, a phenomenal job.
They've been allowed to -- well, because of their charter they've -- not
charter, but of their agreement, they just see the opportunities and they
seize the moment. They're operating with a very, very limited staff,
and they're seizing the moment and opportunities and moving forward.
Never has the County Manager stopped them at all. But when they
have any questions about what they're doing, they call the Manager or
call the County Attorney, and it's worked very, very well for us.
I don't know -- I'm not quite sure why this is even being
presented, being that it works so well the way it is. And I would
suggest that they just continue to be allowed to move forward in the
position they are right now.
I was encouraged by Commissioner Nance's comment that it can
always be changed, and it just might need to be if this isn't working.
They rely heavily on their advisory board. I would hate to see the
next thing the board does is then tell the County Manager how they
want it possibly dismantled or change their direction or something.
They're moving forward in such a good positive way, I don't want to
see that eliminated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I don't see any further
discussion. Oh, Commissioner -- yeah, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to say that I think
Commissioner Coyle's interpretation of your motion, Commissioner
Henning, is incorrect. I think what we described and what this motion
is, in his mind, is not what you're intending. And I think it's very
important that the record reflect that.
Page 19
May 13, 2014
So your motion, as I understand, is to basically have the County
Manager provide managerial oversight and staff support to the -- to
CRA administrators and their staff in the functioning of the CRAs as
they currently exist; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's Commissioner Nance's
motion, and his motion to approve the item. And the recommendation
is the Board of Commissioners agrees to restructure the management
of the CRAs under the County Manager or designee for improving
synergy, communication and staff support of community projects to
ensure grant compliance and quality control.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct. And that's my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No further discussion on the
motion, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3-2, with
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Fiala dissenting.
We have some time certains?
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO
RESCIND, HOLD IN ABEYANCE, OR RETAIN AND ASSESS
THE LA PENINSULA MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT
(MSBU) — MOTION TO HOLD THE MSBU IN ABEYANCE AND
FOR THE MSBU'S MASTER ASSOCIATION TO COVER
ENGINEERING STUDY COSTS AND REPAIRS TO THE
SEAWALL — APPROVED
Page 20
May 13, 2014
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, you have a 9:30 a.m. time-
certain this morning. It's Item 11 .B on your agenda. It is a
recommendation to determine whether to rescind, hold in abeyance or
retain and assess the La Peninsula Municipal Service Benefit Unit.
And Ms. Michelle Arnold, your Alternative Transportation Modes
Director, will present.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Michelle Arnold, Alternative Transportation Modes Director.
I'm going to just go through a brief history for your
consideration.
On October 8th, you all received a petition from the La Peninsula
Condominium Association requesting that you adopt an ordinance
establishing an MSBU for the repairs or replacement of a seawall in
their area.
On December 10th, 2013 you adopted an ordinance and
resolution authorizing the use of a unified method of collecting non-ad
valorem taxes to assess the property owners in La Peninsula for an
MSBU in their area.
On January 2nd, 2014, there was a public petition that was
presented to you from the libertarian party that requested you rescind
that resolution and ordinance on the grounds that La Peninsula is a
private community and that the Board's action to establish an MSBU
was in violation of Article 7, Section 10 of the Florida Constitution
which prohibits the state and its subdivisions from using their taxing
power to aid any private person and entity.
Given this issue that was raised by the party, the Board did ask
that the -- resolve the issue by asking that the funding for the MSBU
be done through charter 75 -- Chapter 75, Bond Validation Process.
The Board directed the County Attorney to work with the Clerk
to obtain an Attorney General opinion to determine the legality of the
MSBU process.
Page 21
May 13, 2014
After review of the process, the Clerk and the County Attorney's
Office did determine that the Attorney General's opinion wasn't
necessary, but it would be helpful in the process that the La Peninsula
Condominium Association fund any action that was going to take
place before the bond validation process was deemed to be legally
valid.
So all expenditures -- it was recommended that all expenditures
in connection with the MSBU process be made out of these private
funds and until such time that a judicial decision was made on the
bond validation process.
At this point in time there's been no funding provided by the
county, but there were some expenditures made in the amount of
$6,444.24 for outside legal counsel.
In this executive summary we're requesting those funds be
reimbursed by the master association, because those were county
funds expended.
On March 13th, 2014 the MSBU advisory committee held a
public meeting and at that particular public meeting there were quite a
few residents in attendance. There were over 30 people in attendance.
And the County Attorney's Office was there fielding questions from
the community.
The consensus at that particular meeting was to accept the
funding that was at that time being offered by the Master Association
to fund the process and move forward with developing a scope of
services, so that an attorney -- excuse me, an engineer could be hired
to complete the assessment of the seawall and proceed with design and
permitting of that seawall to make corrections as needed.
Staff was proceeding in that direction. However, on March 24th,
2014, the La Peninsula Master Association advised us that they voted
to recommend that the Board rescind -- excuse me, they voted to
rescind their prior decision to fund the process in the amount of
$65,000.
Page 22
May 13, 2014
So with no private funding available to proceed with this process,
and there would be no assessment of the MSBU, it was very difficult
for us to move forward with hiring an engineer to complete the
process or even the bond validation process.
We had another meeting with the La Peninsula MSBU Advisory
Committee on April 10th, and at that particular meeting the Advisory
Committee recommended that the Board go forward and do an
assessment of the community, retain the MSBU, and the assessment
process would be one that would fund the bond validation process, the
hiring of an engineer and moving forward with the process.
However, on April 14th, the Master Association followed up with
an email to the Board of County Commissioners, recommending that
the MSBU be rescinded. And in that email they noted that they
conducted a poll of their community and that polling resulted in a vote
of 81 favoring their moving forward with a plan B or private plan for
the repairs of the MSBU, 30 favoring continuing with the MSBU.
And then in their polling, they did note that there were 65 non-
responses, which they deferred to the decision of the Master
Association.
With this conflict between the Advisory Committee and Master
Association, staff is bringing this matter before you all to make a
determination.
There are a few facts for your consideration. At the time that the
MSBU was created, you all were presented with a petition from the
community which resulted in 65 percent being in favor of the creation
of an MSBU, and that process was validated by your County
Manager's Office.
This request is being brought to you, to rescind the MSBU by --
the Master Association board, has not been attested to determine, you
know, the validity of that particular vote.
There is also one other item that you ought to consider, that
during the construction process there would be a requirement to obtain
Page 23
May 13, 2014
work access easements from the property owners, and the Master
Association is the controlling entity for those easements. So with
them not being in favor of an MSBU, it might be difficult at this time
to obtain those work access easements.
We have three options for the Board's consideration at this time.
You have a recommendation to rescind the MSBU from the Master
Association Board. If you were to proceed with that recommendation
it would be recommended that it would be the Master Association's
sole responsibility for the repair and financing of the seawall in
perpetuity. If they fail to repair or finance the seawall, the Board of
County Commissioners, may however, exercise their authority under
Ordinance 85-02 to prevent and remedy the failure of seawalls.
The second recommendation is to hold the MSBU in abeyance
until the La Peninsula community validates their plan and proves to
the Board that they have a concrete plan for the correction of the
seawall, as well as the financing of those seawall repairs.
This particular recommendation is considering holding the
MSBU in an abeyance for no more than a year to give the master
association time to get their plan in place.
If you all were to move forward with that recommendation, you
would not need to do anything at this particular time because you
already have an MSBU in place. And it wouldn't require you to do
anything within a year other than restart the process, both the
assessment of the property owners and the bond validation process.
The risk with that particular option is, you're waiting a year,
potentially with nothing to happen and the seawall condition could
worsen in that year's time period.
The third recommendation would be to retain the MSBU and
begin assessment of property owners in order to proceed with the
process. In this particular scenario, you all would be assessing the
property owners for the cost of doing the bond validation process, and
you also would be assessing them for the cost to hire an engineer to
Page 24
May 13, 2014
validate the condition and design repair or replacement of the seawall.
The risk with this particular option of course, is that there may be
parallel processes in place, the county going forward with the MSBU
process, as well as the Master Association.
Additionally, again, the access easements that I mentioned before
would be of concern with the Master Association not providing those
easements.
And that's my presentation, and I think we have several public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we have questions by
Commissioners.
Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, before we get into any
further discussion, I would like to know, from an engineering
standpoint, what the status of the seawall is. And that goes to what
our obligation is under 85-02, an ordinance which gives us the ability
to go in, if a seawall is in a state of disrepair, where it presents a public
health/safety threat, to repair that seawall and then to turn around and
to assess the owners of that wall for whatever the cost is to the county.
So I'd like to ask that the County engineer to come forward and
tell us whether there is any sort of public threat or harm, given the
current status of the seawall --
MR. McKENNA: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- or condition, I should say.
MR. McKENNA: Jack McKenna, your County Engineer.
I've read the reports that were done by the three firms that have
looked at the seawall. I -- it was my opinion that it was not in a state
of imminent failure, but it is in need of repair.
I can't tell you when the failure will occur. There's folks that
have spent a lot more time than I have looking at it and have a higher
level of expertise in the area than I have.
And the three firms that looked at it all had a bit of differing
Page 25
May 13, 2014
expertise, bit of differing opinions, but all the opinions I thought were
appropriate. So I'm sorry I don't have a definitive answer, a crystal
ball as to how long the seawall is going to last before it fails. But it is
appropriate to move forward and, you know, for a repair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying that a repair
must be done now in order to ensure that there isn't a failure and threat
of harm?
MR. McKENNA: Now, is kind of an immediate statement. I
think working towards a repair is appropriate. I don't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what's the horizon we're
looking at?
MR. McKENNA: I'm unable to tell you that. It may be fine for
another five years. It may fail tomorrow. It's really difficult to say. If
it fails, it's not likely to be a catastrophic thing that someone's going to
die with. You'll probably see the failure sequentially and know okay,
it's now failing.
But I don't think anyone's crystal ball, can really say, that yes, it's
ready to fail on this date.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Obviously we don't know that it's
going to fail on a specific date. That's not the issue. The issue is--is
that, you know, under 85-02 we step in if a seawall is in a state of
disrepair to the degree that it poses a public safety threat.
So do we have to step in or not as the county to get this done? If
the Master Association and homeowners refuse to repair that wall, do
we need to step in as the county government and get that wall fixed
now to avoid any potential harm, or do we have the ability to sit back
and do nothing as of now? You're the professional, you're the
engineer, you need to tell us.
MR. McKENNA: It would be my thought that if they are
refusing to do any repair -- at this point they've spent a fair amount of
money in soft costs studying it. But if they are refusing to do any
repair, then yes, it would be appropriate to move forward as the
Page 26
May 13, 2014
county to begin a repair process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what happened last year is,
there was a complaint, an anonymous complaint from the community
on the issue about not repairing the seawall. Code Enforcement went
in there, looked at the seawall, asked Jack his opinion with those--I
think three engineering experts.
The report from code enforcement, from Jack, and he said it
once, I don't see any imminent danger in the seawall and in my
opinion, it just needs to be repaired, which does not even require a
permit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, let me go back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's the only action that we have
done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The statement that you just made,
Jack, is very different from the statement Commissioner Henning is
referring to you having made in the past. What you just said right now
is that if that group of property owners does not go in and repair that
wall now, that we as the county need to take action under 85-02.
MR. McKENNA: The statement of now is pretty immediate. I
think that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have liability here. I
mean, we have an obligation to the public. At what point, in your
professional opinion, do we need to take action to repair this wall if
this group of property owners does not repair their wall?
MR. McKENNA: Well, I feel certain that at the point we realize
that they are not going to do anything, the county should begin the
process of doing something. I don't know that -- we are not at that
point right now.
But yeah, something needs to be done. If there's recognition the
property owners are not going to do anything, the county needs to step
in. If the property owners are working towards a solution, it would be
my recommendation to let them continue working towards that,
Page 27
May 13, 2014
because they seem to be proceeding in a very pragmatic logical
fashion in my mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how long should we give
them to get to that the point? I mean, what's a reasonable amount of
time for them to effectuate the repairs that are necessary before we
have to step in and do something about it?
MR. OCHS: Jack, let me jump in.
Commissioner, that's fairly speculative at this point. If you want
a solid response from us, to that question, I think I'm going to have to
commission our staff to go out there and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's what --
MR. OCHS: -- get some engineering --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- we need to do.
MR. OCHS: -- analysis done. I mean, we've done a review from
the ground level, if you will. And he's reviewed, as Jack said, the
engineering report from the other three engineers. But you're asking
for his personal opinion and I'm not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Professional, not personal.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In his capacity as County
Engineer.
MR. OCHS: Yes. And he really, I don't think he has had the
time to do his own analysis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I appreciate that. Thank you
for updating us to that end.
I think we do need that information. And that is something that
we need to know as soon as possible because of our obligation to act.
So I would like to make a motion to direct staff to evaluate the
condition of the seawall and to provide for us a time line of-- I'm not
sure how to describe it in engineering terms, but, you know, how long
can we wait to repair this wall if the community refuses to do it? Or
fails to do it.
Page 28
May 13, 2014
So, I mean, it's a factual question. I mean, you have to go in
there and evaluate it and come back -- or not you, or just hire an
outside professional and get it done. But we need to know what, you
know, the risk is and what our obligation is to the public in the face of
that risk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have anybody on staff that
can do something like that? Or do we need to go out and hire a firm to
give us an engineering study on that wall?
MR. McKENNA: That's correct, yes. We would need to sub
that out to a firm that has specific expertise. And the limit of forensic
study that's done will be as much as we want to pay for someone to
provide a varying level of assurance there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is something that you have to
decide. I mean, you're the engineer, you need to make the
determination of, you know, what level of study is necessary to be
able to come back and advise us as to what our obligation to perform
is, at what point in time. We need to know how long we can let this
go on for.
If the engineers come back and say, you know, this is routine
maintenance and this wall is structurally sound but for routine
maintenance you guys can sit back and there's no imminent threat, for
you know, five years or three years or reevaluate it in 12 months.
Whatever you come back and tell us is how we have to make our
decisions.
MR. McKENNA: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, I absolutely have no
idea. I have to rely on you 100 percent.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I think with all due respect,
we're looking at the wrong standard here. If you're concerned about
the ordinance, the ordinance is talking about a failed seawall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what -- we don't know
if this is failing or not.
Page 29
May 13, 2014
MR. KLATZKOW: Not in imminent danger of failing or not
having five years left, but whether or not it's a factual standpoint that
seawall has failed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think we need to know
that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance is contemplating an
emergency situation which requires the county to step in.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I want to have
them come back and tell us, whether or not this is a failed or is it a
failing seawall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, they already said it's not in
imminent danger of failing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, to me this is all just too
nebulous. It's too ambiguous for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on, let's speak on the motion,
okay. First of all, we don't have the expertise of staff to do that.
Second, the HOA that I have met with, I don't know if you have met
with, has hired Turrell and Associates to do an analysis on what needs
to be done. And the third --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you give us a summary of
what Turrell said?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I didn't hire him. And I know
that the HOA has hired them. They haven't shared any information
with me.
Third, you're asking to hire a professional that we have under
contract. The Clerk of Court recognizes this is a private community.
So we hire them to do the work, is the Clerk going to pay that, to do
that work?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, here's the issue. It depends
whether the expenditure serves a primary public purpose. And if it's
deemed that it serves a primary public purpose to determine whether
or not this is or is not a failing or failed seawall, to determine whether
Page 30
May 13, 2014
or not we have to act under 85-02 I think would satisfy that
requirement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, however, there's a code case
that was closed there, based upon staffs review. So I'll recognize your
motion and let's talk on the motion.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear the rest of the
subject, quite frankly. I would second it, but I can't right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, well, let's talk about the order
of the issue here.
So there's no second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me just make something
clear. If we don't know what the condition of the seawall is, if the
seawall doesn't need repair and there is no imminent threat to the
public, then obviously any expenditure of public funds doesn't serve a
primary public purpose, because there's no reason to do anything that
relates to, you know, public health, safety and welfare as a whole, if
we're just talking about routine maintenance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask a question then,
regarding your motion. Were you talking about doing like, an
engineering study, a thorough engineering study? Because I think
that's something that needs to be done regardless of whether we move
forward or not. We have to know the condition of the wall and what
it's doing now, and what it would take, to not only to repair the wall
but also what -- like for instance, if you put rip-rap in, you need 12 to
18 months of application to the Army Corps of Engineers before you
can ever use it. So those things must also be considered.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're summarizing it to a degree,
Commissioner Fiala.
The point is, is this wall a failing wall or a failed wall? Is this
wall in need of routine maintenance or is this wall in need of major
repair? Because if it's not immediately repaired, there will be some
Page 31
May 13, 2014
public health and safety threat. And that's the threshold question that
we need answered.
So we need an engineering opinion to tell us if this wall is in
need of routine maintenance, is this wall a failing wall, is this wall a
failed wall? I don't know, I've never seen this wall. I physically
haven't gone down to look at it. And even if I did look it, I wouldn't
know, you know, by looking at it, what the status of its disrepair is.
And that goes to the whole issue of what we do as far as this
MSTU goes and what our obligation is, if we have to act under 85-02.
I don't know what the status of the wall is.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we speaking to the motion?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm speaking to the motion, yes,
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You know, this -- I think we're
getting way ahead of ourselves from the role of the Board of County
Commissioners on this issue. This came to the Board of County
Commissioners as a request from property owners, for administrative
assistance for them to make a repair on their property. And it was a
massive project, millions of dollars. It was an important project that
had their attention and they felt like they needed to get on it right
away and they were asking the county for help. That's how we got
into this MSTU discussion.
It seems like now the property owners have some dissention
among themselves or they want to change their methodology of
repairing it. I don't think anybody has come and told the Board of
County Commissioners that they didn't want to repair it, that they
changed their mind, so on, so forth. It seems that there's some
discussion about whether they want the administrative help of the
county.
Page 32
May 13, 2014
I think it's very premature for the county to go in there -- I don't
think it's the county's role to assess if the seawall needs to be repaired
or not. The homeowners have already said they think it does and they
want our help. That's where they left it, up 'til today.
But for the county to go in and say, oh, we need -- you know,
unless we have identified it as a disaster -- the whole waterfront in
Florida is in decay and needs to be repaired. I don't think it's the role
of government to go out there and start worrying about it, unless there
is some imminent danger of human risk, which I don't think exists.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what we need --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The entire island of Marco Island
seawalls were built in 1965; all of them are going to fall in within the
next 10 years if they're not replaced. You know, is that dangerous?
Well, that's true. But I feel like it's those people's responsibility to do
that.
These individuals have indicated they're willing to do it. They
seem to be fighting amongst themselves as how they should go about
it. But I think for us to engage in studies and go out and assess
whether the county should intervene at this point is way premature. I
can't support the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just respond to
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there is a second to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I might?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please.
MR. OCHS: On this question, I just asked the County Engineer,
Page 33
May 13, 2014
in his professional opinion, based on his on-site observations of the
seawall and its current condition, whether he would invoke any action
under the county ordinance 85-02, and his answer was?
MR. McKENNA: No, I don't -- I believe that the seawall is in a
phase of failing. So am I. But I don't think that it's imminent. I don't
think that it's time to say it has not failed at this point. But --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, my point is there's a specific
definition of a failed seawall in that ordinance, and Mr. Durham has it
up, he could read it if you'd like. The point is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like him to read it.
MS. DURAN: Commissioners, it reads: Failed seawall or
revetment means a seawall or revetment that has failed structurally or
that has moved from its original position or that does not serve to
stabilize the position of the shoreline.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in your opinion, the seawall in
its current condition doesn't rise to the level of o ne, two or three as
described in that ordinance?
MR. McKENNA: The fact that it asks if it has moved,
immediately after being built it has moved. So there's -- we cans split
hairs on that. It has moved. But has it moved to what I would
consider a point of failure? No, I wouldn't say that it has. But it is
still stabilizing the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's the answer that I was
looking for.
So then I want to restate my motion, because you have now
provided the opinion that I was looking for. You in your professional
opinion as an engineer have basically said that this seawall is not a
failed seawall and there's no threat of like imminent failure where if
we did not act there would be any public threat to safety.
In that case, then any -- expending any public funds would not
serve a primary public purpose. Because we can't turn around and
assess anybody for something and then go -- and use those
Page 34
May 13, 2014
assessments to offset public debt if the purpose of that debt doesn't
serve a valid public purpose.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does your motion still stand?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Because he just gave me an
opinion. So I don't need to have a motion, because he just told us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're withdrawing your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm withdrawing my motion.
But it goes to the second part, and the second part is this issue of
having an MSTU. We can't create an MSTU and assess property
owners to create funding for public debt if that public debt isn't going
to be used to serve primarily a public purpose.
And you just told me we don't have any threat of failure, that this
is some sort of routine maintenance of this privately owned seawall.
So as a consequence, I don't see why we're even here with this
question on the MSTU.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the motion is withdrawn.
Here's what I'd like to do, how to proceed on this item. Staff
gave a presentation. I would like the Commissioners, if they have
questions of staff, please ask.
As far as a position on the overall item, let's wait 'til we hear
from the public, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does everybody agree to that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll agree to it. I have a
question of staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I do too.
Okay, everybody agrees.
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, and then
Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I need to understand,
Michelle, are you still -- there you are.
Page 35
May 13, 2014
I need to understand a little more clearly about this polling
process that was done by the Master Association. Let me try to
describe it based upon my understanding of what you said.
The master board polled residents and the polling was 30 people
favoring continuing with the MSBU, 16 people supporting the master
board's position of not proceeding with the MSBU and 65 people did
not respond. Is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: No. When I read the information, that's the way
I perceived it as well. But I've been advised by the Master
Association that a total of 81 voted in favor of plan B, their private
plan. 30 were in favor of retaining the Master Association. And then
they heard nothing from 65 -- if you add those totals together, it would
be 176, which is the total number of units in the community.
So the 65, based on the Master Association's position, they
deferred those 65 non-responding votes to the Master Association
position.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that means that the
Master Association is saying that they had 146 votes.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because they included the 65
people who did not vote at all.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct, uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Boy, maybe we should elect our
president that way.
MS. ARNOLD: But whose side?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's according to Florida Statutes, it
gives the proxy to the master board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I certainly wouldn't make a
decision based upon that, I don't care whose statutes it's in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So anyway, that's the only question
Page 36
May 13, 2014
I have of staff. And I'll save my other comments 'til after the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have a question of staff?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to speak to our
engineer, please.
You mentioned that you didn't have any expertise in this line.
Have you examined the wall at all?
MR. McKENNA: I have looked at the wall. It's not my specific
area of study. Of course I -- you know, just being in engineering for
years through osmosis you pick stuff up. But there's certainly people
that are installing the wall, there's people that do have this as their
specific area of specialty.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it true that the wall is separating
in different areas?
MR. McKENNA: Yes, there is movement of the wall. There are
always cracks in walls where water is able to come out. Typically
there's filter fabric behind it that keeps the soil behind there.
Their wall, it is in need of repair, there's no doubt about it.
There's, as was mentioned earlier here, there's many, many seawalls
around the county that are in need of repair.
Did I feel uncomfortable walking on the wall? No. You know,
it's not like a building collapse or something. If it's going to fail,
there's going to be some movement, it's not just like a splash and fall
in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there sand coming through those
separations in the wall?
MR. McKENNA: Sure, yes. There's voids behind the wall. I
don't know how big they are. But I don't -- again, I don't see a serious
life/safety issue, and that's where I was drawing the line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you feel that before anybody
should move forward they should have a professional engineering firm
who specializes in seawalls and erosion examine this so they know to
Page 37
May 13, 2014
what extent the repairs need to be addressed?
MR. McKENNA: Yes, I think that a professional firm looking at
it is appropriate. And three professional firms have looked at it, and I
don't find any of their recommendations inappropriate. They all have
a little bit different slant on what they think the repairs should be. I
can have an opinion, you know, between those. But, you know, you
ask a number of engineers and they'll all have a different way of
approaching the problem. But it doesn't make any of them
inappropriate or wrong, in my mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, you have a
question of staff?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question, Michelle.
Is there -- is there a reason -- you're talking about the
reimbursement and expense of$6,400, approximately --
MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for legal counsel. Is there a reason
why the figure didn't include the advertising of the ordinance or any
staffs time for the advisory board or creation of advisory board?
MS. ARNOLD: The figure that was included in the executive
summary was one that was provided to us by the County Attorney's
Office. We didn't include any -- there was no reason why that wasn't
done. I mean, the MSBU has been created by the Board of County
Commissioners, so we felt tthe staff time dedicated to that was
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appropriate to bill the MSTU or the
fund creating of the MSBU -- I'm sorry, not MSTU.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, it was appropriate to just utilize that staff
time that was already budgeted for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it's a free-bee, basically.
MS. ARNOLD: It's up to you all whether or not you all want to
Page 38
May 13, 2014
assess that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just wanted to know why it wasn't
included in the fiscal impact.
MS. ARNOLD: We could surely add that if that's something that
you'd like us to add.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I just wanted your opinion why
it wasn't. You already answered it is because you're there.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In the write-up, it's saying on April
10th at the regular meeting of the MSBU, the committee
recommended that the board retain the MSBU, obviously, what you
stated. And to find funding for the operation of the MSBU?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, their recommendation included to go
ahead and do an assessment of the community so that funding can be
available to provide funding for the bond validation process, as well as
the engineering evaluation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, that isn't how it's
written. It's saying -- what I take of it is find the money, for the Board
to find the money for the operation of the MSBU.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, their recommendation was to assess the
community for those funds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now I understand, okay.
Commissioner Hiller, do you have a question of staff--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- before we go to public speakers?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can the County Engineer come
forward again.
In the three engineering reports that you reviewed from the
outside consultants, did any of those engineers feel that there was a
life/safety issue with respect to the condition of the wall currently?
MR. McKENNA: I don't recall seeing that specific language in
there, no. They all recommended a repair, move forward, but I don't
Page 39
May 13, 2014
recall seeing an immediate life-threatening situation being discussed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what they were addressing in
their reports was the maintenance of a private seawall?
MR. McKENNA: Maintenance, repair, replacement, yes. You
know, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But not because of any life/safety
issue threat?
MR. McKENNA: That would be my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 23 registered public
speakers on this item.
Your first speaker is Steve Adamczyk. I think I'm saying that
correctly. And he has been ceded time by John B. Vosilca, Lelan
Beckley and John DeCaro. He will have 12 minutes. And I've
confirmed that these gentlemen are all here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners,
thank you. My name's Steve Adamczyk. I'm the attorney with
Goede, Adamczyk and DeBoest. For the record, I am registered to
speak on behalf of the Club at La Peninsula.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you speak up just a little bit
louder.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Sorry. I'm also suffering from a cold.
But I'm an attorney with Goede, Adamczyk and DeBoest, and I'm
registered to speak on behalf of the Club at La Peninsula, Inc. who is
the master homeowners association in this matter.
I'm very glad I have the opportunity to speak, first of all because
hearing the comments, I firmly believe that my prepared comments
are right on point with many of your concerns.
First of all, I don't want there to be any misconception about the
poll or the vote that was taken place. This was not a proxy vote, okay.
Page 40
May 13, 2014
This was a poll of the community. It was sent out to all 176 owners.
They were told in boldface print, if you don't respond then the
deferred result would be voting in favor of the board, however that is.
There were 111 responses out of 176. And I think I've worked in
condo law enough, you'll find that that is a very healthy response for
any issue before a condominium.
And of those 111 affirmative responses, 73 percent voted in favor
of pursuing the private plan B option and to forego the MSBU option.
And I have the results of that poll. I have five copies, one for
each of you and one for the record. And Mr. Chair, I'd ask if you want
to just take one copy and enter it the record, I'd be appreciate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you give that to the County
Attorney, please.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Sure. Thank you.
And again, of a broader policy standpoint here, it is critical to
note that only 30 people of the 176 people polled felt strongly enough
to voice a concern that they did not want the private option, they
preferred to pursue the MSBU option.
And Michelle's history was right on, in that this was brought to
the board by the owners. There's no question about it. But as a result
of the legal challenges, the time delay, the expense of going through
the bond validation process, the public sentiment has clearly shifted in
favor of a private seawall restoration plan. And that was the reason
for the poll was to determine whether or not the sentiment of the
community had shifted.
The bond validation process, if challenged, I'm sure this Board is
well aware, could take months if not years and could take tens of
thousands of dollars. And the fact that the $65,000 in trust money that
was referenced earlier would not be provided to the county, I don't
know how any -- basically your comments, Commissioner Hiller, I
don't know how any taxing of the homeowners to fund that $65,000 is
even in line with what your comments were for public or private
Page 41
May 13, 2014
purpose.
The idea of the trust funds was to provide private funds. In the
event it turned out a judge decided it was actually a private purpose,
okay?
So I have four legal reasons, which are very brief, as to why I am
to ask you to fully rescind the ordinance creating the MSBU.
The first is that the master board already has the legal ability to
do that. Section 4.1 of the Declaration provides that the master board
has the obligation to maintain, repair and replace the seawall.
Specifically it says the common elements. The seawall would be
included in those common elements.
The master association has already had a proposal received from
Turrell, Hall and Associates. And to Commissioner Henning's
comments, I want to make it clear, they have not been retained, but the
contract is on the president's desk, essentially waiting the outcome of
today's hearing. In principle they've agreed to all the terms provided
by Turrell, Hall and Associates. They are being engaged for
consulting services to permit and design the seawall stabilization.
They will meet with the DEP and other bodies to determine an
efficient permitting process and will submit the necessary permits if
appropriate on behalf of the Master Association.
The point of me saying this is that your concern about failure or
failing is that we're ready to go now; is that we're not waiting six
months, we're not waiting a year. The contract is on the president's
desk, essentially waiting to be signed, to engage the engineer to say
that is what we recommend you do, we're going to get the permits,
you're going to do it.
They've revised the estimates. The estimates are right in line
with what we thought before, maybe even a little bit lower, to
accomplish the intended goal for the seawall restoration.
So the first point is that we have a legal right to do so and we're
ready to do so. We have the mechanics in place for the engineering to
Page 42
May 13, 2014
move forward.
The second is another comment brought up earlier, which is that
the county will need an easement. In May of 2014, a few short weeks
ago, the master board met at a duly noticed meeting and voted not to
grant an easement in favor of the county for the MSBU project.
In condominium living there's always a situation where the board
may have the funds to do something, but they may not have the legal
right to do it. Painting a building is the textbook example, where the
association may have the money in reserves to repaint the
condominium, but if they want to change the color it doesn't mean that
they can go do it without membership approval, in most situations.
So here the same policy would be analogous, which is that even
if the MSBU was found to be a public purpose, even if after that long
validation proceeding of those costs we find that we can do this, then
it still may not have the legal right to come onto the property absent
Chapter 85.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question as you're
addressing that point?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's wait 'til he finishes. I think
Commissioner Hiller has a question also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fiala.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I'm happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to just take a
technical point on what you just said about the access easement, or
construction easement, if you will.
Isn't it true though that if there was a need we could always go to
court as the county and get a temporary construction easement to do,
you know, what was needed? I mean, I'm not saying that anything is
needed, but we've had other instances where we could get temporary
construction easements and, you know, we can't be blocked by your
association if there's, you know, a threat.
Page 43
May 13, 2014
MR. ADAMCZYK: Understood.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's called eminent domain.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's a temporary construction
easement to be able to go and do what's necessary.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Understood. And if the wall failed, you'd
have the right to go in there and do it regardless.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I want to have
clarified on the record, to add to the point that you just made.
MR. ADAMCZYK: In the failing process that we're talking
about, it's questionable whether we even have the legal right to go in
there and do that. So if there was a failure and the board was doing
nothing, which they are doing something, if they were doing nothing,
then yes, under Chapter 285 you would have the right to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I agree with you. But I
wanted to clarify that point, that if there was that public safety issue
that we would have the ability. And that needs to be made clear.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Yes, I agree.
The third point, which is that La Peninsula has voted not to fund
the $65,000 in trust, and they've also voted not to fund any further
advancements. So in going back to my previous comment which is
that if the MSBU is questionably able to raise questionably private
funds at the moment, then how can we raise money for that same
mechanism to pay for the bond validation process.
So unless the county is willing to pay for those costs, the Master
Association is not going to. And so the option in the middle, which is
assessing the owners through the MSBU is questionable at this point,
based on what I've heard this morning. And so I believe that's a hurdle
as well that we face and which favors a full recision of the MSBU.
And the final point which I think is probably the most telling of
where we are at this point, which is that the Master Association has
already obtained two letters of commitment for $5 million lines of
credit. We're hopeful to have a third letter in the very near future.
Page 44
May 13, 2014
So my main point that I want to get across today, is that we're not
doing nothing. We're ready to go now. So if we receive the green
light, if the MSBU is rescinded, then we have the ability tomorrow to
sign the engineering contract, get them on board, get the permitting
process going, if that's necessary, but we already have commitment
letters to obtain more than enough financing than is necessary. The
financing is going to be likely two years interest with 20-year
repayment afterwards. Which is more favorable to the residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that again, please?
MR. ADAMCZYK: The proposed terms, again these are not
finalized, but what we have -- we believe that we're going to obtain is
two years of interest during the construction phase and then a 20-year
repayment term. These could fluctuate a little bit, but I believe that
this is more favorable for the members in terms of repayment over the
long term than what is currently proposed, which is a 10-year payment
plan under the MSBU.
These lines of credit again are more than enough to cover the
estimates on the high end that we've received from Turrell, Hall and
Associates, and also what went before the county in the previous
repair analysis that they underwent previously.
Section 4.4 of the Declaration also provides that the board has the
ability to sign this promissory note. The board has the legal authority
to encumber the assessments and to grant a bank the authority to come
in and assess the owners in the event of a default.
My experience is that condominium associations are very good
clients for banks, with very low default rates. Thus there's an
eagerness to extend this line of credit in the financing industry right
now. And I believe that the amount is more than sufficient to start
immediately to fix the seawall, okay?
And finally to that point, I have been given authority to represent
to you that they are -- the master board is more than willing to repay
the 6,400 and change of outside legal fees. So that would not be a
Page 45
May 13, 2014
question, that would be a certainty that those would be refunded to the
county under the rescission option which I believe is A on your
executive summary.
From a policy standpoint I have two brief. One of which is that
there is a sense of immediacy. The (sic) may not be failed, but it is
failing. I do believe that every day counts in this instance. And if we
wait to pursue the bond validation process, if challenged, it could be
one to two years down the road. I'm very hesitant to think that in two
years we'd be wondering whether or not we should have just let the
Master Association have free reign of this project, release the
administrative burdens and cost of the county and allow us to move
forward with the line of credit and the engineering that we have in
place right now.
And secondly, I also want to convey that the master board is very
grateful. I don't want to come off as being that we are changing our
minds willy-nilly. The bottom line is that we are grateful that the
county pursued this option for us.
Circumstances changed in which this board of directors, like you
all, have a fiduciary duty to its members to pursue the best options
available to it. Business judgment rule would dictate here I believe
that the private model is the best one to go, and that's what a large
majority of the board has been voting in favor of March, April and
May of this year, to rescind the MSBU -- seek rescission of the
MSBU, to not fund the 65,000 and to not grant the easement in lieu of
the private option.
I know option B, which is abeyance, I do not believe would be
favorable to the situation. In my opinion the best option is to get
everyone around the same side of the table. Rescinding the MSBU
puts everyone on the same team. It creates a situation, an opportunity
where we're again freeing up resources to the county. Even in
abeyance there are tied up resources. With the rescission we're
completely freeing those resources, we're shrinking the size of the
Page 46
May 13, 2014
county's involvement in this project, and we're allowing the master
board who's demonstrated today I believe an eagerness and an ability
to move forward to do so.
Again, we're more than willing to repay that 64 or $6,500. The
MSBU right now has some legal hurdles and we're ready to go. So
that is the point of my statement today. I'm available for any
questions.
I would also request, Mr. Chair, if it be your will, to allow me
one or two minutes of rebuttal at the end of public comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we don't do that under this type
of thing.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Understood.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If it's a land use item, we would.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just simply, could I see the
questionnaire so that I could see what question they asked in the
polling of the residents.
MR. ADAMCZYK: If I would, the results that I provided are a
result of the tally. I have here the letter that was actually
accompanying the results.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. If I could have a
copy of that --
MR. ADAMCZYK: If I could also enter it into the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I'd like that, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a question?
