BCC Minutes 10/14/2014 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
October 14, 2014
October 14, 2014
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 14, 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
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
o1:1 /�
r otoso.
(4(
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
October 14, 2014
9:00 AM
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 - BCC Chair
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 - BCC Vice-Chair; TDC Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 - CRAB Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 - Community & Economic Dev. Chair
Commissioner Fred W. Coyle, District 4 - CRAB Vice-Chair
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
October 14, 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 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
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. September 9, 2014 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. September 18, 2014 - BCC/Budget Hearing
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Page 2
October 14, 2014
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing Legal Aid Service of Collier County for 10 years
of providing free civil legal services to the most vulnerable, economically
needy residents of Collier County. To be accepted by Ms. Carol
O'Callaghan, Managing Attorney; Mr. Jeff Ahren, Director of Development;
Ms. Margaret McMorrow, Board of Directors; Ms. Jennifer Nackley, partner
with Quarles & Brady, LLP; and Karynn Cavero, Office Administrator.
Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
B. Proclamation designating October 2014 as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Executive Director, Shelter for
Abused Women and Children and Lieutenant Ken Becker of Collier County
Sheriffs Office Special Crimes Bureau. Sponsored by Commissioner Hiller.
C. Proclamation designating October 24, 2014 as the 15th Annual Red Walk
in celebration of Red Ribbon Activities. To be accepted by Dr. Susan
Barcellino, Principal, Lely Elementary School and Craig Greusel, Project
Director. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month by the Greater
Naples Chamber of Commerce to La Playa Beach and Golf Resort. To be
accepted by Ron Vuy, General Manager.
B. Presentation of Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year
2014 from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented
to the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson,
Corporate Financial Planning and Management Services Director.
C. Presentation by the Collier County Sheriffs Office regarding ramifications
of expanding the buffer zones for sex offenders and sexual predators.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
Page 3
October 14, 2014
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Item #8 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. 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 a resolution pursuant
to Section 380.115(1)(b), Florida Statutes, approving the application for
rescission of the Town of Ave Maria Development of Regional Impact;
providing for findings of fact and conclusions of law; providing for approval
of the rescission of the Development of Regional Impact Development
Order, and compliance with the post-rescission development with County
regulations; providing for conditions; providing for recordation; providing
for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property is
located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road in Sections 31
through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29 East and Sections 4 through 9
and 16 through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East in Collier County,
Florida. [Petition DRIABN-PL20130002016]
B. 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. A Resolution of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners amending the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving
Area (SRA) Town Plan and SRA Master Plan in accordance with Section
4.08.07.F.4 of the Land Development Code, and specifically to: add single
family detached Z lots to the Neighborhood General Zone; add 600,000
square feet of light industrial/warehousing to Town Center 2b; redesignate
155 acres of Neighborhood General to Town Center 2b; redesignate 90 acres
of Town Center 2a to Neighborhood General; redesignate 52 acres of Town
Center 3 to Neighborhood General and move an access point along Oil Well
Road. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of
Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29
East and Sections 4 through 9 and 16 through 18, Township 48 South,
Range 29 East in Collier County, Florida. [Petition SRAA-PL20132012]
Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
Page 4
October 14, 2014
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to deny a single petition within the 2013 Cycle 3 Growth
Management Plan Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity for Review and Comments response for the
Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Transmittal Hearing.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation to adopt a resolution
to rename Freedom Park the Fred W. Coyle Freedom Park. (Commissioner
Hiller)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve the Clam Bay Natural Resource Protection
Area (NRPA) Management Plan (Plan) and authorize the Pelican Bay
Services Division to submit the Plan to the required Federal and State
Agencies. (Neil Dorrill, Pelican Bay Services Division)
B. Recommendation.to consider options available for the treatment of
commercial sign holders and continue the long-standing prohibition against
unpermitted commercial use of the public rights-of-way. (Jeff Wright,
Code Enforcement Director)
C. This item to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Recommendation to approve a report
from Public Financial Management Group (PFM), the County's contractual
Financial Advisor (FA) assessing the County's current investment policy
and providing recommendations regarding changes to the policy based upon
industry best practices, state law changes and financial market conditions.
(Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial and Management Services Director)
D. Recommendation to approve Amendment 1 to Contract #11-5782 with
AECOM Technical Services, Inc., in the amount of$1,476,040, for Basin
306 of the "Wastewater Basin Program" for professional engineering
services associated with the bidding phase, post design and additional design
services through the construction phase for Project Numbers 70044, 70046,
and 70050. (George Yilmaz, Public Utilities Division Administrator)
Page 5
October 14,2014
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the September 23, 2014 BCC Meeting.
Request that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction to
the County Attorney of whether to intervene in litigation with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") against the Dan A.
Hughes Company, L.P., based on the Hughes Company's ("Hughes
Company") unauthorized acid fracking activities in Collier County.
This item is a companion to Item #12B.
B. Recommendation to approve a stipulated settlement as it relates to OGC File
No.14-0012, in the Division of Water Resource Management: Collier
County and Collier County Water-Sewer District v. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P. This item is
a companion to Item #12A.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
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 approve final acceptance of water, sewer and
Page 6
October 14,2014
irrigation utility facilities for Lipari-Ponziane, PL20130002052.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for VeronaWalk Phase 4C-3 & 4C-4, PL20110002799
and authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the
Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer utility facilities
for Bluebill Ave Turnaround and Restroom Facility, PL20110002730.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of water and sewer
utility facilities for the LaPlaya Golf Maintenance Facility,
PL20 1 1 000 1 962, and to authorize the County Manager, or his
designee to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and
Final Obligation Bond for the total amount of$14,225 to the
Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Manchester Square (AR-
8518) and authorize the acceptance of plat dedications and release of
the maintenance security in the amount of$199,799.70.
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 minor final plat of Carrara at Talis Park
Replat, Application Number PL20140000714.
7) 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 Coquina at Maple Ridge Phase
1, (Application Number PL20140000068) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
Page 7
October 14, 2014
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Triangle Plaza at Lely
Resort, Application Number PL20140000728.
9) 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 Twineagles Grand Arbors,
Phase Two C Block 109, (Application Number PL20140000392)
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
10) 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 minor final plat of the Slater Estate,
Application Number PL20140001315, and agree to release County
interest in a conservation easement over a 15-foot wide strip of land in
Tract D, Plat Book 33, Pages 78-80, which will be replatted as the
eastern 15 feet of this proposed Slater Estate Plat.
11) Recommendation to release a Cash Bond in the amount of$25,000,
which was posted as a performance guaranty for work associated with
Cedar Hammock Excavation Modifications, Application Number
PL20130002534.
12) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of$23,348, which was posted as a development
guaranty for work associated with the Landings at Bears Paw, Early
Work Authorization (EWA) PL20130001066.
13) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 105870796 in the amount of$169,600, posted
as a development guaranty for work associated with Maple Ridge at
Ave Maria, Early Work Authorization (EWA) PL20140001226.
14) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 210950 in the amount of$290,800, posted as a
development guaranty for work associated with Raffia Preserve, Early
Page 8
October 14, 2014
Work Authorization (EWA) PL20130001805.
15) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 6414722 in the amount of$1,000,000, which
was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number No. 59.902,
for work associated with the Ave Maria North Sports Park Facility.
16) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 5032305 in the amount of$400,000, which
was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number No. 59.958,
for work associated with South Commercial Center at Fiddler's Creek.
17) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 964119209 in the amount of$265,360, posted
as a development guaranty for Early Work Authorization (EWA)
(PL20140000514) for work associated with Temple Citrus Grove.
18) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No.'s 80107032 and 80107033 in the amounts of
$121,400 and $60,400 which were posted as a guaranty for Early
Work Authorizations PL20140001097 and PL20140001464 for work
associated with Isles of Collier Preserve Phase 2 and Isles of Collier
Preserve Phase 3, respectively.
19) Recommendation to approve a Work Order with CB&I Coastal
Planning & Engineering, Inc. to provide professional engineering Peer
Reviews Contract #13-6164-CZ for a Time and Material amount not
to exceed $21,916 (Project No. 80165); authorize necessary budget
amendment; authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute
the work order and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
20) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Contract #14-6257, to provide professional engineering services as
required by the Doctors Pass Jetty and Erosion Control Project for
$148,266 (Project No. 90029) to Humiston and Moore Engineers and
make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
21) Recommendation to award ITB #14-6321, "Traffic Signs and Related
Materials," to the following vendors: Osborn Associates Inc.;
Page 9
October 14,2014
Municipal Supply & Sign Co.; and Allied Tubes & Conduit
Corporation per the attached Bid Tabulation spreadsheet, reject bid
results for brackets and delinear tubes and direct the County Manager
or his designee to reopen bidding on these items at a later date.
22) Recommendation to approve a multi-agency agreement to
cooperatively coordinate transportation planning efforts via the
Intergovernmental Coordination and Review - Public Transportation
Coordination Joint Participation Agreement (ICAR).
23) Recommendation to approve an easement agreement for the purchase
of a road right-of-way, drainage and utility easement (Parcel
221 RDUE) required for expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from
east of Wilson Boulevard to 20th Street East. (Project No. 60040)
Estimated Fiscal Impact: $3,277.
24) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the County
Manager, or his designee, to designate an official to provide signature
authority on behalf of the County for Resources and Ecosystem
Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the
Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE) grant applications
submitted through federal GrantSolutions online grant management
system.
25) This item continued from the September 23, 2014 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve a Standard Zero-Dollar Construction
Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Transportation
(hereinafter "FDOT") pertaining to construction of a traffic signal at
the intersection of SR951 and Fiddler's Creek Parkway and approve
a Resolution memorializing and confirming the Board of County
Commissioner's affirmative vote to approve the Agreement.
26) Recommendation to hear 2014 Out of Cycle Land Development Code
Amendments, for amendments which change the actual list of
permitted, conditional and prohibited uses in a zoning category,
during regularly scheduled Board Meetings and waive the after
5:00 p.m. hearing requirement.
27) Recommendation to authorize release of signalization equipment for
Page 10
October 14, 2014
installation by Granada Shoppes Associates, Ltd. for a jointly funded
traffic signal project on US41 and Creekside Boulevard and 107th
Avenue North, which upon completion will be owned by the Florida
Department of Transportation and operated and maintained by Collier
County.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), as
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), approve a Resolution
authorizing execution of a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with
the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") to obtain project
funding from FDOT in an amount not-to-exceed $20,645 for a project
known as "Main Street Median Improvements" and to approve all
necessary budget amendments.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), as
the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), approve the shortlist
of engineering firms pursuant to RFP 14-6237, and authorize staff to
enter into negotiations between the CRA and top ranked firm, AMEC
Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., for "Construction Engineering
Inspection (CEI) Services, for the Immokalee Stormwater
Improvements - Phase II (Immokalee Drive) Project".
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, as the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), approve the shortlist of
engineering firms pursuant to RFP #14-6252 and authorize staff to
enter into negotiations between the CRA and top ranked firm, AMEC
Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., for "Construction Engineering
Inspection (CEI) Services, for the Colorado Avenue Improvement
Project.
4) Request that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
(BCC), as the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), approve submission of the attached $25,000 grant request to
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) related to
development of a Strategic Economic Opportunity Plan for
Immokalee.
Page 11
October 14,2014
5) Recommendation to reject a proposal for early termination of a lease
agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency and
Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution and Satisfactions of Lien
for 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Services Special Assessments where the county has received payment
in full satisfaction of the liens. Fiscal impact: $58.50 to record the
Satisfactions of Lien.
2) Recommendation to award Request for Quotation #13-6166-01 to
Technical Management Associates, Inc., in the amount of$452,000;
execute the Florida Power & Light Momentary Parallel Operation
Interconnection Agreement; and, authorize a $300,000 budget
amendment for North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Closed
Transition System Project No. 70069.
3) Recommendation to approve a $719,710 work order under Request
for Quotation #14-6213-5 to Haskins Inc., for the Immokalee Road
36-inch Water Main Pressure Testing Project. (Project No. 70103)
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve conveyance of a utility easement on
County property to the City of Naples for utility services at the
Gordon River Greenway Park.
2) Recommendation to award Request for Quotation #10-5510-51 to
Bradanna Construction, Inc., in the amount of$179,919.44, for the
construction of the "Tigertail Beach Park Parking Lot Improvements,"
approve a necessary budget amendment in the amount of$68,689.44,
and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
3) Recommendation to approve and sign the Final Progress Report for
the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse
Reinvestment Grant Program to be submitted to the Department of
Children and Families.
Page 12
October 14, 2014
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
revised "Certification for Implementation of Regulatory Reform
Activities Required by SHIP" and SHIP Certification for Fiscal Year
2011/2012, 2012/2013, and 2013/2014 to ensure compliance with
program requirements.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
an Agreement with Southwest Florida Workforce Development
Board, Inc., to provide snacks and/or supper for afterschool programs
at the four County locations: East Naples Community Park, Golden
Gate Community Center, Immokalee South Park and Eagle Lakes
Community Park.
6) Recommendation to award the quote to Southern Signal and Lighting,
Inc., under Contract #10-5503 in the amount of$28,200, to replace an
existing sign at Barefoot Beach Preserve Park and make a finding that
the expenditure promotes tourism.
7) Recommendation to approve after-the-fact waiver of all tenant rental
late fees for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, in an estimated
approximate amount of$2,000 for the recently conveyed Gilchrist
Apartments.
8) Recommendation to support Collier Area Transit in hosting the 40th
Annual Florida Public Transit Association Conference and adopt a
Resolution authorizing a one-time expenditure of funds to provide bus
passes to conference participants for an amount not to exceed
$7,123.50.
9) Recommendation to approve two after-the-fact amendments and
attestation statements with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc. for the Alzheimer's Disease Initiative and Home Care for
the Elderly programs to add additional grantor language and increase
grant funding for FY 2014/2015. (Net Fiscal Impact: $132,683)
10) Recommendation to approve an "after-the-fact" contract, attestation
statement and budget amendment award for the Nutrition Services
Incentive Program from Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc. (Net Fiscal Impact: $38,255)
Page 13
October 14, 2014
11) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to recognize
$3,548.49 in carry-forward for additional revenue earned for the 2014
Summer Food Program.
12) Recommendation to approve a Resolution and provide after the fact
approval for the submittal of a Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital
Assistance Program Grant application in the amount $233,192 to the
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged for the
procurement of four additional para-transit vehicles.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget
amendments for the Fiscal Year 2014 carry forward budget for
approved open purchase orders into Fiscal Year 2015 for operating
departments to complete work.