Commissioner Hiller has a question for you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I want to thank you for your
comments. I think you presented very well.
I hear what you say that the wall is failing but it has not failed
and that you need to start the repair immediately and you have the
means to do so.
What I would like to suggest, and I want to hear your thoughts on
Page 47
May 13, 2014
this, I think what we ought to do is actually suspend the MSBU, given
your representation that your board has the financial means and has
the immediate intent to repair this failing wall.
What I don't want to see us as the county in the position of facing
is that for some reason everything that you believe will happen today
for whatever reason and who knows why doesn't happen and then now
we've moved from a failing wall to a failed wall or, you know, some
sort of structural issue that does present a life/safety concern.
So would you find it acceptable if we suspended the MSBU, that
we don't go forward with any activities whatsoever, and that way if
anything does happen where we do have to act and obviously at that
point, you know, there is the primary public purpose of promoting
public safety, that we have the means to move forward and get it done.
MR. ADAMCZYK: I understand your concern completely. I
know from my client's perspective the answer would be no, that we're
not in favor of any abeyance. We're fully in favor of a full rescission.
The reason, as I said earlier, is that it gets everyone on the same
side of the table. And as you've seen when you get a concerned and
dedicated group of people on the same side working towards a
common cause, it can achieve great things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask the County Attorney's
opinion.
County Attorney, what do you think? And consider the county's
position and what, you know, our potential obligation could be if this
association doesn't do as their counsel represents.
MR. KLATZKOW: The next step in our process would be to
commission a methodology and rate study so we would know how
much to assess everybody. Until we do that, there's no engineering
study or anything else.
If you simply put the ordinance on a shelf, as it were, okay, they
could then go forward, attempt to repair the wall, come back to us that
the job's done, and at that point in time you can rescind the ordinance.
Page 48
May 13, 2014
But nothing's going to happen until that methodology and rate
study. And I don't think we're going to be commissioning that unless
we get advanced funding from the master board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So as a prudent measure, in your
opinion it would be better for us to, as you say, put this ordinance on
the shelf, basically suspend any activity, suspend the advisory board,
suspend any expenditure of funds until they perform and then rescind
it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I think that's probably best. Because it
gives the La Peninsula people the ability to come back at a later date
and say listen, for whatever reason this isn't working out, we need
your immediate help. And then we don't have to go through the
process all over again on getting the ordinance done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me ask a question. Why do
we have Ordinance 85-02? You refused to rescind that, but yet you
refused funding for everybody else that has a seawall in Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, you did. I brought it to the
Board of Commissioners to put in abeyance 85-02, the enforcement
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, I don't understand. You
wanted to do -- you didn't bring it to get rid of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. You know, as I said, I brought
the item to the Board and I said why don't we do this for everybody,
provide funding for anybody that has a seawall --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and it didn't go anywhere.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, that's not the issue.
Because the issue is very different. It's not providing funding. The
issue is whether we have a duty to act because there is a life/safety
threat. And under our duty to protect the public, go in, make the
Page 49
May 13, 2014
repair and assess the private property owner for the repair they should
have made themselves, that's what 85-02 is. That is something
completely different than what you proposed. You proposed
something that doesn't even relate to 85-02 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because that's not what 85-02
says.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 85-02 is an enforcement ordinance.
You're not asking to utilize 85-02, you're asking to put the ordinance,
the MSBU, in abeyance, to shelve it, unless the HOA doesn't perform
what they were supposed to do, and then we'll bring it back and then
we'll create this MSBU to fund everybody. And that's what I asked
you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And no --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to do to everybody else --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and you refused it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, this is completely
different. We're dealing with, again, I'm going to repeat, a life/safety
issue where the primary public purpose exists to go in, make the
expenditure and then assess those property owners to be repaid so it's
not the burden of the general public. It becomes the obligation of only
those who created this life/safety issue. That's completely different
than what you're saying. What you're saying is not what 85-02 says.
Now, let me ask the County Attorney a question --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, let me ask the County
Attorney a question.
County Attorney, if we were to have to act under 85-02 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The general public would have to pay
for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me finish.
Page 50
May 13, 2014
If we were to act under 85-02 and we would have to incur an
obligation to fund the repair of the seawall, would we create an MSBU
to create the assessments or could we do it without creating the
MSBU? Would we be able to issue the debt and then go and directly
assess the property owners without creating the MSBU?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the better course of action would be
to impose an MSTU so the county would get paid back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Impose an MSBU with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in other words --
MR. KLATZKOW: A voluntary MSBU.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So we would impose an
MSBU. Essentially what we've done through that ordinance, we
would impose to get repaid for the repair that we would have to make
because we've identified a life/safety issue --
MR. KLATZKOW: That would be my recommendation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and a primary public purpose.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- at the time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again?
MR. KLATZKOW: That would be my recommendation. Not
just for La Pen, because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For anybody.
MR. KLATZKOW: For anybody.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So in other words, take any
seawall that's about to fail, or that is failing and creates a life/safety
threat. Under 85-02, the process would be to impose --
MR. KLATZKOW: When we go on any property and fix
because of life/health/safety matters, we assess that property. That's
what we do. And we require repayment, either through the property
owner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the vehicle --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- or through taxes.
Page 51
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the vehicle to do it, would that
-- in the case of an association that owns the private property, would it
be through an MSTU or an MSBU?
MR. KLATZKOW: That would be one mechanism to do it, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What other options would we
have?
MR. KLATZKOW: They might voluntarily agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're assuming that they're not
voluntarily doing it. I'm talking 85-02.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. But when we get to that points,
worse comes to worst and you're looking for repayment, you can
always impose an MSTU.
It's the same concept we have with the roads, the private roads
where you can't get an emergency truck down there or sheriffs car
down there, so we will emergency fix that road and then assess the
people along that road to get our money back. It's the same principle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this goes back to your point
that suspending this MSBU in the eventuality they fail to do what
they're committing to do today is the process we would use to apply
85-02.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's two separate issues. 85-02 --
and I'm not aware we've ever had to implement that 85-02.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not aware we've ever had to implement
that ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, right, I understand that.
MR. KLATZKOW: But if we had to implement it, it would be
because one day a piece of wall fell --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- into the Gulf.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what we're talking
about. If we had to do that, what would the mechanism be to assess
Page 52
May 13, 2014
these owners? Would we impose --
MR. KLATZKOW: We would do the emergency repairs and it
would be my recommendation that you impose an MSTU for the
county for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, and that's the point I'm
getting to again.
So putting the MSBU on a shelf to hold in the eventuality that we
have a failure of that seawall is the right thing to do. Otherwise we'd
just have to reconstitute it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you done?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, otherwise then why keep
the MSBU? Why not just get rid of it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, they're either going to repair the
wall or not. If they repair the wall within the next year or two, you're
not going to need that MSBU. It will go away.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I understand. But if they
don't, do we need an MSBU or not? That's the question.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you do not need it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, then we should get rid of
it then. Why shelve it? Why your recommendation to keep it on the
shelf.
MR. KLATZKOW: Because I have a master association that
came to this board and said please, we need this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. But they're saying now
they don't.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now they're saying we don't need you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and that's fine. I don't know if in three
months they're going to come back and say you know what, we were
wrong, we do need you. That's all. So in other words, not to restart
the process again --
Page 53
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're just saying from an
efficiency standpoint, suspend it --
MR. KLATZKOW: Just hold it on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- not because there's --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. And if they can get the work
done, God bless them, you know, they don't need our help. And we're
here to help them. We're here to help them. If they don't want our
help because they found financing elsewhere, God bless them. The
year comes from now and we rescind the ordinance. But if for
whatever reason they couldn't get financing or it falls through -- and
when they came to the finance committee they said we cannot get
outside financing, that's why we're here, all right. So maybe things
have changed, maybe they haven't, I don't know.
But my recommendation is just shelve the ordinance, give them
the chance to do the work on their own, because that's the best
solution. It's always best when you don't need the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right? Because we have to bid stuff out,
makes it a little more expensive. They've got to go through a board.
It's just easier to do it on your own. If they could do it on their own,
God bless them, they don't need us, you know, and we can a year from
now rescind the ordinance.
If for some reason they fail to get their financing or it just doesn't
work out, they could say, you know what, we just can't do it on our
own and you have an existing structure; we don't have to go through
this debate again. That's all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Jeff, I got a question for you.
Your exchange with Commissioner Hiller just now, what's the
difference between that and what I proposed, to do it for everybody?
MR. KLATZKOW: The only difference is nobody else needs it
at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was to create it in case somebody
Page 54
May 13, 2014
else needs it.
Okay, we need to take a 10-minute break for the court reporter.
And then let's get back to public speakers. Thank you, sir.
MR. ADAMCZYK: Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Troy, would you call the next
speaker, please.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need a break, Troy? I see
you've got a lot of people there.
MR. MILLER: No, I just got a lot of people here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're in high demand.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: Before the next speaker is called, just for the public
and the Board's information, the Clerk has consented to move his
10:45 item to 1 :00 p.m. this afternoon for time certain at 1 :00 p.m. So
we'll hear Item 13.A at 1 :00 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Okay, your next speaker will be Susan Crain.
She will be followed by Kathleen Bruns.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have something like 23 speakers?
MR. MILLER: We had --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If we could get Kathleen Bruns to
stand up at the other podium, please, so we can move this business.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many speakers do we have?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Twenty-three.
MS. CRAIN: My name is Susan Crain, and I've been a resident
at La Peninsula since 1995. I've watched the barrier islands disappear,
Page 55
May 13, 2014
making our island the barrier island.
Storms have caused pounding waves to crash and top our
seawall. Sometimes these storms are not evident in our vicinity but
are out in the Gulf and come with huge force and overflow and fill our
retention ponds. Rip-rap has been used to shore up problem areas
over the years.
Four years ago La Peninsula contacted professional companies to
examine our seawall and provide reports as to the action needed to
repair or replace our seawall. Noting that they needed an in-depth
study, the company submitted reports, recommending that some
seawall replacement was needed on the Marco side of the river, due to
the depth of the water.
The potential cost would be high. Looking for a way to help the
people of La Peninsula afford the cost and ensure that the project had
continuity, interested residents and the La Peninsula master board
approached the county about an MSBU. Time and money was spent
on lawyers to achieve this goal. Progress was being made and
suddenly some of our master board members decided that was not the
venue they wanted.
The same companies were contacted, and they were requested to
give reports and cost estimates for a rip-rap solution.
One company chose not to submit the report using the master
board's criteria. The other company issued a report without
reexamining the wall for a rip-rap solution that was requested by the
master board.
A motion was passed by the master board on May 1st to sign the
agreement with this engineering firm to implement a rip-rap solution
on the Marco River side of the seawall where the water is very deep.
This must not happen. We need a non-biased investigation of our
wall, with divers, and a professional decision as to what needs to be
done. The residents need to know the best options for our wall and
then make a decision.
Page 56
May 13, 2014
As I look across the Marco River at the beaches on Hideaway, I
think of the person that lives at Hideaway and also owns two units at
La Peninsula. He stood up at one of our meetings and he said that
utilizing the county's expertise to solve the beach problems was the
best decision Hideaway ever made.
That is what I want for La Peninsula, to use the county's vast
resources to solve our seawall problem in a professional way. The
advisory board, which I'm a member of, wants to work with the
county and the master board. We want to ensure a strong seawall like
we used to have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Bruns. She'll be
followed by Abbe Drossner.
MS. BRUNS: I am Kathleen Bruns and I live at 204 La
Peninsula.
I'm again asking for your support for the La Peninsula MSBU for
the same reasons I've asked for your support in the past. I believe that
the association board has no standing to ask you to rescind the La
Peninsula MSBU.
Section 10 of the Florida State Constitution states, quote:
Pledging Credit; neither the state or any county, school district,
municipality, special district or agency of any of them shall become a
joint owner with or stockholder of or give, lend or use its taxing power
to create or aid any corporation, association, partnership or person.
The MSBU was not created for the association, it was created for
the property owners that petitioned the county. And I think that
distinction is a critical one. Only the affected property owners could
vote to petition the county to create the MSBU. Neither the
association or for that matter its representative of the board could
petition you to create the MSBU, likewise they lack standing to ask
you to rescind it.
The property owners overwhelmingly voted in a qualified
Page 57
May 13, 2014
petition to ask that the MSBU be created. That was and is the only
legitimate certified vote taken concerning the matter.
The master board made and passed a motion to deny easement
for the MSBU project at their May 1st board of directors meeting.
They do not control the work easement because the BCC has
established that the seawall serves a primary public purpose. The
advisory board desires to work with all property owners to move
forward.
Michelle Arnold made an overture to the master board president,
asking him to meet with the advisory board. He refused.
Two advisory board members have offered to step down in
exchange for master board support of the MSBU process. That offer
was also likewise refused.
I personally extended a written invitation to each master board
member to participate in the MSBU meetings. Only one chose to
attend.
On May 1st the master board president sent an email to the
dissenting fellow board members. Bob, it all boils down to the
number of votes. You and Pierpaoli simply don't have them. It's
really that simple.
We are committed to implement, operate and follow the county
process. Please continue the MSBU.
I'd also like to say that as to the bank loan, the bank loan that I
have heard about but I've seen no commitment letter from and have
asked to be provided with that from the master board is actually a
10-year balloon loan that resets after five years and is amortized over
20. It is not a 20-year loan. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Abbey Drossner. She'll be
followed by Jared Grifoni.
MS. DROSSNER: Hello, Commissioners. My name's Abbey
Drossner. I live at 242 La Peninsula. Thanks for hearing me today.
La Peninsula owners and the only certified vote that was
Page 58
May 13, 2014
conducted by the county came to you to request a partnership for four
reasons: Funding and collection mechanism, project process
management expertise, a professional assessment and to ensure
continuity of the project.
The Army Corps of Engineers, presented by Tim Durham, stated,
quote, if one 14-foot panel failed in La Peninsula it could ultimately
result in a collapse of most of the wall and structural damage to the La
Peninsula buildings, end quote.
Three engineering studies agree we need a new seawall on the
Marco River side of La Peninsula. Coastal Engineering did a report in
2010, Turrell in 2011 .
In December, 2012, Hirst and Associates, a civil and structural
engineering firm, submitted their report which in part states, quote,
when maintenance and limited short-term measures are taken, the
recurring problem seems to be one of current investment money being
applied to structure that will continue to deteriorate on its original
deterioration curve. Therefore, in order to achieve the best overall
cost effectiveness, it is difficult not to recommend seawall
replacement in a large program as is possible, end quote.
The issue still is the proper repair or replacement of a seawall
that has exceeded its useful life. The seawall borders the Estuary and
navigable waters of the Big Marco River and protects our properties
and the health and safety of our community.
The master board has had years to develop a feasible, responsible
plan, based on the 2010, 2011 and 2012 engineering studies that we all
paid for. They failed to do so. No one on the master board who is
now recommending a rip-rap solution has an engineering degree.
The advisory board members want to work with the La Peninsula
master board to find the best repair/replacement solution for our
seawall, based on the county's chosen engineer's expert advice.
I ask you to continue the MSBU with financing for the county to
hire an objective nonpartisan engineer of the county's choosing
Page 59
May 13, 2014
through your RFP process to determine the condition of the seawall, to
determine the best objective, professional solution for our seawall.
The advisory board is just what its name states, advisory. The
commissioners choose the engineer, decide on the most cost effective
solution for our project.
I want to thank you, the Commissioners, for your time, your
staffs time. I want to thank Jeff Klatzkow, Tim Durham, Mark
Isackson, Michelle Arnold, Terri Sells. Everyone we've worked with
at the county has truly exceeded expectations.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jared Grifoni. He has been
ceded additional time from Jared Jones, Elsa Martinez and Keith
Flaugh for a total of 12 minutes. He will be followed by Dominic
Florio.
MR. GRIFONI: Good morning, Commissioners. Back here
again. I need to get a name plate or something for next time.
But we're still facing the same problems with this MSBU. And
over the course of the last few months a lot of if not most of the
concerns that had been expressed via petition are coming to life.
They're being validated with each passing today.
The BCC today is facing a conundrum, but unfortunately it's a
self-created one. There are three options that are presented in the
executive summary: Rescind, hold in abeyance or keep the MSBU,
retain it and move forward.
The clear choice here today is simply to rescind the MSBU per
the explicit request of the La Peninsula master board. The residents
did not ask for you to put it in abeyance, they asked for it to be
rescinded.
Now, despite that, I imagine that there may be some
Commissioners who are intent on keeping government's fingers in this
pie until the last possible minute. But we need to look at the logical
conclusions if the BCC decides to take either of the two non-rescission
options. We need to look at these based on the record and the
Page 60
May 13, 2014
comments made by the board over the last few months.
Now, the first option here of course is to retain the MSBU,
holding the preverbal gun to the head of the residents of La Peninsula.
With that course of action, and given the legal concerns over the
MSBU itself, it would require the county to either fund this money up
front, any others necessary costs in the meantime before a bond
validation hearing came down.
Now, the County Attorney at a recent advisory board meeting, I
think this was in March, stated that this is unchartered territory, and
that no one knows how the course will determine the legality of the
public purpose, and that it's never been done before, this is an outlier.
Now, regardless of the decision at the hearing, La Peninsula has
expressed a desire to move forward with private financing anyway.
So that's going to result in a doubling of cost, a doubling of the work,
and it's going to result in a doubling of any type of financing issues as
well. It's just simply going to create more problems than it's going to
solve.
At that bond validation hearing, eventually we're going to have to
get there if this continues, the county's going to be arguing for the
MSBU over the will of the master board and over the will of the
residents. Now, this MSBU is already on flimsy grounds. Add the
opposition of the residents on top of that and it's only going to get
worse.
Now, this is also the option that the advisory board would like to
see followed through. And I wonder why.
So how do the residents feel about the advisory board? There
was an email that you received from, I believe, the La Peninsula
master board president and in it he said, quote: the final blow,
speaking of the MSBU, the request to rescind, was the appointment of
the advisory board. From 16 to 17 applicants, five were selected who
were a small but determined group who want an entire new steel
seawall installed using a specific engineering firm. This selection
Page 61
May 13, 2014
happened in Commissioner Fiala's office through the influence of two
of the persons now on the committee. These persons presently have
their own units listed for sale, yet they remain on the advisory board,
one as committee chair. There went any hope for a truly
representative and objective committee.
Now, that's in an email you all received.
Now, Commissioner Coyle, in I believe this was in the January
meeting, he stated that he, for one, simply can't reconcile the refusal to
let residents tax themselves to do what they want to do. He can't think
of anything more democratic than that process.
So now we need to reconcile the fact that the residents do not
want to do this, and most likely never would have gone this route had
they had the facts in front of them at that time that they know today.
Now, based on the board's prior decision, the BCC's prior
decision, and reasoning justifying this action, because the residents
wanted it, how could you possibly vote to force them to override their
will to continue a process they no longer wish to be a part of when you
have a democratic vote conducted by the residents asking for the
opposite.
Now, secondly, there's the option to hold the MSBU in abeyance.
That option I assume is preferred by some members of the BCC for a
variety of reasons. First being not having to rescind the MSBU they
fought so hard to protect; and it also gives the appearance of listening
to voters and letting them pursue a private funding mechanism. It's a
grand political solution, something we'd expect from big government
bureaucrats in Washington D.C. or Tallahassee, not hot, not warm but
-- excuse me, not hot, not cold, but lukewarm. Yet people say fix.
The board cannot hold the MSBU in abeyance based upon its
prior words and actions. If this seawall is a public health concern, in
danger of collapse creating a necessary paramount public purpose, and
that was the reasoning used to justify this in the first place, then
simply how would you be able to delay action for a year? Doesn't that
Page 62
May 13, 2014
fly in the face of everything that's been argued for months? Wouldn't
that be irresponsible and dangerous?
Now, for the sake of argument, if you do hold this MSBU in
abeyance for a year while Pen seeks private financing, that for
whatever reason happens to fall through, you'll be back at square one a
year later, still have to go through the issue of escrowing funds that
they don't want to pay, still have to go through the issue of getting an
easement that they are unwilling to give. Now for a seawall
apparently in such danger of colossal failure, it would appear to be the
height of irresponsibility to delay any action for a year, added to the
time necessary for the bond validation, permitting, construction and so
on and so forth.
Now, on the other hand the record shows that there is no failure
of the La Peninsula seawall. It's notated at the bottom of the memo
from Tim Durham on February 3rd that there appears to be no
immediate public safety concern at this time.
We know from code enforcement reports as well that there was
no violation in May or August of 2013 either. Now, that was after the
fact -- that memo was an after-the-fact memo attempting to justify the
public purpose in the first place.
Now, so if you're comfortable with keeping the MSBU by
delaying it a year because a seawall failure and public health concern
isn't imminent, doesn't that indicate that there's no existing public
purpose at the time of the creation of the MSBU in the first place?
Especially in light of the memo and the code reports.
Now, if the county fails to act on this ordinance, you can pursue
action under the ordinance that, Commissioner Hiller, you mentioned
before in the 85-02, I believe.
Now, you also have the option to impose the MSTU if you
wanted to do so. So there's no need to hold this in abeyance. Voting
to hold in abeyance would seemingly need to be justified by
contradictory positions of the board. If you can delay the MSBU then
Page 63
May 13, 2014
there doesn't appear to be the property and necessary need for the
creation of the MSBU to begin with. Yet if you vote to hold the
MSBU in abeyance because you want to make sure La Peninsula
follows through because of the danger, then you shouldn't be delaying
the process at all. It's a significant risk that -- it would appear to be a
significant risk and it would certainly appear to be a liability concern
on top of that.
Impose the MSBU. You can create a new proc-- otherwise
you're going to create an entirely new process here.
Now, this is a politically safe option. Apparently, you know, the
BCC has made this option impossible to accept, however. You're not
in the business of being politically safe, you're in the business of
taking a responsible action in the best interest of the citizens of Collier
County, in line with our state constitution and our Florida statutes.
Now, I don't believe that that includes keeping the MSBU --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you take a breath.
MR. GRIFONI: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Slow it down a little bit.
MR. GRIFONI: All right.
I don't believe that includes keeping an MSBU inactive and on
the books just in case something or someone or some board doesn't do
what they're supposed to do.
If that were the case, MSBUs should be created for the entire
county, held in abeyance in perpetuity, ready to be activated at a
moment's notice if a resident's property needs updating or if there's
some type of public health concern at the time.
That's not how government works, however. Now, holding an
MSBU in abeyance is basically making MSBUs an enforcement
mechanism. They're not enforcement mechanisms, they're funding
mechanisms. The enforcement mechanism is code enforcement. It's
the seawall ordinance that you referenced. Allowing that -- and under
that ordinance, you're allowed to impose fines of up to $250 a day up
Page 64
May 13, 2014
to the seriousness of misdemeanor charges.
So that's the hammer, not the MSBU.
Now, you should also note that the La Peninsula board voted to
retain the engineering firm, as has been mentioned. The master board,
and an overwhelming number of unit owners in that condo have
realized that the private market offers them the best solution here. The
best funding mechanism going forward, rather than through the
government. They have letters of commitment from I believe two or
almost three banks now.
It would be irresponsible of this board to hold them hostage over
the MSBU, which is a bad public policy to begin with. And I recall
Commissioner Coyle stating back during the petition when we
petitioned against this MSBU that your job is to help them solve the
problem, and the government here is to help. Well, government today
can help by getting out of their way.
The master board voted 5-1 to request that the MSBU be
rescinded. They voted to rescind the $65,000 escrow to the county
and to advance no more funds and to inform you that they no longer
wish to pursue the MSBU, 81 votes in favor, 30 opposed and 65
deferring to the decision of the board. Those are facts.
Now, Commissioner Nance mentioned prior that he thinks
government should be very happy when citizens come forward and
say I will pay for something. And that he didn't want to gin up a
reason to deny them that opportunity. That was in a prior meeting.
And he said it perfectly here today.
Now, rather than that applying to maintaining the MSBU, we
need to be consistent and apply that to getting the right of an MSBU.
The philosophy needs to be consistent.
So instead of penalizing La Peninsula by going against the will of
the residents, locking them into an MSBU that they don't want and
holding this MSBU over their heads in abeyance like a blade in a
guillotine, the only proper and responsible decision by the board today
Page 65
May 13, 2014
would simply be to rescind the MSBU, to follow the direction of the
master board as you stated you'd do from the beginning, and return the
task to the proper private sector, the non-governmental realm. And I
ask that you do so today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, Commissioner Hiller has a
question for you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I listened very carefully to what
Jared said. And, you know, he makes some very strong, what seems
to me, valid points.
I'm now questioning why we are holding this MSBU on the shelf,
if you will, because we do have code enforcement as the mechanism
to go in and lien these properties for the cost of having to repair this
wall if this wall falls into a state of disrepair to the extent that it
becomes a life/safety issue.
And that is in effect what we do in any other situation where
there is a situation like that, don't we?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, now you're arguing Commissioner
Henning's original argument that we never needed it to begin with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But here's the difference.
My understanding before was that there was a public safety issue and
that's why we were proceeding on this and there was an imminent
need to get it done and they couldn't get the financing and we had to
step in and get it done through the MSBU financing mechanism.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this -- they came to us -- he did a
mechanism to finance the work. That's why they came to us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But because there was a failing
wall that was going to threaten the public safety.
MR. KLATZKOW: They needed an estimate for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, that would be like me
saying I want to redo my backyard, you know, because I'd like better
landscaping, you know, and so do all my neighbors, let's create an
MSBU to improve our backyards. I mean --
Page 66
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's trying to answer your question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But I want to stay
focused on what Jared said, not our prior decision.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding of what the board did,
okay, it's just my understanding, is that they came to us on public
petition. They needed a financing mechanism because they were
estimating wall repairs at four, $5 million and they couldn't do it. So
we set up this MSBU to give them that financing mechanism. That's
what -- this was not an imminent failing wall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My understanding --
MR. KLATZKOW: That was my understanding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that was my understanding.
My understanding is that they needed the financing to repair a failing
wall, that if this wall was not repaired, it would cause a public safety
issue. I mean, otherwise where is the public purpose?
MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why I said from day one we're
going to have to go to a bond validation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so again it goes to the point
that Jared is making, that we can't have conflicting -- we can't have an
argument that says there is no life/safety issue and maintain this
MSBU.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, we -- half our MSTUs don't have a
life/safety issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we have to have a
primary public purpose. There is no other primary public purpose --
MR. KLATZKOW: But the primary public purpose here was to
replace a seawall. That was the primary public --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's a private seawall. I mean,
there has to be -- I mean, it's for private benefit. I mean, that would be
like repairing my garden, or improving landscaping in my garden. I
Page 67
May 13, 2014
mean, what is the primary public purpose of the seawall?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have an MSTU that buries the
electric lines along Vanderbilt. And, you know, it's for beautification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it was for storms.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let's stay on topic.
MR. GRIFONI: That's in the statute too, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me? I mean, what
amI --
MR. GRIFONI: No, no, you're 100 percent right. I mean, there's
no reason to have this MSBU without the primary public purpose. I
mean, yes, they can because if they wanted financing they wanted to
avoid going to the bank for whatever reason. But still the public
purpose had to occur for the MSBU to be valid. And the only public
purpose for repairing a private seawall was that the seawall was
potentially going to fall into the ocean and Isles of Capri was going to
turn into some blighted area, which was one of the other arguments
that was made before.
Clearly that's not going to happen. So what we need to do and
what you need to do is to vote to rescind this MSBU. There's no other
way to do it. Either that or you have to force them to maintain the
MSBU. This abeyance thing simply doesn't work. It doesn't add up
when you look at the statutes, it doesn't add up when you look at the
ordinance that we were talking about, and it certainly doesn't add up
when you talk about being able to impose a MSTU if there is a
legitimate failure and a legitimate public safety concern, which doesn't
exist right now, and we've heard it from however many number of
people we've heard that from today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, can we move on to the next
speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, except one thing. Because this
speaker said that in my office --
MR. GRIFONI: I was quoting an email from the La Peninsula
Page 68
May 13, 2014
master board that was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read that too --
MR. GRIFONI: -- sent to the entire board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and I thought now where in the
heck did they come up with that? That never happened. And I don't
even know why they think it could have happened or who was there to
make that happen or who was there to listen while it was happening to
prove it. It never happened. That's a -- I'm not going to say it's a lie,
I'm just going to say it's a misstatement.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Dominic Florio.
He's been ceded additional time from Les Behne, James Gault and
Michael Pierpaoli for a total of 12 minutes.
He will be followed by Theodore Bernard.
MR. FLORIO: Hi. My name is Dominic Florio. I reside at 143
La Peninsula Boulevard. I purchased the condo about a year ago.
I'm going to step aside from my prepared comments just to
address some other issues.
Number one, the MSBU was passed by the BCC. So I know,
Commissioner, that you're questioning why it was created, but I mean,
each of you -- you did pass the MSBU, so there must have been a
valid and legal reason for you to create it.
And the -- you know, when -- I'm a former retired Citigroup
banker and I subsequently started a consulting company. And at the
bank I managed the government banking business, and we bid on
state, city and federal contracts. Our responses to the RFP were 500
pages long. And I did it for Fortune 500 companies with my own firm.
And you have -- you know, you tend to evaluate what people do
or entities do. And if you look at the history of this master board,
although now they seem to have some great impetus and expertise in
doing this, for 44 years they had a replacement value for the wall at $2
million. Never changed in 44 years. They reserved $352,000 as of the
end of 2013. And now they actually were a participant in obtaining the
Page 69
May 13, 2014
MSBU, and all of a sudden they've seen the light, they want to
terminate the MSBU, and they have the expertise and the plans to
move ahead with resolving the seawall.
Now, Commissioner Hiller, you talked about, is there a reason,
an imminent reason why we should address this issue. And is it in
failure or not. They have the studies. I'm going to quote from them
and give you copies of the studies before I leave.
So now I'm going to start with my prepared comments. The La
Peninsula seawall is 14 years past its useful life of 30 years and by all
accounts the wall is in failure in some locations. Now, there are
people who said something different than this; we'll talk about this.
The U.S. Corps of Engineers stated per Tim Durham's February
11th, BCC meeting, and I quote, so if a panel in a seawall fails, what
likely happens there, it starts taking away the earth that supports that
seawall, unquote.
And given that some buildings are 20 feet from the -- I'm sorry,
quote again, and given that some buildings are 20 feet from the
seawall, the first thing you would see is an undermining of the
foundation, causing structural damage to the units.
That's the Army Corps of Engineers.
Three engineering firms, Coastal Engineering, Turrell, Hall and
Associates, and James E. Hirst and Associates have evaluated the La
Peninsula seawall several years ago.
Coastal Engineering, in their report of August 6th, 2010 with
regard to the section of wall in the Marco River, Coastal states, quote,
the spalling and cracking of the cap beam, as well as the sulfate attack
and cracking in the panels allows moisture and salt to penetrate the
concrete into the reinforcing steel. As the steel corrodes and expands,
the concrete will continue to crack and spall. This wall has reached
the point where the deterioration rate will continue to accelerate
exponentially. Four years ago this was written.
They conclude with, quote, we recommend leaving the existing
Page 70
May 13, 2014
wall in place if feasible and installing the new wall immediately
landward.
Now, I'm going to step away from my comments again and read
from the Coastal report. The concrete seawall protecting the property
from station 523 to 25 plus 40, which is a designation which is just
before Twin Dolphins all the way around to the end by the 100
building where I live, is in fair to poor condition and is reaching the
end of its useful life.
Sections of the wall where the panel toes have kicked out water
wood indicating (sic) inadequate penetration depth of the panels.
Which means the bottom of the panels are pulling out.
Further scouring of the channel would decrease the wall's
stability. Sections of the wall rotating water wood at the top indicate
failure of the tieback system.
No ambiguity in that statement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: None.
MR. FLORIO: Failure.
They continue: The most serious condition observed during this
inspection was located near the east property line, which is near where
I live, between building 100 and 200. 150-foot sectioned wall centered
at station 2300 has settled vertically as a result of the severe scour
condition of the adjacent river bottom. Only about three feet of the
seawall panel believes to be penetrating the channel bottom at this
location.
When those panels were put in, they were six feet wide, 14 feet
deep and the water was three to four feet deep. So that's how far it
was down and how much scouring has gone on.
While about seven feet of rip-rap was placed along the face of the
wall, it does not provide the same protection as the equivalent depths
of sand. This condition is depicted in the drawings in attachment A.
If the scour of the channel bottom continues, the risk of the seawall
failing is high.
Page 71
May 13, 2014
Again, four years ago.
Again, I'll go back to my comments. Turrell, in their report of
December 22nd, 2011 with regard to the section of wall in the Marco
River, Turrell states, quote, install steel sheet pile panels, or a new
seawall, with a new cap landward of the existing concrete seawall,
unquote.
And they continue with the following note: Quote, the depth of
the water in the Big Marco River is too deep to allow the seawall to be
entombed with rip-rap and to allow docks. The existing concrete
seawall panels are not long enough for the depths of the river,
therefore a new seawall must be constructed behind the existing one.
This is in December of 2011 .
James E. Hirst, in a report on December 12th, 2012, they were
engaged to do a summary and critique of the past two reports, the
Coastal and the Turrell reports.
Coastal: Quote, I find Coastal's report to be reasonably
comprehensive and consistent, unquote.
Turrell: Quote, the general approach is based in part upon
continuation of similar previously applied temporary fixtures
including overuse of rip-rap, various cap modifications and repairs.
Some of these suggested measures are carefully qualified. For
example, certain areas of seawall are deemed to be adequate if future
bottom scouring does not occur. Unfortunately the long-term history
of this site does not suggest this is possible, Unquote.
The report concludes, Turrell's report seems to be more focused
on budget estimation, unquote.
The master board was aware of this sea problem since the first
study in 2010 and the majority have consistently voted for no action,
despite of two master board presidents, Mike Pierpaoli and Kathy
Bruns.
At first the master board -- some of this you know already -- the
master board was supportive of the property owners. The MSBU was
Page 72
May 13, 2014
granted in late 2013 at a cost of$30,000 in legal fees. The master
board continued to support the MSBU until February of 2014 and
decided to withdraw its support in April, 2014.
On May 1st the master board signed an agreement with Turrell,
in a change requested by the master board, to use rip-rap with
cantilevered steel sheet piles. Note that have this is a significant
change from their previous recommendation of December 22nd, 2011
when they stated, quote, the depth of the water in Big Marco River is
too deep to allow the seawall to be entombed with rip-rap, unquote.
Turrell states it will take 12 to 18 months to obtain the necessary
permits and they might not be granted. This could result in no activity
on the seawall for two years.
I listened in on that presentation. That's what Josh from Turrell
said.
So I know there's this all of a sudden they've become very
prompt, crisp about how they're going to do this and they're going to
step up and do it properly. We have an attorney that sits on the board.
His focus as an attorney is companies in the construction business for
companies who don't perform. He's reviewed the agreement that they
were signing and said it's essentially a time and materials contract.
And they've quoted some numbers, 2.9 million to do the rip-rap
solution. But if you do a time and materials and you don't structure it,
from someone who did these in great detail, you are going to wind up
spending a lot of money and not get a good job.
James E. Hirst and Associates, Marine Structural Engineer,
states: Quote, the cost of this detail, the cantilevered steel sheet piles
-- and I don't know if you're familiar with cantilevered steel sheet
piles, because they want to put rip-rap along the wall because the wall
-- it's so deep now they'd have to go out a long distance to maintain
the proper slope. So they can't go out more than 10 feet. From what I
heard anecdotally, they'd have to go out to somewhere around 40 or
45 feet. But if they used cantilevered steel piles with pylons driven in
Page 73
May 13, 2014
and then they can get to the prior height properly. And that's what
they were recommending.
Hirst states: The cost of this detail, cantilevered steel sheet piles,
would be substantial and future erosion could simply undermine the
steel sheet piles along with the rest of the slope, unquote.
The condition of the seawall in its potential to fail either with or
without a major storm is significant and requires immediate remedial
action.
Commissioner, I know you're asking about is this going to fail.
It's lasted four years. Could it last two more years? It could. It could
not. But the condition of the wall is indicative of something that's
going to fail quickly. And if you get a significant storm, it will fail.
And, you know, I just anecdotally talked about, you know, the
Shuttle Challenger, when the engineer said if you don't do something
with the 0-rings you could have a major disaster. And they ignored it.