2) Recommendation to approve periodic auctions, acceptance of bids
and/or donations to 501C3 organizations throughout Fiscal Year 2015
for disposal of Collier County surplus vehicles and equipment and
authorize transfer paperwork; and accept, ratify, and record a report of
those asset items once the disposal has been finalized.
3) Recommendation to affirm the use of the State of Florida contract for
mobile communication services with Sprint and Verizon so that
payments may be issued for accrued invoices.
4) Recommendation to accept and ratify reports for staff-approved
change orders, changes to work orders and surplus credit for returned
inventory.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation to approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Assumption Agreement with 2Q50, LLC, replacing Training and
Page 14
October 14,2014
Manufacturing Institute, Inc., consistent with the provisions of the
(former) Fee Payment Assistance Program, Article II of Chapter 49
of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and authorize
the continued use of the Florida National Guard for job verification
purposes, and authorizing the County Manager to rescind the
agreement if the contemplated purchase of property by 2050, LLC
does not occur in a timely fashion.
3) Recommendation to approve a Fiscal Year 2015 Strategic Marketing
Plan for the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitors
Bureau (CVB) and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
4) Recommendation to approve Tourism Department's Sports Marketing
Section submittal of a Florida Sports Foundation Grant application to
support the HITS Triathlon event in January 2015 in the total amount
of$3,500, authorize the Chairman to execute the application and
make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
5) Recommendation to approve Tourist Tax funding to support the
Sports Event Assistance Program for the events listed and make a
finding that these events promote tourism.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to appoint one member to the Ochopee Fire Control
District Advisory Committee.
2) Recommendation to appoint three members to Golden Gate Estate
Land Trust Committee.
3) Recommendation to reappoint one member to the
Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 15
October 14, 2014
1) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of September 18, 2014
through September 24, 2014.
2) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of September 25, 2014
through October 1, 2014.
3) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of October 2, 2014 through
October 8, 2014.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$33.13 recognizing interest earned in Supervisor of Elections'
2013/2014 Federal Election Activities Grant.
5) Request that the Board of County Commissioners order that the tax
roll be extended pursuant to section 197.323, Florida Statutes.
6) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment in the amount of$80,419 to the Property
Appraiser's FY2015 budget.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve payment for mediation services by
Andrew G. Diaz for the settlement of parcels taken for the
improvements to County Barn Road (Project No. 60101), and to
authorize the County Attorney to retain Mr. Diaz for future
mediations under the terms of the attached letter.
2) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion and Final Judgment as to
Respondent, Commercial Properties Southwest, Inc.'s interest in the
taking of Parcel 113FEE in the case styled Collier County v. New
Plan Florida Holdings, LLC for the improvements to the intersection
of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and US 41 (Project No. 60116).
(Fiscal Impact: $7,500.)
3) Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
Page 16
October 14, 2014
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue multi-
family housing revenue bonds to be used to finance the acquisition
and rehabilitation of the Whistler's Green Apartments.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. 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 an Ordinance
amending Ordinance Number 2009-21, the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit
Development, as amended, by increasing the permissible number of
dwelling units from 1,121 to 1,233; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-
41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of an additional 19.7± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the
Mirasol RPUD; by increasing the dwelling units from 1,121 to 1,233; by
changing the name of the RPUD from the Mirasol RPUD to the Esplanade
Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD; by revising the Development
Standards; by amending the Master Plan and revising Developer
Commitments. The property is located on the north side of Immokalee Road
(CR 846) bordered on the east by future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in
Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida consisting of 1,658.3± acres; and by providing an effective date.
[Petition PUDZA-PL20140000099]
B. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Page 17
October 14,2014
Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance 2012-23 in
order to reconstitute Collier County Public Safety Authority to a five
member citizen group with members having no affiliation with any hospital,
fire district, EMS, municipality or the Collier County Sheriff's Office and to
eliminate the Medical Director's Subcommittee.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 18
October 14,2014
October 14, 2014
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Welcome to today's
proceedings.
If you could silence your cell phones or turn them off, that would
be -- help us in our proceedings today.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Today's invocation will be given by Pastor Michael Bannon from
Crossroads Community Church. Good morning.
PASTOR BANNON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Would you all rise.
PASTOR BANNON: Pray with me, please.
Lord God, we thank you for your goodness. We thank you for
your grace toward us. We thank you for the privilege of living in such
a beautiful county. Thank you for the lives and homes that you've
given to us.
Thank you for our County Commissioners, your servants for our
good. And I pray that as they meet here this morning and this
afternoon and deliberate over matters that pertain to our life, that you
would bless them with wisdom and insight, that they might see and
know what needs to be done.
I pray for ourselves as well as citizens of this county, that you
would give us a cooperative spirit as well; that together we might work
for our mutual good.
So, Father, I'm asking that you would bring great glory to yourself
in these proceedings. Amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amen.
Page 2
October 14, 2014
consent agenda for additional work, and that is made at the staffs
request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16E4 from your
consent agenda onto the county manager's regular agenda to become
Item 11E, and that has to do with acceptance and ratification of change
orders and surplus credit for returned inventory, and that move was
made at Commissioner Henning's request.
We have three time-certains scheduled today, Commissioners.
The first being Item 10A, and that will be heard at 9:30 a.m.; the
second time-certain hearing is scheduled for 10:45 a.m., and that is
Item 11C regarding the recommended updates to your investment
policy; and the final time-certain item today is Item 11B, and that will
be heard at 1 :00 p.m.
And just a reminder, we have court reporter breaks at 10:30 and
2:50. And items under 8 and 9 are heard no sooner than 1 :30 p.m.
unless otherwise changed by the board.
Those are all the changes I have, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: None, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Troy, do we have any speakers on
today's agenda?
MR. MILLER: No, we do not, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication and any
further changes by commissioners. Start with Commissioner Nance.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have no -- excuse me. No
changes to the agenda.
Regarding ex parte, on Item 8B, the Ave Maria Stewardship
Receiving Area Town Plan and SRA Master Plan issue, I've read the
staff report, I've had meetings with the petitioner on a couple of
occasions, I've had a community meeting, and I've met with various
Page 4
October 14, 2014
community members. I have extensive number of letters and emails.
On Item 17A, the Mirasol RPUD, I read the staff report, and on
the item that was just moved to summary, the Ave Maria DRI issue,
I've, likewise, read the staff report, had meetings with the petitioner,
community meetings, meetings with community members, meetings
with staff, and numerous letters and emails, and nothing else.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I do have one proposed
change to the agenda. I have an add-on item that I've provided copies
to the members of this board, to the county manager, and the county
attorney. And I do apologize that I could not have this ready earlier.
I received an email yesterday from Jim Ray with Fifth Third, and
I'm going to read it. It says, Commissioner Hiller, Fifth Third is
willing to enter into a month-to-month contract with the Board of
County Commissioners under similar conditions as the existing
contract with the Clerk of Courts to allow you time to conduct an RFP
process.
We will need written direction from the BCC with regards to any
conflicting direction we receive from the Clerk regarding the BCC
funds during the time of such contract. This is the same information
that Jim Mitchell and I gave to the county manager after receipt of his
letter.
And this is the information that I was referring to at the last
meeting before you-all voted. I had put this on the record and,
notwithstanding, the county attorney allowed you to waive our
purchasing ordinance and waive the Clerk's irregularities and
procurement.