And the result was you had a cold day and you had a disaster.
So the issue, is we'll never know definitively if this wall is going
to fail. But what you will know is that it has all the pretty conditions
for a wall that's going to fail given the proper circumstances. The bet
is that you, Commissioners, want to take that risk going forward and
then say we're not going to do anything, we're going to trust the master
board here who historically has underperformed, or not performed,
and you're going to take the legal liability to allow this to continue and
then have to pay whatever the prices are for that.
If the MSBU is canceled and the master board wants their rip-rap
solution, it will be in all probability two years before they start work
and it will be at best a temporary repair.
The MSBU and possibly an MSTU are the only possible choices
of La Peninsula seawall to be properly repaired or replaced in a
reasonable amount of time.
I am recommending that the BCC allow the MSBU to continue to
be funded in October, '14 as requested until a decision is rendered on
Page 74
May 13, 2014
the bond validation hearing. In the event there is a negative bond
validation ruling or a court challenge to a positive one, then the BCC
should consider creating an MSTU for La Peninsula, take control of
the project, implement the solution and bill the residents for the cost of
replacement. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Theodore Bernard. He'll be
followed by Dr. Joseph Doyle.
MR. BERNARD: I would like to cede by time to Jay Benedetto,
please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, what was your name, the last
speaker?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What was the name of the last
speaker?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Troy?
MR. MILLER: The last speaker, the previous speaker, was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dominic Florio.
MR. MILLER: -- Dominic Florio.
Okay, so let's go with Dr. Joseph Doyle, who has three additional
minutes of time ceded to him from Sandra Doyle.
DR. DOYLE: Yes, good morning, Commissioners. I'm Dr.
Joseph Doyle, Laurel Oaks and Pelican Bay. And I'm here on behalf
of other Collier County residents.
Our concern is about this funding of La Peninsula, and we
believe that the MSBU for La Peninsula should be rescinded.
Pelican Bay is one of the premiere planned unit developments.
It's one of the first ones actually in the state, maybe even in the
country.
And we have several layers of financing, private financing for
what we do. First of all, we have 7,600 units in Pelican Bay
representing 91 homeowner and condominium associations, as well as
the commercial properties, as you know, the Ritz-Carlton, Waldorf
Historia and the Waterside Shoppes and the Marketplace.
Page 75
May 13, 2014
The condo associations, similar to La Peninsula, have annual
assessments and we have to maintain the common elements. Now, we
don't all have seawalls, but we do have lakes, we have painting
reserves, et cetera. And we pay for that. And we collect that in
advance.
And obviously they haven't collected enough for their reserves
over the last 40, but that's not our problem as citizens of Collier
County.
Pelican Bay also has a foundation. The foundation maintains two
beach front sites and the community center. We paid for the
community center upfront 10 years ago, put a whole new one in for
five or $10 million. We're currently redoing the north beach facilities
right now and redoing for pier and all that for $5 million. We're
paying for that upfront. That comes out of our annual assessment, as
well as transfer fees when properties change hands.
My point is that those are both private financed; we take the
responsibility to reserve that money so that we don't have to become a
burden to the county.
Unwittingly, I'll say this as a physician, it looks like the county
has gotten in the middle of a dysfunctional argument between some of
the residents and the Master Association. Now, obviously from what
I've heard today the Master Association has decided to stand up and
take more leadership for what should have been happening over the
last 40 years. But I don't think that an MSBU is necessary for
something that the Master Association should be doing.
That is a private seawall, as far as I know. And it has -- and if it
does fail, then the county can get involved and implement the code,
whether it was 85-02, and take the necessary appropriate actions as
you would do to any of us with private property.
Then I'll get into the Pelican Bay MSTBU, which is a little
different than MSBU. But that was created for beautification and
safety, and it was originally ad valorem, it's now actually a non-ad
Page 76
May 13, 2014
valorem assessment. The only part that is ad valorem is the street
lighting.
That is also run very efficiently. We actually have an operating
budget of $2.5 million, and we have another $2.5 million, a whole
other year, in reserve. At actually at one point the county wanted to
borrow money from us. We have never asked for bond financing.
In fact, I sat for the street lighting. We're way ahead on reserves
on that. And I actually said that we shouldn't even have reserves for
that. When you go to replace the streetlights the people who are going
to benefit from the new streetlights are the future property owners,
let's get a bond for that, but no one wanted to do it.
So I see that this MSBU is really something that isn't fair to the
other MSBUs, for one thing, and that they need to take more
responsibility for their own actions and the government should not get
involved. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jay Benedetti, and he's been
ceded three additional minutes by Theodore Bernard.
MR. BENEDETTI: I won't need them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many more speakers after that?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that I
coordinated with Mr. Adamczyk before the meeting, I have four
additional speakers who wanted to cede their time to him. I don't know
how I didn't coordinate that with him properly, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To who?
MR. BENEDETTI: I'm only going to take a couple minutes.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Adamczyk, the original speaker.
Yes, sir, please.
MR. BENEDETTI: Ladies and gentlemen of the Collier County
Board of Commissioners, I thank you for this opportunity to speak
before you. My name is Jay Benedetti. I'm a member of the La
Peninsula Master Board of Directors.
Page 77
May 13, 2014
The reason I am here today is to respectfully request that you
rescind the La Peninsula MSBU ordinance, instead of holding this in
abeyance to see if the master board is able to come up with the repair,
replacement, plan and financing for our seawall.
The master board of La Peninsula has a responsibility for
repairing the seawall and wants to proceed with doing so immediately.
We are not ready to proceed -- we are ready to proceed now.
Our purpose is a private one, but we don't have to wait months, if
not years, if ever for a favorable bond validation. As soon as the
MSBU ordinance is rescinded we will sign a contract with Turrell,
Hall and Associates, a Naples marine and environmental consulting
firm, to proceed with the designing and repair and the preparation for
permitting of the project.
We have commitments from two banks and possibly a third by
now, for up to $5 million in financing. The master board does not
want to incur the excessive expense associated with a dual track with
the MSBU. The La Peninsula property owners do not want a dual
track. And there are only a handful of single-minded people who are
pushing for this MSBU. I know that you are aware of(sic) the support
for the MSBU has been declining. In fact, in a recent pole that's been
referred to today, 73 percent of the La Peninsula property owners
polled stated that they did not want to continue with the MSBU, but
rather wanted to see the master board remain the final
decision-making entity in fulfillment of its fiduciary responsibilities
regarding the La Peninsula seawall.
There has never been a basis for the La Peninsula ordinance as
we have come to understand it today. On behalf of the La Peninsula
property owners and the board of directors, I implore you to rescind it.
I wish to heartily thank you for your consideration of our request.
MR. MILLER: As I said, I know Mr. Adamczyk was coughing
and had to leave the room. I did coordinate with him before the
meeting but I -- apparently there were additional speakers who wanted
Page 78
May 13, 2014
to cede time to him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, sir, are you all done?
MR. BENEDETTI: Yeah, I'm done. I thought I was limited, so
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So is your attorney.
MR. BENEDETTI: His clock's not ticking either.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to go first, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes -- no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Fiala.
Yes, I just have a question. And Leo, I don't know if you or if
Michelle could answer this. I've never asked this question before. I'm
just curious, what interest rate do we charge on an MSBU? Do you
have -- is there a regular one, or no?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Zero.
MR. OCHS: Go ahead, Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD: There is no interest charged on the MSTUs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because we're a not for profit.
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, in five years they
can't reevaluate it and like balloon it out or even reevaluate and charge
a different rate, right?
MS. ARNOLD: No, you all assessed a particular millage for
MSTUs, and that's determined through a budget process. And, you
know, with an MSBU there is the assessment process that's done to
determine how each unit ors property owner will be assessed for that
particular process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And before we were talking
about maybe shelving this, I still think it's a good idea, until we hear
from a certified engineering firm who deals -- we've heard three
Page 79
May 13, 2014
different reports from three different engineering firms, all stating
pretty much the same thing, that the seawall is going to be -- will need
repair and possibly replacement in certain areas. And until we get a
certified result on that, how do you know how much it's going to cost
and how do you know which way you want to go? I would just
reserve -- if you've already got a bird in the hand, don't just let it go.
At least know that you've got it there. You can go off and you can
seek your own information, but I think you can't really make any
decisions until you've heard from a certified engineering firm who
actually dives down, measures and can give recommendations.
Turrell had a great overview of the seawall, and they're an
engineering firm, and they gave some very interesting information.
The Army Corps has said that in areas it's in very poor shape and
needs to be replaced. And actually they called it a dangerous situation
that needs to be replaced now in certain areas, especially along the
Marco River. And the Marco River apparently is very, very deep in
certain areas there. You can't just put rip-rap in, especially when it's
down 20 feet, unless you've got approval from the Army Corps, and
it's doubtful they would approve it because they'd have to go out so far
with the rip-rap in order to hold it in place.
But, you know, until you hear from a certified engineering firm
and possibly from the Army Corps as well, you don't really know.
I know there's a group of homeowners who feel that they might
maybe even know more than the engineering firm, but I would have
comfort in knowing that people that are educated to make this
information -- or to take this information and then dispense with that
information to the people, you can't move any further without that.
Let's see. Turrell said it will take 12 to 18 months to get the
Army Corps approval to use the rip-rap. And they've said it's -- well, I
won't tell you that one.
Let's see, certified vote. Yeah, you know what we saw? The
group said that -- I read the thing that they sent out to everybody. And
Page 80
May 13, 2014
I think -- I've been getting a lot of letters. I don't know about
everybody else, but I've been getting a lot of letters, and a lot of them
have said they either didn't vote or they didn't want to vote that way.
What about taking a certified vote from all of the residents, but a
simple question, just stating it very clearly, do you want an MSBU or
do you not want an MSBU. Have the county send it out and have it
come back to the county and be counted through the Supervisor of
Elections Office, do they want it rescinded or not. But this would be a
certified vote, so we know how everybody is actually feeling, rather
than anybody feeling intimidated to have to vote a certain way. So --
and then counting votes that are phantom votes because there was no
answer. Anyway, those are my comments at this moment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I believe Commissioner Nance was
next. I turned off his light. Is that true, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, I don't know, I've kind of lost
track of this argument over the extended period of time. I will say a
couple things about this, and hopefully we can come to some sort of a
resolution of it.
Number one, I know the seawall's going to fall in the ocean
sooner or later. It's a question of when. It's not a question if, it's a
question of when. And they all do.
And I'm aware that there's severe circumstances here. In the
course of this MSTU discussion earlier, a lot of us looked at some of
the engineering statements that have been made that all describe it in
various terms, so I know that's going to happen. I know the residents
there are going to have to decide how to fix it. And they're going to
have to support their board to go with rip-rap or go to a full
replacement using sheet pile or whatever. And those people are going
to be responsible.
You know, I don't know what should be done. It's your job and
your responsibility. It's your property to do it unless and until it falls
into the ocean, which could be during a Cat 5 hurricane. How many
Page 81
May 13, 2014
of you would stay in your homes in a Cat 5 hurricane out there in La
Peninsula today? I don't think many of you will raise your hands. I
wouldn't.
How many of you would hope that it would be there when you
got back? That's going to be a question that you're going to have to
resolve. Hurricanes on the waterfront are not easy things to
determine. They're severe conditions, they're very dangerous, you're
going to have to come to grips with that.
Now, you know, earlier we had the La Peninsula Condominium
Association come in and request the board take this action. Now the
board's coming in to request that it take the action. So which one is
right? I have not a clue. I have not a clue that two months from now
you're not going to come back to the Board and say that you want an
MSTU. I have absolutely no idea. It's been proven through what's
going on, that it's undecided.
So I really don't see any reason for the board to take away the
MSTU until somebody decides definitively what they want and
nobody has convinced me definitely that you have, because I don't
think you've taken any action to prove to me that you've decided.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what I wanted to do, I
wanted to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't think that just putting it in
abeyance is going to stop the board from taking any action. Is it? If
the board takes the MSBU and puts it's in abeyance, is it going to
prevent the condominium association from repairing the seawall? I
say let them go ahead and do it. Because I just don't want to come
back three months from now and go okay, we're going to advertise an
ordinance again for another MSTU that we disbanded because you
changed your mind again.
So, you know, I'm just trying to take the easy way out. I hope
and I wish you success in repairing your seawall. But you need to
Page 82
May 13, 2014
figure out together what you want, because it's very clear that there's
some disagreement and people are going to either have to vote to
support the current board or throw them out of office and get
somebody else or do another study or something.
But that's not within the purview of this Board of County
Commissioners. It's not our job to go into your community and tell
you what sort of engineering to accept or deny. So, you know, it is on
you to make your determination of what you want to do. It's always
been my position that if the Board of County Commission could assist
you with something you otherwise couldn't accomplish, that I was fine
with it. But I wanted to make sure that it was legal to Commissioner
Henning's concern about it, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before you speak, Commissioner
Hiller, can I just make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very, very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, wait a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a second. Before -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, wait before -- I'd like to make
some comments before you make the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then you can -- the Chair can
recognize you. Because I don't want to make a motion -- I don't want
a motion on the table before we have this discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In my mind, having heard
everything that came before us today, the issue to me is whether or not
we shouldn't be acting under 85-02 right now.
Page 83
May 13, 2014
It started with the county engineer saying that under the
definition of 85-02 we didn't have a failed wall, to the attorney that
represents the association saying we have a failing seawall and we
have to repair immediately, that we can't even wait for a bond
validation hearing, that that would, you know, create a problem. To
Mr. Florio who read directly from the opinion of three separate
engineers who used the word failure, if not in whole at least in part.
And not imminent failure but basically failed in part.
And we have an ordinance here that provides that it's unlawful
and a public nuisance for any property opener to permit or to fail to
repair or reconstruct any failed seawall upon his property.
My concern right now, I really don't care about this MSTU.
What I care about is what is really going on with this seawall. Is this a
failed seawall. I thought I had an opinion from the county engineer
that was clear, and I made in my mind a decision predicated on that.
Then I had their attorney say that it is failing and that it's in need of
immediate repair. And then I had a property owner who read from
three independent opinions, that told me that portions of that seawall
are in failure, that they have failed.
So I don't see how we as a board can sit here and just, you know,
debate this issue of whether or not we should have an MSTU when we
are presented with evidence that goes right to 85-02 and suggests to
me that code enforcement didn't do their job when they said nothing
was wrong.
I have a real concern here that goes to public safety, and I really
want to put the whole question of financing aside and address what is
the truth. Because I don't really know right now, based on what was
presented to me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I heard something different than what
you're hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what I heard. And
that's why I am like -- I can't even address the financing.
Page 84
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What did you hear, County Manager?
Is it going to fall in the ocean and the world's going to come to the end
or what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the opinion of the three
engineers in part was that there were portions of the seawall in failure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Read the whole report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can only deal with what's
presented before me. That's why I'm asking the question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got snippets of a report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And the law is very clear
about that too, that snippets really don't make it. But at the same time
I'm being given opinions that say portions of that seawall are in
failure.
I mean, I just want to make sure that whatever our duty is, is that
we live up to it. And if we have to send code out there to inspect that
wall and make a determination if a portion is or is not in failure, we
need to do that. Because if we are -- if there is a failed seawall and it
does pose a public safety issue, then we have to act pursuant to our
law.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me tell you how code
enforcement works. They go out there based upon a complaint,
because it's complaint driven. They inspect and they determine
whether it's valid or not. The case is closed, Commissioner Hiller. It's
closed.
Now, if there was a problem, they would not have closed the
case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does code enforcement dive down
to see what shape the wall is in? Do they see where --
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- sand is coming through it? Do
they see where the separations are or do they look at the top of the
wall?
Page 85
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They base it upon, and you were here
when our engineer stated he reviewed the three engineering reports,
and he stated in his opinion, he's actually put it in writing and I'd love
to use it in court, that the wall is not in imminent danger of failing. It
does need to be repaired.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Immediately, according to their
attorney.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, well, this is our engineer. And
he said in the report that the repairs may not even need a permit.
Okay? So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'd like to make a motion then, as
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I said before, and I'd like to say,
I'd like to make a motion to hold the MSBU in abeyance until the La
Peninsula community validates a plan for repairing the seawall. This
option requires no immediate action by the board, but to obtain
assurances from the Master Association that they will provide
evidence of a plan and applicable financing for the repairs to the
seawall and execute the same. After one year if such a plan and
financing has not been obtained, the Master Association and the board
could continue funding the MSBU to cover the assessment and bond
validation and ultimately repairs of the seawall.
And this, in my opinion, should -- and I'm putting this in the
motion, should start immediately with an engineering -- a certified
engineering firm doing a study of the entire wall and the affects it is
having right now on standing up much longer -- no, no, and the
condition it's in and when it needs to be repaired and replaced.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I ask you to elaborate on your
motion? The part about the engineer. Who's to hire the engineer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, if we have an MSBU still in
place but it's sitting on the shelf, I would think that we could just use
Page 86
May 13, 2014
one of the engineering firms that have given us a report. And I believe
that anybody could choose, or do we go out to bid, Michelle, on
something like that?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, the question is who's going
to pay for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If you're going to put the MSBU on the shelf, then
you certainly aren't going to activate it to raise funds to pay for this
study.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got to have a study in order
to move forward.
MR. OCHS: Well, the property owners have three studies,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they all say the same thing,
don't they? So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you think they say?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I thought exactly what I'd
heard, and I thought it was very succinct, that it's failing in some of
the areas, it's nearing failing in others; there are problem areas that
could just be fixed with repairs. But I think it has all levels of
deterioration in that wall, and each one needs to be addressed
differently. And not only that, but there's different scouring effects in
the water, depending on what areas it's in. Not only -- and on top of
that, different rates of deterioration as to where they're located, as well
as the permitting.
You know, when you have Marco River and it's 20 feet deep,
versus something that's, I don't know, six feet deep, you're going to
have a whole different type of repair needed. And it depends on how
much damage has already been done to the wall as well. I don't think
you can move forward without an engineering study. And who pays
for that? That's a good question. I would think that this should be paid
Page 87
May 13, 2014
for out of either the $65,000 that we have already sitting there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We don't have 65. That was sent
back to them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that was sent back to them?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then I would think that the
community -- I don't think either side can do anything without a
certified engineering report.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, based on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No matter which side --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the conflicting opinions that
we've heard today, I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- how do they know what to do
without a -- unless one of them is telling the other one, well, we ought
to do it this way.
MR. OCHS: Here's your options, if I may. If you're going to
allow the owner of the seawall and the condominium master
association to affect the repair and finance, and pay for the repair, then
that's what you do, and you get out of the way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: If you don't believe they can do it or you don't
believe their engineering study, then you move forward with your
MSBU that you've already created and you assess them for the cost of
doing the validation of the bond and the cost of any engineering
studies that are required to develop the specifications to your
satisfaction.
The middle ground is that you give them time to affect the repair,
as the master association, as represented to you they are intending to
do. The benefit in my mind of keeping the MSBU in abeyance is not
for the imminent failure, it's for the potential of financing if in fact the
private financing that's being pursued by the master association
somehow collapses or doesn't materialize.
Page 88
May 13, 2014
As the County Attorney said correctly, the MSBU is a financing
mechanism. It's not an enforcement mechanism. So if you want to
keep that in abeyance so that you don't have to recreate an ordinance,
as Commissioner Nance said, in the event that they can't ultimately
obtain their financing, I don't see any harm in that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what is the primary --
MR. OCHS: But you can't mix the options.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the primary public
purpose? You have to have a valid primary public purpose.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's a good question. Can
you -- if a seawall -- good question. If a seawall is eroding and that
sand then is carried to the middle of the channel, which then would silt
up and have to be either dredged or prevent boating from taking place
in that area because of the erosion, would that be a primary public
purpose?
MR. OCHS: I believe your County Attorney wants to give you
some advice.
MR. KLATZKOW: If that seawall failed tomorrow and fell into
the Gulf, the county would take emergency action, repair it and then
assess them. It's no different than financing the repairs now as far as
the public purpose goes. I mean, really it's as simple as that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Jeff, I think you need to clarify
under our ordinance the steps for the county to take (sic). It doesn't
say we're going to create an MSBU or MSTU.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, but you'd want to be repaid. I mean,
what the ordinance says, is it gives you the ability to go in there and
get the work done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And then you put a lien on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the property.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then if they don't repay, you
Page 89
May 13, 2014
foreclose on the lien.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's another way to do it, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what it says. So it's not saying
basically doing the same thing. It's saying it's an enforcement. Just
like the County Manager said, this is something different, this is a
funding ordinance that we created to benefit the property owners
within that MSBU. That's what the ordinance says and that is the
public purpose that was stated, because there is no other public
purpose that was stated, that there was a finding from the board.
There wasn't. The only --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you pull that ordinance up?
What was the public purpose that was established in that ordinance?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you clarify your -- you still want
to get an engineering report in your motion, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would think that that would
be necessary to move forward with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the county's going to pay for
that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir, let me -- I don't think the
county should be paying for anything. I think --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me make sure I get the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- this is something that -- I can
leave the engineering report out and then they can just follow through.
But I think that that's essential in order to come up with a conclusion
of what needs to be done in the first place. We can all be surprised at
how much or how little needs to be done, but you don't know that.
Some of them have objected because they think the whole wall is not
needed. And it probably isn't. And I think both sides realize that.
And yet in other areas it's definitely needed. In some rip-rap can be
used. But you have to know from an educated engineering firm that
specializes in this type of procedure. So how do you --
Page 90
May 13, 2014
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you're going to leave this in
private hands then ifs in private hands. You can't direct what engineer
they're going to use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't want to direct which -- it
doesn't make any difference to me which one they use. You know,
that's -- whichever one they want to choose is fine.
MR. OCHS: They're getting ready to employ one, to give them
the study that they need, as they said, to move forward with the repair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I have my turn to speak?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But first of all, Commissioner, we
need to clarify the motion. If you could help, Commissioner Fiala
clarify her motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will help doing that by seconding
her motion, with the clarification that all costs associated with the
engineering estimates and the cost and a proposed financing method
will be borne by the homeowners.
Now, I've got to go now -- I'd like to make some other comments.
Because I don't think the problem stops there. The problem is that you
can't do it unless you get together, okay. And there are a lot of people
over here on this side who don't believe what the people on this side
are telling them.
There's a feeling that there is no financing mechanism that has
really been locked down, that there is no, really firm, engineering
estimate to gauge the exposure of the homeowners. And as long as
that kind of disagreement exists, I don't think you're going anywhere.
Because I will not vote for proceeding on anything with the kind of
vote that the Master Association -- master board took.
I have never encountered that kind of vote and I would never
vote based upon that kind of count. So I think it has to go beyond just
getting an engineering report. Because you can spend money on an
engineering report and then you can go to get financing and then you
can find out that people are saying wait a minute, that's not what you
Page 91
May 13, 2014
told us in the beginning, and you're going to have another debate like
this with people here trying to stop that process from happening. And
then we're going to have to get into it ultimately and force you to do it.
So it would behoove all of you, if you got together on this
process to make sure that there is agreement and that there is no
substantial suspicion that people are getting incorrect information.
And we went through this with fire district consolidation just
recently where that was a big issue, and I don't like getting involved in
them. But in any event, that's where I am. I will support the motion to
continue or hold the MSBU in abeyance, and the Master Association
will pay all the costs for the engineering estimates and provide proof
of financing. And then we can see how that works.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So even though the Master
Association says we're not going to front the money, you're suggesting
what, staff write them a letter and say we want the money for the bond
validation and engineering?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm suggesting we approve the
motion, and that is significant notification to everybody involved here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does staff understand the motion?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I understand it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is your understanding? I mean,
to me, it's retain the MSBU and get the money through the -- retain the
MSBU and get the money from the MSBU to do the engineering and
the bond validation cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, that's not what the motion said.
MR. OCHS: He said hold the MSBU --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I specifically said --
MR. OCHS: -- in abeyance but --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the Master Association --
MR. OCHS: -- part of the Master Association to pay for those
costs, even though as you said, Commissioner, there's been an
indication from the leadership of the Master Association that they are
Page 92
May 13, 2014
not going to be forthcoming with that funding.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah, it's in our agenda what
the Master Association has stated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think they said that. They
asked for the money to be refunded, that they gave to the county, for
pre-funding some of these activities upfront. The fact that they asked
for the check back doesn't mean that they're not planning to spend that
money on an engineering estimate. They've obviously been spending
some money on something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a little question. Say for
instance this summer happens to be a bad summer with wind events,
I'll just say wind events, and it does some damage that can cause
further harm to the area, and nothing is moving forward. Would we
be responsible because they didn't do anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: My understanding of the motion is essentially
that we're moving forward with the option two, which would be
holding it in abeyance, and that the funds that are expended by the
Master Association are based on their decisions to move forward with
whatever engineering study or whatever permitting process that needs
to be done. There needs to be no dollars brought to the board. Master
Association's going to be responsible for that process, and the MSBU
would just kind of stay still or, you know, be held until we get
evidence from, the Board of County Commissioners that is -- gets
evidence from the Master Association that they are proceeding with
that step, those processes.
I think that you all need to have that assurance that something is
being done. They've obtained financing, they've obtained whatever
permits are necessary and they've obtained whatever planning they --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that pretty much summarize the
motion?
Page 93
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That pretty much summarizes it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, is that
true? Would you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but I have a question then. Is
this master board a sunshine board?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't a sunshine board. So they
don't even have to duly notify all of the residents, they can just call a
meeting.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. By sunshine, they're not a
sunshine like you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, right.
MR. KLATZKOW: But they've got their own --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But should they be including
everybody in the community in their decision making?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, they have open meetings amongst
themselves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They have to have noticed
meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except they don't.
MR. KLATZKOW: They have open meetings amongst
themselves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They have to have --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except they don't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- noticed meetings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If they forgot to tell anybody that
they're going to have a meeting or something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they have to notice meetings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's condo law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know, but there are things
that have happened that weren't that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you're the commissioner of the
Page 94
May 13, 2014
district. Say what you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, although -- okay, now, tell me
if that motion -- I'm sorry that it's so nebulous, but can you -- does
everybody kind of understand that motion? It's not very clear, but yet
I think we're trying to say to you we want you to move forward and at
least get an engineering study and hold this money there, this
opportunity --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're confusing the motion
again.
MR. OCHS: What we're saying is -- what I'm hearing is to
maintain the MSBU ordinance as you have right now in place. Don't
act on it, allow the master homeowners association to move forward at
their expense with the engineering and the execution of the repairs as
they've represented to you here today. Monitor that progress. And at
such time as there's evidence that they're moving forward with that
repair, we would come back to the board and ask you to make a
decision about whether you want to continue to hold the MSBU in
abeyance or you want to rescind the MSBU at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. That sounds right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Is that the second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- I mean, you repeated
everything that Michelle said.
So let's have discussion on the motion, if we can. We're going to
be back here at 1 :00 to continue it. And I know that you all want to
eat. You may want a little bit of time to do so.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, Jeff, I want to make sure I
understand what you said regarding the valid primary public purpose
of this MSTU -- or MSBU. And that is that paying to repair the
Page 95
May 13, 2014
seawall that is failing or has failed qualifies.
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe that is under Florida law a valid
public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And so what we are doing
with this engineering report that we will be soliciting --
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not.
MR. OCHS: We're not soliciting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, we're not soliciting? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're going to get it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I think really we're at recommendation
number two here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're going to get an
engineering report and they're going to provide it to us?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is we're standing down
and letting them --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Fix the seawall.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- fix the situation. And if they can't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then we'll step in.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- then we'll step in.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Then we'll do something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, this appears to be deja
vu again, in my opinion. But I love the juicy information that was put
on the record for the bond validation. It's going to be a real classic, if
it ever goes to the courts.
I cannot support the motion. This is just like Jackson Lab, when
the people said -- or Jackson Labs said no, we're going to move to a
different county, a different state, but yet the Board of Commissioners
kept on it, wanting to fund it at $120 million. We're still wanting to
fund this. It's a private HOA; it's their responsibility. And we should
stay out of the way in case it fails, unless it fails, and then we step in
Page 96
May 13, 2014
just like we would everybody else, we would step in and do an
enforcement action.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not wanting to fund it, we're
wanting to help them arrange for funding and we're giving them an
opportunity of a way to collect it. We're not putting out any money.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the taxing authority -- or the
assessment authority is the Board of Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, but we're not putting out any
money. You know, that makes people think something completely
different. I've gotten letters from people thinking, well, I don't want to
pay for their seawall. You're not paying for their seawall. Well, I'm a
taxpayer. Yeah, but they're paying for their own seawall. They're not
asking for charity. Nobody's asking for charity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, the HOA association wants to do
it themselves; they don't want the government to get in the way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then they don't want to do
anything either.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's their association. If you look in
their backup material, they want us to rescind it because they're going
to take care of it themselves. If you don't believe them, that's your
business.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't think I need to make
anymore comments about this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's a motion and second on
the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I heard something about adjourning
for lunch.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, let's take this vote and then we
can adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
Page 97
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the
floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Against the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
The motion carries 3-2, with Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
We are on recess until 1 :00. We'll be back for the time certain.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Welcome back to the Board of
commissioners. Our time certain of 1 :00 is the constitutional officers.
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN
EXPEDITED AMENDMENT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(LDC), SECTION 2.03.07.G.6.B, ADJUSTING THE DATE FOR
PROGRAM PARTICIPATION REGARDING IMMOKALEE
NONCONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARKS TO JANUARY 9,
2020. THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED FOR RECONSIDERATION
AT THE APRIL 22, 2014 BCC MEETING, ITEM #10A — MOTION
TO CONTINUE TO MAY 27, 2014 BCC MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Before we proceed, I believe
Commissioner Hiller had a housekeeping item she wanted to bring to
the Chair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. What I'd like to do, if you
don't mind, is if we could continue the SIP agenda item?
Page 98
May 13, 2014
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's 11 .E. To the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion.
Discussion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't get which item we're
talking about.
MR. OCHS: 11 .E.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Going to continue it to another
meeting?
MR. OCHS: To the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, that's wonderful.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #13A
PRESENTATION BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
REQUESTED RECORDS AND PENDING COURSE OF ACTION —
MOTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO WORK
WITH MEL ENGEL FROM BORAN CRAIG BARBER ENGEL
CONSTRUCTION (BCBE) IN OBTAINING COPIES OF ALL
Page 99
May 13, 2014
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION BCBE MAY HAVE IN THEIR
POSSESSION THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN
THE DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE BY
FRIDAY, MAY 16, 2014, IN REGARDS TO REHABILITATION
WORK THAT WAS DONE BY BCBE FOR THE NON-PROFIT
GROUP H.O.M.E.; DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
AND THE CLERK TO WORK TOGETHER TO REVIEW SAID
DOCUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ALL EXPENDITURES,
PROGRAM INCOME AND ANY AND ALL OTHER
DOCUMENTATION THE COUNTY IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE
ACCORDING TO TERMS IN THE CONTRACT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now it takes us to the
1 :00 p.m. time certain item. 13.A. It's a presentation by the Clerk's
Office regarding requested records and pending course of action.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BLOUNT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Steve Blount and I've been asked by the Clerk's Office to come talk to
you about the Clerk's request for you to join him in an effort to obtain
records necessary for the accounting of the past expenditure of public
funds, and in order to hopefully minimize or eliminate a potential loss
to the taxpayers of Collier County.
The subject matter of it is Community Development Block Grant
money, or what's known as CDBG money, that's provided to the
county by HUD. And the county has to spend that money in keeping
with the HUD requirements. And of course, you know, legality of
expenditures, but also additional requirements from HUD.
And then HUD expects the county to be able to demonstrate that
the money was spent in compliance with the program.
In this particular instance the county delegated its responsibility
to do that. The county receives the money pursuant to a recipient
agreement, and then the county passes the money on through a
Page 100
May 13, 2014
sub-recipient agreement to an entity known as HOME. HOME then
went about spending the money on affordable housing and now it's up
to the county to demonstrate to HUD that they, through HOME, spent
the money appropriately and in keeping with HUD's guidelines.
And that's consistent with the Clerk's mission, which is to ensure
the legality of public expenditures and the expenditure of public
money.
So the issues that we're faced with now are -- can we demonstrate
to HUD that the money that was expended through HOME was spent
in compliance with their program; and secondly, can we account for
any and all program income because that program income needs to be
returned into the program if any of it exists.
And we have been informed by HUD that the documentation that
we have thus far does not demonstrate compliance. And we have an
email that we've put up on the board here for the Commissioners to be
aware of where HUD has made it very clear that if we cannot
demonstrate compliance they intend to ask for the return of some
nearly $500,000, about $427,000.
And so the Clerk now has a fiduciary duty to go seek out records
to prove compliance; or if we can't prove compliance, deal with the
potential return of these monies to HUD, which of course will come
out of the taxpayers coffers.
So our objective here is to demonstrate compliance. And I know
that various people have differing opinions of HOME and what their
motives were and so on, but those things don't matter. The issue is
purely, can we demonstrate compliance or can we not.
There is no doubt in the Clerk's mind at this point in time that we
cannot demonstrate compliance. If HUD comes back and says we
want the money back, there's no defense.
So the Clerk has gone about a course of action to try to get those
records. We feel that we have done everything that we possibly can
reasonably do to get those records. And by the way, those records are
Page 101
May 13, 2014
public documents. They are subject to public records law, and there's
no doubt about the Clerk's entitlement to them. But despite numerous,
numerous requests, HOME has refused to comply.
And many of you may be familiar with the press release that they
had. They had a -- they called a meeting and HOME put on a big
show and they put out a bunch of documents out on the table and said,
why is the Clerk chasing us for all this money, or for these records,
we've done nothing wrong, we've got all these records and we have
audited ourselves and we're fine.
And the Clerk's staff attended that meeting. And the Clerk's staff
kind of got to look at some of the documents that were there real quick
and said hey, wait a minute, these are the documents we've been
asking for that you haven't given us. And they were unequivocally
told at that meeting that the Clerk was not entitled to those records,
HOME was not going to give them those records and that they were
prepared to litigate the issue.
Well, the Clerk's Office is going to accept that invitation.
What we're here for today is to ask the county to assist us in that.
As I've said, the Clerk's Office has an entitlement to those records
under public records law. But you as the Commission on behalf of the
county have a contractual right. And that contractual right says that
upon request of the county, HOME will produce all of their records.
And that makes sense, because the county needs to have those records
so that if HUD comes back, as they did back in February, asking for
us to prove compliance, we have the documents necessary.
So what we're here for today is to ask you to join the Clerk in our
efforts to obtain these documents through your contract right, along
with the Clerk's public record right. And that's why we're here today.
And we hope that you'll agree to their request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think Commissioner Coyle was
first.
Page 102
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I really don't know much
about the accuracy of the HOME documents. I know a lot about the
accuracy of what the Clerk does. And I have a lot more concerns
about the Clerk than I do of HOME. I have seen him come in here
and provide us with false information. I have listened to it for years.
He is constantly trying to make things worse than they really are. And
I have more concerns about him than I have about anything that
HOME has done. So you will find that I will not be a supporter for
this request for records.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do support the effort to
obtain these documents. We are obligated to provide the evidence in
order to ensure that the taxpayers don't find themselves shorted
$427,000 or however much you had, you know, on the screen earlier.
So what exactly do we as a Board have to do to enforce our rights
under this contract to make this happen?
MR. BLOUNT: Well, I'll leave it up to the County Attorney to
give you legal advice as to exactly what can be done.
My thought process is that in order to maximize efficiency and
minimize wasted effort that you direct the County Attorney's Office to
work with the attorneys for the Clerk to coordinate efforts through
litigation if necessary to obtain the records.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I'll make a motion to that
effect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor. Is there a second
to the motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second to the motion to
direct the County Attorney to work with the Clerk of Courts to go into
the courts to seek the record to clear HOME and potentially --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To get the documents.
Page 103
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, to get the documents.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Any and all documents that were
generated pursuant to this agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, do you have anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's a very limited request. And with
that limited request, I don't have an issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think you said that the Clerk's
-- or the HOME people said they wouldn't provide them? Is that what
you -- you said they refused to provide these documents?
MR. BLOUNT: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they have a representative here
that would state that on the record?
MS. WAID: I actually do represent the HOME board of
directors.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to come up here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, wait, before you speak, you
have to get on the mic. And then you have to fill out a speaker form
which is on the table, and you can give it to this gentleman right here.
To further answer Commissioner Fiala's question, I mean, if it's
worth anything, I read in the Naples Daily News that the Attorney,
Jeff Fridkin, on behalf of John Barlow says if you want the record
you're going to have to pay for it. Now, consider the source, but that's
all the limited information I have on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't realize they had a
representative in the audience. Thank you.
MS. WAID: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to speak?
MS. WAID: Limited. Because I didn't realize I was going to be
allowed to speak, but I'd be happy to speak on at least some of the
allegations here.
Page 104
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, please.
MS. WAID: My name is Nicole Waid. W-A-I-D. And I work
for Roetzel and Andress. And I'm the attorney on behalf of the board
of directors for HOME.
And I was originally asked to represent them because there have
been allegations, criminal allegations made against my clients by the
Clerk of the Court back in January, 2014 before this Board where they
were alleged to have stolen money and where the Clerk misinformed
this Board that the homes had actually never been renovated, that
work had never been done, and that money was in fact stolen, which is
completely untrue and is not supported by the records of the Clerk of
Court himself.
I think it's extremely important for everyone here to understand
that it is the Clerk's own office who had to approve all of the
reimbursements. The Clerk himself, in his office, set up what needed
to be done for these funds to be reimbursed.
And if you look at the documents, which I will be happy to
provide to this Board, pertaining to what HOME has, what really
makes me -- what's interesting is that the documents they're requesting
actually don't belong to HOME, they belong to BCBE. So it's
apparently fundamental that the Clerk's Office doesn't even understand
what documents they're asking for.
And HOME has gone time and time again asking for clarification
of what was going on. The Clerk's Office time and time again went
through all the documentation necessary, approved all
reimbursements. So for the Clerk, now to come back and say this, is
really kind of confusing, because either the Clerk's Office is
completely inefficient or they were doing something that was wrong.
They approved all of these.
In the documents themselves you will see appraisals which say
that all these homes were renovated. Not just renovated but, ladies
and gentlemen, renovated to the point where these families who
Page 105
May 13, 2014
couldn't afford affordable housing now have these beautiful homes to
live in, 12 families. And it really marvels me that we're going to sit
here and question what these people did on a charity when 12 people
in fact live in these homes.
There's not $400,000 missing. If you go through the record,
you'll find that the Clerk actually recanted those statements after and
has changed his position.
I also want to make sure that you're showing this email from
HUD about, you know, I've seen these attachments and, you know,
this isn't sufficient, I would ask the Clerk's Office to speak back.
Did the Clerk's Office provide other documentation after this email of
the 14th? Because I have emails to say they in fact did. And I do not
believe to my knowledge they have received anything back from
HUD. HUD has told me that they're reviewing the thousands of pages
of documents, all which showed that this money has been reimbursed
and that they will get back to us.
We, as the HOME board of directors, have gone to HUD-OIG,
we've asked for them to review this, because HOME is completely
being scandalized in the public, their reputation, their economic loss is
absurd. And so we have gone to them completely and continuously
asked for a review of this program ourselves.
So for them to come here today and request documents from
HOME, which again are BCBE documents, not HOME documents, I
just think the Board should look at the entire record. Because what's
happening here appears, from a criminal perspective, to be frankly
political influence. And I think it's important for you all to be
informed of what in fact you're voting on before you do so.
And so if, you know, there needs to be another forum where we
can actually figure this out, that's fine. But at this point in time my
client's been alleged to have done something criminal and they're sick
of being harassed. And we have in fact sat and we've given evidence
we've been requested from the federal government, HUD, or any other
Page 106
May 13, 2014
government agency that wants to review this to do so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we thank you for being here
today. Commissioner Hiller has a question.
MR. BLOUNT: Can I briefly respond?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me -- I'd like to talk to Nicole
for a moment.
Nicole, your client is, you said, the board, which includes I
believe Mr. Engel, correct?
MS. WAID: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Mr. Engel was the contractor
that apparently that board hired to do the work on these homes?
MS. WAID: When Mr. Engel was hired to do those homes, he
was not on the board, in fact.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, wasn't he on the board, got
selected and then resigned from the board?
MS. WAID: He resigned from the board pursuant -- before he in
fact got selected. He resigned from the board when he went in to
actually do the bid process. And all of that was run through --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he resigned from the board
before he bid. And then he bid and then he was selected?
MS. WAID: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wasn't he also -- and I'm just
looking for information just so I understand. Wasn't he also a member
of the board of the bank that ended up making the loans on these
homes?
MS. WAID: I don't have that information in front of me so I'm
not going to actually comment --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bank of Florida Southwest?
MS. WAID: I don't know. I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I'm just --
MS. WAID: I need to review the documents. Oh, I said I don't
know. I don't have that information in front of me so I would need to
Page 107
May 13, 2014
review that. And again, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so Mr. Engel did the work as
a contractor, and when he produced invoices, those invoices had
backup, right? I mean, when HOME paid for the improvements made
on the homes he produced invoices?
MS. WAID: He produced whatever invoices or information was
requested from the county.
And when you go back through the documents, all of the
documents requested from either BCBE or HOME were submitted,
period. They were submitted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything that the Clerk
requested was submitted?
MS. WAID: Correct. In order to get those reimbursements,
absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that included evidence of the
improvements made and paid for by Mr. Engel's company?
MS. WAID: There are appraisals in there that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't care about the appraisals.
We have to --
MS. WAID: But appraisals, ma'am, I'm sorry, with all due
respect, are actually evidence of improvements, are they not, when the
appraisers themselves --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When you're dealing with
reimbursables, you have to deal with the actual expenditure, not
someone else's opinion of what the value of those expenditures are.
Because the reimbursement is for the actual expenditure made --
MS. WAID: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- not for someone else's opinion
that that expenditure is worth X or Y.
MS. WAID: And there were also -- everything was approved by
the county. There are certificates of completion for all of the work
that was conducted --
Page 108
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to focus on the narrow
question. There --
MS. WAID: I think I'm answering you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I just want the narrow
question answered, please. There were improvements made to the
properties by Mr. Engels's firm --
MS. WAID: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- correct?
And then those expenditures were documented in invoices?
MS. WAID: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And those invoices, those detailed
invoices that showed the improvements that were made were
submitted to the Clerk's Office at their request?
MS. WAID: At their request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That shows the value of the
improvements made and what those improvements were?
MS. WAID: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. WAID: And those reimbursements were then given back
after all of the documentation was submitted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would love to see those
documents.
MS. WAID: Sure. They're in the Clerk's record. They're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We'll I'd like to see what you
believe represents what you're saying.
MS. WAID: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I think those are some of
the documents that appear to be missing, in the Clerk's opinion --
MS. WAID: I think in the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- based on his presentation.
MS. WAID: Here's the difference of what I think the problem is.
The Clerk's Office requested certain documentation. The Clerk's
Page 109
May 13, 2014
Office was given all of that documentation. That was all approved by
HUD. The funds were reimbursed.
Years later, years later, after the program was shut down, after
the Clerk's Office conducted an audit which said that in fact any
program income would be off-set by the amount of private funds that
Mr. Barlow had actually given to the program, it was done, it was
over. HUD had no issue with this.
They reopen it. They claim they're going to CliftonLarsen to do
what they said to you, to you, all of you, was an audit, when in fact
they didn't have an authority to do an audit and it clearly wasn't an
audit. It was a consulting of which public records shows they in fact
had people giving opinions.
They then came back and said we want this additional
documentation. After all the reimbursements had gone through.
So what they're doing is they're changing the rules three years
after the grant was actually approved.
So HOME's point was, listen, you had all the documentation.
Those reimbursements were made by the Clerk's Office. The Clerk
set the rules. The Clerk now can't come back years later, reopen it and
change the rules.
People don't want to do business with Collier County, and that is
something you all need to deal with. Because somebody's always
coming back and changing the playing field to nonprofit
organizations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nicole, thank you for your
comments, but let me just say that what the Clerk does is separate and
apart from our rights and what we're requesting. And what we have is
a contract that provides that any and all documents related to this grant
is something that we have a right to. So what we are asking, is for any
and all documents related to this grant to support the reimbursements
that were made, the expenditures that are being claimed were made
using these federal funds.
Page 110
May 13, 2014
MS. WAID: And I can tell you that again those were originally
approved by the Clerk's Office, they're all there and they're in the file.
However, if there are more records that need to be, I would be happy
to sit down with you all. But clearly because of the misrepresentations
made about audits, clearly because the numbers that were --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me help you with a little
bit on that front. You know, the issue as to whether there was or
wasn't an audit, just so you understand, there are many different types
of audits, including but not limited to agreed upon procedures to, you
know, certain objectives, so I don't want to debate that with you. But I
just want to help you with that. And again, it's not our jurisdiction,
that's up to the Clerk.
MS. WAID: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I want to focus on --
MS. WAID: Just to be clear, too, I actually do this for a living,
so the audit is actually a defined term.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MS. WAID: And we felt it was a misrepresentation to the Board
and to the community, frankly, when you're saying you audited
somebody and that's clearly not the case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want you to know that we
basically have a motion on the table to have the County Attorney work
with the Clerk of Courts to collect any and all documents that we have
a legal right to pursuant to our agreement. And I'm sure that the
County Attorney and the Clerk will work out whatever it is that we
need to be assured that we're not going to lose the funds on behalf of
the public.
MS. WAID: I want to be clear that the contract, HOME has met
every single obligation of that contract. Again, these are BCBE
documents, which I do not represent. And I'm not saying whether
they will or will not give them over. They have made them available
to everybody in the public, everyone was invited. But that contract's
Page 111
May 13, 2014
been fulfilled, just to be clear.
MR. KLATZKOW: Who is BCBE?
MS. WAID: They're the people who did all the renovations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Boran, Craig, Barber and Engel.
MS. WAID: So we have fulfilled every obligation. And I
believe BCBE has more than fulfilled every obligation. But again, I
do not represent them.
Again, we will work with -- you know, we will sit down and we
will have open discussions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MS. WAID: However, when the Clerk's Office, frankly has
damaged the reputation both financially, economically, I mean, these
are people who have been trying to do a good thing, and demanded
more and more records --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nicole, that's between you and the
Clerk. You're talking to the Board. We --
MS. WAID: I know. You're demanding it on behalf of the
Clerk, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're not. We're working as
the Board and we're assigning our attorney to work in partnership with
them to get the documents. But we need those documents. Because
ultimately what's going to happen, when the money gets pulled out,
it's going to be pulled out of the coffers of the county. And we are the
fiduciaries of those coffers as the Board of County Commissioners.
So we have absolutely every right and we will make sure that we
have all the necessary documents to ensure that HUD doesn't go
forward with what I read as a threat to pull $427,000 out of the
county's accounts.
MS. WAID: And again, you're showing this email. Thousands
more documents were provided to HUD. And I've been in constant
contact with HUD asking them to do so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney?
Page 112
May 13, 2014
MR. KLATZKOW: This isn't the issue. My understanding from
the Board is I have a very narrow issue here, and that's for -- that's to
obtain all the public records relating to this matter.
MR. BLOUNT: That's exactly right. And let me be clear that --
I mean, surprise, surprise --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no -- sir.
MR. BLOUNT: -- plaintiff and defendant don't agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me finish.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's what the board requested, get
all public records relating to this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no, not -- we are not subject
to public records. We are government.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, these are public records that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But we are
government. So there isn't -- as it relates to these documents, these
documents are the government's records.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those are not public records as --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it relates to the public.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may, you're asking me to get -- work
with the Clerk and get all of the public records that they hold. Is that
my understanding?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All the documents related to this
underlying agreement.
MR. BLOUNT: I think the contract defines what we're asking
for: All reports, plans, surveys, information, documents, maps and
other data procedures developed, prepared and assembled or
completed by sub-recipient for the purpose of this agreement shall be
made available to the county by the sub-recipient at any time upon
Page 113
May 13, 2014
request by the county or HHS. We want everything.
MR. KLATZKOW: Is there a reason you can't just -- is there a
reason I can't get ahold of these documents in my office, we'll make
the photocopies at our expense?
MS. WAID: Well, I -- originally he said if you want to pay for
them ,then you can have them, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there (sic) lies the problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to Commissioner Nance,
then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not sure if we're getting
anywhere.
MS. WAID: But again, these are BCBE documents, not HOME
documents. And I do not represent BCBE.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's going to sign up as a speaker and
you're going to sign up too, Nicole, right?
MS. WAID: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll sign up as a speaker?
MR. MILLER: Yeah, standard procedure in something like this,
I get their name and write the slip down for them, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, thanks for the correction.
MR. MILLER: No, I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I won't make that mistake again.
MR. ENGEL: Hi. My name is Mel Engel, I'm the president of
Boran, Craig, Barber, Engel.
We will provide the documents, even though we have not been
requested to supply the documents. And I will supply them at no cost
to the Board, but not to the Clerk's Office.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great.
MR. ENGEL: I will provide those.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 114
May 13, 2014
MR. ENGEL: And again, understand the frustrating part for me,
is that I've lost work over this incident and I've kept quiet about it.
The problem is that like any business deal, you don't write a
check to someone unless you feel comfortable that you're writing that
check for a good reason. They wrote the check to me. They didn't do
their job. But I'm going to step-up, I'll give you all my documents.
There's over 328 pages of documents that we put together that shows
every penny that we spent that went towards those homes.
But I will turn it over only to the Commissioners, I will not turn it
over to them. And I will have you sign a release that you're taking
those documents. And I will have those in your possession by Friday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Engel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it's warranted, based upon Mr.
Engel's testimony, to modify the motion, which hopefully I can
support, to continue this item and direct the County Attorney to work
with Mr. Engel to get all those records. That's what I would support.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and I think it's appropriate
to continue this, pending the County Attorney's review of the
documents that we receive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that your amended motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There needs to be a deadline to the
production of these documents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He said he's going to do it by Friday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By Friday.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize.
So as long as we receive it by Friday. And if we don't receive it
by Friday, then my original motion stands.
MS. WAID: And can I just ask, what is the process by which the
audit process is going to be reviewed by the Commission? Because
obviously there are issues when you have people changing the rules
three years later and coming back, reopening grants and spending
Page 115
May 13, 2014
taxpayer money, frankly.
Is there going to be some formal review of that process?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not part --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In my opinion -- hang on. My
opinion is we want to close this. We want to end it. Just like you do.
We want to move on from all that.
So if we can get the records and work with the Clerk's Office to
validate those records, I'd like to move on, okay?
Now, Commissioner Nance?
Are you done, Commissioner Hiller? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I was just going to say that
we're not going to get any discussion of the -- you know, how the
Clerk works his business. That's not our --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you amending your motion,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. And basically --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're okay with the second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- my amendment is that, you
know, we are not going to have the County Attorney work with the
Clerk's attorney with respect to getting these documents because Mr.
Engel has come forward and he said he'll produce them by Friday.
And if he produces them by Friday, we'll review it. And if we
determine that there's no need for anymore, we won't go further. But
if there's need for more, then we will instruct the County Attorney to
work with Mr. Blount to get whatever additional documents are
needed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're okay with that,
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
I'd like to ask a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because it may not just be this
particular set of documents.
Page 116
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have a very pointed question.
You've indicated sir, that we have grant monies in the extent of
427 some odd thousand dollars that are at risk because we don't have
the proper information.
Have you identified which information we are short and which
information HUD is requesting us to produce so that they are satisfied
with the documents?
And the reason I'm asking you is this: We've had this
conversation a number of different times and it's been alleged that they
haven't produced all the records. Well, do we know what all the
records are? Is there a definition for which records we're looking for,
or are we just on an Easter egg hunt for more information?
MR. BLOUNT: It's --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't think that's an unfair
question. If HUD has said we have anxiety, I would like to know
what anxiety they have and what we have to do to answer their
inquiry.
MR. BLOUNT: I, by all means, do not think we're on an Easter
egg hunt. What -- and I think it is a fair question.
The issue here is you ask for documentation, you get what is
represented to be all, but you have your suspicious about whether or
not it really is all.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. BLOUNT: Then -- and imagine if you will, if HOME were
a department of the county, calling the press to a meeting to put out
documents on the table and you went hey, wait a minute, that's not in
what we were given. So now we know there's an "all" that we haven't
been given. And that's what we want.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, my question is: If HUD has
anxiety, do we know what is short to fulfill their request, or do we just
don't know?
MR. BLOUNT: I think we know what their questions are and we
Page 117
May 13, 2014
hope that these documents will answer those questions.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So we don't -- I mean, they're not
asking for specifics?
MR. BLOUNT: They're asking for demonstration of compliance
with the program requirements. And that is normally -- so imagine if
you will if HOME were a division or department of the county.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, I understand that, sir.
MR. BLOUNT: We would go in and be able to look at --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: At this point we submitted a
certain amount of documents to them, right?
MR. BLOUNT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So are they completely
unsatisfied with everything we've given them, or -- what I'm trying to
do is I'm trying to say what is necessary to finish this?
MR. BLOUNT: Can I give you a list of the exact documents
here today? No, I can't.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So we can go down through X
number of homes that we don't know what we're missing on each
individual home to answer the questions or --
MR. BLOUNT: I think there may be people within the Clerk's
Office that could answer that question. But can I answer that question
standing here today? No.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I mean, at some point I think
we need to know what's necessary to answer HUD's inquiry and what
their anxiety is about so we can try to answer it. Because just piling
on more additional data --
MR. BLOUNT: Exactly why I think we --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- should not answer their anxiety.
MR. BLOUNT: Exactly why I think we should work together,
so that we can together assemble the information to answer the
questions, identify what's necessary to answer the questions --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, it would make me feel a lot
Page 118
May 13, 2014
better at some point, after all this work, if somebody would say hey,
these are the documents that we're missing, these are the questions that
we cannot answer, so that gentlemen like Mr. Engel can perhaps go
and figure out what it is that we need to fulfill our commitment to
HUD.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner Nance, let me --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I might? That email was
addressed to Ms. Grant, your Director of Housing and Veterans
Services. She's here, if you want to hear from her. She can tell you
what was provided and what she's heard back from HUD.
MS. KINZEL: And we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We will.
MS. KINZEL: -- have provided additional documentation.
But could I just very quickly? For example, Commissioner
Nance, one of the very specific things we are missing is the
substantiation of the Boran, Craig and Barber statements that were
provided. There was a list provided but no backup and support
documentation.
So I believe that that effort and that commitment will go a long
way in resolving that piece of the puzzle.
We've had bank accounts that lead to different bank accounts.
That's some other specific information that we would need to resolve.
Part of the issue, and I think part of the miscommunication that's
been put on the record today, especially regarding our payment
process, we paid directly for a certain acquisition. And the contract is
for up to 12 homes, okay. Six plus of those were reimbursed directly
for acquisition. The contract is for acquisition, rehabilitation and
resale. They used program income that was generated from the sale of
the houses purchased to do the majority of the work that was done on
these properties. That's all what needs to be accounted for, not just the
purchase, direct purchase of those few homes. And I think that might
be the misinterpretation.
Page 119
May 13, 2014
And we have met with the board of directors with HOME,
including CliftonLarsenAllen, in a meeting and very specifically
requested those documents which I believe Mr. Engel at that time
committed to providing. If you go back and read the
CliftonLarsenAllen report, they were not provided.
But we certainly would appreciate moving forward from this
point. But very specifically, those are two particulars off the top of
my head that I can identify for you as not having been received.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm trying not to be critical of
anyone here. But, I mean, this is -- I don't want this to be a process
without end. So, I mean, if we can identify from HUD what their
expectations are and where our shortcomings are --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's hear from Kim Grant,
maybe she can clarify some of the -- Kim Grant is our Housing
Director.
MS. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Yes, Kim Grant,
Housing and Human Services and Veteran Services Director.
The email that was put up earlier was the last written
communication I have received from HUD. And you could see the
specific questions that were asked.
I provided a response, a letter of response, which has been
provided to the Clerk's Office.
Subsequent to that I placed a phone call. Let's see, we're in early
May, that was early April. And I asked if there was any further
information needed.
What they explained to me was that they were reviewing, as you
have heard today, the information provided and they would let me
know if they needed further information. And that is the last I have
heard from HUD.
But I believe that if HUD does require specific additional
information, they will tell us what that is. I don't know that it's going
to be -- I suspect it's going to be a bit of an iterative process for them
Page 120
May 13, 2014
also. They first receive the audits and the basic information; then the
response, I replied to, which again was shown up here today was the
next phase.
I believe their intent was to evaluate whether we had sufficient
documentation on one property or not to meet their view. And then
they went go from there. So that is the status.
I think the next response from HUD, if they are requesting one,
would most likely be the final or close to final information. Not that I
want to speak for them, but I think they're taking an iterative process
as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Hiller and then Commissioner Fiala.
MR. ENGEL: Excuse me, Mel Engel again. One thing I want to
clear up with Commissioner Hiller. I don't sit on any bank board ever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, thanks.
MR. ENGEL: I've never sat on a bank board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Thank you, I appreciate it.
I didn't know. I think I must have confused you with your other board
member, Russell Budd. I was thinking about that. I believe Russell
Budd sits on the board of the bank -- or sat on the board of the Bank of
Florida Southwest. I don't know if it even still exists. I don't either.
MS. WAID: And just clarifying that not all the mortgages were
recorded with that either, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What, the --
MS. WAID: You said all the mortgages were recorded with that
bank. And I also --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not recorded.
MS. WAID: Not recorded, were provided by that bank, and
that's not actually the case. Just for the record.
I also want to --
Page 121
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many -- yeah, that's fine.
How many mortgages were?
MS. WAID: I'll get that information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MS. WAID: But it wasn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So some of the mortgages were
provided by Mr. Budd's bank.
MS. WAID: Some of them were, but not all of them by any
means.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So some of the mortgages were
provided by Mr. Budd's bank, and he sat on the board of the bank and
he also sat on the board of HOME, correct?
MS. WAID: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I made a mistake, I apologize,
Mr. Engel. I confused the two. You're both in construction. I can't --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's hear from Commissioner Coyle.
MS. WAID: And just before we meet, if-- I would ask the
County Attorney, HOME attempted to record those mortgages, and
the county would not accept those mortgages. And that has a lot to do
with the issue of program income, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But that's another issue that we're
going to deal with later on.
MS. WAID: Okay. Could we deal with it all at once for my
client's sake?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. There's a lot of things that
we need to do, and I'm aware of what you're speaking of now, and it's
going to come up fairly soon.
MS. WAID: Okay. But it will be before a meeting? Because it
was canceled the last time it was supposed to be before the
community. So I just wanted to make sure that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's coming up.
MS. WAID: Okay, thank you.
Page 122
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's coming up when, today?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. A future meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the problem.
Yeah, the intent here is just to throw as many names around as
possible and see how many of them stick on the wall so that we can
tarnish the representations. That's what's going on.
So I have a question that I really don't know who can or should
answer this. But it's my understanding that you acquired and
rehabilitated some homes with private money, not with HUD money.
Is there any possibility that those things are getting mixed up and the
Clerk thinks they should have those documents in order to close out a
HUD audit or not?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You should ask the attorney for the
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I sort of hate to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know.
MS. WAID: I can answer easily for you, and I can provide the
documentation to you as well.
There is confusion as to what's going on. You've got SHIP funds
and you've got CDBG funds. All the CDBG federal funds were used
to acquire properties.
There was also an abundance of private funds used.
We have gone through all that information. We actually had an
independent actual forensic audit done of everything with the
documentation provided that we would be happy to sit down with the
County Attorney and provide. And that should take away any
confusion from the issue. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the issue of being specific is
a very, very important one. And I have sat through many meetings
here on other issues where they just keep going on and on and on from
month to month to year to year, and it's been going on here for four
Page 123
May 13, 2014
plus years, maybe five. People just say I want more documents, I
want more documentation. You give more documentation and then
you find out a year later you didn't give me enough documentation.
MS. WAID: Right, which is our --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then you're accused of
delaying the submission of the documents.
MS. WAID: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what's been going on
here. And it's been going on with us in our own department, with our
own staff and the Clerk's Office for a long, long time.
It's hard to pin people down here. And it seems to me, and I'm
not very smart about things like this, but you've got a check issued by
the Clerk, right?
MS. WAID: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And somehow he had to justify
writing that check.
MS. WAID: A few years later, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if he doesn't have
justification for writing that check, why did he write the check?
Okay? If he doesn't have justification for it now, then he should be
able to ask for the documents pertaining to this particular payment and
go through the entire process that way.
This business of saying just, I want all public documents, you
know, that doesn't address the issue of what you did with your own
money, okay. Do you want that kind of-- those kinds of documents
too?
MR. BLOUNT: Let me answer your question, because it's
interesting, I find myself in a very similar place that I was during the
Ochopee litigation when I first came into that, which I think is what
you're referring to.
I found myself in that case, standing in front of a general
magistrate arguing with another public entity about entitlement to
Page 124
May 13, 2014
public documents. And now we're sitting here talking about again
wanting public documents. I don't understand why anyone would ever
want to stand in the way of our getting our hands on all public
documents.
We're not here to excoriate anybody. We're not here to say
anybody did anything wrong. I respect Mr. Engel, I respect their
counsel, I respect the fact that they want to talk about the facts and
what they contend happened. I don't care. I want the records. I think
the Clerk is entitled to the public records.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, that doesn't answer
Commissioner Coyle's question. So let's stop --
MR. BLOUNT: Well, but I'm trying to answer his question and
that is we want all of the public records. If those public records reveal
bank accounts that lead us to other bank accounts, because in this case
we have program income that was re-spent. So when you are putting
various forms of money into the same bucket and drawing from the
bucket, we get to look at the bucket. That's a public record, okay, and
that's what we want to see.
But I'm not going to sit here and try to litigate the case before the
Commissioners today. I'll do that before the court. I want to see the
public records. And I would think that the county and all of the
taxpayers of the county would want to see the public record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So to answer Commissioner Coyle's
question, you want the private funding expenditures too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no. He's talking about
program income, which --
MR. BLOUNT: No, I'm saying if there's a bank account that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you didn't answer
Commissioner Coyle's questions.
MR. BLOUNT: -- contains public money, then I want to see the
records of that bank account.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just answer his question.
Page 125
May 13, 2014
MR. BLOUNT: I think I just did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's fairly simple. If it's program
income, it came from HUD and/or the resale of those properties, right?
MR. BLOUNT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If it's private money it came out of
their own pockets. Now, do you want their bank accounts for their
private funds?
MR. BLOUNT: Not if it didn't contain public money, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then you don't want all
public records. You want only the --
MR. BLOUNT: Sure I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- public records --
MR. BLOUNT: Why would their personal bank accounts be
public records?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why wouldn't it be?
MR. BLOUNT: Why would it be?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It shouldn't be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BLOUNT: Not if they didn't commingle public money with
it, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We all agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second.
MR. BLOUNT: We agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then you want anything that has to
do with the HUD grant and the contract that they had with Collier
County government, right?
MR. BLOUNT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a fair description?
MR. BLOUNT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is there any reason you can't
tell us which payment you lack adequate backup for?
Page 126
May 13, 2014
MR. BLOUNT: I would have to defer to members of the Clerk's
staff to answer those sort of specific questions. I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't you think they would have
done that already?
MR. BLOUNT: -- couldn't answer that for you here today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For four years they haven't done it.
MR. BLOUNT: I am not prepared to answer that question for
you today. Steve Blount doesn't know the answer to that question. Is
there someone in the Clerk's Office that may? Maybe. I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's critical to getting
the documents you need. Somebody's got -- I mean, we've been
through this before. Somebody says I want all your documents.
Okay, I'll give you all my documents. Then you say well, that's not all
the documents I need.
MR. BLOUNT: Well, that's because the documents you give
demonstrate that there's additional documents. When you give a bank
account and it demonstrates that money went out to another bank
account that they control, you have to follow the money.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, can --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is anybody going to provide any
specific information that will justify a specific invoice?
MR. BLOUNT: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Will anybody in the Clerk's Office
identify a specific document that is necessary to justify the payment of
a particular invoice?
MR. BLOUNT: I'm sure that can be done in instances, certainly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would hope you would do that. I
mean, if you want all the documents, then tell us what the documents
are; don't leave it up to our imagination.
MR. BLOUNT: Okay.
Page 127
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I've just -- listening to all of
this a number of issues come to my mind.
Nicole, you talked about program income.
MS. WAID: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that program income is
obviously public funds, not private funds. If program income was
generated through the sale of a house and the program income went
into a private account as opposed to a HOME account, then that
account is accessible to us, because it received public funds, correct?
MS. WAID: Correct. I do want to clarify, the SHIP funds --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me, let me --
MS. WAID: -- there is no public income because there isn't any
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The SHIP was a very small portion
of the total.
MS. WAID: But that's the whole information that was requested
from Mr. Engel. So I just wanted to make sure that that was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're talking -- I mean, we
haven't even touched on the state SHIP funding, we're only talking
about the federal funds. Because as of right now the issue -- well, that
email was from the feds.
MS. WAID: But they're commingling. Because what they're
requesting of Mr. Engel is only SHIP funds. The federal money with
the CDBG funds was used for the acquisition of the homes, not the
renovations. That's what the SHIP funds --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let me take you through this.
If you generate -- if you improve a home and you generate program
income and you flip the home, or I should say --
MS. WAID: Sell it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Pardon me, you improve the
Page 128
May 13, 2014
home, you flip the home and you generate income, if that income as
was described by you went into subsequent improvements of other
homes, right, then that money is subject to tracing. And that money is
public monies and does tie back to those federal funds, okay.
So, you know, you're looking at two issues here. You're looking
at, you know, essentially the federal funding and then the program
income that was generated as a consequence and then the reinvestment
of that program income.
And then similarly you're looking at state funding. And the state
issue is exactly the same as the federal issue. I don't know if we've
been in touch with the state, you know, on what their position is.
But let's just follow my logic. And that way you'll understand
that I have to modify my motion. Because I appreciate what Mr.
Engel is providing, but it's very clear to me from the discussion that
we're having here that there are other documents that appear to be
necessary to validate the flow of funds, and whether or not money is
owed back to the county, for example, related to program income,
hypothetically.
MS. WAID: I understand what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which may or may not be the
case. But I'm sure you understand. I mean --
MS. WAID: I completely understand what you're saying. When
I was referring to the private funds before, I was referring --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But hang on a second.
MS. WAID: -- to the original audit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just one moment, please.
And then there's another aspect to consider in what type of
documents may be necessary. And I'm not being specific but I'm
giving some examples that just come to mind based on our current
conversation in statements you made, Nicole.
Let's assume that private funds were put into the project to match
some public funds. Let's assume that those funds were loans and they
Page 129
May 13, 2014
were loaned and then program income was used to repay those loans.
Then all of that would be traceable and let's call it discoverable, if you
will, you know, for -- if you're talking about litigation.
MR. BROCK: Have you been down looking at my files?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I haven't. I --
MR. BROCK: Well, I mean, that's what we found.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, just a second. If you don't
mind, I'm speaking.
My point is that this question that you asked for specificity is
really a very difficult question to answer, because I can tell that based
on this conversation here today, there are a number of documents
which if they're not included must be included.
Now, I don't know if those documents are included or not, but I
will tell you, just based on this conversation it is essential that we see
those statements. It is essential that we see how those funds were
expended and what the backup is relative to those expenditures.
Because at the end of the day not only do we need to be sure the
expenditures were legally incurred, but we also need to be sure that
any program income generated has come back to the county.
Now, I don't -- have we received any program income on this,
Leo?
MS. WAID: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did we get any program income
back?
MR. BROCK: Less than $100. I think they -- what they had left
in their bank account.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Clerk, thank you. If you don't
mind, I'd like staff to answer the question. I directed it to them.
MR. BROCK: Which staff?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I directed it to Leo.
MR. OCHS: Yes, I'm going to ask --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much money did we get
Page 130
May 13, 2014
back?
MR. OCHS: Ms. Grant, do you have that figure?
MS. GRANT: I would want to verify to be 100 percent sure, but
my recollection in checking with Crystal, we received two checks, one
in the neighborhood of 50 or $60, and the other in the neighborhood of
a few cents.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Clerk, what did you -- when
you did the presentation to us, what was your estimate of the program
income that was owed to the county?
MR. BROCK: Based upon just the raw data that we looked at
and assumed that every expenditure they were saying that they made
was a legitimate expenditure, it was about $75,000, maybe a few cents
short of that.
But let me --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you continue, let me finish.
And if you don't get -- and what you've basically represented to
us is you didn't have substantiation for a large portion of expenditures
that were made. What if you don't get substantiation for that portion
of expenditures that supposedly were made, if you don't get
documentation to support that, that in effect is program income, isn't
it? If it's not an expenditure it means it wouldn't have been expended,
which means we should have gotten that money back; is that not
correct?
MR. BROCK: That is correct, the way --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so on --
MR. BROCK: -- I read the letter from HUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much is the un -- how much
of undocumented expenditures are we talking about right now?
MR. BROCK: It was about over $400,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So 400,000 plus the 70?
MR. BROCK: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're talking about --
Page 131
May 13, 2014
MR. BROCK: That's making an assumption that all of those
expenditures that are not documented --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But we don't --
MR. BROCK: All we have is we've got a list --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. Let me make
something clear. If we don't have the documentation, it doesn't exist.
Once we get the documentation, it exists and that issue is eliminated.
So as of right now, how much do we have in undocumented
expenditures? What is the total amount of undocumented
expenditures?
MR. BROCK: Well, the 400 plus the 75 in program income that
was calculated by the accounting firm. And plus, in addition to that,
you know, we have now discovered that one of the homes that was
purchased had as pool. HUD has informed us that those do not
qualify.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So approximately --
MR. BROCK: So there is a large chunk of change out there that
is in jeopardy that belongs to the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So approximately $500,000.
MR. BROCK: I've never sat down and calculated it, but at least
that much is questioned.
One of the homes was actually sold to, not even a qualified
buyer, it was sold to a trust.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But let me just make it simple.
Once we get all the documentation to substantiate the validity of the
expenditures made and once we get the documentation that shows the
flow of funds related to the program income, and once we are assured
that no public funds were used to repay any private loans or
contributions, if you will, then we don't have an issue; is that correct?
And everything is done?
MR. BROCK: We can already show that there were funds used
to pay back the private loans.
Page 132
May 13, 2014
MS. WAID: Commissioner?
MR. BROCK: I mean, that's not an issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. BROCK: But there's a question --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just a second.
MS. WAID: Excuse me, sir. For the record, I would like to put
on the record that the first audit that was done by the county says that
HOME does not owe any program income, period. It says that.
Secondly, the CDBG funds, which is the 400,000 that they're
speaking about, there's obviously adequate documentation. You have
everything that we needed to submit in order to get that documentation
back regarding the sale, including the HUD ones. That's all in his file.
So for him to come back and say $400,000 leads to the question,
how could the County Clerk possibly give out over $400,000 without
any documentation? So either his office is completely incompetent,
and that's the reason we're standing here, but they keep throwing
allegations back at HOME when HOME did every single thing
requested of the county, period.
MR. BROCK: May I respond to that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think the --
MR. BROCK: To begin with, the Clerk's Office did not give
them one penny. The Clerk's Office reimbursed them for the purchase
of the six homes. All of the rest of it was done as a private enterprise
and the Clerk's Office had absolutely nothing to do with it. We did not
even discover what was happening until after it was over with and we
began looking at the records.
But let me tell you how I know there are records that we do not
have. They had a dog and pony show in which, that lady was sitting
in it, in which they had reams and folders of binders of documentation
sitting on the desk. In which my auditors were present at. And my
auditors walked up to the binders and looked into the binders and said,
Page 133
May 13, 2014
there's some of the stuff that we are looking for. And they said can we
have copies of this? That was the question that was asked to Mr. John
Barlow. To which his response to my auditor was: No, you cannot
have that. You're not entitled to it and I will litigate it.
He's fixing to get the chance.
What you do -- I simply am asking you to enforce your contract
right to prevent the taxpayers from losing money. You don't want to
do that, the Clerk will do it through the Public Records Act. I'm
ready, I'm willing and I'm able.
MS. WAID: And he's always willing to spend more taxpayer
money. But as I say, Commissioner, we will sit down and we can get
this over with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You will. Now, what --
MR. BROCK: No, ma'am --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is a policy decision.
MR. BROCK: -- we're going to be looking for you to pay the
cost and expenses in the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I ask everybody to stand away from
the podium, okay. Board's going to make a decision.