So what I did is prepared an executive summary that basically
requests that the Board of County Commissioners direct staff to
prepare an extension to the bank services agreement with Fifth Third
Bank to allow the county to re-solicit the county's bank services
Page 5
October 14, 2014
contract under the Board of County Commissioners and to recognize
that the bank services contract with First Florida Integrity is void since
this was procured illegally.
So I wanted to introduce this, since time is of the essence. Given
that it's my understanding that a transition's team is in place, there's no
need to transition the funds. And so I would ask that this be added to
the agenda.
And just two other points. I wanted to bring something up.
Commissioner Fiala had asked, you know, is there anything else
major, and I assumed she had read all the backup material, but then I
questioned if she did.
So I went ahead and I attached two items from the backup we
receive at the last meeting. The first is a document that is a letter dated
July 30th from First Florida Integrity Bank -- it was presented as
Exhibit D by the Clerk -- that basically stated that First Florida
Integrity was changing its submitted bid.
The Clerk allowed First Florida Integrity to modify its response to
eliminate its compensating balance requirement, which made it the
low-cost provider as a result, and also that it was a nonconforming
response. And by that, I should say, First Florida Integrity provided a
nonconforming response in that it did not have a trust company to
custody the county's securities and, instead, proposed a broker dealer
would custody those assets out of state, and no agreement was
provided, as also required by the original solicitation. And I think
that's a very important issue.
The county attorney was not even aware of this requirement, so I
question whether he reviewed the backup. And I think all of that is
very important to discuss.
So I would ask that the board support adding this item as an
add-on to today agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And you're certainly welcome.
Page 6
October 14, 2014
Commissioners, individually, can add things to the agenda if approved
by the other commissioners; however, wouldn't it be more prudent to
reconsider the previous action according to the ordinance of
reconsideration?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. This is not a reconsideration.
We have clear evidence that proposes that the original action is void
because the underlying contract is illegal. So there's no
reconsideration required.
What this recommendation proposes is something different.
What this recommendation proposes is that we direct staff to prepare
the extension to the bank services agreement with Fifth Third Bank to
allow the county to re-solicit the bank services contract under the
board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't know if we want
to get into such debate, but the contract's already signed with First
Integrity -- First Florida Integrity.
So is there a motion to add on Commissioner Hiller's item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can't support it. This is an ongoing
fight between Commissioner Hiller and the Clerk, and I don't think that
we really need it.
All in favor of the motion, signify --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question first?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that contract already signed? It
was stated, but I just wanted to make sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: You would need to reconsider that contract.
Page 7
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have an existing contract with First
Integrity. If you wanted to get into an agreement with Fifth Third,
you'd have to reconsider your contract with First Integrity.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, that isn't true, not if it's an
illegal contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't have two contracts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not if it's void. Well -- but it's a
void contract. It doesn't exist. It's illegal. I mean, it's illegal. For the
evidence presented on here, which was presented to you, your legal
opinion was completely incorrect. You know, you've really put the
board at risk, Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I understand what you're
saying, and we've had this discussion, and I disagree with you, okay.
We agree about most things. This one I respectfully disagree with you.
At this point in time the board has a lawful agreement, and at this point
in time, until I get a court order to the contrary, all right, it's a lawful
agreement. You can't have two depository agreements.
If the board wishes to consider your item, okay -- and it should
have been on the last meeting when they did the First Integrity one --
then at that point in time the board would have to reconsider First
Integrity. And under our rules, that has to come back for the following
meeting.
I don't know if there's enough time to do all of this. I'll leave that
up to the county manager.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, that's absolutely incorrect. I
mean, you know at the last meeting the information was put before you
that Fifth Third was willing to go forward with a month-to-month.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you get the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was stated on the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- answer to your question,
Page 8
October 14, 2014
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, he did answer my question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do want to make one last
statement. When I spoke to Jeff on Friday, he made a remark to me
which I think has to be stated on the record in that he said that what the
Clerk did was illegal, and I think it's important that that be noted.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not what I said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is what you said.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails to add Commissioner
Hiller's item 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in that case, County Manager,
please add it to the next agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're welcome to submit anything
you want. I do all the time. You can enter it into Sire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, let me --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where were we?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, let me -- I have to continue
with ex parte.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So as to ex parte, 8B, I received
Page 9
October 14, 2014
emails and calls. And then with respect to 17D, I received emails and
calls. And with respect to 8B, 17A, 17D -- yeah -- and 17D, I received
a staff report and reviewed that staff report.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My ex parte communication, I
have no further changes. Ex parte communication was -- formerly 8B
went onto the summary agenda; received some emails.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me, sir. It was 8A --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8A.
MR. OCHS: -- that went to summary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's all I have.
Commissioner -- no, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's -- I stated it correctly.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I have no changes or
additions to the agenda.
On the consent agenda, I have disclose -- a disclosure on 16A9,
which is the Twin Eagles Grand Arbors, and I received
correspondence on that particular item.
On the summary agenda, 17A, I received the staff report and on --
I'm going to tell you what this one is, as soon as I can see it. Oh, my. I
can't see the number. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 17D.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you very much.
And that is -- yes, on 17D, and that's the summary agenda. This is
addressing the Town of Ave Maria development. I had meetings. I
went out for a site visit with Mark Strain. I met with Rich Yovanovich
and David Gensen. I spoke with staff. I received correspondence and
emails and calls. So it was pretty thorough backup on that one.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
Page 10
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no further changes to the
agenda.
With respect to ex parte disclosures, 16A9, I have received
correspondence and emails, and I received an update from the staff;
16A10, I had meetings, emails, and telephone calls about this item; and
Item 17A, I received correspondence, and I reviewed the staff report of
August 21, 2014.
And with respect to Item 17D, I had meetings, correspondence
and emails. I reviewed the staff report of September the 4th, 2014, and
I met with Rich Yovanovich and David Gensen concerning this item,
and that concludes my ex parte disclosure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
Entertain a motion to approve today's agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve as amended.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 11
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 14,2014
Move Item 8A to Item 17D: Pursuant to Florida Statutes§380.115(1)(b), the petitioner has
demonstrated that all of the required mitigation was met in proportion to the amount of development
that existed at the time of this request, therefore approval by the BCC is ministerial.
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 a
resolution pursuant to Section 380.115(1)(b),Florida Statutes,approving the application for
rescission of the Town of Ave Maria Development of Regional Impact; providing for findings of
fact and conclusions of law; providing for approval of the rescission of the Development of Regional
Impact Development Order,and compliance with the post-rescission development with County
regulations; providing for conditions; providing for recordation; providing for severability and
providing for an effective date. The subject property is located north of Oil Well Road and west of
Camp Keais Road in Sections 31 through 33,Township 47 South,Range 29 East and Sections 4
through 9 and 16 through 18,Township 48 South,Range 29 East in Collier County,Florida
[Petition DRIABN-PL20130002016]. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 9A to the October 28,2014 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to deny the single
petition within the 2013 Cycle 3 Growth Management Plan Amendment for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for Review and Comments response for the
Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Transmittal Hearing. (Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 16A1 to the November 18,2014 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve
final acceptance of the water,sewer and irrigation utility facilities for the Lipari-Ponziane
PL#20130002052. (Staff's request)
Withdraw Item 16E2: Recommendation to approve periodic auctions,acceptance of bids and/or
donations to 501C3 organizations throughout Fiscal Year 2015 for the disposal of Collier County
surplus vehicles and equipment and authorize transfer paperwork; and accept, ratify,and record a
report of those asset items once the disposal has been finalized. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16E4 to Item 11E: Recommendation to accept and ratify reports for staff-approved
change orders,changes to work orders and surplus credit for returned inventory. (Commissioner
Henning's request)
Time Certain Requests:
Item 10A to be heard at 9:30 a.m.
Item 11C to be heard at 10:45 a.m.
Item 11B to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
11/3/2014 11:26 AM
October 14, 2014
Item #2B and #2C
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 9,
2014 AND BCC BUDGET HEARING MINUTES FROM
SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, approval of the minutes and
agenda of September 9, 2014, BCC, regular meeting and September
18, 2014 budget, hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve both.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Nance.
All in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Now we go to proclamations.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS - ADOPTED
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING LEGAL AID SERVICE OF
Page 12
October 14, 2014
COLLIER COUNTY FOR 10 YEARS OF PROVIDING FREE
CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES TO THE MOST VULNERABLE,
ECONOMICALLY NEEDY RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY MS. CAROL O'CALLAGHAN, MANAGING
ATTORNEY; MR. JEFF AHREN, DIRECTOR OF
DEVELOPMENT; MS. MARGARET MCMORROW, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; MS. JENNIFER NACKLEY, PARTNER WITH
QUARLES & BRADY, LLP; AND KARYNN CAVERO, OFFICE
ADMINISTRATOR — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Item 4A is a proclamation recognizing
Legal Aid Service of Collier County for 10 years of providing free
civil legal services to the most vulnerable, economically needy
residents of Collier County.
To be accepted by Ms. Carol O'Callaghan, Managing Attorney;
Mr. Jeff Ahern, Director of Development; Ms. Margaret McMorrow,
Board of Directors; Ms. Jennifer Nackley, partner with Quarles &
Brady, LLP; and Karynn Cavero, Office Administrator.
And this item is supported by Commissioner Hiller. If you'd
please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Can we get a photo, please.
(Applause.)
MS. 0' CALLAGHAN: I'd just like to thank Commissioner
Hiller for sponsoring this and thank the entire commission for this
honor.
My name is Carol O'Callaghan. I'm Managing Attorney at Legal
Aid.
At Legal Aid we promote fairness and equal justice to those in
Collier County who cannot afford an attorney but who are facing civil
legal matters of life-changing significance, including matters --
Page 13
October 14, 2014
including matters of safety, health, and minimal economic security.
Last year alone we assisted over 2,700 people. These were the
most -- these are among the most vulnerable members of our
community, including victims of domestic violence; children who have
been abused, abandoned, or neglected; veterans; the elderly; the
disabled; and families facing foreclosure.
I'd also like to offer my thanks to all of our supporters, grantors,
and donors who make it possible to serve the community in this way.
These include the county itself, which administers our CDBG grants so
that we can help victims of domestic violence; the United Way; the
Naples Children and Education Foundation, the -- which is the
charitable arm of the Winter Wine Festival; the Community
Foundation; and the Collier County Bar Association.
And, finally, I'd like to acknowledge our staff and board members
who are here with us today. Please stand up. We've got Lisa, who did
not make it up with us. Lisa Meade, who's executive director of the
Collier County Bar Association.
And thank you all again for this honor.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I really want to commend
Legal Aid for the work they do to help those in need of legal services
in our community.
Legal Aid is a member of our Victim Advocacy Coalition, and
this year, in conjunction with the other members -- and we're going to
be recognizing another partner, which is the shelter -- our commitment
is to work to fight against human trafficking. So it's going to be a great
year, and we're going to do good stuff, and thank you for everything
that you're doing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next proclamation.
Page 14
October 14, 2014
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2014 AS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED
BY LINDA OBERHAUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SHELTER
FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND LIEUTENANT
KEN BECKER OF COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
SPECIAL CRIMES BUREAU — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating October 2014
as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. To be accepted by Linda
Oberhaus, Executive Director, Shelter for Abused Women and
Children; and Lieutenant Ken Becker of the Collier County Sheriffs
Office, Special Crimes Bureau.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Hiller. If you'd please
step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MS. OBERHAUS: Good morning. I'm Linda Oberhaus, the
executive director at the Shelter for Abused Women and Children.
I just want to start by thanking Commissioner Hiller for
sponsoring this proclamation for Domestic Violence Awareness Month
and the entire Board of County Commissioners for supporting our
efforts.
I appreciate Ken Becker, Lieutenant Ken Becker being here this
morning with us. The shelter has a very close working relationship
with the Collier County Sheriffs Office. And without their support,
the work that we do wouldn't be possible. So we appreciate them
helping us to keep victims safe and hold batterers accountable for their
crimes.
During the month of October, the shelter is going to be hosting a
variety of awareness events, including a flash mob -- first time ever --
Page 15
October 14, 2014
that's going to start here tomorrow at 9:10 p.m. (sic) right out front on
the courthouse stairs.
So for those of you who are interested in stepping out and having
a look at that, we have the Naples trolley. We have 40 members of the
staff and community members on the Naples trolley with an additional
40 members of the community who say they're going to show up and
dance in this flash mob to raise awareness for Domestic Violence
Awareness Month. So, again, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What time, Linda?
MS. OBERHAUS: At 9:10 tomorrow morning. If you'd just step
outside or look out your window, you'll be able to see a lot of people in
purple dancing for awareness month. Thanks again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make one statement,
and that is Collier County has zero tolerance for domestic violence. It
will not be tolerated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 24, 2014 AS THE
15TH ANNUAL RED WALK IN CELEBRATION OF RED
RIBBON ACTIVITIES. ACCEPTED BY AMANDA KUBIN AND
CRAIG GREUSEL, PROJECT DIRECTOR — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating October 24,
2014, as the 15th Annual Red Walk in celebration of Red Ribbon
Activities. To be accepted by Amanda Kubin (phonetic) and Greg (sic)
Greusel, Project Director.
This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. Please step
Page 16
October 14, 2014
forward.
(Applause.)
MS. KUBIN: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve today's
proclamations as delivered.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH BY THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE TO LA PLAYA BEACH AND GOLF RESORT.
ACCEPTED BY RON VUY, GENERAL MANAGER —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 5 on your
agenda, presentations.
5A is a presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month
Page 17
October 14, 2014
by the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce to La Playa Beach and
Golf Resort.
To be accepted by Ron Vuy, General Manager. If you'd please
step forward and receive your award.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. Congratulations.
MR. VUY: Good morning. My name is Ron Vuy. I'm the
General Manager of La Playa Beach and Golf Resort.
And on behalf of(sic) the Chamber of Commerce, I'd like to
thank them for this recognition. And I really want to commend the
County Commissioners for their support of tourism, in particular beach
renourishment, which is our most important asset here in Collier
County, at least to the -- at least to the hotels and restaurants and other
attractions.
On behalf of the 400 employees at La Playa, I know that they're
very -- they're very honored to receive this award, also the hundreds of
local vendors that we support buying food and all sorts of supplies to
take care of our guests.