Commissioner Hiller, you're going to modify your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do have to modify. I'm
going to bifurcate the motion. Part one is as to Mr. Engel's
expenditures, for the County Attorney to work with Mr. Engel, review
those documents and allow any members of the board and the Clerk's
Office to review those, to make sure that they satisfy whatever, you
know, the requirement is. But --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's one motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm just going to do part A and
part B of the same motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then part B is that with
respect to any and all other documents that are necessary to satisfy
Page 134
May 13, 2014
that the, you know, grant requirements were met, that the program
income is what it's being represented to be to allow the County
Attorney and the Clerk to work together to the extent necessary to get
those documents.
But I think what we do is we keep Mr. Engel separate and apart
from that, given that he's been gracious enough to offer to bring
forward his documents as it relates to the expenditures on the homes.
MR. BROCK: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there --
MR. BROCK: He's made that offer once before and they weren't
forthcoming, but that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, he's made it --
MR. BROCK: But remember, time from my perspective --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's see if there's a second.
MR. BROCK: -- time is of the essence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, motion and a second.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor -- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just the second half of it was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that the County Attorney and
the Clerk work together for whatever additional documents are
necessary to ensure, you know, that we have everything necessary
with respect to, you know, program income and all the expenditures
related to the improvements on these homes and any other --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the Clerk says the only thing
he's missing is the stuff that he saw on that table that --
MR. BROCK: No, ma'am, I did not say that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Then I
misinterpreted that.
Page 135
May 13, 2014
MR. BROCK: No, I know that's the stuff that's missing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Any and all documents that we're
entitled to get pursuant to our contract.
MR. BROCK: All of the documents are public records. They
were performing a governmental function in the State of Florida.
Everything they do is a public record. They need to give it to me or
I'll go get it through the courts. It's real simple. It's not a complicated
process at all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You had mentioned your attorney
had mentioned something about maps and stuff?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's just reading what it says.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought that's what he said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put it back on? Where is
the contract? Where is our contract? Just any -- all reports, plans --
it's just a listing of all the documents that we're entitled to. It says, the
sub-recipient, meaning us, shall maintain all records required by
CDBG, federal regulations, which includes everything in the next
paragraph.
And quite frankly, we are required to maintain all those records.
MR. BROCK: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not even a question of
which records, it's any and all records relating to this project as listed
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which you have never received
before. None of these that they've mentioned you've ever received
before?
MR. BROCK: Oh, I'm sure --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to get it. We're required
to have it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm asking the Clerk.
MR. BROCK: I am sure we have received some of them,
Commissioners. But we haven't received them all. And until we
Page 136
May 13, 2014
receive the ones that comprise all of them, we can't determine what
has happened.
I keep hearing people say, oh, these people contributed all of this
money. Ladies and gentlemen, I've got the tax returns. There wasn't
but about $100,000 that went to this not-for-profit, pursuant to their
own filed tax returns.
We found money that came from banks that was repaid to banks
that we were able to track that was paid back with program income.
The rehabilitation was done with program income. And I read a letter
written by -- wherever she is, your HHVS director or whoever she is,
to HUD that says no expenditure was made for rehabilitation? I'm just
sitting here scratching my head. That is in the letter she sent back to
HHVS. She said they only --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who said that?
MR. BROCK: -- purchased seven homes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't know what good
it's going to do to continue talking about this. We have a motion on
the floor and a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm sure that the people would
want to bring forth the information.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's vote on the motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to just say why I voted for it.
Because I feel that everybody in this organization, who have been
Page 137
May 13, 2014
working hard to help other people, would be happy to supply the
information needed.
MR. BROCK: And when we get the information and it makes it
clear that there was nothing wrong, I'll be the first person to come
back up here and pay you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will you bring a cake when you
come back?
MR. BROCK: I will. I'll even bring a cake.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's move on.
MR. BROCK: Do I anticipate I'm going to be back here doing
that? No, ma'am, I don't. But I will if that in fact's the case.
MR. BLOUNT: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you had a 1 :30 time certain set for
Item 14.B.1 . Would you like to take that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, sure.
MR. OCHS: That is a -- that's a recommendation of the -- Mr.
Chairman, do you want to go into session as the CRA for this item?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, absolutely. And I think
Commissioner Fiala is the chair.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I will recess the BCC meeting and
Commissioner Fiala will open up the CRA meeting.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: The CRA is now opened. And we
have Jean Jourdan.
Item #14B1
RECOMMENDATION THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVE THE SALE OF EIGHTEEN (18) CRA
OWNED MOBILE HOME LOTS TO LOVE & LEGACY LLC,
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES;
Page 138
May 13, 2014
AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE ALL
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THE SALE AND
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE FUNDS RECEIVED
FROM THE SALE INTO THE APPROPRIATE ACCOUNT AND
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS —
MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chair, this is Item 14.B.1 on your
CRA agenda. It's a recommendation for the CRA to approve the sale
of 18 CRA owned mobile home lots to Love & Legacy, LLC, for the
construction of single-family homes; authorize the CRA chairman to
execute all documents necessary to facilitate the sale, and authorize
staff to deposit the funds received from the sale into the appropriate
account and authorize necessary budget amendments.
And Ms. Jourdan will make the presentation.
MS. JOURDAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Jean Jourdan,
Interim Director for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment Agency.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have on this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then -- Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, if you would, Jean, could
you kindly put the analysis that shows when these properties were
purchased and at what price and what is being paid -- you know, what
is being offered for these properties now and what the loss to the
county is?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are these the ones that we were
required to pay a fair market value for when the market was high,
Jean?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct. The majority of these were actually
bought with dilapidated mobile homes on them. So what we paid on
Page 139
May 13, 2014
-- paid for them actually reflects an improved value. Now those
properties are vacant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But like you said, they were
dilapidated mobile homes?
MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, they were rented out.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what we're looking at, if I'm
understanding it correctly, is that the acquisition was approximately a
million two, and the sales price was about -- the proposed sale price is
about 255,000. So just round it, we're looking at about a million
dollar loss on these properties. And we are now in a market that is
going up.
In fact, there was an article in the paper that said residential
property just increased 24 percent. Why in the world would we sell
out for 255,000 on about a million-two investment and incur a
$900,000 loss? I'll tell you, I will personally buy these lots for
300,000. Because I can't believe it.
And let me say this: I am really concerned, because Crystal, I
want you to share with me what information you have about the last
sale of properties we made and how long it took for those properties to
be resold, or let me just put it in simple terms, flipped for an incredibly
high margin? And I am really concerned about this.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, for the record, Crystal
Kinzel.
What we found, and we are still working on this, but -- and I
spoke to Jean a little bit about the prior properties. They were sold
initially in March of 2013, five of them, for 13-5 each, with the
requirement and stipulation under the deed that they be constructed
within a 24-month period. And so those properties were to be
developed under that contractor within that period. So there's still a
little time on that period.
However, in researching whether or not the properties were
constructed in relationship to this executive summary, it did come to
Page 140
May 13, 2014
our attention that four out of five of those properties had been resold
within six months for almost three times the value of what the county
sold them for. And they currently are vacant and haven't been built
yet.
And Jean and I talked about it and I also spoke to County
Attorney, we're trying to work through some of these issues, but --
MS. JOURDAN: No, we did not discuss that.
MS. KINZEL: -- that's a concern.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that is very significant.
And I will say that during the CRA meeting I asked for the listing
of all the properties that were acquired and subsequently sold by the
county. And did you send me that list?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes, I did.
May I speak to Crystal --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, wait, in one second.
I have to go back and look again, because I've had problems with
my iPad. Serious problems, where like emails are not going out, I'm
not getting them in.
So County Attorney, can you do me a favor? Because I actually
didn't --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean County Manager?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Manager. You look like a
lawyer.
Can you get me just a hard copy of that list? Because I literally
have had like major computer issues.
But what I would like to do is take it one step further and what I
would like to see is of those properties that we acquired and sold, I
want to also see the subsequent re-sales, not just on the ones that
Crystal has identified but basically on all of them. And I want to
know what the resale price was and when they were resold, if they
were resold rather than developed by the individuals who purchased
them.
Page 141
May 13, 2014
But I can't support this.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Jean.
MS. JOURDAN: Well, yeah, first of all, Crystal, the information
you have is totally inaccurate. I know you feel it is. And we did not
discuss those re-sales. Those properties have resold, but they really
haven't. That's actually part of the development team that repurchased
the properties. In order to -- when they go to get financing to build the
houses, which they are going to begin in August, that actually is part
of what a developer does, is he conveys it to his own company.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you kidding me? You just said
that the developer is going to flip the property --
MS. JOURDAN: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- at an inflated value to better
qualify for a mortgage for development?
MS. JOURDAN: No, that is not what I said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MS. JOURDAN: What I said --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I just want to tell you
right now, that is like --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let her --
MS. JOURDAN: No, the developer did not flip the property
whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, into another --
MS. JOURDAN: The developer is the --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner --
MS. JOURDAN: -- same company that the properties are
showing that they sold to. That is a subsidiary of the developer. I can
prove that to you.
And if you had asked me for that information, I would have
happily provided that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Please provide it to me.
MS. JOURDAN: I will.
Page 142
May 13, 2014
MS. KINZEL: And Jean, I do apologize. I think I had the
conversation with the County Attorney. You and I were talking about
the other issue --
MS. JOURDAN: The appraisals on this --
MS. KINZEL: -- regarding the executive summary --
MS. JOURDAN: -- on these properties, yes.
MS. KINZEL: -- and the approval. So I will correct that. And
that is correct.
But we did vet the owners and the deed names, yes. The person
that purchased it from you is the registered agent for the other entities.
MS. JOURDAN: Yes, it's the same entity.
MS. KINZEL: But two of the entities were split -- well, they're
under different legal structure. I mean, they have different identifying
legal names.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so --
MS. JOURDAN: Correct. But it's the same agent. They're all
affiliated with each other and they will be building the homes in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's let her finish.
MS. JOURDAN: --just as I said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner, let her finish.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She just finished. I want to just
read --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you finish?
MS. JOURDAN: No. I just think there's a lot of misinformation
and misunderstanding that I'd like to clarify.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to clear that up before we
question you on what isn't clear yet.
MS. JOURDAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure I
understand up to this point. I just want to make sure I clearly
Page 143
May 13, 2014
understand --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Turn off her mic.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- what you said, that this
developer who acquired these properties then sold those properties to a
related party entity.
MS. JOURDAN: No money changed hands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand. But it was
recorded at a higher value.
MS. JOURDAN: Right. And the reason for that I'm assuming is
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MS. JOURDAN: -- I do not know, but when we found out that
these properties were transferring, because the title agency contacted
us, that's the first thing our office did was contact the seller and say
you cannot sell these properties in order to -- you know, for the price
to be higher. You have to build on these properties. He said, I
understand, and he sent the information which showed that they are
related and they are the same companies that will be building the
houses and that they will be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what --
MS. JOURDAN: -- building them in August.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- was his explanation for valuing
it at the higher price?
MS. JOURDAN: I didn't go into that with him. I'm relating to
things that I know as far as what happens out there in the development
world.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MS. JOURDAN: You know, it's typical a lot of times where you
will see one entity buy a property and then right before it's constructed
on another entity, it goes into their names.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so let me understand. And
you'll understand where I'm coming from, Jean.
Page 144
May 13, 2014
When that property was flipped to the related party. And like
you say, the developer told you no money exchanged hands but they
recorded it on the property appraiser's website at a higher price point.
Weren't you concerned, since we're promoting affordable housing
here, that this was -- is this supposed to be affordable housing?
MS. JOURDAN: No, it's supposed to be market rate housing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Market value housing.
MS. JOURDAN: Market rate housing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so market rate housing. So
none of this is for affordable housing?
MS. JOURDAN: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is for redevelopment of
market rate housing.
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it, okay. So okay, that's --
then you've answered my question. Because I was concerned that it
would increase the value of what should be an affordable. But I get it.
MS. JOURDAN: And may I explain. As far as taking the loss
on the properties, these properties appraised at -- I received two
appraisals on these. One was a recent, it was for 19,000. The other
one that we received -- and we only did two appraisals, because all the
properties are similar. Previous to that we had an appraisal and it
came in at 12,000 per lot.
These lots are in a mobile home area. We are asking -- we are
demanding, requiring that single-family homes be built on these sites
and that it's in compliance with the design standards of the Gateway
Triangle. These will be very nice homes.
As far as taking a loss. In accordance with Florida Statute
163.380 we knew the moment that we purchased these properties and
we demolished them we were going to take a loss, but we were going
to make a change to the area. Because it's in our charter to remove
slum and blight.
Page 145
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So where did -- when you
removed those properties, when you got rid of the trailer housing,
where did these people go?
MS. JOURDAN: These people were rental. They rented daily
and weekly.
This is some of the conditions of the properties that we
purchased. So they were basically transient people in and out. It was
not the CRA -- the CRA did not remove the people or displace people.
When we approached the property owners we told them, if they
wanted to sell the properties, and some of the people came to us, our
office actually, we said that it was up to them to not rent them any
longer. So therefore they stopped renting them.
So as far as displacement it was just a daily and weekly rental,
just like it would be if you were in a motel.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And these people came to us
voluntarily and said please buy my property?
MS. JOURDAN: No, no, not all of them.
Initially what we did is, we actually looked at the areas that were
having problems. And of course, you could drive by there and walk by
and you would see every single day, a picnic table full of people just
sitting out there drinking from morning to night, any time you went
by. And so we started talking with these landlords. We got the word
out that if any of these particular property owners were interested in
selling, we would be interested in buying.
Additionally, as far as the value goes, we could hold onto these
lots forever. And even if the market went up tremendously, it's still a
vacant piece of property in a mobile home area. It would be
purchased for a mobile home to be put on there.
To have someone come in and take the risk and the chance of
building a single-family home, not one single-family home but 18
single-family homes at one time with a construction time line from
one to 18 months, that's unheard of. We can hold onto these lots
Page 146
May 13, 2014
forever. They can sit there, not generate any taxes whatsoever, the
area not change, because no one's going to take that initiative or that
risk to go in there and build a home on this lot when they see mobile
homes all around them. But you put 18 homes in there, you're going to
make a difference. And then on the next street there's going to be five
homes in August, that's going to make a difference. That's going to
change that entire area.
So we've done our job in accordance with Florida Statute
163.380. We've changed the area.
In addition, right now those properties are sitting there, they're
generating no taxable income whatsoever. Once those houses go back
on there, you get people in there, you bring up the area, you've done
your job. That's what a CRA's supposed to do and that's what we did.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excellent.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
When you say a single-family home, that could be any type of a
single-family home. It could be block, wood, modular, mobile home;
is that correct?
MS. JOURDAN: We're requiring it be CBS.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's going to be in
the sales contract?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct. In the backup document they've
agreed to build CBS homes.
We have the representative, she's in the audience here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, just stay with me for
a minute, okay?
MS. JOURDAN: Okay, sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad she's here. That's great.
MS. JOURDAN: I just thought it would be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of other people
here too.
Page 147
May 13, 2014
MS. JOURDAN: -- if you had any questions I couldn't answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going to record a deed
restriction on the particular property? Because we did not on the
others.
MS. JOURDAN: It's in the statutory deed.
Actually, the other ones, when it was recorded there -- it
references an agreement which that agreement wasn't recorded with it
and it should have been. It's in the Clerk's Office. So it actually
references instead of it being actually in the statutory deed and it did
restrict it to -- and I do believe too that the statutory deed restricts it to
single-family homes on the other ones also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It did, but they're not recorded.
MS. JOURDAN: Statutory deeds are recorded.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's not a deed
restriction so, I mean, there's not any kind of covenants on the piece of
property that I could find.
Okay, you answered my question.
MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, the statutory deed that we're doing now
will actually stipulate those conditions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what happens if they don't
comply to the time frame? Is it going to revert back to the county?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes. That's also in the county on the exhibit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, I'm talking about
these.
MS. JOURDAN: These, yes. That's also -- it's on Exhibit B.
It says the certificate of occupancy within 24 months of close and
settlement shall automatically revert to the seller or to the successor
or assigns without the necessity of seller or its successors or assigns
taking any affirmative action to have the properties revert back to
them.
So there is a performance clause that will be recorded also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is your understanding the way
Page 148
May 13, 2014
that reads it's going to revert back to the CRA at no cost?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you work with the County
Attorney on the language?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Great.
And with the other one that doesn't have anything documented
that they were talking about, I realize that isn't the subject of this issue,
14.B.1, but can you go back and make sure that it is documented?
MS. JOURDAN: Yes. And I will do that after this meeting.
Because like you said, it does reference the agreement in there as it
wasn't attached and recorded when the document was recorded, but it
should have been, so we can do that, we can rectify that.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great, great. I think that's all super.
MS. JOURDAN: But, yeah, we still have contact with the
builder and he plans on starting in August.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you take this picture off
please and let's get back to that list of properties.
So your estimated value with a new home is going to be almost
$5 million for all of these. That essentially means that for Collier
County government we will recover the loss in increased property
taxes in about seven years. But for the entire county it means we'll
recover it in three-and-a-half years because the tax rate for the entire
county is a lot more than the tax rate that Collier County gets.
So it means to the entire county a lot of money if we get it back
on the tax rolls. So in that case although I find the loss very
distasteful, I understand what you're saying. You're providing at a low
price to encourage people to take the risk and redevelop in an area that
has been in pretty bad shape for a long, long time. And if they will do
that, if we can get them to do that, it is in the best interest of the
Page 149
May 13, 2014
county.
So I would support it, if you make sure that there's appropriate
safeguards in those contracts.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to make a motion to
that effect? Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll let you do that.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, let me hear from --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I'll vote against it.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Nance. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am. There are 18
properties that were acquired here. How many properties are in that
whole neighborhood? What I'm getting at is this: When these 18
properties are converted over to single-family, what percentage of the
neighborhood is going to be single-family at that time versus other just
not quite so dilapidated mobile homes?
MS. JOURDAN: This is the area right here. So, as you can see,
it's going to be significant. I would say around 35, 50 percent
somewhere.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So 50 percent of them are going to
continue to be mobile homes and 50 percent of them will be
single-family?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So you really think somebody's
going to pay $275,000 for a home that's between two other not quite
so dilapidated mobile homes? Really? And the tax appraiser is going
to appraise them at 275?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Never.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Just saying. I'm just wondering
how this -- I understand you're trying to be transformational, but I
don't know that we can afford to be that creative in transforming
things. I mean, if you went in and said okay, we're going to buy the
whole place and bulldoze everything down and we're going to go in
Page 150
May 13, 2014
and build a whole community, maybe. But I don't know if-- do you
really think that a piecemeal deal like this is going to work?
MS. JOURDAN: Personally I do, because I know that there are
investors in the area. And additionally, there will be five other homes
on a street that's right over. I can tell you right now that there's
already two single-family homes that have been built in there just
because they know that the CRA had purchased those lots and that we
were going to put single-family homes on there.
I got a call yesterday from someone who's interested in a lot and
they were very excited to know and said that they were going to
purchase it because they knew that forthcoming we were going to be
putting single-family homes on there.
Additionally, one of the developers who's purchased lots before
has made a substantial investment on Linda Avenue, putting in
$400,000 houses there.
There's all kinds of new construction that's going up in the area,
which is changing the area.
There is also a pedestrian pathway project going down that street
that's going to have pedestrian pathway lighting, the MSTU's doing.
So that area is going to change. It's turning into a nice area.
And then additionally, the CRA's 17 acres is just adjacent to that,
so a nice new development is going in there. So yes, I do see that
happening.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's going to be a nice
development going in there too, isn't it?
MS. JOURDAN: Correct, correct.
But if we just keep those lots sitting there vacant, how much
more are we going to let the taxpayer lose? They're sitting there
generating no income whatsoever and the CRA is actually expending
funds in order to keep them maintained and mowed. And we have
someone willing to come in and take the risk to build.
The biggest risk to the county is that if they didn't perform we get
Page 151
May 13, 2014
the lots back.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You know, when I
originally read this executive summary I thought to myself there's no
way that I would support selling a piece of property valued at, by our
own appraiser, more than what we're selling it for in a rising market.
However, when that home is built, the Property Appraiser will
appraise it and tax it based upon the actual cost, not what's going on
around the neighborhood. That's my understanding from the property
appraiser.
So, you know, if it's not going to happen, it's going to revert back
to the county at no cost. We are redeveloping an area. So I'm
compelled to change my thought to support the request.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you know, I'm looking at
this schedule you prepared and I want to thank you for doing that. And
on January 14th, and I assume that's of this year, right, a lot in that
area was sold for 35,000.
MS. JOURDAN: That wasn't -- that's on the -- if you're familiar
with the area, there's the east side and the west side. The east side is
all mobile homes, the west side is single-family homes. And the
person who purchased the lot just built a big two-story house on the
west side, so they're not even comparable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When I'm looking at this, the
acquisition of that property, notwithstanding what you're saying
doesn't make sense. Because when the county acquired it at the same
time that it acquired all these other properties that you say, you know,
were where they're mobile homes, as compared to this property where
supposedly there were none --
MS. JOURDAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the acquisition price by the
Page 152
May 13, 2014
county was $5,654.
MS. JOURDAN: And that was merely for -- it's my
understanding that the CRA actually purchased that, paid those fees
from the county. The county had that property in surplus. And so
when the county had it in surplus they asked the CRA, since it was in
the redevelopment area, if we wanted the property. So we purchased
the property actually from the county. We paid the fees they had
acquired.
So no, it wasn't an arm's length sale. It's totally different.
I said -- I know in redevelopment it's hard to understand the long
range of what's happening.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The redevelopment is very easy to
understand long range. But it's a concern because your schedule
where you show that the construction value is going to be what,
$275,000 per house? You know, the $5 million total is not going to
be the basis for us collecting taxes. So I think that is a false argument,
because those numbers are not what the appraised value is going to be
for purposes of ad valorem taxing.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we really don't know that, do
we?
MS. JOURDAN: Well, I appraised property for 12 years at the
Property Appraiser's Office. That was my job. And actually when
you build new construction it's based on the construction costs. Then
they do reappraise --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're --
MS. JOURDAN: -- each year based on sales.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- actually going to invest 300,000,
or how much 250 -- I don't have -- can you put that schedule back up?
So they're going to -- can you squeeze it in a little? So 275 plus
15,000, so they're basically going to invest $260,000 in construction
costs in each one of these lots?
MS. JOURDAN: I would assume they need a profit.
Page 153
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you said that's the estimated
value. You just finished telling me that the appraisal is going to be for
the construction costs. So --
MS. JOURDAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- are you telling me that $260,000
is the construction cost for these homes?
MS. JOURDAN: No, I would have to defer that to the people
who are building the homes. Like I said, they're in the audience.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just telling you that we're not
going to be -- we're not looking at $5 million.
MS. JOURDAN: Those are estimated values, too. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not even going to be close to
that.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, let me ask
you a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I -- I just want to take off
of what Commissioner Coyle was talking about.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me ask you, we can't tell them
what price they have to build it to, can we?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nor can we stop them because
they're not building too high or building too low, we're trying to get
these properties off the taxpayers' back and back into service, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And here's the issue that I
have. The issue I have is that we're in a rising market. We're selling
at an extremely low price that is generating about a million dollar loss
for us when we know that prices are going to go up and there's
demand for property. In fact we're moving back into a very expensive
market as we start to see scarcity.
And what disturbs me is that these numbers are presented to try
to persuade me that this is what's going to happen when, like you
properly say, you know, it probably is not going to be this number at
Page 154
May 13, 2014
all. So I just -- I have a problem. I mean, I have to look at exactly as
Commissioner Fiala says, we don't know what is going to be
developed on the properties, we don't know at what price those homes
are going to sell. All I can deal with is what I know, and that is we're
dealing with a million dollar loss on properties that potentially in short
order could sell for substantially more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're only going to sell,
Commissioner, if that area starts to redevelop. And until it starts to
redevelop, the lands prices are going to stay low. This is part of a
redevelopment agency is about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- if I don't vote on this and buy
these lots, could I do that? Could I buy these lots for $300,000?
MS. JOURDAN: And will you build on them? Will you build 18
homes within --
MR. KLATZKOW: You nor I could buy these lots.
MS. JOURDAN: -- 24 months?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure I could.
What?
MR. KLATZKOW: Neither you nor I can buy these lots.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We couldn't buy them? That's a
bummer.
MS. JOURDAN: I wouldn't sell them for that unless I had these
strict commitments that they were going to be built upon.
But additionally we did advertise these lots for only 14 and didn't
get a single offer. So the market may be increasing, but you have to
think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were they advertised?
MS. JOURDAN: -- they appraised at 12. Yeah, we have to
advertise --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me stop you.
MS. JOURDAN: -- in accordance with Florida statute 163.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how did you advertise?
Page 155
May 13, 2014
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner, let me have
Commissioner Coyle, he's been --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, go ahead.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- waiting patiently but kicking me
in the leg. So would you go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, let someone who knows
what they're talking about talk now, okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we due for a break?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have any photos of
Danford Street with you?
MS. JOURDAN: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you -- can you tell me what the
average price is of the new homes that have been built on Danford
Street and the ones just south of them?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was my question.
MS. JOURDAN: Are you referring to Linda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Linda.
MS. JOURDAN: Linda is where the new houses are. They are
on the market for I believe, and I'm not absolutely positive, but the last
conversations I had with them, they were going to be in the 400,000
range, the high 300 to $400,000 change.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that was one of the worst
streets in that area at one point in time. I mean, there were trailers,
actually travel trailers. In fact, there was one house that consisted of a
concrete block house with the front of an aluminum travel trailer
protruding from the front wall. And there were extension cords
hanging all around everywhere. And that was pretty much the way the
whole neighborhood looked. It was really, really a mess.
And we bought some property there, the county bought. In fact,
we maybe still own a home in, don't we? We were using that home
for -- to house --
MS. JOURDAN: Oh, I know where you're talking about now.
Page 156
May 13, 2014
Yeah, you're -- oh, down there the prices are higher because that's
close to Bayview Park.
Yeah, you have to keep in mind too that this area is surrounded
by Windstar, it's on the Gulf, there's water access.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It looked at least as bad as anything
MS. JOURDAN: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- on Linda or anyplace else.
MS. JOURDAN: Yes. And that area it's transitioned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I'm trying to show that
there's actual history here where we have been able to get a really bad
part of the Bayshore area redeveloped with fairly expensive homes.
And it took some risks to get that done. So there are nice homes being
built in that area.
MS. JOURDAN: Oh, very nice homes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think it will continue as we
improve the area.
MS. JOURDAN: We've had 10 new homes built just this year,
and they're all ranging -- now there was one home that was built on
Barrett that was built by Habitat for Humanity, and I think that was in
the high 100, low 200,000 range. And that was Habitat for Humanity
low income affordable housing. All the rest of them that's been built
are more in the $400,000 range.
It's difficult to find property, you know, anymore this close to
Fifth Avenue and the beach.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: And what is your --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You make my point.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- motion, Commissioner Coyle?
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion is to approve for resale.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second the motion.
Okay, do we --
Page 157
May 13, 2014
MR. MILLER: Commissioner Fiala --
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- have speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yeah, I have one public speaker, Diane Sullivan.
MS. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon. Thanks for your time.
I have so much to say, hard to me to know where to begin. First
of all, I disagree with Commissioner Hiller. This is market value.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 14,000 is market value?
MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah, correct. The --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They just finished saying that
there's scarcity and that all these other surrounding properties --
MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, but these --
MS. JOURDAN: But not a mobile home.
MS. SULLIVAN: Did you drive down by chance,
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MS. SULLIVAN: If you would drive there -- what you were
describing, Commissioner Coyle, there is currently several houses
with concrete block houses around a mobile home that sticks out.
There's a double lot for sale, it's been for sale at least a year, maybe
longer, I'm not sure. It's 40,000. It's a double lot so it's 80 by 100.
There's a foreclosure house that if this goes through I'm going to buy,
it's 99,000. It's concrete block with a trailer in the middle. It sits on a
double lot on the lake.
This is a tough, tough neighborhood. And I believe part of the
reason for the aggressiveness with the time line, not only are you
required, but the only way you're going to make an impact on the
neighborhood is to build 18 houses all at once.
If you hope that next year some guy comes along and gives you
22 -- let's see, what's real estate gone up, 24 percent? So we say
14,000, 24 percent, oh, what is that? That will be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: About 3,000.
MS. SULLIVAN: -- 3,000? Gosh, we'll be up to 18 next year.
Page 158
May 13, 2014
But you just spent 8,000 to maintain them.
So he'll build -- he's not going to build one. They're horrible. If
it wasn't -- as some of you may know, I've just opened a brokerage up
in Bayshore. I specialize in Bayshore. I believe in Bayshore. I'm
working with lots of investors. If it wasn't for my enthusiasm, I could
not have got them to buy it. They're still not sure that -- you know,
that it will -- that it will happen. But I've convinced them to do it.
In spite of it, if they don't perform it goes back to the county.
The biggest point though -- I think first I disagree strongly, I
think they're market value. And I think they were advertised in
September along with I think the one lot you referenced. The lot you
referenced, those are 50 by -- are they 50 by 150 or --
MS. JOURDAN: They're 50 by 150.
MS. SULLIVAN: They're single-family 50 by 150. These are
mobile home lots, they're 40 by 100. Super challenging to build a
house there.
We're going to have to be strategic with fencing so that when
we're showing the homes we get the consumer to focus on the home
and not the surroundings.
Another key, the CRA is putting sidewalks and the lights and the
curbs right now. That's imperative. Lake Kelly is behind it. There
will be access to Sugden Park. I know the developer that's more than
likely going to develop the adjacent 17 acres. You know, it all kind of
works together. It's not -- was there anything else, Jean?
MS. JOURDAN: Yeah, we're just trying to create synergy I
think is what she's saying.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you buy a second
home there, a vacation home?
MS. JOURDAN: If I could, I would.
MS. SULLIVAN: The second point, you know, years ago when
they built Windstar, I poo-poo'd Windstar. It was Kelly Road and I
thought, man, people, they're fools. I would never send my clients to
Page 159
May 13, 2014
Windstar. You've got to drive down -- oh. Am I gone?
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have another speaker there,
Troy?
MR. MILLER: No, that's it.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have something urgent to
the say or --
MS. SULLIVAN: No. Just I hope that you do see the benefit. I
think that I can sell the houses and I think the 275 is the key price
point. And actually we anticipate it to go up to three but we wanted to
be conservative.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this is what a CRA is about is
redevelopment. And so I think you're -- Jean, you're just going right
along with what you should be doing as a CRA director. Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just wanted to ask one
other question. Is there any way that we can reasonably encourage the
purchaser of these lots to consolidate lots and thereby build a larger
home?
MS. JOURDAN: Would that be something --
MS. SULLIVAN: If possible.
One other hope, because Commissioner Hiller said it, our hope
and goal is to obtain as many lots as we can. I've made friends with
some of the -- I know Wayne and I know Norman. I'm in the
neighborhood and I'm getting to know these folks. And my hope is
they'll trust me so we can get more. The more we get, I would love to
be able to build bigger. Right now I think we need to impact. We
have plans for narrow homes that fit on the lots. And I think the
import thing is to impact.
If you do -- one other thing about the taxes. If you build 50
percent, it is going to affect the -- you know, they're going to tax on
the whole neighborhood. And if you build 275 -- or whatever,
$220,000 houses, by the time you take your profit, it is going to
Page 160
May 13, 2014
impact the tax base, because 50 percent of those homes are improved.
But yes, if possible, that would be great.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't have anything to say, thank
you.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I have a motion on the
floor. We don't have any other speakers, do we, Troy?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor
and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, 3-2. Thank you very much.
MS. JOURDAN: Thank you.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: Jean, thanks for an outstanding
presentation. Wow, I really -- you are really, really working for your
CRA. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, that concludes our CRA
business today.
CRA CHAIRMAN FIALA: The CRA meeting is closed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's adjourned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Board of Commissioners meeting
is back from recess and anxious to do business.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Should we take a break for the
court reporter?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we need to take a break for our
court reporter.
Page 161
May 13, 2014
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're going to take a 10-minute
break.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seat.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 11.A?
Item #1 1 A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED COLLIER
COUNTY INNOVATION ACCELERATORS BUSINESS PLAN
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE PLAN — MOTION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY MANAGER TO SPEND UP TO $250,000 AS AN
INITIAL INVESTMENT IN FY14/15 ON THE PROJECT, BRING
BACK A CONTRACT WITH CAREERSOURCE OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA THAT WILL SERVE AS ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT
FOR THE PROJECT AND ORGANIZE A STEERING
COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT FOR
THE ACCELERATOR PROJECT AND APPROVE ALL BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, 11 .A. It's a recommendation to approve
the proposed Collier County Innovation Accelerators Business Plan
and authorize the County Manager to execute the plan. Mr. Bruce
Register, your Director of Business and Economic Development, will
make a brief introduction.
MR. REGISTER: Commissioners, Bruce Register, your Director
of Business and Economic Development.
11 .A primarily looks at authorizing the County Manager to
Page 162
May 13, 2014
execute a plan, and the plan will be articulated by our consultant,
Marshall Goodman.
Let me frame what's going to happen today. We've entered into a
process that began in September when we approved a business plan
that included a discussion about incubators and accelerators. By the
way, that was September of 2013. So that process began at that point.
This plan that's before you is consistent with our best strategy
that was included in that plan.
This is an authorization stage that will precede the adoption and
implementation of documents that will be forthcoming and that will be
subject to this Board's consideration and approval.
Just quickly, let me go through that process. We talked about a
business plan, September 2013. December, 2013 you adopted a
feasibility and a legislative request for some funding. In April we had
a county sponsored French international investment mission that
landed on our shores and was quite successful.
Here we are in May and we're looking for an appropriation of
county funding to partner with private investment as well as state
investment and state funding moving forward with the implementation
of substantiation of documents that we hope will be forthcoming very
soon and we know they're going to be consistent with the direction
this Board has given.
With that, I'd like to have our --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to -- on this item.
Make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to. I'd like to make a
motion to approve the Accelerator Business Plan and to authorize the
County Manager to spend up to 250,000 in fiscal year 2014 to begin
the operations as outlined in the plan, and to authorize the County
Manager to develop a contract or to basically enter into a -- develop a
contract proposal which you'll have to bring back to us to have Career
Source Southwest Florida act as the interim administrative agent for
Page 163
May 13, 2014
the accelerator project 'til we get full-time staffing. And then to
develop a steering -- or basically to organize a steering committee to
serve as the transitional oversight and support group as we move this
accelerator into an independent nonprofit over the next few years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And to approve all necessary budget
amendments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to approve all the necessary
budget amendments to make that possible.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor. Is there
a second to the motion?
I'll second the motion for discussion. Discussion on the motion.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I'm very excited about the
accelerator plan. At the same time I think it is very aggressive, I think
it's very ambitious, and I think it's going to require some real effort
and panache to carry off particularly in the eastern part of the county,
which I am very willing to support. But I think as you can notice
when you get into the food business how perilous it is, if you'll notice
the demise of one of our recent very popular businesses, The Salad
Company. That was one food safety issue. One. Took out a company
that had 200 employees.
So I'm behind it, I support the motion, but let us go forward with
the same aggression that we're planning with.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Because I think it's going to take it
to bring it to success, and I'll do everything I can to help.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I just had a couple little
questions, but I've asked them before and maybe they'll be answered.
I had some confusion here. Career Sources would be managing the
entire program. They're a great company, nobody has a problem with
Page 164
May 13, 2014
that. But it says they're going to be collecting the rents and the fees
for service and then they're going to be disbursing the resources.
And I thought maybe the Clerk needs to be involved in that.
Because from all past history with the Clerk and his office, all monies
that come in have to go to the Clerk's Office and anything disbursed
must be disbursed from his office.
So it might be something that you want to address, or if that isn't
the case you might want to make sure that everybody's working on the
same page.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that's a great comments and it's noted,
and we have plans to address that with not only the Clerk's Office and
Career Source, but as Commissioner Hiller mentioned as part of the
motion, we will bring back a formal contract similar to what we did
with the Chambers Partnership for Colliers Future Economy that
ended in an agreement with this Board. It lays out all of the
deliverables, all the reimbursables and all the documentation that may
be required by the county and the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. And I've talked to you
about my other things, so I'll just let them ride.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers?
MR. MILLER: One public speaker. Bob Krasowski?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record my name's Bob Krasowski.
I've spoken on this before when it was up, in I believe October.
And so I want to make a few comments again today.
I think accelerators are great. It's a really good idea. The plan
looks really nice. I just have essentially one objection, and that's the
fact that you're including foreign interests and companies, French, I
don't know, Chinese, seem to be driving the plan, but other external.
Our economy is starting to recover and I don't -- I think we
should focus this on primarily a local and national, a national effort.
Page 165
May 13, 2014
I don't see why we should be bringing in these foreign companies to
compete with our own companies. It was mentioned, oh, Americans
could go work for French companies. Well, that's not a good idea. I
think Americans should work for American companies, especially
now.
And I notice that we'll be expending, the county will be, in an
effort to match two and a half million dollars that came from the
legislature for this project. But the county's contribution is going to be
$250,000 a year for two years, then $100,000 I believe for the
remaining 18 years, or something like that.
It's a lot of money and you're putting it into a situation where
you're going to be inviting and encouraging, providing services to
foreign companies. And I just don't like that. I don't see anywhere in
there mentioned, what I brought up before, an accommodation for
hiring veterans, helping veterans that have high diverse skills. Not all
veterans are sitting around sucking their thumbs on a park bench with
psychological problems, and I apologize for saying that, but have
problems with issues which are totally justified. But the majority of
veterans are highly skilled, have specific knowledge and we should be
helping and encouraging them. And I don't see anything about that.
I understand there are other appointments going to be made,
different organizations going to be formed, and I hope when it comes
to that stage that the people that are brought in are the right people.
And then also, it's a lot of money, a lot of money to go to this. FGCU
already has an innovation research park, so I don't know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're working with them. It's a
completely different project. They're actually partnering with us in this
effort.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They support this and we support
them.
MR. KRASOWSKI: I'm all in favor of that, just I don't like --
Page 166
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The international.
MR. KRASOWSKI: -- the international component of that. At
least not to start.
And also, on another tangent, not too long ago, a couple years
ago, the Supreme Court determined contributions could be made to
political parties without transparency, and this includes to my
understanding, that foreign interests are allowed to contribute to
political campaigns. And that's really bad news. And all the
presidents run over to Europe and the governors and who knows what
level that stops -- 30 seconds, is that right.
MR. MILLER: No, it's three minutes.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Three min -- okay. Well, that's another big
interest. We're selling America for the political gain of specific
echelon, top echelon concern. Thank you for listening.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second on the
floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Let's go to the County Attorney's item. I think that might free up
some public comment time.
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO ATTEND A SETTLEMENT MEETING
TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 15TH IN
Page 167
May 13, 2014
TALLAHASSEE INVOLVING THE POTENTIAL CHALLENGE
OF A CONSENT ORDER ENTERED INTO BETWEEN FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND
DAN A. HUGHES COMPANY, L.P., AND DIRECT THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO HOLD OFF FILING A PETITION UNTIL THE
BOARD HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT OF THE MEETING — MOTION
FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A PETITION FOR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Item 12.A is a recommendation to authorize the County Attorney
to attend a settlement meeting tentatively scheduled for May 15th in
Tallahassee, involving the potential challenge of a consent order
entered into between the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and the Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P., and to direct the
County Attorney to hold off filing a petition until the Board has had
the opportunity to review the County Attorney's report of that
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, before you begin, my preference
is let's go to the administrative hearing for everybody. There's a lot of
things being brought into this, what's happening there. Just today we
received information from The Conservancy, there's an open well just
200 feet from the active well. I think we should, if we can, instead of
going into settlement negotiations or whatever, let's just go to the
administrative hearing process. Could that be done?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. The issue is whether you want the
consent order amended in some fashion or whether you want us to
seek to pull the permit. And if there's a desire of the Board to pull the
permit, then there's no point having the settlement, because Hughes
would never agree to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's even more to that. We
Page 168
May 13, 2014
don't know -- we don't know if anything has migrated from the
activities, and we understand the illegal activities, beyond the DEP's
permit, any of those chemicals affected that old well that was
abandoned and never sealed up.
MR. KLATZKOW: But this is a very narrow issue. The very
narrow issue we have is DEP and Hughes got into a consent decree or
a consent order. And the only thing we're doing is challenging that
consent order.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: What you're talking about is a different
issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it isn't. It really isn't. Because
the activities that created the consent order, the activities that took
place may have effects on an open well. May have. We don't know.
DEP needs to do their job and find out what effects it has been. DEP,
what I'm told, was aware of this open well, this abandoned open well,
and did not require them to seal it up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it an open oil well?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Open oil well. Open oil well.
And I'm sure that -- and we don't know how that was constructed.
It was an old oil well back in the Thirties or Forties. I'm sure they
didn't have, I mean, galvanized casing, I don't know. You know, I
don't know what the effects could be on our drinking water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Has it been opened all these years?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And did they just discover it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I was and you have in your
email from The Conservancy --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read it, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that there was -- that DEP was
aware that it was opened, that's what I was told, and did not request
them to close it.
Page 169
May 13, 2014
So, you know, it's -- we need to challenge their permit to find out
what the effects are that happened on the ground, number one.
Number two, we need to challenge the consent order to stop
drilling at that site. We don't know -- this process of how they're
drilling, we don't know the effects long-term because it's never been
done in the State of Florida. And we don't even know the effects or if
it's been done anywhere.
And what kind of geology, if it has been done someplace, what
kind of geology? Is it similar to Florida's ground? I don't know. But
we need to ask all these questions. We're not trying to deny somebody
of getting the minerals, but just how they're getting the minerals.
Until we know that the safeguard of the public's natural asset will
not be affected by the process, then we should ask the state to cease
this kind of operation to extract the oil. That's my opinion. So that's
why I wanted to say something.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think there's a lot we don't
know here. One of the things that I understand we've made some
progress on is finding out what properties are potentially going to be
affected by oil drilling. And it appears that it could be quite extensive,
involving a lot of communities that have been built already and are
probably totally unaware that they don't own the mineral rights
beneath their homes. And the possibility of drilling under their homes
is a very real one. And I don't know that we can easily evaluate the
potential impacts here based on what we know now.
But I'd like to focus on one thing about our agreement that we're
supposed to provide to the County Attorney, or agree on for the
County Attorney's use and that's the clause that says that Collier
County's role will be purely advisory in nature. Now, does that mean
that we will be considered purely an adviser during this meeting or are
we waiving any rights with respect to passing certain rules that would
govern the oil drilling in the future?
Page 170
May 13, 2014
MR. KLATZKOW: DEP's position is going to be that we are
preempted when it comes to regulating this type of activity, all right?
That's going to be DEP's position. Okay. If the Board wants to get
into this business, you know, I can come back but I would caution you
that you may be opening up from a Burt Harris standpoint a
tremendous exposure, all right. I've heard people saying other states
are doing this. Other states do not have Burt Harris, all right.
It is my personal preference that this be more of an issue for a
local delegation that they protect Collier County's interest with respect
to oil drilling from a state standpoint. Failing that, if the Board feels
that to protect the public health we need to do local ordinances, we
can look at that.
But I would just caution the Board before we just jump into this
right now, we don't have a lot of this activity going on right now.
Doesn't mean that we won't. But I think this challenge is going to
certainly send a message.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not interested in really
getting into a fight with the state at the present time. But this is an
issue that's worth fighting for. Because what we do now is going to
set the stage for whatever happens over the next 25 or 50 years. We're
new to this process, but pumping chemicals into the ground to extract
the oil in Collier County I think has very serious implications for the
safety of our residents.
And I know people say that fracking is not dangerous, that it
doesn't introduce any harmful elements. I'm only suggesting that we
somehow try to retain some control over that process so that we can
prove that it's not harmful.
I am reluctant to take the word of some person who has been
drilling in Texas for the effects of similar drilling here in Florida. I
think we need to look a little further ahead than just this one well and
just this one challenge.
This can be a very lucrative and important process for Collier
Page 171
May 13, 2014
County and its residents perhaps ifs jobs are created. On the other
hand it can be disastrous for people whose water might be polluted.
And we need answers to those questions before we reach any
agreement with anybody, the state or anybody else.
And I quite frankly, and this comes as no surprise to most people,
am not afraid of taking on the state on this issue. It's important
enough that we assure that our people are safe. And I'd like to do it in
a way that permits people to exercise their rights of extracting
minerals if they own the mineral rights. But it has to be done in a way
that we can prove and that we know is safe.
And I have never ever seen a higher level of government, state or
Federal, that performs an adequate job of oversight, inspection and
enforcement for these kinds of things. I've never seen it happen
anywhere. And to accept the state's authority in this case I think
would be -- without question would be a serious long-term error for
Collier County.
But that's my take on it. I do not -- I'm not alleging that
anybody's done anything illegal in this particular case in this drilling
of this oil well. I'm only suggesting that when people start cutting
corners in the early stages of a business relationship, that does not
bode well for the long term.
And I have always found that when people betray you once,
they'll do it again and again and again until you get rid of them. It's
that simple. So basically that's where I am with this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Nance and
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, there is a tremendous number
of things to be dissatisfied about regarding our relationship as a county
regarding this issue with all of the stakeholders involved. And when I
say that, I mean DEP, the vendors that have come down, meaning Dan
A. Hughes and Collier Resources.
My attempt at the original agenda item was to find a mechanism
Page 172
May 13, 2014
and to use this incident as a methodology to gain influence over a
larger area, not just to work on this one incident. I mean, we can beat
this one incident to death and of course the consent agreement and the
settlement agreement has to do with that. But I believe in my heart
that my most important element of the last agenda item was the
protocol between FDEP and Hughes and Collier Resources that we
have to have going forward.
Everybody in this room must understand that the great vast
majority of the oil resources that are going to be tapped into if this
continues in Collier County are going to be on federal lands. The
Department of the Interior has been involved with this since the
Seventies when the Big Cypress Preserve was created, and out in
Raccoon Point where this goes on to begin with.
So you've got so many moving parts between the federal, the
federal EPA, the state, U.S. Fish & Wildlife regarding its affect on
animals. There are so many things. And we are not in possession of a
lot of cards here, and we do not have good communication.
It is disastrous to come right before this meeting again and have
another surprise that there's potentially another big issue because
there's something, whoops, that somebody overlooked or failed to
mention or whatever that was brought forth by The Conservancy. I
appreciate on their part.
But I think at the same time I think we have to be very careful
how we engage this issue. This is something we're going to have to be
involved with for a very long time.
I do not think that jumping direct to litigation is necessarily a
methodology that's going to produce the best result. I might be wrong,
but I really think that we need to have a much, much better
relationship for example with Collier Resources. They have the most
economic potential gain to make.
And just as we lose our water resources and our impact to the
citizens, their land is going to be destroyed if this is done improperly.
Page 173
May 13, 2014
They have a great deal of stake in this issue and, you know, they're not
engaged. They're not engaged with the county, they're not engaged
with anybody that I can see.
I believe that sending Mr. Klatzkow up to have a meeting is not
necessarily a bad thing, for a couple of reasons. I think it's going to
open discussions, but it's also not going to limit our ultimate ability to
file this petition. If it limited our ability to file the petition, I would
agree with Commissioner Henning, I think we should just go ahead
and get it done and be done with it.
But if we have an extension and we'd have a chance to engage
with discussions, that's where we need to talk about additional
provisions, oversight, safeguards, monitoring, everything that I
mentioned. All that needs to come up in these discussions. And then
if we're not satisfied we're not getting anywhere, we can engage some
with a formal petition process.
But I believe that it's in our best interest to proceed thoroughly,
try to open these discussions and get everybody engaged and find out
if indeed we're going to be able to deal with these people at all or it's
just not going to be possible. Then I think we are going to know the
more we talk.
I'm in favor of talking about everything. And if they've given us
an opportunity for an extension, I think we ought to take them up on it
and I have absolutely complete faith in Mr. Klatzkow's ability to go up
and assess the circumstance, feel how he feels Collier County is being
treated and then come back and make a report to the Board and figure
out what our next move needs to be.
So I endorse his agenda item because I think there's very little if
any downside to it and quite possibly some very valuable upside in
establishing some relationships that we're going to have to have.
We're just going to have to have better relations. We cannot continue
like this. This is a complete nightmare.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
Page 174
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Jeff, when you go up there, if the Board approves you to go up to
discuss, you know, what can be done to bolster the consent order in
our favor, you do understand you can't commit to anything, and that
whatever -- in other words, you're not going to act on our behalf, that
you're just going to go there, you're going to negotiate, you know what
we want and why and what our concerns are, and then you will bring
that back to the Board and then tell us everything that was discussed,
what the proposed settlement is and then we'll have the opportunity to
vote on that.
If we decide against what you bring back to us, we then can go
ahead and sue them, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I will do what I always will do and that's to
understand your direction as best I can, I will negotiate pursuant to
that direction, and then I will bring back a proposed agreement for you
to review and at that point in time it's your decision.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we preserve our right that we
have the ability that if we don't get what we want, that we can sue
them.
MR. KLATZKOW: Until you take that vote yes or no, and you
don't have a settlement agreement in front of you right now --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. No, of course not.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- then it's your prerogative.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And let me understand this whole
issue of fracking. I thought that we agreed there was going to be no
fracking.
MR. KLATZKOW: When you say we agreed that there was no
fracking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I thought we as a board said
that we were opposed to fracking.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you know, if you're going to make a
decision that there will be no fracking in Collier County, then I'll take
Page 175
May 13, 2014
that message up to DEP. But that's what they're going to be doing.
That's how they're extracting the oil. I mean these aren't new oil fields
in this country that we're getting oil out of, these are old oil fields that
with this new technology they're able to get more oil out of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, but there are other
ways to get the oil besides fracking. No?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's why you're going through an R --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that the only way they can
extract the oil is through fracking?
MR. KLATZKOW: Think of it as a sponge, these fields. They
got maybe 10 percent of these fields with the old technology. Now
they're squeezing another 10 or 15 percent out of them with fracking.
And years from now they'll have another technology to be able to
squeeze --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, but let's just --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- out more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- focus on this technology. I need
to understand, are they or are they not fracking?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They are.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think they are, okay. And, you know, they
may say differently, but I think they are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And isn't it true, I certainly had
heard it, every time the question was asked, the answer was we're not
going to be fracking here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is what I heard too. And that
has to be made clear.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think people expected that to
be the case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was what I thought.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what people are trying to tell
Page 176
May 13, 2014
us is well, we're using different chemicals to do this. We're not using
the same chemicals they used out in Texas. But the process is the
same, it's fracking.
So there's a lot of misinformation that exists here. And we can't
fall into the trap of accepting all this without solid proof that it will not
harm our groundwater or our residents.
But I didn't get an answer, a clear answer, to my question. If we
include this sentence in this agreement, this memorandum of
understanding, whatever it is, that says Collier County's role will be
purely advisory, do we sacrifice any rights by agreeing to that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How is that so?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're just held by this one consent order.
And the consent order is talking about them getting an expert, you
know, to conduct these reports, all right? At the end of the day they
review this expert report and any approval will be DEP. We'll get
copies of the report, we'll be able to have some discussions with DEP,
but at the end of the day the discussion will be DEP with respect to
this one well, with respect to this one issue on this one consent order.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see no reason for that sentence to
be included. I agree with Commissioner Coyle. I mean, our role
doesn't have to be limited to advisory. I don't think our role has to be
defined. I mean, our standing is what it is. And I think we have the
right to be involved to whatever extent we think is necessary. We're
not going to limit ourselves contractually or in any other way.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, hang on. Let me turn off
Commissioner Hiller's speaker light. Let me pull it out.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a -- Officer, I hit him.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Arrest her.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I would ask the County Attorney if
Page 177
May 13, 2014
that is not an ability to restrict our liability on what occurs on this.
And what my questions to this Board is, is does this Board want to
assume the responsibility of regulating this industry in this county?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we should --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't think it's wise for us to
engage. I think we are very wise and I think Commissioner Coyle was
right on when he said we need to get these people to do the right thing.
If they're not going to do the right thing, that's where our issue is. I
don't think we can assume responsibility or believe for a minute that
we have the ability to make decisions on this as well as technical staff
that's available at the state and federal level. But they have to do it.
If they're going to be responsible for it, I think we have a right to
request that they step up and be responsible for dealing with it in a
complete forthright manner in dealing with us in that way and
dispatching their responsibility so we don't have to worry about the
safety of our water and the safety of our citizens. They have to be in
charge if they're going to be in charge. I don't see how it is that we are
a possible alternative to that.
But how do we require them to do that? That is the challenge
that's before us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's -- you're not going to get
that through a settlement agreement. We're all saying, at least the
majority is saying the same thing, is we don't have enough information
on the process, so how can we approve or how can we not intervene
on behalf of the citizens of Collier County that (sic) stop the process
until we have more information about how they're doing it. And DEP
needs to do the same. And we need to find out what if any effects of
what has been done out there, if there's any effects on our drinking
water today.
Again, you know, I have a lot of faith in our local organization,
The Conservancy, of providing us valid information. If the
information is that we have an open well 200 feet away from the
Page 178
May 13, 2014
existing well site where they're drilling, I have a lot of concern. An
open well. And we --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We need to look into that. We
need to have better communication. The biggest crisis I see is that we
have absolutely no communications as to what's going on out there.
It's dismal. It's ridiculous.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And DEP needs to make sure
that the citizens of Collier County are protected. That's why the
Department of Environmental Protection is there, for the overall -- a
permitting process for the overall protection of the environment,
including our water resources.
Commissioner Coyle, you want to go to public speakers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'd just like to make one
other comment. I don't care how much we demand of state or federal
governments as far as monitoring is concerned and enforcement. I'll
say it again, they will not do it adequately. They just won't do it.
On the other hand there are perhaps some things that we can
require here that will encourage the drillers to do it right themselves or
otherwise there's a very, very substantial penalty. We could require
perhaps, I don't know, the posting of substantial bonds for every well
so that if something goes wrong, if it pollutes something, there's
money there that will help clean it up and we have reason to stop it.
But I have absolutely zero confidence in a governmental agency
to effectively enforce this issue here. It just won't happen. They'll say
it will happen. They'll put it into regulations. And then every time
something goes wrong, they'll negotiate a settlement, you see, just like
they're doing right now.
So we've got to have something that is more substantial than that
and happens very, very quickly.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I agree with you,
Commissioner Coyle. And I think we need companion
understandings with every party concerned here, not just the DEP.
Page 179
May 13, 2014
But I have an expectation that Collier Resources is going to be
involved in this industry for years, that they have to step up. I'm very
dissatisfied with the way they're approaching this and I'm very
dissatisfied with the way their vendor is approaching it.
And I don't think -- if we do not have a working relationship and
good solid agreements that people are going to conduct business in a
sustainable manner that we're ever going to be happy with the results.
Because it's always going to be one or the other.
So I agree. So like I say, I hope that Collier Resources and
Hughes and DEP are involved with some sort of discussions and that
the County Attorney can come back and relay that to us and tell us
how bad the situation is, if we're going to be able to do something or
not. And I think it starts with a conversation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm just copying what both of
these gentlemen have said, Commissioner Nance and Commissioner
Coyle. No communication. You're probably meaning between the
Dan Hughes company and the Collier Resources and the County
Commission, right?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sure. You see anybody here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, but that's what I'm saying. I'm
just wanting to make sure, because you just said no communication. I
want to put on the record that's what you mean.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All parties, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because that's the only --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All parties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- way it will ever work is to
everybody work together so you know what's happening.
And then the second thing is with Commissioner Coyle, just as in
La Peninsula this morning, we actually would need a certified
engineering study to see if any damages have been done or if they can
be done the way things are now going before we jump to a conclusion.
Page 180
May 13, 2014
But I agree with you, I don't know that you can ever just count on
what the government tells you, because --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: State and federal government.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- sometimes they're judging from
up north so, you know, they haven't even taken a real good look at it.
So I think it would be a good idea to make a -- you know, if you get
an engineering firm. I mean, if you guys want to spend the money to
take a good study of it.
I think that The Conservancy certainly has had -- they've given
us a wonderful report for anybody who doesn't know that. But we
ought to communicate with all companies, see what studies have been
made so far and pursue those, both of these suggestions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, let's go to public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 12 registered public
speakers for this item. Your first speaker is Jennifer Hecker. She'll be
followed by Noah Kugler.
MS. HECKER: Good afternoon. Jennifer Hecker on behalf of
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our more than 4,500
members, here today to ask the county to stay the course in its prior
direction of filing a petition, challenging the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's consent order with the Dan A. Hughes
Company regarding their illegal fracking-like activity at their Hogan
Island well, and seeking revocation of that permit.
We agree that there needs to be a proactive larger discussion
about oil and gas regulation, but there also needs to be a reactive
immediate response to this individual project and violation.
As a result of your prior direction, The Conservancy retained
legal counsel and technical expert consultation to provide us
information as to how we could support the county in this matter. As
a result of our legal and technical research, we found new information
that emphasizes the severe gravity of this situation.
The legal analysis showed that much of the information that
Page 181
May 13, 2014
should have been required prior to DEP finalizing a consent order to
settle this matter with Dan Hughes was not obtained prior to DEP
signing, including what chemicals were used in their material safety
data sheets, how and where the flow-back wastewater was disposed of.
If the amount of water used was consistent with their Consumptive
Use Water Permit limits, and Interim Spill Prevention and Cleanup
Plan and assurances that injected fluids have not migrated to other
groundwater formations in aquifers.
Without this vital additional information it is not possible to
know all the appropriate enforcement measures needed at this time, so
it would be premature to try to negotiate now and know everything
that should be in the consent order.
On the technical analysis front we also found substantial new
information, including that the injection of acid and other substances
used in this horizontal drilling activity were within 182 feet of an
improperly plugged open well to the same approximate depth dug
back in 1948, creating an open connection for upwelling of those
chemicals to our drinking water supply aquifers.
This open well was known to the applicant and depicted on
application materials submitted to the DEP, yet the horizontal drilling
was not required to be relocated, nor the well even properly plugged
with cement.
The hydrogeological expert we've retained is here today to
provide his findings and answer any questions you might have
regarding potential groundwater contamination, as well as explain his
recommendations as to what remedial actions are needed with regard
to the well and modifications to the permit, which are also in his
written opinion which has been submitted to you.
As a result of this new information there are many more
remediation and permit modification steps necessary as enforcement
actions to appropriately protect Collier's drinking water, in addition to
the originally proposed $1 million bond and DEP or DEP retained
Page 182
May 13, 2014
consultant impact analysis and groundwater monitoring that we'd
previously suggested.
Collier citizens cannot afford any delay on the county's part.
Given the potential continued migration of unsafe chemicals in and
through Collier's water supply, the Commission needs to take
immediate action to protect public health and safety in proceeding
with its petition for an administrative hearing.
Only in an administrative hearing can we and other public
stakeholders obtain the information necessary to understand the scale
of these impacts to protect our most precious resource, our drinking
water. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Noah Kugler. He'll be
followed by Rob Moher.
MR. KUGLER: Greetings, board members. I'm Noah Kugler of
H2O GO Solutions, LLC for the record.
Some of this is technical so I'm pretty much going to read it to
you.
As a geologist with a master's degree in geology, focusing on
hydrogeology and computer modeling from USF, 10 years of
experience with Cardno ENTRIX and three-and-a-half years of
experience with the Water Management District, including senior
water use permitting supervisor and groundwater modeler for this
area, with issuing hundreds of permits from the Water Management
District, I'm an expert in South Florida geology, hydrogeology and
regulation.
I was retained by The Conservancy of Southwest Florida to do an
independent evaluation of the horizontal drilling activities performed
by the Dan A. Hughes Company at the Hogan Farm well site.
My findings have been submitted to you in writing and in short
these were the -- we find a strong potential for existing and future
contamination of groundwater, including those aquifers that Collier
County relies on for its drinking water as a result of the unauthorized
Page 183
May 13, 2014
actions performed.
This is due to the high potential of migration of the injected
fluids into two nearby dry boreholes, one of which we've talked about
which I will estimate at 200 feet away from the horizontal borehole.
There's a second well that the DEP records show is open to
approximately 97 feet below land surface. So from 12,000 feet to 97
feet below land surface, one half a mile in the opposite direction of the
main borehole of this well.
So aside from the one that's 200 feet away from the horizontal leg
which contaminates, no matter how far you push those contaminates
they most likely got 200 feet away. And that well is open to above the
underground source of drinking water and into drinking aquifers. The
other well that is located a half a mile to the west is open from 12,000
feet to approximately 97 feet, based on DEP records, of poor -- of
non-plugging and proper abandonment of that well.
So -- and the one we show on the screen shows our well that's
about 200 feet south of that horizontal leg.
There's another well, this one being -- we're calling this one
number 86.
MR. MILLER: Stay on the microphone, please.
MR. KUGLER: There's another well one half a mile in that
direction from the main borehole there, which is number 103 permit,
which is the one that I speak about coming all the way up to our
surficial aquifer system.
As a result of our studies and findings, seven initial remedial
actions need to be taken immediately from my technical standpoint.
The first is that a mechanical integrity test of the well casing at
the drill well and wastewater injection well, if there is one --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, can you hold up just for a
minute?
Does anybody have a problem with this gentleman finishing his
presentation?
Page 184
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, please continue.
MR. KUGLER: I should have read faster. Sony, guys.
A mechanical integrity test of the well casing of the drill well and
the wastewater well injection well, if one was used to dispose of any
kickback water, there should be a mechanical integrity test done with
tracer dye studies to make sure the casing, the cement behind those
casings is sound and there's not migration fluid behind those casings.
And additional to the groundwater monitoring suggested for the
proposed Sandstone Aquifer, this should be augmented with
groundwater monitoring in deeper aquifers that would better provide
early detection of contaminates prior to reaching drinking water
aquifers.
A tracer dye study should also be done between the horizontal
leg of the Hughes well and the two dry borehole wells that are nearby.
Three: A groundwater flow modeling should be simulated --
should simulate the fracking lake activities that have already been
undertaken, especially in the absence of actual measurements during
the procedure and given the unauthorized nature of it.
Four: An operational plan needs to be provided to the county and
DEP to ensure that there is not excessive dissolution of rock or forcing
of fluids deeper into the target zone than necessary.
And five: The location and method of the wastewater disposal is
vital to knowing -- to ensuring that we're not dissolving rock,
particularly rock that is above the target zone that in the analysis that
the DEP would use for permitting would not be dissolved away. So
this rock that is looked at is for confinement above certain areas for
upper migration. We really don't want that to dissolve.
Six: The two nearby dry hole wells should be properly plugged
and abandoned with sufficient oversight to make sure that it's done
correctly.
Number seven: Groundwater flow modeling and tracer dye
Page 185
May 13, 2014
testing should be conducted regarding any future and proposed
fracking activities to analyze the high risk potential of migration down
gradient, the two existing private wells, potentially the Orange Tree
utility and residential wells, and also the proposed northeast Collier
County brackish well field water wells.
These steps are based on the information that we have been able
to obtain to date. Additional information such as where the wastewater
was disposed, the volumes of the wastewater and the composition of
the wastewater may warrant additional remedial actions.
In closing, no amount of money and no amount of man can bring
back the life that's gone when it's gone.
With that, I'll answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Board?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Jeff, the consultant just
outlined in effect what should be considered as part of the amendment
to the consent order. Could you take what the consultant has just
proposed to Tallahassee and say this is what we want?
MR. KLATZKOW: If that's the Board direction, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on.
And I agree with that. However, we don't know -- do we really
know the effects of this type of technology on our aquifers? Can you
answer that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. KUGLER: No, we do not know. But again --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well wait, hang on.
MR. KUGLER: No, we don't know. But I don't want to find out
personally. I don't want my grandchildren to find out.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But can I just finish the comment I
was going to make?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, go ahead.
Page 186
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I know where you're
going, because I'm thinking the same thing.
My concern goes back to the issue of fracking. And it's very
clear, you know, what they were doing was not something that we
were familiar with, nor did we know that they were doing it.
You know, part of the discussion would be in addition to what
you're proposing is that what -- that we're not going to accept fracking
as a methodology for them to extract. I mean, they've been using
other methods besides fracking to extract. And while I understand
you're saying the fracking will extract so much more, we're not going
to do it at the expense of the environment or public safety.
So in addition to what you've provided, given that we don't know
what the potential impact is, I'd say that until we do we don't allow it.
Because we don't want to put anybody or anything at risk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we don't permit --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But as part of this consent order --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- whether or not allowed, yeah, that
the Board of Commissioners wishes that fracking be stopped. And all
the other things provided as The Conservancy consultant stated.
And, you know, I don't know where this is going to go on future
oil drilling in Collier County, but until state government and local
government is assured that this is not going to harm our environment
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the public.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and the public, they shouldn't allow
it. State shouldn't allow it and the county shouldn't allow it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And if I may, one other point, Jeff,
and this -- you know, having -- I read what Jennifer handed out. And
what she presented to us was essentially a draft of how they would
position themselves as intervener in the event that we were to go to
litigation.
And one thing that's very clear to me is that -- and we've
Page 187
May 13, 2014
discussed this, that, you know, DEP didn't do what it should have
done. And I guess my question is, you know, if we were to proceed to
litigation if coming to an agreement to amend the consent order as we
would like to see it amended doesn't come to pass and we do proceed
to the courts, I mean, I really think that we should maybe be suing
DEP.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, they're just a regulatory agency,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, but they have certain
duties. And I'm not very familiar with, you know, this type of law but,
you know, it's very clear to me that they had certain duties that they
failed to act on. I mean, I don't know, I'm just asking a question. And
I understand that they're a regulatory agency, but as a regulatory
agency there are laws that govern what they are supposed to do. And
they can't just sit by and say okay, we just regulate so we're not
responsible. They failed to do what they were supposed to do in
regulating this company.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think -- the position I took in my
frack petition was that there are insufficient regulations on the books
right now. And until we get sufficient regulations, that we shouldn't
be doing this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But with respect to
the regulations that do exist that they were supposed to enforce, did
they not fail to enforce them or did they enforce all the regulations
they had a duty to enforce?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think Hughes violated any
regulation, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What did they do?
MR. KLATZKOW: In essence what happened was, from my
understanding talking to DEP, their analogy was that of a police car
that puts on a siren and you don't go off the road. It wasn't they did
anything wrong, it's that when DEP said stop, we want to look and
Page 188
May 13, 2014
check this out, they did not stop --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand that.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- they went ahead. But the work that was
done fell within DEP guidelines.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that true? Let me ask Jennifer
for clarification.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'm telling you what DEP told me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. I want to know what
Jennifer has to say.
MS. HECKER: Yeah, our attorneys have reviewed this and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Jennifer, you are working
with our County Attorney, right, in the --
MS. HECKER: We've been in communication, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, anything you've got you
really do need to share with him --
MS. HECKER: We have been.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so he has all the same
information so that --
MR. KLATZKOW: We've been sharing information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's most important.
Go ahead.
MS. HECKER: Our attorneys have reviewed this and it's very
clear that they needed a work over permit. They did not. They
applied for that. DEP did not grant that, actually told them no, we will
not be able to grant you that because this is a technique that's never
been used before, we need to review it and understand it before we
permit it.
And without that authorization, without that permit, they
proceeded. Even after DEP caught them doing it without
authorization and gave them a cease and desist order, they did not
cease and desist for a full 24 hours even after that.
So three to four days they went on with this procedure without
Page 189
May 13, 2014
authorization from DEP. So that is why we say that it is legal. Because
legally they were required to get a work over permit authorization
before proceeding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did DEP do everything they were
supposed to do pursuant to its mandate?
MS. HECKER: No. We've outlined in our motion to intervene
all of the ways that DEP did not meet its regulatory responsibilities
under the law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was what I thought when I
read it, which is why I said what I did.
So I would really appreciate -- and again, I didn't have a great
deal of time to study it since we just received this. But I would really
appreciate, Jennifer, if you would sit down with Jeff and go over how
DEP failed to do what it was supposed to do, and if the consultant
would again sit down and review in more detail with Jeff, you know,
what should be in this consent order and what DEP should be doing to
protect our interest so that if the Board approves him going up there to
bring about a settlement that everything we want is properly included.
Because it seems you have a great deal of detail that needs to be
considered as part of this negotiation.
MS. HECKER: We would be happy to do that. I would point out
though that we are pointing out legal deficiencies that can only be
addressed through a public administrative hearing process as far as
how DEP was deficient in their regulatory responsibilities.
As far as the consent order, we've outlined those seven additional
remedial actions. But without the additional information for instance
on where the wastewater was disposed, we can't know what additional
remedial actions are needed to address those components of the
violations, so the problem is we don't have enough information to
really have an amended consent order proposal for you that we would
feel is sufficient to protect Collier County's water supply.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And maybe that can be part of the
Page 190
May 13, 2014
negotiation, that a period of time is made available for us to do the
investigations necessary to determine what damage has been caused
and that whatever we determine is the damage that they take, you
know, responsibility obviously when presented with the proof and
remediate.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Well, remember, the original
settlement agreement called for an evaluation of what occurred, which
it is obvious that it's more extensive than we have been led to believe
since the beginning if there were these other wells that were open and
present. So I don't think it's possible for us to jump to what needs to
be remediated, because I don't think anybody has established so far
what even occurred.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's the point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's part of the investigation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the point that Jennifer Hecker
was trying to make.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, there's supposed to be a third
party as part of the original agreement as stated before we got
involved in discussing the challenge, a third party to determine --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hired by the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- what happened and what should
happen and what needs to be remediated and to assure us or guarantee
that it's not damaging the environment or anybody. So, I mean, there's
already a lot of stipulations that have already been discussed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, the Hughes
Company is to hire a third party to evaluate what has happened,
correct?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right. And we've already talked
about that being unacceptable, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. But that's like BP hiring
Page 191
May 13, 2014
Halliburton --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to look at their --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's one of the elements that we
were --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And by the way, federal
environmental protection ok'd those permits. So let's take that extra
step of precaution. Don't go into settlement. I don't even know why
we waste our time to go up to Tallahassee to talk about a settlement
when there's so many issues that need to be discovered through
discovery. It needs a higher degree of scrutiny. Because, I mean, a
third party needs to be a judge, and we need to challenge the DEP's
consent order and ask the judge to do certain things. One thing is
provide the effects of what has happened there, tell -- order DEP to
have those abandoned wells plugged, tell them not to do any fracking
until we know that it is safe for the citizens of Collier County and the
State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why can't we first try to
accomplish all of that through Jeff going up there and getting that in
an agreement? Because my concern is if we go straight to litigation
and don't try this, we could potentially get everything we want out of a
settlement. If we don't, we can go to litigation. My concern is -- I
mean, we can always go to -- we can always have settlement
discussions during litigation. I mean, that always is an option.
But I would hate to end up in a situation where some judge rules
again and we don't get everything we want. I mean, if we have the
potential to negotiate and try to get everything we want, I think we
should do that as a first shot. If we don't get what we want, then I
think we go to litigation. And again the opportunity for ongoing
settlement discussions continues throughout that process regardless.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I agree with that methodology.
That's what --
Page 192
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we go to the next speaker then?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I think it's absolutely essential
that your recommendations are included as part of those settlement
negotiations and that Jennifer's position on what DEP needs to be done
needs to be included as well, because they're part and parcel of this
settlement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
MR. KUGLER: Yeah, one 15-second point, that even if a
fracking extraction operation in my point of view had picked a perfect
reservoir for where there's no potential for vertical migration, we still
have to look at the borehole that they drilled to get to that well and
how much oversight do they allow drilling of these oil wells.
So my concern would always be, you know, the borehole that
they initially drilled, the mechanical integrity regardless of if their
formation -- their fracking is at 27,000 feet and below the ocean, you
know, that borehole needs to be considered. I'm just putting that out
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that would be another item to
your list.
MR. KUGLER: I believe -- I mean, we do have that on there,
that those -- you know, but even if you say is fracking safe, do we find
a safe reservoir, they're not going to let you come in and I don't
believe oversee the drilling of their well. And that's a big potential
where these problems could come from, in my opinion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's the actual well itself, not
just the process.