And, in closing, I just want to also thank Gary McAlpin who has
been a tremendous resource for us on the beachfront in dealing with all
sorts of issues pertaining to not only beach renourishment, but
anything that comes up.
And as you all know, lots of different things come up on the
beach every day. So -- and I'd be also remiss not to thank Collier
County Sheriffs Department who are always there protecting our
guests, also the North Naples Fire Department and the Emergency
Medical Service.
So thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 18
October 14, 2014
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED BUDGET
PRESENTATION AWARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 FROM THE
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (GFOA)
PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET ACCEPTED BY MARK ISACKSON, CORPORATE
FINANCIAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
DIRECTOR — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5B is a presentation of the Distinguished
Budget Presentation Award for Fiscal Year 2014 from the Government
Finance Officers Association presented to the Office of Management
and Budget.
To be accepted by Mark Isackson, Corporate Financial Planning
and Management Services Director.
Please step forward, Mr. Isackson.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: And the staff of the budget department, come on up.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No doubt it was your spirited
reading of those rates, sir, that did it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, thank you. If I can, let me
just, once again, recognize the folks behind the scenes who do all the
work that make this possible. Sherry Pryer -- excuse me -- Sherry
Kimball -- I'm sorry -- Susan Usher, Therese Stanley, Valerie Fleming,
and Ed Finn in the budget office and all the fine financial professionals
in the organization that make the budget a success. So thanks again.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Without you, Mark, we couldn't
Page 19
October 14, 2014
function. Literally, we could not function. He assists on each and
every department on their financial matters.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a 9:30 time-certain --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- if you'd like to go to that, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thanks.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2014-221 : RENAMING FREEDOM PARK THE
FRED W. COYLE FREEDOM PARK — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That is Item 10A on this morning's agenda. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution to rename Freedom Park the
Fred W. Coyle Freedom Park. This item was placed on the agenda by
Commissioner Hiller.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much for giving
me the opportunity to speak on this.
Commissioner Coyle has been a tremendous public servant. And
I gave a great deal of thought -- you know, we recognize many who
have worked for the county and who have served the county in elected
office, but few have done as much for this community as Fred Coyle.
So I had heard a lot of rumblings in the community about
different ways of recognizing him, and one seemed to me to be most
fitting, and that is to name the Freedom Park after him.
And so, with that, I make a motion that we rename Freedom Park
Fred Coyle -- the Fred Coyle Freedom Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that -- I'm not done. Hang on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, I want to get in there.
Page 20
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that we have a party to unveil
and to recognize Commissioner Coyle for all he has done. And what
date are we hoping to do that?
MR. OCHS: October 29th.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On October 29th. I didn't want to
delay it, because I'm so afraid everyone's going to leave for
Thanksgiving, and then everyone's going to leave for Christmas, and
then Commissioner Coyle will go to Oregon, and we won't see him
again. I know what happens every season, so, you know, history will
repeat itself So the sooner we can recognize him for his
accomplishments the better.
And, Commissioner Fiala, would you mind modifying your
motion to include that we have a party to recognize him on that date?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, as long as I'm invited.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hey, you second the motion, that's
a foregone conclusion.
MR. OCHS: May we amend that to make sure the party's on
Commissioner Coyle's dime?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not going to second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And make a recommendation that
it promotes tourism, sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it didn't go before the TDC,
so I think we have to, like, continue this then, right? No.
All right. So we have a motion and a second.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I believe you have some registered
speakers as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I add a little something to that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would just love to say, for all the
Page 21
October 14, 2014
audience members who might not be aware, it was Commissioner
Coyle that first started putting this flag project together. He worked
hard at it consistently, regularly. He contacted everybody, all of the
veterans associations and so forth trying to get this thing moving along.
And I think there's going to be a giant effort now that the park is
named after the guy who made this all happen --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to get that flag completed, and
there's going to be some fundraising events going on, and I hope
everybody will participate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: More parties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: More parties, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's all we care about. No,
absolutely, Commissioner Fiala. Your point is a very important point.
It will be our mission, once Commissioner Coyle retires, to do
everything we can to get that project completed and, you know, that it
will make him and this community proud.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have some speakers, I believe.
MR. MILLER: Yeah. I have one registered speaker at this point.
Murray Hendel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Hiller to approve today's resolution and have a ceremony October -- I
have the 28th on my calendar. Is that what you meant, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second. Let me --
MR. OCHS: It was the 29th; 28th is a meeting date.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, the 28th -- 29th I have it from
noon to one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we want it on the 29th?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that on Wednesday?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want it on Wednesday?
Page 22
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that will be fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever you decide. The only
problem I have is early Wednesday morning until about 10 o'clock I
have a conflict. But you tell me what time you want me to be there,
and I'll be there with the money to pay for the party.
MR. OCHS: Very good, very good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the ceremony would be on
Wednesday, October 29th, second by Commissioner Fiala. Okay.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Hendel?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is it going to be held, right
there --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At the park.
MR. OCHS: Right at the park, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the intent is that we will have
an unveiling of the sign at that time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Hendel.
MR. HENDEL: Good after -- good morning, good morning. Mr.
Chairman, members of the Board of County Commissioners, my name
is Murray Hendel, and I'm Chairman of the Collier Citizens Council.
I met Fred Coyle in the '90s when he was a city councilperson in
Naples, and he decided to run for mayor. And he ran against Bonnie
McKenzie. Bonnie McKenzie won by about 14 votes. I happened to
support Bonnie McKenzie, and that was the last time I did not support
Fred Coyle.
The Collier Citizens Council passed a resolution in July. And if
you would bear with me, I would like to read that. It will take about
two minutes.
How do you acknowledge the remarkable accomplishments of a
long-time public servant? How do you recognize someone who has
given over 20 years of his life to the community, including 13 years as
Page 23
October 14, 2014
a County Commissioner?
We are talking, of course, about Fred Coyle who will be retiring
from the commissionership later this year. How do we pay tribute to
someone like Fred Coyle?
The Collier Citizens Council has a proposal: Rename the
Freedom Memorial Park the Fred Coyle Freedom Park, and we did this
in July.
A review of Fred's career shows why this makes sense. Educated
as an electrical engineer with a master's degree in business, Fred
served with a distinction in the military. He was decorated for service
in Vietnam and served as a colonel in the army. Coyle was also a
successful businessman, founding and leading a national information,
technological, and management consulting company.
But it's what he did later that's even more impressive. Coyle
channeled his military and business experience into community service
bigtime.
In addition to his stint on the County Commission, Fred served as
chairman of the Community Development Agency, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization, the Property Tax Appeal Board, Public Safety
Coordinating Council, the Tourist Development Council, the
Holocaust Museum, and the Redevelopment Standards Committee,
and there's more.
Fred served on the Naples City Council for two years, was a
member of the Southwest Florida Planning Council, the Board of
Zoning Appeals, and the Elections Canvassing Board. In 1999, he was
honored as Olde Naples Man of the Year.
Fred's service on the County Commission is especially
impressive. He led efforts to reform the county budgeting process,
helped create a nationally recognized Growth Management Plan, and
devise a concurrency system that ensures we have adequate
infrastructure to support growth, and that's not all.
Page 24
October 14, 2014
Someone's giving me their three minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can have mine.