MR. KUGLER: Not just the reservoir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have inspectors on our water
wells that are dug, inspectors on-site, watching that casing being put
in, watching the cementing around that casing for water wells, for
drinking wells. So --
MR. KUGLER: As the deep injection wells, municipal waste
Page 193
May 13, 2014
and our rejection wells, same way. I mean, I've sat on many of them,
and we do try to oversee as much as they're doing. I don't know who's
sitting on these oil wells.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's the question that needs to
be asked.
Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Rob Moher. He'll be
followed by Joe Mule'.
MR. MOHER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Rob Moher,
President, CEO, Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I think the most criminal point I'd like to share with all of you in
this discussion is this: It is critical that the Commission pursue a
public process versus a private process.
The Conservancy in less than 72 hours has uncovered new
information that was already known to Dan Hughes, was already in
the permit to DEP, and we were the ones that brought that forth. What
other information is not known at this point?
If the county enters into these private discussions, the public will
not be at the table. The Conservancy cannot bring the resources, the
technical, legal expertise, 50 years of understanding Southwest
Florida's environment. We can't be there to support you in a very
dynamic fluid situation.
So the point I'd like to make is that we must seek an
administrative hearing. Because only through that hearing are we
going to force the disclosure of information that is going to open up
the full scope of what has taken place here.
And regarding what's taken place here, I mean, I was reading the
paper. We've got the Los Angeles Times writing about this. We've
got people all over the country looking at what's going to happen here
today.
This is the first instance of this type of fracking like activity in
the State of Florida. This is a huge new level that we are entering into.
Page 194
May 13, 2014
And so I think relegating this to a private process versus a public
process would be of great concern to The Conservancy. That's why
we move to support you with our resources, with our expertise, to try
and make this a public process where all the information in that
administrative hearing can be properly disclosed, which would not
necessarily happen in private settlement talks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just comment on that?
MR. MOHER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not going to be private,
because there's nothing that Jeff can approve. Whatever is discussed,
he is going to bring back to us as a board and he is going to publicly
announce what was discussed and what is being proposed.
So it's not a closed door private process. He is merely going up
there as a representative to speak on our behalf as to what we want
and then tell us whether or not they accepted it.
MR. KLATZKOW: These are going to be confidential
discussions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, they are confidential?
MR. MOHER: Yeah, they are not a public process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, they're not? Then my
apologies. Then can I --
MR. KLATZKOW: When I come back with a proffered
document, that's when it will be discussed. But the discussions I have
with DEP and Hughes, if I go up to Tallahassee, I will not talk about
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then I have a problem with
that. That needs to be open.
MR. MOHER: And I think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or in the alternative that
Conservancy goes up with you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then -- okay. I don't think Hughes is going
to want that, but okay.
Page 195
May 13, 2014
MR. MOHER: Well, of course, because we're the ones who are
helping shed light on what has actually occurred here. And I think we
are here as a support to you as the Commission. We are here to
support the decision you made two weeks ago, to intervene on your
behalf. We are spending our money, our donors' money to support
this public process, to ensure the right thing happens for our drinking
water and for our community. That's the approach The Conservancy's
bringing. We're here to support you and to make sure things get done
right.
In a public process you know you'll have access to full
information. In a private settlement conversation, The Conservancy
will not be there to guide, to support what is -- as we've all seen today
an extremely fluid situation with new information that could come up
tomorrow, the next day or the day after that.
So I think at the end of the day just to formally state it, we're
asking you to direct the County Attorney to proceed with an
administrative challenge to the DEP consent order with the Dan
Hughes Company, and we look forward to participating and bringing
our resources to bear as an intervener in that process.
And I know you believe and understand how much The
Conservancy is committed to bringing the facts, the science to the
conversation. But this is quite a momentous occasion right now,
because in a negative way this is the first time this activity has
happened here, and so I think we have to look at this very seriously
about how we as a community respond.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Joe Mule'. He's been ceded
additional time from John Lundin, Jane Carroll and Frank Cummings
for a total of 12 minutes. He will be followed by Pamela Duran.
MR. MULE': Hi. Good to see all of you again, and first of all I'd
like to laud you for your prior action in terms of trying to stop this.
I'm concerned and confused as to why we are trying to negotiate.
Page 196
May 13, 2014
If someone's trying to break into my home, I'm not going to negotiate,
I'm going to pull out the gun and I'm going to shoot.
We are in danger. I don't know how else to put it. We all realize
we're in danger. There's been some events that have happened that
have really highlighted how much in danger we really are.
I'm confused as to why we're going to negotiate, and especially
since it was clarified that ifs done in secret. We should not be
negotiating, we should be stopping anything that looks like, smells
like, walks like, talks like fracking in this area.
And to that point let me make something clear. If you say that
we want to outlaw fracking, you really need to be more specific.
Because they will say we are not fracking in the traditional terms of
what they call fracking, which is using explosives underground to
break the minerals in order to be able to gain access.
The geology in Florida does not lend itself for that. They can
actually just use acid in order to be able to dissolve the dolomite rock
underneath in order to be able to gain access to the oil.
When I hear people talk about something that is so, I don't know,
I guess at this point I'm almost immune to feeling some of the things
that I hear going on and the things that are in the media. I'll share this
of these things with you.
I don't know if you all are aware about three weeks ago the
family in Texas that successfully sued, got $3 million for health
damages to fracking -- that fracking cost to their family. This was in
Texas. This is about three weeks ago. This is about the same time
that Rex Tillerson -- for those of you who are not familiar with who
Rex Tillerson is, he is the CEO of the mother of all frackers, Exxon
Mobile. Rex Tillerson sued in Texas to stop fracking in his
neighborhood. Are you all aware of that at all? Have you seen the
article? He actually said that no, it was unsightly that the water towers
that they were going to be using in his neighborhood were not
acceptable, he got together with his community and he filed suit.
Page 197
May 13, 2014
Great. That's fine for us in Florida but it's not great for him in his
little part of Texas.
I think that we're getting into analyzing why we shouldn't
negotiate. These people, Collier Resources, and I know,
Commissioner Nance, you've got a long history relationship with
them. I'm not implying anything at all and I know you want to try to
have negotiations as much as possible, but there is nothing to gain for
the public, there's nothing to gain for the people in this room, for the
constituents that have voted each and every one of you into on office.
These same constituents now, and if you look at any newspaper
locally or internationally or nationally, as it's been seen, because I saw
in Durs Thurn (phonetic) in Germany -- I do speak some German and
write it, by the way -- that it even hit in Germany. It's in France.
So the fact that they're looking to frack in Florida is in Europe.
And I'll tell you why it's in Europe. You know that we get a lot of
people from Germany, we get a lot of people from France and other
parts of Europe. When they fly over the landscape that they expect to
be seeing, the Amazon of North America, what they will be seeing is
an industrial megalith of wells that are dotting the landscape.
I have a picture that I'll have to send each one of you, there's
several of them that show what these wells really look like when
they're put into production. You have hundreds of them within just a
short distance of each other. This is what you will see from a plane
coming down here.
The dangers are huge. I'm not going to talk about anymore the
fact that the kids are going to be out on the corner. My kids -- my
daughter, who I do give a damn about her safety and her concern,
because she's only 17 years old, I care about the fact that fire, toxic
gasses, et cetera, could harm her. This is something that's got to stop.
Let's talk about how well DEP has done this. No pun intended.
I don't know if you all recall when I appeared here last year that I told
you that they, DEP, had approved a well to be installed in India
Page 198
May 13, 2014
halfway across the world. Because when they looked at the latitude
and longitude, they were not careful enough to have the plus or the
minus sign corrected, the number was right, and they approved the
well to be drilled in India until we at Preserve Our Paradise let them
know what had gone on and they corrected that.
Well, maybe I shouldn't have done it and I should have seen what
would have happened at that point, but I had to do the right thing and
let them know what was going on.
We are in a position right now where liability -- and I heard you
say, Commissioner Nance, earlier that you were concerned about the
liability. There is no price you can put on the liability that this
Commission will have if all the people in this area have to leave or
start getting sick. A million dollars on a well -- I heard before in this
same room, we actually had, and this to me is also mind boggling, we
had folks from the Big Cypress Swamp Committee meet right where
you all are sitting, and thank you very much for providing the facility,
they basically said this is bad. They said it's bad for a lot of reasons.
I hope each one of you have looked at the video footage of that
and have seen exactly what happened. These folks said don't do it,
don't approve it. The judge in our hearing, the DOAH hearing that
we've got going on that we're very happy right now, The Conservancy
has joined us in this effort, basically said no, we don't care what
they're recommending, we don't care if these people are all
professionals, we don't care if they have doctorates. We care about
approving this permit because it's good for business.
As far as business, and let me get this straight out and clear, there
are no jobs. Hughes clearly came out here and it is on video in one of
the meetings you sponsored Commissioner Nance, they clearly said
we bring specialized people from Texas to do this job, we pack up and
then we leave. Why? Because we don't have people skilled to do that
work here.
Where are the jobs going to be? The trucks that drive petroleum
Page 199
May 13, 2014
back and forth, the oil they extract from the well to Port Everglades,
where they have already said publicly, this is also in one of the video
recordings, it will be sold to the highest bidder, wherever that is.
And he clearly said after that, I don't care. That's the attitude that
these folks have. I don't care. They can't police themselves. They're
lawbreakers obviously. We've seen that. We've clarified the fact these
folks are not to be trusted. Why the hell are we going to negotiate
with them?
Mr. Coyle, Commissioner Coyle, you basically said that if you
fool me once, in not those exact same words, I'm not going to let you
fool me twice. Why should we negotiate with these people who are
doing this? There's no reason for that. You all have families, you all
have roots in this community, and I hope that you really give this the
due consideration. Fight it.
We're talking about a million dollars that you could lose in the
value of some real estate investment when that million dollars applied
to the safety and well-being of the residents of Collier County
employed in litigation would be extremely well spent. Collier County
would stand in the forefront of the nation for standing up for what's
right for its people.
And you can do it. You can write laws to stop them. Dresden,
New York and other communities throughout the country are fighting
successfully in order to stop this. And if you want, I will be glad to
provide you with documentation that shows the type of legislation that
they have put together in order to be able to stop this in their
communities. If you want to stop it. Unless of course you want to
negotiate, and then in that case that's something totally different.
But we know that these people, whether it's Dan Hughes or
someone else, if you stop Dan Hughes, guess what's going to happen?
Collier Resources and the Collier families are not going to stop
looking for oil. They're not going to stop trying to drill. They're
going to find another Texas Wildcatter to take their place. And I'm
Page 200
May 13, 2014
sure the next one will be no different than the one that we're trying to
get rid of today.
We have to stop this in a way that's more effective, in a way that
truly will protect the safety, health and well-being of the people of
Southwest Florida.
Today I actually was supposed to be out in Lee County, and
changed my plans, meeting with Commissioner Nance out there -- I
mean with Commissioner Mann to talk about Lee County and the fact
that we have apprized them now of the land that's being explored in
Lee County for fracking out there as well.
I had to send two of the other folks within our organization, our
vice-president and another director, to talk to them because they are
very interested in stopping this.
And I would ask you all to work in concert with them, because
Collier Resources and Collier companies do not own land just here but
we know that throughout a large part of Southwest Florida.
So these folks do not also have any, how can I put this, they don't
have the Collier family base in Lee County like we have here. I know
they employ some people. But I can't believe that they employ
enough to make a difference where we would allow them to continue
to do what they're trying to do.
They own their minerals, I'm not going to deny that. But how
they get those minerals and if they're going to poison us is something
completely different.
Do the right thing. Don't negotiate on this thing. Don't do it in
the dark. This is Florida, Sunshine State. This is Collier. We have
Naples here.
My kid told me the other day, Dad, there's six Naples in the U.S.
I said no, there's only one Naples in the U.S., son. So guess why?
This is important. This is a destination for people from up north.
We have a community that depends a lot on dollars that are driven by
tourism. Tourism will suffer, our economy will suffer, our
Page 201
May 13, 2014
agricultural economy will suffer tremendously because of the fact that
the crops will be poisoned, and who's going to want to consume crops
that are poisoned?
I mean that. Because these people are using water wells that are
right near where the drilling is going to be done. There are no water
purification systems.
So if we think we can hide behind the barrier of some reverse
osmosis system in a plant somewhere, you can't because it's being fed
through the roots into these plants. If it weren't enough for all the
other toxins that we're applying to these today.
Now again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.
But continue with the courage, the determination that you've shown.
Don't stop short. Give it your all. This is important to everyone in
this community. This is not an item that's important to only a small
number. Everyone in this community. So please do the right thing.
Stop this, regulate it, legislate against it.
I don't care if it's in Big Cypress. You may have the federal
government involved, you may have the state involved, but you've got
a little county that can, could and will make a difference if you really
want to. Thank you today for your time, I appreciate that.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Pamela Duran. She'll be
followed by Dr. Karen Dwyer.
MS. DURAN: Hi. My name is Pamela Duran.
The lie has been told. Dan A. Hughes has been caught but
continues to play word games, never taking responsibility for any
wrongdoing.
A frustrating cry from the residents of Florida, help save our
water. Are we safe?
We turn to Florida DEP for answers, and we are told I can't say
anything, I can't do anything, I don't want to lose my job.
The Commissioners step in and promise to challenge the state's
consent order. The residents breathe a sigh of relief. Surely we will
Page 202
May 13, 2014
be better protected.
While the EPA reads through safety records of these injection
wells, flowing toxic chemicals through the aquifer. Oh, the problems
that can go wrong.
The State of Florida is being placed alongside other fracking
states. Will tourists come after seeing this or will they go to another
place?
Your decision will be on record and your legacy can go either
way. But one thing is for certain, you can't trust Dan A. Hughes. Do
not give in to the pressure of false promises and their deceitful
reassurances.
MR. MILLER: Next speaker is Dr. Karen Dwyer. She'll be
followed by Dr. John Dwyer.
DR. KAREN DWYER: At the last meeting you voted
unanimously to challenge the DEP's consent order on the Collier
Hogan well that was illegally fracked next to Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary, a 5,000 year old forest with the last remaining old growth
cypress in the nation.
We need you to stand fast and file your petition as promised, in
spite of pressure from the state to pursue a private settlement. We
don't want the Commissioners to take a private settlement that wraps
the entire incident in secrecy and excludes citizens from what should
be a transparent proceeding with public input. We want government
transparency.
Technical experts haves discovered an uncapped well only 150
feet from the horizontal directional drilling that could have
compromised our drinking water. Because drilling fluids migrate in
surface in uncapped wells.
Hughes and the DEP must be held accountable for their
negligence. We need the close scrutiny of a public hearing. The
fracking like incident was not a mistake or an oversight but was
committed with full knowledge of forethought.
Page 203
May 13, 2014
The DEP told Hughes not to do a procedure that had never been
done before in Florida. They ignored the state and went ahead with
what sounds like the same type of extreme acid fracking California
has legislated against.
When ordered to cease and desist Hughes continued in direct
defiance. Imagine our anger that a Texas oil company can disregard
the rules and laws and engage in unauthorized and untested acid
fracking in our vital water shed, either hoping they won't get caught
on the one hand or willing to pay the small fine on the other.
Two weeks ago you agreed that Hughes's permit should be
revoked because no amount of regulation will make drilling safe if the
company won't obey the rules.
We agree. We need a full and fair and public investigation of
Dan A. Hughes, just as the United States Senator Bill Nelson ordered.
To use the Senator's own words, we cannot tolerate expanded
industrial drilling activities that pose a threat to the drinking and
surface water so close to the Florida Everglades, one of the world's
great environmental treasures.
Please hold both Dan A. Hughes and the DEP accountable by
moving forward with your decisive action to challenge the consent
order. We need transparency and full public disclosure, which means
we need an administrative hearing.
Please go ahead with your plans to do that. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your next speaker is Dr. John Dwyer.
He's been ceded three additional minutes of time from Edward
Villalonga for a total of six minutes.
DR. JOHN DWYER: I'd like to thank all of the Commissioners
for your remarks earlier, as well as especially the spokespersons from
our Conservancy. I think all of the remarks that have been made
should be carefully considered.
One of the things that I'd like to begin with before I actually
Page 204
May 13, 2014
begin is that in my opinion the Hughes Oil Company, the state DEP
and Collier Resources have all exposed themselves as not the answer.
They have -- if we pass the buck onto the state to regulate us, we are
giving up our eyes.
And you've heard today what we can find out much better than
the supposed technological experts that work for the DEP. We are the
point men. Our eyes are the best ones to tell you what we see.
The two weeks ago decision that you made was the right thing, to
challenge the DEP's consent order on the Collier-Hogan well. We all
agree that no amount of regulation will make Hughes' drilling safe if
the company won't obey regulations.
You called for the revocation of the Dan A. Hughes permit. The
news reports keep saying that the site is south of Lake Trafford, but
the more accurate poignant and closer location should say just east of
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Internationally well known. The
whole world will ask why would anyone allow a drilling operation in
such a place.
Karen and I were sorely tempted to take pictures of the
Collier-Hogan well site once we learned of its presence and its
location. Last week we visited Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary again.
I used to go every weekend for years. Yet again -- and we decided we
had to find out what was being done so close to such a holy place. So
we rented a plane and flew over the site repeatedly, noticing the
differences between now and the pictures from just a few days ago
from NBC 2's helicopter. The cleanup is dramatic. However, the area
is still devastated and filthy from what was done. Worse, with HDD
this well's heavy water use has exacerbated the Sanctuary's drying up.
Worse yet is the secret disposal of the already permanently poisoned
water and radioactive filings.
Do not back down, Commissioners. Hughes follows the tradition
of oil companies which has become misrepresentation, lying,
disobeying orders. We have every right to be alarmed and angry that
Page 205
May 13, 2014
DEP failed to disclose the criminal wrongdoing at several public
hearings. You were right to listen to our voices last time. You are
wrong to listen to other voices today that try to calm your fears and
your anger.
The wholly predictable push for compromise and reneging on our
decisions are doubtless backed by powerful people making deals. But
they are wrong. Do not allow their false promises and expert
testimony to force you to reverse your decision.
Our expertise has grown vast during the slow progress of the last
year. We know that even their geology, the oil geologists' geology, is
falsely depicted and that their industries promises that everything is
completely safe have been mocked by terrible oil events all over our
nation. Even the chimera of energy independence is falsely presented,
since none of our Sunnyland oil will go into a single tank of a Collier
County vehicle.
Please, do petition for an administrative hearing. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski. He'll be
followed by Laura Tooley.
I do not see Bob.
Laura Tooley.
MS. TOOLEY: Good afternoon. Thank you, Commissioner
Nance, for your actions at the last meeting. I wasn't able to attend to
bring this to the attention of the Commission.
My house is about a mile and a half due south of the Hogan well.
For the past year or so I've seen the lights, the ambient lighting from it
lighting up the skyline off of my rear balcony.
I did not find out about this well at all until the other well was
being permitted and that opened up the avenue for conversation.
To find that this well had been permitted and put in place just
north of my house in such an environmentally sensitive area I found to
be extremely disheartening, that this could be done without my
knowledge. I'm on well water like anybody in that area.
Page 206
May 13, 2014
And, you know, my concern is not just the acid fracking and
what is going into the well for the drilling, but what is coming out.
That water comes back up, that acid comes back up and it has to be
disposed of. And then it's being put back into the ground into a
disposal well. To me that's -- I mean, I bathe in that water.
And I also recognize the fact that CREW feeds the watershed for
all of Collier County. I mean, from just east of State Road 29 CREW
runs north and south as well and then comes across to the north of me.
This is a danger not only to me and my home, but it's a danger to
Naples, it is a danger to the entire county that is west of State Road 29.
You know, I can't imagine that this could have been done so
secretively. The fracking we heard -- you know, I heard several times
it's not going to be -- we're not going to be fracking. But they are
injecting chemicals into -- to dissolve the limestone. If you take the
lime away you're dissolving limestone around your bathroom sink.
We do have sink holes in Florida. Now they're saying well, it's
only an eight-inch well that they're drilling horizontally, but when do
you become -- what causes an earthquake? How much does a plate
need to move? How much does the ground need to move for an
earthquake? We had one in Fort Myers not too long ago, I think you
might recall, back in January, I believe.
I mean this is a real and imminent danger to the people of Collier
County and I really would urge you, please go for the administrative
hearing, please keep this out in the opening where it can be discussed
publicly. Thank you for your attention.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: And that was your final public speaker on this
item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, is your light on
from before or is it for now?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, it's on from before, but I'd
like to make some comments.
Page 207
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Appreciate some guidance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I appreciate everything everybody
has said. And I think you're very heartfelt and I think you're accurate.
This is a very, very disturbing situation. And that is why I brought
the agenda item up this last time.
Now, we -- I don't see frankly any way that we can't go to
petition. I don't see any way that we cannot. But that doesn't give me
complete comfort, and let me tell you why. You know, in our petition
we're going to ask them just to pull a permit for the well. And if that
happens, that would be a good thing.
But what I am most fearful of is that that will not happen. And
my hope was, and the reason I've spent so much time on discussions,
and Mr. Mule', I know you don't think I'm a very nice person, but
actually I am.
MR. MULE': NO, I never said that. I think you're a gentleman
and a scholar.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, actually, the Collier
companies were my largest opponents in my election. I don't know if
you know that. But they are the ones that contributed the most money
to keep me from getting elected. And it was because of my good
relationship with The Conservancy. And The Conservancy, if you ask
them, will tell you that.
MR. MULE': I'm glad to see they failed and you won.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, sir, I don't wish anybody any
failure, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner please, just stop.
We're not going to communicate with, you know, speakers that
already spoke.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I understand. I apologize for that,
but I just -- I had to say it, sir, and I think it's appropriate.
My fear is that we don't get the permit pulled. And the reason
I've spent so much time talking about communication, and I think all
Page 208
May 13, 2014
meetings are good is, that we have to have something transformational
here.
I do not think we're going to be able to rely strictly on the word
of law to take us where we want to go. We need some new
relationships here. We need some new relationships with everyone
we've talked about, with DEP, and the Colliers, and whatever
contractor shows up in this town. If we can't get an agreement from
them outside of the word of law that may be written in Washington or
Tallahassee or elsewhere that they're going to conduct themselves if
this activity is going to be continued to be permitted, if we don't get
that commitment from them, we're not going to be successful in the
long run, I'm convinced of it.
So that having been said, I'm going to make a motion we go
directly to petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that motion.
Discussion on the motion?
•
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, I'll --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to ask one question.
Jeff, if we go straight to a hearing, I know it's very difficult to
predict, but what are the chances that we can legally prevail on
everything that we want? How -- you know, what specifically would
we ask for and what are our chances of prevailing on what we're
asking for? I need to understand that.
MR. KLATZKOW: In 95 percent of all litigations, I can give
you an answer to that. This one is going to be different, you can hear
it, okay. This one is going to take a life of its own. You're not going
to be the only party to this, okay. Once I file that petition, there will
be interveners to that. The Conservancy will be one, there may be
multiple others, all right.
At that point in time you will not control this litigation, you'll just
be part of it. And that's fine.
Page 209
May 13, 2014
Your only chance to make a decision now is at this settlement
agreement, all right. Once I file that petition, and I'm happy to, okay,
but once I feel it, I don't know what's going to happen. But I think I'm
going to take a small canoe onto a river with rapids on it and we'll see
where it takes us.
I think you're heading no drilling in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're heading no drilling in Collier
County and I think you're heading no drilling in the Everglades. And
that's fine. That's where we're headed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that would be something that
the legislature would determine? I mean, that's --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to -- once we start this I'll
probably be coming back to the Board working with the County
Manager asking for the Board's direction as to legislative priorities
and to be get our legislative delegation involved in this. Yes, I think
this will get political. It is political.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how does that relate back to
Burt Harris?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, there won't be, okay. Because we're
not regulating anything. It's going to be the state that's regulating, it's
going to be the feds that's regulating. So from that standpoint --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it wouldn't affect us then. So it
makes our situation easier.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But that's the downside.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that a downside?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Because if the state decides they're
not going to pay any attention to us, that's all we're going to be.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, Commissioner Coyle raised the point,
can we do this locally. And if you're foreclosed from doing it on the
state level, maybe we look at doing it locally.
Page 210
May 13, 2014
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and second on the floor. All
in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We're going to move on
to other items, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we need a break?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So let's see what other item we
can beat up.
(Recess.)
(Commissioner Coyle is absent from the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Marlene has been waiting and waiting
and waiting for her item to come up, so if you'd announce that, please.
Item #11C
RESOLUTION 2014-99: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A
TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP)
AGREEMENT AND FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
Page 211
May 13, 2014
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,043,930 FOR CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR CR951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) SIX-LANE
IMPROVEMENTS FROM GREEN BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD; AND TO EXECUTE A RESOLUTION
MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD'S ACTION AND AUTHORIZE
ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 11.C. It's a recommendation to
approve a TRIP agreement with the State of Florida for reimbursement
for construction services on County Road 951, six-lane improvements
from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor, a second.
MS. MESSAM: Oh, wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We just want you to know, we are
a quorum, the two of us. And we have now voted by supermajority,
you may sit down. Thank you, next item.
Donna, would you mind just saying yes in that? Just say yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did, I already --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, so we have three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. MESSAM: Wonderful. Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good Lord.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 212
May 13, 2014
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0.
MR. OCHS: Item 11 .D is a recommendation --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I say something nice about
Marlene and how -- you know, your colleagues think the most of you
and the work that you do for transportation. So I just want to tell you
you're well liked and appreciated within transportation.
MS. MESSAM: Thank you so very much. My goodness, you're
going to make me cry.
MR. OCHS: That's very kind, thank you, sir.
All right, Travis, I'm not sure you're going to get the same.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, no, I hear some good things
about Travis. From his mother. His mother tells me all the time.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD A TERM CONTRACT FOR
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #14-6232, ASPHALT, MILLING AND
RELATED ITEMS ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS WITH FIXED
UNIT PRICES, TO PREFERRED MATERIAL INC., AS PRIMARY
CONTRACTOR AND AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES OF FL, INC.
THE SECONDARY CONTRACTOR — MOTION TO APPROVE —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 11.D is a recommendation to
award a term contract for Invitation to Bid 14-6232, award for asphalt,
milling and related items with Preferred Materials, Incorporated as the
primary contractor and Ajax Paving Industries of Florida, Inc. as the
secondary contractor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 213
May 13, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Nance,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the timing? Is this the
contract that's replacing another contract?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
MR. GOSSARD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when did we tell the current
contractor his contract was going to expire?
MR. GOSSARD: It was at the end of October or as soon as a
new contract was signed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. So at what point in time are
we going to sign this contract?
MR. GOSSARD: We are hoping to get this signed as soon as
possible so we can get some work done that we need that's over the
$200,000 limit. We're hoping to start work by June 1st.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so -- okay, so if I understand
correctly then June 1st is when the old contract will expire and the
new contractor will commence work?
MR. GOSSARD: Well, we're hoping the contract will be signed
by the Board within the next week or so and by the contractor. We
would say that would probably be done by the near end of May.
All the work that we've issued, the existing contractor, which is
Better Roads, would still be -- they would still be able to perform that
work. They would just not be able to perform any new work after the
contract is signed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So whatever work is in progress
will continue under the old contractor and it's just all the new work
that's going to go forward with the new contractor?
MR. GOSSARD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And is the old contractor okay
with that too? They don't have a choice?
Page 214
May 13, 2014
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They don't have a choice. They can't
get any bonding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. And so basically they're
in breach of their contract, is that how -- I just want to make sure that
we're not doing anything to -- that violates the existing contract that
puts us in breach by moving forward with this contract.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, the existing contractor
can't get a secure bond anymore. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's a contractual
requirement --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so as a result we're allowed to
move forward?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
MR. GOSSARD: They're actually on an extension at this time
frame, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's fine. But you
understand what my concern is?
MR. GOSSARD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. GOSSARD: Thank you.
Page 215
May 13, 2014
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SATISFACTION OF
MORTGAGE FOR THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE BOARD'S SHORT SALE POLICY, ACCEPTING $1,431 TO
SATISFY THE SHIP MORTGAGE — MOTION TO APPROVE
AND DIRECTING STAFF TO SUSPEND THE "SHORT SALE"
POLICY AND POTENTIALLY BRING BACK A REVISED
SHORT SALE POLICY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, Item 11 .F was previously item
16.D.11 . It's a recommendation to approve a satisfaction of mortgage
for the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program in accordance
with the Board's short sale policy, accepting $1,431 to satisfy the
SHIP mortgage. And Mr. Chairman brought this to the regular
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and I appreciate Kim's limited
time that we had together.
This is under the Board's policy that we approved, was it last year
or the year before, Kim?
MS. GRANT: In February of 2012.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it was over two years ago.
MS. GRANT: Two years ago.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And things have changed now. The
-- you know, prices have risen and continue to rise in Collier County.
So -- and what we're asking here is to forego approximately $2,200.
We had a second on this affordable housing for 23,800, and we're
receiving I think 1,100 or something like that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fourteen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fourteen?
Page 216
May 13, 2014
So either we do it on this item or we direct staff to bring back a
revised policy to capture what's happening today in the market and not
settle for such a small amount. Or -- and the other thing I'm talking to
the Clerk of Court about this, what he is seeing in the foreclosures,
you know, he does all the sales of those foreclosures. He's seeing that
the bids are above and beyond what is owed to the mortgage holder.
So another one to do is not accept any kind of settlement and let
it go into foreclosure and get all the monies back.
So, you know, I'm okay with either process, but it's a policy
decision that I think that we need to revisit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think you're right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So can we direct staff to bring
back a revised policy for these second mortgages on properties?
COMMISSIONER HILLER Yes.
MR. OCHS: Can you give us some general guidance on what
you'd like to see? Do you want to try to collect the whole thing or are
you looking to discount it in some way?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, what we could do is
just do away with the policy --
MR. OCHS: That's another option.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and test the waters and see how it's
working within the foreclosure process. And if we're not hitting the
target, let's bring back the policy to just revise it.
Does that sound good, Kim?
MS. GRANT: That's fine. It's purely a local decision. There's
no statutory requirement. So we could certainly suspend the policy.
This particular one that came before you today has already been
executed, so I'd like to ask that it be on a foregoing basis. We could
track foreclosures for whatever period of time you'd like and we could
bring you back a report.
For your consideration in figuring out the length of time, we've
had 22 short sales in the two-year period, approximately one a month.
Page 217
May 13, 2014
So if we -- if you were to ask us to come back in six months, I don't
know of a number of foreclosures, but maybe it would be somewhere
in that number range.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm going to make a motion to
approve this item with that, and give staff direction to suspend the
short sale policy.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MS. GRANT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, you know, monitor what's
happening out there in the market and potentially bring back a revised
policy.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners. That takes us back to
Page 218
May 13, 2014
Item 7 or your agenda, public comments on general topics.
MR. MILLER: We have three registered public speakers for
public comment. We'll begin with Karen Bickford, and she'll be
followed by Garrett Beyrent.
MS. BICKFORD: Hello. My name is Karen. I'm a little
nervous; this is the first time I did this.
I am the sign holder president of Mega Metal Sign Holders. And
we didn't get a decision last month on our petition that we set before
you guys. And right now where it goes is there's no jobs out there
right now. I've been looking for a month. There's nothing out there in
Collier County for people to do.
And I just got my high school diploma, thought it would make a
difference and it didn't. You know, I've been looking on-line, I've
been looking to go to different places, there's nothing out there for
people with disabilities to do.
So what I'm asking for you guys, if you guys would please
reconsider putting the sign holders back outside. You know, we do
pay our taxes. If there's 58 of us out there, Collier County's losing
$58,000 a year if everybody pays $1,000 in taxes. And I pay my
taxes. I can't say everybody else does, but I do.
And not only is it -- it's not just a job for people. People don't
wake up and say okay, I'm going to go hold a sign today. That's not
what we do it. We do it because we have to. We have to do it to
provide for our families.
There's nothing out there. Like I told my husband, I would clean
toilets with tooth brushes if I could, but there's nothing for people with
disabilities to do that. And we have a right to feed our families, and
this is the way we feed our families.
So I'm asking you guys to please reconsider. And whatever the
bounders are for us to be out there, we'll accept them. But I would ask
you to please reconsider.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 219
May 13, 2014
Leo, could you maybe share Joe Paterno's information --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- with her? There's an agency
called -- what is the exact title, Southwest Florida --
MR. OCHS: Southwest Florida Work Force Development
Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And they actually are
looking to place people. And they'll train people for whatever
employment.
I just want to present you with an opportunity if you're interested.
Joe Paterno is a great guy and they work with a lot of people.
MS. BICKFORD: I already did that. But a lot of the people that
are on signs are disabled veterans and they have problems from being
in wars and everything, and a lot of them can't be hired at regular jobs.
They don't want to go on welfare, they don't want to get food stamps,
they want to do anything. They want to provide for their families.
That's all they want.
And you taking signs off, you gave us no option but to do what
we're doing. There's a lot of them still want back out there. So --
MR. MILLER: Your next public comment is coming from
Garrett Beyrent, and he will be followed by John Lundin.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett F.X. Beyrent. I'm a
lobbyist for the Amalgamated Sign Holders Union.
I guess Karen forgot to mention, she got a call last Wednesday
from Governor Rick Scott who used profanity on the phone, which is
rare for him, and essentially he was appalled by the fact that Collier
County was ignoring disabled veterans and denying them
employment, holding signs as it may be.
But one thing Karen did mention was there are 50 -- well, there
were 56 sign holders. Two of the sign holders committed suicide
shortly after they lost their jobs. What happened was the Code
Enforcement, instead of going directly to the sign holders, they went
Page 220
May 13, 2014
to the employers of the sign holders and threatened them with $180 a
day fine. So most of us lost our jobs. I've been working as a sign
holder myself since September. And nobody bothered me until Code
Enforcement went out in force.
But the two people I just mentioned before were both veterans of
the Iraq War. And one was an older man. And there was a younger
woman, her job during the war was to diffuse land mines. And she
lost her leg. And when she came back, she couldn't get a job because
she had post-traumatic stress disorder. And as a result she got a job in
her wheelchair sitting on a corner with a sign. And she lost that.
And there's a lot of people that are -- it's great Commissioner
Hiller mentioned that. There are job opportunities out there if you talk
to the right people.
Unfortunately of the 12 people that I talked to that were also sign
holders with myself, people with severe post traumatic stress disorder
can't hold a regular job. People that have Down Syndrome, not all of
them are miracle children like you see on television. People that have
delusional disorder. I could name 15 different ailments that prevent
people from getting jobs.
And I was hoping Commissioner Coyle would still be here
because he's a perfect example. He was a soldier himself, he was a
commander, and I'm sure he could probably name a half a dozen of his
soldiers that have post-traumatic stress disorder. And I was going to
ask him to make a motion to instruct code enforcement to let these
people go back to work until a reasonable ordinance is written which
as we all know that takes about a year, unless you appoint Mark Strain
to do it and he could do it in about 30 days and it would be flawless,
I'd suggest you let him do it.
And that's all we're asking for, is somebody make a motion to let
these people go back to work. They've been out of work for a month
and they can't pay their rent and feed their kids. It's just sad.
Especially in Collier County. Paradise lost. Thanks for letting me
Page 221
May 13, 2014
talk to you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker for public comment is
John Lundin.
MR. LUNDIN: I thank you for letting me speak.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thanks for complying to the
public petition.
MR. LUNDIN: You're welcome.
I'd like to point out that Mr. Klatzkow at the last meeting said the
reason you have people sign the public comment card is in case you
have a reconsideration of an item. Public comment does not have
reconsideration, I just want to make that point out.
The reason I'm here --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, people commenting on any
particular item, the county would like their contact information in case
that item is reconsidered so they can come back and hear the item
again.
MR. LUNDIN: Correct. But right now I'm speaking at general
public comments, which cannot be reconsidered. But that's not why
I'm speaking. Earlier today there was a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I didn't say that. I mean, the
whole issue is, is the reason why we do that.
MR. LUNDIN: I'd like to have three minutes to speak. You've
taken up --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have three minutes.
MR. LUNDIN: Thank you.
Earlier today there was a gentleman here in the audience in the
morning who was handicapped in a wheelchair. This gentleman had
an amputated leg below his knee. I'm assuming he might have been
some kind of Iraq or Afghanistan War Veteran. And at the first break
in the morning he attempted to use the bathroom here outside the
Board of County Commissioners meeting. Unfortunately there's a
sign outside that says it is handicap compliant but this bathroom here
Page 222
May 13, 2014
is not compliant for handicap people.