MR. HENDEL: Pretty impressive. Here's the kicker. Fred
Coyle, military man and public servant, was the driving force that led
to Freedom Memorial Park. He secured funding to purchase the land
and led the construction effort. He and his wife contributed $40,000 of
their own money to move the project forward, a project Coyle truly
believed in, in a memorial to honor the victims of 9/11 and members of
the armed forces who defend our freedom.
Now it's payback time. Let's recognize his many years of public
service and rename what he helped create as the Fred Coyle Freedom
Park. It would be a fitting tribute.
And I'd like to ask members of the CCC that are here today,
please stand up. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will abstain.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You're going to vote yes on
there. There's no abstention on there. There's no -- there's no personal
gain on this. And you should be honored to vote yes for your service
that you provided.
Page 25
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just make a brief--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- statement.
There are people who are responsible for helping us do what
we've done. And some of them have been forgotten, and I think it's
important that we -- I'm not going to try to name all the names, but
there's at least one person in this audience today who is responsible for
suggesting that we have a memorial at a location that was more
important than the one we were considering.
And, Beth, will you please stand up. She is the lady who came to
me with the suggestion.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And John Veit was the first person
to have a memorial gathering for -- to honor those who were killed in
the 9/11 attacks. So John Veit was a very active member. He has since
retired. They should not be forgotten for what they have done for the
memorial.
And with respect to naming the park after me, I want to tell you
that I never expected to be recognized, and the fact that you have is a
very significant gesture to me. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Commissioner.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was so touching.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
Page 26
October 14, 2014
OFFICE REGARDING RAMIFICATIONS OF EXPANDING THE
BUFFER ZONES FOR SEX OFFENDERS AND SEXUAL
PREDATORS — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. The next item is Item 5C to finish off your
presentations this morning, Mr. Chairman. It's a presentation by the
Collier County Sheriffs Office regarding the ramifications of
expanding the buffer zones for sex offenders and sexual predators.
MR. BECKER: Good morning, Commissioners. As stated
earlier, my name is Lieutenant Ken Becker. I supervise the Special
Crimes Bureau.
Special Crimes Bureau is made up of three different sections.
We've got domestic violence; we've got the Special Victims Unit,
which investigate physical and sexual abuse of children, adult sexual
battery and elderly abuse; and Exploitation Unit is made up of
detectives that investigate and track the sex offenders, follow up on
missing persons' investigations, human trafficking, and Internet
exploitation. Obviously all of these areas are a very high responsibility
and a very high value and meaning to the Sheriffs Office.
There has been a discussion of extending the buffer for the sex
offenders from a thousand foot to 2,500 feet. And I just wanted to
bring some information and awareness to not only the commissioners
but to the public.
First of all, to get an idea of the sex offenders in the community,
being that we work those cases that quite often make them sex
offenders, we're quite often aware of the sex offenders' activity and
possibilities long before they even get put on the registry.
But in Collier County, as of Friday, we had 250 sex offenders in
our community; Lee County to the north of us had 702; Charlotte
County has 224; Sarasota has 436; Manatee also has 436; Pinellas
County has 1,609; and Hillsborough County has 1,816 sex offenders.
Page 27
October 14, 2014
Obviously, we take our responsibility very serious. We look at
this as a couple different prongs. Obviously, there's enforcement and
compliance, there's also awareness on the community's part, and then
the tracking of the sex offenders.
Enforcement. One thing that's important to realize is even though
we have got 250 sex offenders, for all of them the only mandate they
have is the registration, that they go down to the county jail and they
register where they're living, where they're working, what vehicles
they're driving, what web page user names they have on social media,
things along those signs (sic).
But those that actually that fall under the buffer is only 58, and
those are sex offenders who have victimized children and either are on
probation currently or their offense occurred after October of 2004.
So, basically, it only affects a quarter of the sex offenders that we've
got.
Any other sex offender is free to roam, live, work, and go
anywhere in the community they want as long as they register where
they're living, when they leave to go on vacation, when they return
and, like I said, the vehicles and other information that's mandated
under the registration.
Awareness. Obviously, it's important for everybody in the
community to be aware of the sex offenders in the community. That's
best done on the sex offender registry, which is wwvv.fdle.state.fl.us.
And you can go on there. You can break down your neighborhood,
schools where your children go so that you can see the area of what
sex offenders are in the community.
Obviously it's very important to be aware that those sex offenders
are there and then, just like any other danger in the community, the
best thing to do is be aware that they're there and then to leave them
alone so that you don't put yourself at risk.
Tracking is a very big responsibility. Under Florida Statute, we're
Page 28
October 14, 2014
mandated on sex offenders to check sex offenders, go out to their
house and check that they're living where they're supposed to be one
time a year. With predators, we're required to do that four times a
year.
Obviously, the Sheriffs Office thinks that that's way, way too
much time for them to be unaccounted for, so we have increased the
number of checks that we do. On the sex offenders, we check on them
at least every quarter from the Special Crimes Bureau. We go out to
their house, make sure they're where they're at, and all the information
is accurate on their registration.
We have also teamed up with our youth relations deputy. So each
youth relations deputy in the school is responsible for sex offenders
around the schools, and they go out and check them every marking
period at least one time.
And we have teamed up with liaisons out in the districts. We've
got liaisons in every district that are responsible for the -- deputies
responsibility for sex offenders in their district, and they're constantly
monitoring them and checking on them to make sure that they're in
compliance.
So an offender who's supposed to be checked about one time a
year, they're being checked, very easily, at least once a month, if not
more. Offenders, like I said, it's one time a year. With predators we're
mandated every quarter. We make sure that we check on them at least
every month along with YRD and with our liaisons out in the district.
On top of that, we work very closely with state probation. We
have quarterly operations with sex offenders that are on probation. We
work with probation. We go out every -- at least one time a quarter.
We go with probation. We do searches. We check on the offenders to
make sure that they're in compliance with their probation.
One of those nights is coming up here on Halloween. For about
the last, probably, eight to 10 years, we've made it a point on
Page 29
October 14, 2014
Halloween night to go out and make sure that we check on the sex
offenders that cannot have contact with kids and who are on probation
to make sure that they're not handing out candy so that we don't have
to worry about some type of ramifications from that.
There have been a lot of different agencies and counties around
the United States and Florida that have extended and toughened the
registration, buffer zone for sex offenders. With that, there have been
some unforeseen ramifications. There are a number of them that have
realized that it drives a lot of the sex offenders into absconding. They
now can't live in an area, so they abscond, they don't register, and we
have no idea where they're at. It also forces a lot of them into transient
status where they're now living under bridges, living in the woods, and
we have the added pressure of trying to find them, being that they don't
have a specific residence that they're living in.
And, like I said, out of the 250 sex offenders we've got, right now
there's only 58 registers that will even be affected by a buffer being
expanded from a thousand foot to 2,500 foot. And with that we run a
risk of some of those offenders now being in the buffer where they're
in an area where they can't live, which can be problematic in trying to
figure out how we're going to deal with that issue.
It's obviously, like I said, a very big concern for us, but I think
that everyone would be in agreement that it is important to know
where the sex offenders in our community are at, but be assured that
they are being tracked, they are being monitored, and the bigger risk in
the community is those sex offenders in our neighborhood that we do
not know about. There are over 600,000 absconded sex offenders
within the United States, which means there's a very good possibility a
lot of them are living right here in the community. And being that we
don't know who they are and where they're at, they're not being
monitored, and they're not being followed, which creates a much
higher risk to our community.