In order to comply with American Disabilities Act, a bathroom
stall needs to be wide enough where a person who's handicapped can
wheel their wheelchair in and conveniently try to use the bathroom.
Also, there has to be a sink in that bathroom and the door has to
be wide enough for a handicapped person to enter.
Now, on the first floor here you do have a handicap bathroom
that is ADA compliant. I mean, I haven't done a tour of the building
so I'm not sure of your other bathrooms. But when you have a sign
outside of a bathroom in a public building that says it's ADA
compliant, it must be ADA compliant.
Now, in addition to the legality that it's not ADA compliant, what
really struck me was this person was very embarrassed. You've got to
understand, we have two feet and two legs, we take for granted we can
walk around. This gentleman was missing the bottom of his leg. Now,
he went into the bathroom. He was only able to wedge his wheelchair
in at a 45-degree angle. Because it was like a normal stall. It wasn't
wide enough for it to be ADA compliant.
And he was totally embarrassed. He had to twist his body around
with a missing leg to sit on the toilet. And there were three other
people in the bathroom and he couldn't even close the door.
So I would just like to ask to try to fix this. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, John.
Mr. Chairman, we need to fix that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I was going to bring it up under
communication.
MR. OCHS: I already made the note.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
We have one more item?
Item #15
Page 223
May 13, 2014
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that takes us to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications. And I only have one brief
communication, Commissioners.
We received email, actually through Commissioner Henning's
aide, Ms. Smith, that Marco Island City Council asked to reschedule
the workshop they had previously requested be held and was
scheduled for June, they asked to delay that meeting because some of
their council members could not attend. So we're going to try to work
For rescheduling some time in the fall when you all return from break
and they have a full council that can attend, if that's okay with the
Board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that okay with the Board?
Commissioner Nance, is that okay?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nothing for me.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tomorrow night Bruins,
Canadians.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Not going to talk about hockey.
Page 224
May 13, 2014
I just wanted to mention that we're hopeful that everything gets
wrapped up. And it looks like University of Florida is going to get a
solid $2 million out at the IFAS, Southwest Florida Research and
Education Center to go along with our new center director. So I'd like
to thank our legislative delegation for working pretty hard for a couple
of things we pushed for very hard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may interrupt, I thought they
were going to get, from my understanding, it's 1 .2 million, which will
be recurring, and I thought 800,000 nonrecurring.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's a possibility, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not like two million recurring.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, the bottom line is everybody
has already gone to work in the South Florida Ag. Council and
elsewhere to try to move funding for the research center back into the
IFAS budget so that it's part of the IFAS budget and not a, you know,
legislative effort to try to get funding every year.
But thank you to everybody who supported it. I know everybody
pushed pretty hard. And thank you to the Board members who kind of
picked up that mantra a little bit in behalf of the center.
I think you're going to see a lot of Dr. Arnold; he's going to be
appearing at some of the activities down in Marco coming up on some
of the new innovation. And I think we can count on him being a good
partner for economic development out there and our new accelerator.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So we're going to try to engage
them as much as we possibly can in everything that we can, because
it's a good relationship for us to maximize.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I know I want to engage him
in being guest speakers to some of the Kiwanis Clubs, because I think
he has a great message.
And luckily you had notified us about Dr. Arnold and why he's
Page 225
May 13, 2014
coming back and so forth and what his expertise is. And it really was
a help to me as I went up to Tallahassee and when I talked with
Senator Richter and with Representative Passidomo, I took your paper
along with me and told them that you had supplied it to me and how
important this was.
But you know what, I didn't have to do much talking. They were
already in total agreement. I even want to our Florida Association of
Counties, because I think it's really important. In case we ever need
them to come up to our rescue, they need to know how important
IFAS is to all of us.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, we really do have a great
deal of expertise now in Brian Flick, who is our extension director,
you know, brings a lot of different things to us because he's the first
guy we've had that's a marine fisheries and waterfront expert.
And I know Commissioner Henning has a lot of interest in that,
and he's one of those guys that can help us with that. So I'm very
pleased with the team we have with University of Florida right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are adjourned.
**** Commissioner Nance moved, seconded by Commissioner
Hiller and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #1 6A 1
RESOLUTION 2014-86: DECLARING A FUTURE PUBLIC
Page 226
May 13, 2014
HEARING TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE A
60-FOOT COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY DESCRIBED
AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 590, PAGE
1304 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ALSO BEING A PART OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #16A2
A 1-YEAR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH NAPLES
GRANDE CLUBHOUSE (SDPA AR-10788) IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 10.02.03 H OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE — THE COMPLETION DATE EXPIRED
JANUARY 26, 2010 WITH THE PROJECT STALLING
BECAUSE OF THE POOR ECONOMY
Item /#1 6 A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF MARSILEA (APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20130001985) APPROVAL OF A STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ARTESIA NAPLES, PHASE
3, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20130002538) APPROVAL OF A
; FANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY— W/STIPULATIONS
Page 227
May 13, 2014
Item #16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF RIVERSTONE - PLAT 6,
(APPLICATION NUMBER PPL-PL20130002629) APPROVAL OF
A STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF BRANDON,
(APPLICATION NUMBER PL20130001578) APPROVAL OF A
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
RELEASE OF LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF
$113,080.29, FOR PAYMENT OF $530.29, IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. MANUEL OLVERA, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20110010712,
RELATING TO PROPERTY AT 1823 43RD STREET SW,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — VIOLATIONS INCLUDE
RE-ROOFING AND CONVERSION OF A GARAGE TO LIVING
SPACE WITHOUT PERMITS; FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE
TI-HE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY
MFC INVESTMENTS IN SEPTEMBER, 2013
Item #16A8
Page 228
May 13, 2014
RELEASE OF LIEN WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $50,362.91
FOR PAYMENT OF $562.91, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
V. PAUL F. MCNEALY, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO.
CEPM20120018578, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3543 GRAND CYPRESS DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
— FINES FOR AN UNMAINTAINED SWIMMING POOL AND
DAMAGED ENCLOSURE ON PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN
IN FORECLOSURE SINCE 2008 AND THAT WAS BROUGHT
INTO COMPLIANCE BY THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
IN JANUARY 29, 2014
Item #16A9
TWO RELEASES OF LIEN, THE FIRST FOR A NET ACCRUED
VALUE OF $194, 11 6.50, FOR PAYMENT OF $7,200; AND THE
SECOND WITH AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $196,312.20, FOR
PAYMENT OF $14,400 IN CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL
MAGISTRATE CASE NOS. 2007050876 AND CESD20100020024,
BOTH OF WHICH CASES ARE STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. TATIANA E. TANNEHILL, RELATING
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2121 41ST TERRACE SW,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FINES RESULTING FROM
VIOLATIONS FOR AN UNPERMITTED LANAI ENCLOSURE
AND WOOD CANOPY WITH A CONCRETE BLOCK SHRINE;
FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE Ili 2013 THE PROPERTY WAS
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
Item #16A10
Page 229
May 13, 2014
TWO RELEASES OF LIEN, THE FIRST HAVING AN ACCRUED
VALUE OF $91,312.29 FOR A PAYMENT OF $562.29, IN CODE
ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. 2007-
100659; AND SECOND AN ACCRUED VALUE OF $53,780.57
FOR A PAYMENT OF $80.57, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. CEVR20110016570, BOTH OF WHICH CASES ARE
STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. LONNY
MOORE, TRUSTEE OF THE MORRISON LIVING TRUST,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 7TH STREET
SW, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — VIOLATIONS
RESULTING FROM LITTER ACCUMULATION AND HAVING
EXOTIC VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE BY FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION THEN CONVEYED TO CURRENT OWNER,
MANSOLILLO IRA, LLC
Item #16A11
RESOLUTION 2014-87: MEMORIALIZING APPROVAL OF A
POST PROJECT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR MAINTAINING BRICK PAVERS ON
SR951 (COLLIER BOULEVARD) FROM MILEPOST 16.205 TO
16.843 & SR84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM MILEPOST 5.493
TO 6.464 UPON COMPLETION OF FINANCIAL PROJECT
#195416-5-58-01 — UPON COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT
THE COUNTY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE, AT ITS COST, FOR
MAINTAINANCE OF THE PAVERS WHICH WILL BE LIMITED
TO WEED CONTROL, CLEANING AND REPLACEMENT AS
NEEDED; FDOT WILL CONTINUE TO MOW AND EDGE
INTERSECTIONS AND MAINTAIN ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF
THE STATE ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
Page 230
May 13, 2014
Item #16Al2
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR
VANDERBILT DRIVE FROM 111TH AVE. N TO WIGGINS
PASS ROAD, AND TWO (2) RECOGNITION SIGNS FOR THE
COST OF $150 TO ACKNOWLEDGE PROGRAM VOLUNTEER
GROUP PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP — A
PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS COMMUNITY MEMBERS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT A SEGMENT OF ROADWAY
TO PICK-UP LITTER ON A MONTHLY BASIS IN
COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY
Item #16A13
ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR GOODLETTE
FRANK ROAD FROM GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO CREECH
ROAD, AND TWO (2) RECOGNITION SIGNS FOR THE COST
OF $150 TO ACKNOWLEDGE PROGRAM VOLUNTEER
GROUP BRUCE ROSENBLATT D/B/A SENIOR HOUSING
SOLUTION — A PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADOPT A SEGMENT OF
ROADWAY TO PICK-UP LITTER ON A MONTHLY BASIS IN
COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY
Item #16A14
INVITATION TO BID #14-6233 WITH HIGHWAY SAFETY
DEVICES, INC. FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADES AT THE
INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AT
SUNSHINE BOULEVARD/47TH STREET SW IN THE AMOUNT
OF $309,858 (PROJECT #60172) REPLACEING SPAN WIRE
Page 231
May 13, 2014
WITH A MORE SECURE STEEL MAST ARM TO PREVENT
POSSIBLE DAMAGE FROM STRONG WINDS AND
DESTRUCTION DURING A MAJOR STORM EVENT
item #16A15
A PUD AMENDMENT ZONING FEE REDUCTION REQUEST
FOR THE MIRASOL PUD — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16A16
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM
PROMOTIONAL FUND GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT TO
MODIFY SCOPE OF WORK AND COMPLETION DATE FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL REEFS, ACCEPT THE
GRANTOR'S AFTER-THE-FACT FIRST EXTENSION AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AMENDED
AGREEMENT — EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT TO
MARCH 31, 2015 FOR POSSIBLE PERMIT DELAYS, DELAY
DUE TO POOR WEATHER OR ACQUISITION OF MATERIAL
FOR THE PROJECT THAT'S BEING FUNDED WITH $500,000
FROM "DEEPWATER HORIZON" SETTLEMENT FUNDS
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2014-88: NAMING THE BRIDGE ACROSS THE
COCOHATCHEE RIVER THE "FRANK HALAS BRIDGE" AND
NAMING THE PATHWAY ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF
VANDERBILT DRIVE THE "MEMORIAL PATHWAY"
Item #16A18
Page 232
May 13, 2014
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT BRIDGE ON 28TH
AVENUE SOUTHEAST OVER MILLER CANAL, PROJECT
#60123. (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $650) — A 2-YEAR
AGREEMENT FOR PARCEL 101 TCE LOCATED ALONG THE
ROAD FRONTAGE OF A PARENT TRACT OWNED BY
OPPORTUNITIES REAL ESTATE FUND, LLLP
Item #16A19
A RANKED LIST OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS FOR RFP
#14-6228 "COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT
15-YEAR PERMIT", AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
A CONTRACT WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM FOR
SUBSEQUENT BOARD APPROVAL, AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM — W/COASTAL
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING OR WITH HUMISTON &
MOORE IF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ARE UNSUCCESSFUL
Item #16A20
RANKED LIST OF DESIGN PROFESSIONALS PURSUANT
TO RFP #14-6256, "NAPLES BEACH RENOURISHMENT,"
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH
THE TOP RANKED FIRM FOR SUBSEQUENT BOARD
APPROVAL, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM —W/ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
OR WITH CB&I COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
IF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ARE UNSUCCESSFUL
Page 233
May 13, 2014
Item #16A21
CONTRACT #14-6227 WITH AMEC ENGINEERING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. FOR DEVELOPMENT AND
UPDATES TO COLLIER COUNTY'S FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT PLAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 —
UPDATES ARE ON A 5-YEAR CYCLE AND REQUIRED BY
THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM OF THE NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
Item #16B 1
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(BCC) ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE
A SECOND 180-DAY EXTENSION TO A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND
PARALEGAL & NOTARY MULTI SERVICES, INC. FOR THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF $20,000 IN FACADE IMPROVEMENT
EXPENSES AS ADMINISTERED UNDER THE IMMOKALEE
CRA COMMERCIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM —
EXTENDS THE MARCH 11, 2014 DEADLINE TO SEPTEMBER
11, 2014 FOR PROPERTY AT 1007 15TH ST, IMMOKALEE
BECAUSE OF THE UNTIMELY DEATH OF THE PROJECT
ENGINEER AND PERMITTING DIFFICULTIES
Item #16B2
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
APPROVE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND L.T.A.
ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,500 FOR
Page 234
May 13, 2014
PROPERTY IN THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AT
1780 COMMERCIAL DRIVE — FOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT
INCLUDES PAINTING, POWER-WASHING AND STUCCO
AND FASCIA REFURBISHING AND PAINTING
item #1601
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #13-6148, "ANALYTICAL
LABORATORY SERVICES," WITH PACE ANALYTICAL
SERVICES, INC. & FLORIDA SPECTRUM ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES INC. TO PROVIDE LAB TESTING SERVICES FOR
'C1I3LIC UTILITIES DIVISION'S WATER AND WASTEWATER
DEPARTMENTS AND FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
DIVISION'S POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT IN AN
ANNUAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $170,000 — A 2-YEAR
CONTRACT WITH AN OPTION FOR ONE 2-YEAR RENEWAL
FOR TESTING DRINKING WATER, WASTEWATER, GROUND
AND SL RFACE WATER, MEETING COMPLIANCE ON
PERMITS, CONTRACTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING AND HEALTH AND SAFETY OF RESIDENTS
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2014-89: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
1995 AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AS THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THE
LIENS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $38.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN — ACCOUNTS #26822 AND #24293
FOR PROPERTY AT 4516 E. ALHAMBRA CIRCLE, NAPLES
Item #16C3
Page 235
May 13, 2014
INVITATION TO BID #14-6239 IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,045
TO CROM ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC
FOR PROJECT NUMBER 70034, "NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 6-MG GROUND STORAGE
TANK REPAIR" — TO REPAIR ONE OF THE 6-MILLION
GALLON POTABLE WATER STORAGE TANKS AT NCRWTP
THAT IS LEAKING IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS
Item #16C4 — Continued to the May 27, 2014 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
ADVERTISING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2002-17, COLLIER COUNTY WATER IRRIGATION
ORDINANCE, TO MAINTAIN COMPATIBILITY WITH THE
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S
MANDATORY YEAR-ROUND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION
CONSERVATION MEASURES, AS AMENDED, AND PROVIDE
FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 2000-61, AS REDUNDANT
Item #16C5
CONTRACT #14-6221 "CEI AND RELATED SERVICES - U.S. 41
FROM C.R. 951 TO GREENWAY ROAD," IN THE AMOUNT OF
$261,874 WITII A'I DINS NORTH AMERICA, INC. PROJECT
NUMBER 70045 AND 73045 — FOR THE RELOCATION OF
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT INFRASTRUCTURE TO
ACCOMMODATE FDOT'S ROAD WIDENING PROJECT
ALONG U.S. 41 FROM C.R. 951 TO GREENWAY ROAD
Item #16D 1
Page 236
May 13, 2014
ACCEPT A FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION
5310 GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $367,715,
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS AND
APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) PARATRANSIT
VEHICLES USING THOSE FUNDS — TO REPLACE 2007
VEHICLES AND REQUIRING A 10% LOCAL MATCH
Item #16D2 — Continued to the May 27, 2014 BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A GRANT AGREEMENT
WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES
TO IMPLEMENT A 3-YEAR CRIMINAL JUSTICE MENTAL
HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT GRANT
PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $853,316.71 AND APPROVE
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH DAVID LAWRENCE
CENTER FOR $367, 140.80, THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE FOR $333, 123, AND THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF
MENTAL ILLNESS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FOR $106,686
Item #16D3
WAIVING COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZING A SINGLE
VENDOR WAIVER REQUEST FOR FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
FOR CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
POWER SERVICE AERIAL TO UNDERGROUND FROM THE
STREET TO THE ELECTRIC METER WITHIN VANDERBILT
BEACH MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU)
BOUNDARIES FOR MSTU UTILITY CONVERSION PROJECT
PHASES II, III AND IV AND AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF UP TO
$60,000 I 0 FPL — BURYING UTILITIES UNDERGROUND TO
HELP PREVENT POWER OUTAGES IN THE EVENT OF A
Page 237
May 13, 2014
HURRICANE AND FOR VISUAL IMPROVEMENT
Item #16D4
AN AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
D/I3/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR THE
OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM TITLE III TO ENSURE
GRANT COMPLIANCE. NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT IS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ACTION — AGREEMENT NO. OAA
203. 14.001 AMENDMENT #1 TO REVISE THE INVOICE
SCHEDULE OF ADVANCES AND EXPENDITURE REPORTS
Item #16D5
AN AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR THE
NUTRITIONAL SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) TO
ENSURE GRANT COMPLIANCE. NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT IS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ACTION — AGREEMENT NSIP
203.14.001 AMENDMENT #1 REQUIRING SUBCONTRACTORS
TO SUBMIT SERVICE COST REPORTS ANNUALLY EACH
YEAR BY AUGUST 15TH
Item #16D6
AMENDMENTS AND ATTESTATION STATEMENTS WITH
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
D/B/A SENIOR CI-IOICES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR THE
COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY, ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE, AND HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
Page 238
May 13, 2014
PROGRAMS TO ENSURE GRANT COMPLIANCE. NO NEW
FISCAL IMPACT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ACTION —
AGREEMENT HCE 203.12.009 AMENDMENT #9 REQUIRING
SUBCONTRACTORS TO SUBMIT SERVICE COST REPORTS
ANNUALLY EACH YEAR BY AUGUST 15TH
Item #16D7
"AFTER THE FACT" SUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT PROPOSAL
TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
FOR THE STATE DISCRETIONARY TRANSIT SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WITH A TOTAL FUNDING
REQUEST OF $50,000 — CONTINGENT ON LEGISLATIVE
APPROPRIATIONS THAT IF AWARDED WILL REQUIRE A
$50,000 LOCAL MATCH TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN
IPHONE AND ANDROID APPLICATION AND COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT MARKETING PLAN
item #16D8
COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN THE 5TH ANNUAL WORLD'S
LARGEST SWIM LESSON EVENT ON JUNE 20, 2014 AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE WORLD'S
LARGEST SWIMMING LESSON HOST FACILITY LIABILITY
AND PUBLICITY RELEASE FORM. (FISCAL IMPACT: $4,000)
— WILL BE HELD AT SUN-N-FUN LAGOON AND LIMITED TO
CHILDREN PARTICIPATING IN LOCAL SUMMER CAMPS
Item #16D9
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER 2013 ANNUAL REPORT — AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 239
May 13, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D10
A STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,626.62 FOR AN
OWNER OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING
UNIT THAT HAS BEEN REPAID IN FULL— FOR PROPERTY
AT 530 20TH ST NE NAPLES, FL 34120
Item #16D11 — Moved to Item #11F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item 6D12
TWO SATISFACTIONS OF MORTGAGE FOR A STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) LOAN IN
THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF $36,750 FOR PROPERTIES
AT 5796 WOODMERE LAKE CIRCLE, #J-104 AND 3340 35TH
AVENUE NE, NAPLES
Item #16D13
A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH BIG CYPRESS HOUSING CORPORATION TO UPDATE
BUDGET LANGUAGE, AMEND PROJECT MILESTONES,
REVISE EXISTING EXHIBITS AND TO MAKE OTHER
INSUBSTATIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT
PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TEN SINGLE FAMILY
RENTAL HOUSING UNITS FOR INCOME QUALIFIED
RENTERS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES NOT
CHANGE THE ESTABLISHED PROJECT BUDGET— AS
Page 240
May 13, 2014
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D14
RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THE
EXPENDITURE OF $7,080 TO RE-THATCH THE SEMINOLE
STYLE CHICKEE/INTERPRETIVE KIOSK AT BAREFOOT
BEACH PRESERVE PARK PROMOTES TOURISM — BUILT IN
2006 ON A 1 .69-ACRE COUNTY OWNED PARCEL IN THE
STATE-OWNED PORTION OF THE BAREFOOT BEACH
PRESERVE PARK TO HOLD PROGRAMS FOR EDUCATING
VISITORS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PARK AND AS A
PICNIC AREA FOR VISITORS
Item #16D15
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #14-6242 FOR PURCHASE
AND DELIVERY OF NON-BULK CHEMICALS AND POOL
SUPPLIES TO CO VIMECIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS AS THE
PRIMARY VENDOR AND RECREONICS INC., SECONDARY
VENDOR WITH ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF
$150,000 — FOR FACILITIES AT SUN-N-FUN LAGOON,
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK, IMMOKALEE SPORTS
COMPLEX AND EAGLE LAKES AND VINEYARDS
COMMUNITY PARKS
Item #16D16
BUDGET AMENDMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 968,610 TO
ALLOW CONTINUOUS OPERATION OF COMMUNITY CARE
FOR 'I'1IF ELDERLY, ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE,
AND HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANTS FOR THE
Page 241
May 13, 2014
COLLIER COUNTY SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM
FROM THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, INC. D/B/A SENIOR CHOICES OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF A FUNDING AWARD —
CURRENT FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS END JUNE 30, 2014
tcm #16D17
A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FY2010-2011, 2012-2013 AND
2013-2014 ACTION PLANS TO REDIRECT FUNDS TO A NEW
PROJECT FOR DIRECT HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE
AND PROJECT DELIVERY IN THE AMOUNT OF $203,868 —
STAFF PROPOSES TO REDIRECT $163,868 FOR HOMEOWNER
ASSISTANCE AND $40,000 WILL BE USED BY STAFF TO
QUALIFY INDIVIDUALS AND ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM
Item #16D18
ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF THE SENIOR CORPS RETIRED
AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) APPLICATION
FOR FY14-15 GRANT FUNDS TO THE CORPORATION FOR
NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AND APPROPRIATE
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR CONTINUED
OPERATIONS PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF FUNDING
AWARD (NET FISCAL IMPACT: $71,036) — TO REFLECT
ESTIMATED GRANT FUNDS OF $56,022 FROM CNCS FOR
FY13/14 AND A 30% LOCAL MATCH FROM RSVP THAT
WILL BE PARTIALLY MET THROUGH IN-KIND DONATIONS
Item #161)19
Page 242
May 13, 2014
WRITE-OFF AN ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $22,500 $32,500 (PER THE AGENDA CHANGE SHEET)
ASSOCIATED WITH A REIMBURSEMENT PROMISE IN 2000
FROM FRIENDS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM FOR
THE PURCHASE OF A WWII SHERMAN TANK — FRIENDS'
FUNDRAISING EFFORTS FAILED TO GENERATE ENOUGH
FUNDS TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR FULL PURCHASE
OF THE TANK IN THE AMOUNT OF $52,500
Item #16D20
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTED LIVING,
INC., FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY ACQUISITION
PROJECT, PROVIDING FOR PROJECT UPDATES — TO
UPDATE LANGUAGE, EXTEND CONTRACT END DATE TO
APRIL 30, 2015, INCLUDE THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
AND UPDATE HEWS CONTACTS
Item #16D21
RESOLUTION 2014-90 : AUTHORIZING A POLICY, PROCESS
AND FEE SCHEDULE FOR COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM TO
PROVIDE ADULT GUIDED TOUR GROUP SERVICES AND A
HISTORIC PHOTOGRAPH REPRODUCTION SERVICE
Item #16D22
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL MEAL
SITE TO THE 2014 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
Page 243
May 13, 2014
(SFSP) FOR A NET COST OF $2,856 — ADDING AVALON
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITH MEALS PREPPED AT GOLDEN
GATE HIGH SCHOOL THAT WILL BE TRANSPORTED TO
AVALON BY MARCO ISLAND YMCA STAFF
Item #16D23
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $5,080 FOR THE DESIGN,
PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION BID PLANS FOR A
WILDLIFE OBSERVATION TOWER AT TIGERTAIL BEACH
AND MAKE A FINDING THE EXPENDITURE PROMOTES
TOURISM. (TOTAL PROJECT COST: $30,800) — CONTRACT
#13-3164, ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH BSSW, INC. FOR
THE 2013 BOARD APPROVED PROJECT THAT INVOLVES
BUILDING A TOWER IN THE LAGOON AREA OF SAND
DOLLAR ISLAND AT TIGERTAIL BEACH THAT'S
NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FOR
THE VIEWING OF SHORE BIRDS AND SEVERAL OTHER
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Item #16D24
RECOMMENDATION TO: (1) AWARD REQUEST FOR
PROPOSAL #14-6259 "NSP MULTI-FAMILY PROPERTY AND
PROGRAM ASSUMPTION," TO NR CONTRACTORS, INC., (2)
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A DEVELOPER
AGREEMENT WITH NR CONTRACTORS, INC. TO CONVEY
THE SIX GILCHRIST APARTMENT BUILDINGS, AND (3)
APPROVE A 1-YEAR EXTENSION TO A WAIVER OF THE
LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STATUS OF THE PROPERTIES
ENDING MARCH 25, 2016 (4) REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED
AS A RESULT OF ITB #13-6031 "GILCHRIST WINDOWS,
Page 244
May 13, 2014
DOORS, ROOFS AND MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES" — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D25
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTED LIVING,
INC. (CASL) FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROPERTY ACQUISITION PROJECT TO UPDATE
BUDGET ITEMS, DELIVERABLES, AND PAYMENT METHOD
— CDBG HUD GRANT #B-13-UC-12-0016, REMOVING A
BUDGET LINE ITEM FROM ENVIRNOMENTAL REVIEW AND
ADDING THE FUNDS TO ACQUISITION IN THE AGREEMENT
AMOUNT SECTION, REMOVING A RETAINAGE PROVISION
IN THE PAYMENT DELIVERABLES SECTION AND ADDING
WIRE TRANSFERS AS DIRECT REIMBURSEMENT METHOD
FOR PROPERTY IN PAYMENT DELIVERABLES SECTION
Item #16D26
A DONATION OF NAPLES E. GEORGE ROGERS ART STUDIO
AND APPROVE ITS RELOCATION, PRESERVATION AND
REUSE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM AT NO PUBLIC
COST — DONATED BY THE ARTIST'S DAUGHTERS AND
INCLUDES ORIGINAL ART WORK AND COLLECTIONS OF
SWFL ARCI IEOLOGOICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SPECIMENS
WITH $160,000 PLEDGED TO MOVE THE ARTISTS ORIGINAL
HISTORIC COTTAGE AT 454 SIXTH STREET SOUTH IN
DOWNTOWN NAPLES TO COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM
Item #16D27
Page 245
May 13, 2014
RESOLUTION 2014-91 : EXTENDING THE SUNSET DATE AND
TERMS OF EXIS'1ING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TRANSIT
AD HOC COMMITTEE AN ADDITIONAL TWELVE MONTHS
Item #16E1
AWARD ITB #13-6166 "ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS" TO
THREE VENDORS: SIMMONDS ELECTRIC OF NAPLES INC.,
AS PRIMARY, HART ELECTRIC INC., AS SECONDARY, AND
TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES AS TERTIARY
FOR ON-CALL ELECTRICAL SERVICES
Item #16E2
RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY,
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIM
FILES SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK
MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION
#2004-15 FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF FY14
Item #16E3
RECOGNIZING AND APPROPRIATING REVENUE FOR
SPECIAL SERVICES TO THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY FISCAL
YEAR 2013-2014 BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16E4
AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
FOR LIMITED SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS AT COLLIER
COUNTY'S MAIN JAIL — TO GIVE CORRECTIONAL STAFF
Page 246
May 13, 2014
ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO INMATE
MOVEMENT ESPECIALLY FOR HIGH-RISK PRISONERS
Item #16E5
ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS — FOR
THE PERIOD OF MARCH 112, 2014 TO APRIL 15, 2014
Item #16E6
AMENDMENT NO. 09 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
COLLIER COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE
DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Item #16F1
REPORT COVERING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IMPACTING
RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO
AND INCLUDING $20,000 — BA #14-403 FOR DOMESTIC
ANIMAL SERVICES CAT ROOM UPGRADE PROJECT
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2014-92: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO FY 13/14 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F3
AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT AND FUNDING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 247
May 13, 2014
COMMISSIONERS AND THE COLLIER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IDA) TO PROVIDE FOR THE
REMITTANCE OF HISTORICAL AND FUTURE BOND
ISSUANCE FEES TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR USE IN
FOSTERING SPECIFIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM EFFORTS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F4
AWARD RFP #14-6230 — "MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION" TO DORRILL
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC. AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE RELATED AGREEMENT —
A 1-YEAR CONTRACT TO OVERSEE PBSD OPERATIONS FOR
AN ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $82,500 WITH THE OPTION TO
RENEW THREE ADDITIONAL 1-YEAR PERIODS
Item #16F5
RESOLUTION 2014-93: SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO.
2003-89 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AUTHORIZES THE
ISSUANCE OF GAS TAX REVENUE BONDS FROM TIME TO
TIME; AUTHORIZES REFUNDING A PORTION OF THE
COUNTY'S OUTSTANDING GAS TAX REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2005; AUTHORIZES ISSUANCE OF AN AMOUNT NOT
EXCEEDING $90,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA GAS TAX REFUNDING REVENUE BOND,
SERIES 2014 IN ORDER TO EFFECT SUCH REFUNDING;
AUTHORIZES A NEGOTIATED SALE OF SAID BOND
PURSUANT TO THE LOW RESPONSIVE BID PROPOSAL OF
STI INSTITUTIONAL & GOVERNMENT, INC.; DELEGATES
Page 248
May 13, 2014
CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO THE CHAIRMAN IN CONNECTION
VvVITH APPROVAL OF TERMS AND DETAILS OF SAID BOND;
APPOINTS THE CLERK PAYING AGENT AND REGISTRAR
FOR SAID BOND; AUTHORIZES EXECUTION & DELIVERY
OF AN ESCROW DEPOSIT AGREEMENT AND APPOINTS AN
ESCROW AGENT THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #161-11
RESOLUTION 2014-94: APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
— REAPPOINTING ESTIL NULL IN THE CATEGORY LOCAL
RESIDENT TO A TERM EXPIRING APRIL 4, 2018 — ADOPTED
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2014-95: APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO
THE PUBLIC TRANSIT AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE —
APPOINTING HAROLD G. WEEKS IN THE TRANSIT RIDER
CATEGORY AND TERM EXPIRING JULY 16, 2015 — ADOPTED
Item #16H3
RESOLUTION 2014-96: APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS
TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD — APPOINTING
DR. PAMELA WILKINS TO A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 25, 2017
AND CHRIS RAHMINGS TO A TERM EXPIRING JUNE 25, 2015
— ADOPTED
Item #161-I4
Page 249
May 13, 2014
RESOLUTION 2014-97: REAPPOINT ONE MEMBER TO THE
WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY— REAPPOINTING
DR. SHERWIN H. RITTER IN THE TECHNICAL BUSINESS
ADMIN. CATEGORY AND A TERM EXPIRING MAY 21, 2018 —
ADOPTED
Item #161-15
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FLNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION'S LUNCH APRIL 17, 2014. A SUM OF $18 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
— HELD AT HAMILTON HARBOR YACHT CLUB, 7065
HAMILTON AVENUE, NAPLES
Item #16I1 & #16I2
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED —
Page 250
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 13, 2014
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE:
1) Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District:
Special District Public Facilities Report dated March 19, 2014
2) Heritage Greens Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 12/16/13; 01/20/14; 02/17/14
Meeting Minutes 12/16/13; 01/20/14; 02/17/14
3) District#1 Town Hall Meeting Minutes:
Minutes from Commissioner Fiala's District#1 Townhall Meeting held
February 20, 2014 at the Marco Island Historical Museum Auditorium;
Minutes from Commissioner Fiala's District#1 Townhall Meeting held
February 27, 2014 at the Collier County South Regional Library
4) Naples Heritage Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 03/04/14
Meeting Minutes 03/04/14
5) North Naples Research Technology Park:
Notice to Park's Owner Association of the Annual/Budget Meeting
scheduled on May 6, 2014 and Proposed Budget 2014
6) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District:
Meeting Agenda 01/17/14; 02/21/14; 03/21/14
Meeting Minutes 01/17/14; 02/21/14; 03/21/14
7) Riviera Golf Estates Homeowner's Association,Inc.:
Copy of a February 21, 2014 letter and Second Notice notifying
residents of the March 12, 2014 (rescheduled) Annual Meeting;
an Election Ballot w/instructions and mailing envelope addressed
to Compass Management Group
May 13, 2014
Item #16J1
FY 14 STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN PROGRAM (SCAAP) LETTER
DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK,
OR HIS DESIGNEE TO BE THE OFFICIAL GRANT APPLICANT
AND CONTACT PERSON, RECEIVE AND EXPEND PROGRAM
FUNDS AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS OF FY2014 STATE SCAAP GRANT FUNDS
Item #16J2
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 17, 2014
THROUGH APRIL 23, 2014
Item #16J3
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 24, 2014
THROUGH APRIL 30, 2014
Item #16J4
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 1, 2014
THROUGH MAY 7, 2014
Item #16K1
Page 251
May 13, 2014
A JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $110,000 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 114FEE IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
NEW PLAN FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL., CASE NO.
13-CA-238. (US 41/SR-CR-951 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT #60116) (FISCAL IMPACT: $52,770) — RELATED TO
THE POSSIBLE FUTURE OVERPASS AT THE INTERSECTION
Item ft 16K2
AN ASSUMPTION AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT WITH
1250 PINE RIDGE ROAD, LLC IN ORDER TO CONTINUE
PARTICIPATION IN THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR
ADVANCED MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, FOR THE REMAINING
TERM OF APPROXIMATELY 3 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS,
BASED ON THE OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT CREATED
BY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE UPSCALE
MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. ON FEBRUARY 11, 2014, THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY WAS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO NEGOTIATE WITH CURRENT
OWNERS OF 1250 PINE RIDGE ROAD ON THE MATTER OF
THE TERMS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND ADVANCED MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, FOR A
MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SOLUTION — AMENDING THE
ORIGINAL J UI_,Y, 2006 AGREEMENT FOR IMPACT FEE
PAYMENT ASSISTANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 1250 PINE
RIDGE ROAD IN THE AMOUNT OF $412,146.00 WITH THE
CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, 1250 PINE RIDGE
ROAD, LLC, THAT HAS ASSUMED TERMS OF THE
AGREEMENT CONCLUDING OCTOBER 1, 2017
Page 252
May 13, 2014
Item #16K3
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CONSERVATION COLLIER
ORDINANCE 2001-55 TO CONTINUE THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
AUTHORIZE THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW AND MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ON MANAGEMENT
AND PROGRAMS OF THE PRESERVED LAND
Item #16K4
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
ORANGE TREE UTILITY COMPANY ("OTU"), ORANGETREE
ASSOCIATES AND ANY RELATED PARTIES IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO ENFORCE THE
COUNTY'S RIGHT TO INTEGRATE OTU INTO THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND TO RECOVER
DAMAGES — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K5
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,446,923.30 FOR
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 108FEE, 108TCE1 AND 108TCE2
IN TIIE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
H & V REALTY CORP. OF BROOKLYN, ET AL., CASE NO. 13-
CA-461 (US 41/SR-CR-951 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT #60116) FISCAL IMPACT: $665,093.30 — RELATED
TO PARCELS TAKEN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT THAT'S
CURRENTLY BEING LEASED BY CIRCLE K STORES
Page 253
May 13, 2014
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:07 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
i/'
TOM HENNING, HAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
. .
Attest a al- ��
sitinotu e r,n!v.
These mutes approved by the Board on J rt ICI as presented
or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 254