Page 30
October 14, 2014
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. DURHAM: Thank you, Ken.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can imagine we can start on 11A.
I'm not sure if-- we'll probably have to interrupt for the time-certain at
10:45, but let's give it a try.
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CLAM BAY
NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA (NRPA)
MANAGEMENT PLAN (PLAN) AND AUTHORIZE THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION TO SUBMIT THE PLAN
TO THE REQUIRED FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES -
MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM AND DIRECT THE
PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION TO INCORPORATE
RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY THE CONSERVANCY
AND TIE THE PLAN TO FUTURE DREDGING PERMITS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item 11A is a recommendation to approve the Clam Bay Natural
Resource Protection Area Management Plan and authorize Pelican Bay
Services Division to submit the plan to the required federal and state
agencies.
Mr. Neil Dorrill, Pelican Bay Services Division Administrator,
will begin the presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we start, I know that this is a
very contentious item. We have several choices. We can approve it as
Page 31
October 14, 2014
submitted, we can approve it with additions or amendments, we can
request that the Pelican Bay Service District look at certain issues, or
we could not approve it.
So my question is, is there anybody on the board that wants to
make recommendations to continue this with some guidance?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think that the management
plan is a very, very important document and should be part of the
permit and should also include information about the ecology of the
NRPA.
There's been extensive research done that should be the backbone
of the plan, and I think excluding it is problematic.
Probably the best thing to do at this point, I think, is to send this
back to the Pelican Bay Services Division and make absolutely certain
that everything that should be incorporated has been incorporated and
that, you know, they give us guidance with respect to ensuring that this
management plan should be an integral part of the permit and that any
other considerations that they ought -- that they think ought to be
considered with respect to this plan be included at that time.
There's been a great deal of public vetting with respect to what's
being proposed. But I just want to make sure that they don't separate
the permit and the plan in the process of approving this plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also would like to have them
consider including the ecological condition of Clam Bay's NRPA in
addition to the hydraulic conditions when listed and discussing various
variables and conditions to the determined dredge as needed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is what I was referring to
when I was talking about the -- you know, the research that has been
done on the ecology that should be incorporated.
Because the whole point is that, you know, we are looking to see
Clam Bay dredged in order to promote adequate flushing for the
Page 32
October 14, 2014
preservation of the mangroves, and so any information that supports
that objective, which is the only objective, should be incorporated. So
I agree with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, before I was interrupted, these
are recommendations -- other recommendations by the Conservancy
that I think needs to be looked at.
So is there a motion to continue with guidance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make that motion, that this be
continued with the request that this plan be sent back to the Pelican
Bay Services Division, that they consider incorporating the
information that Commissioner Henning just read on the record that
has been put forth by Conservancy, that the Pelican Bay Services
Division recognize that the purpose of this plan is for the purpose of
maintaining adequate flushing for the health and preservation of the
NRPA, and that it recognize that this plan should be incorporated in
part and parcel of the permit to dredge Clam Bay and Clam Pass.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just forwarded (sic) that. I'll second
the motion.
Discussion on the motion? Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I always like to know
all sides of an issue as we go forward.
So as we continue this, could we learn or have printed up for us
both sides of this issue so we can understand what happens if it is tied
and if it isn't tied, and how will that affect that body of water as well as
the -- as the results of this -- of this motion.
Will you be able to do something like that, or will you be able to
work with staff to bring us --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager can provide you
some more information on that.
MR. OCHS: I would be happy to do that, Commissioner. I did
include a memo in your backup that laid out the staff explanation for
Page 33
October 14, 2014
some suggested changes. Some of those have been adopted already by
the services division into the plan. So we'll be happy to delineate the
advantages and disadvantages.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just so we know we can compare.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, so you can give it a fair
hearing.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With that said, knowing that
this item is going to be continued and discussed at a public meeting,
Pelican Bay Services District, if the speakers can just speak to the topic
of the continuation instead of the detail issues of the management plan,
or you can waive. Because we'll be back another day.
MR. MILLER: We have eight registered public speakers on this
item. Your first speaker is Linda Roth. She'll be followed by Susan
O'Brien.
MS. ROTH: For the record, Linda Roth, Clam Bay stakeholder.
Good morning, Commissioners.
PBSD has developed a comprehensive scientifically-sound
estuary management plan that includes a dredging plan. Please
consider the following points when voting on this item.
Public vetting and scientific analysis of the PBSD Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan has occurred in 23 meetings over the past 1 .3
years. The process has been very inclusive and transparent.
Coastal Zone Management and Seagate stakeholders were invited
but have never appeared at any of the meetings. PBSD Clam Bay
Committee chair has had conversation in a private meeting with
Seagate homeowners where no objections to these plans were
expressed.
The dredging plan contained within the NRPA management plan
Page 34
October 14, 2014
is well conceived and scientifically sound based on careful analysis of
years of well-documented scientific data.
Separating the dredging permit application from the Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan renders the plan null and void, because the
plan's dredging design is to provide appropriate flushing of the estuary
that is essential to the health of the entire ecosystem. Dredging is an
integral part of the plan and cannot be placed under separate authority.
The 1998 Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan was
incorporated into the prior 10-year FDEP and U.S. Army Corps
dredging permits. The proposed Clam Bay NRPA Management Plan
must also be incorporated into the new 10-year dredging permit
applications. I will pass out excerpts from the regulatory agency
permits that substantiate this point after I've finished.
The commission has -- I would appreciate it if you would take a
look. It's not very long.
The commission has already voted to allow PBSD to have overall
management responsibility. Please approve the proposed Clam Bay
NRPA Management Plan, authorize PBSD to submit the plan to the
regulatory agencies, and permit PBSD to incorporate the plan into the
10-year dredging permit applications.
Thank you for recognizing the importance of Clam Bay Estuary
and taking actions to protect it.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan O'Brien. She'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
MS. O'BRIEN: Good morning. Susan O'Brien, Pelican Bay
Services Division Board Member and also chairperson of the Clam
Bay Committee.
And we've enjoyed very much working on the management plan
for the past 18 months. And it sounds like we're being directed to
work on it a little bit more. And I just ask if you would please clarify a
little bit more about the ecology piece that you would like to see in the
Page 35
October 14, 2014
management plan.
You mentioned the Conservancy. And we would be glad to
follow up with the Conservancy to get their specific ideas that could be
incorporated into the management plan.
Are there other groups that we should be consulting with?
We would like to get the plan right the next time, so if you could
just give us specific information about which groups within the
community we should be consulting with, working with carefully so
that we get the piece that you feel is missing in the plan in the plan this
time, that would be appreciated.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nicole Johnson. She'll be
followed by Kathy Worley.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Really?
MS. JOHNSON: Just very quickly. Nicole Johnson, here on
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
We support the commission's motion to continue this item and
also to expressly indicate that the plan should be tied to the permit.
It sounds like we have really a collaborative effort going on. I
think that we can get the couple remaining issues resolved, which is
going to be very important because this plan is so important.
So thank you for your motion, we support it, and hopefully when
it comes back we'll be here to say everything is good to go.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathy Worley. She'll be
followed by Garrett Beyrent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on.
Commissioner Hiller?
MS. WORLEY: Hi. Kathy --
MR. MILLER: Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Commissioner Hiller
Page 36
October 14, 2014
wanted to say something. Commissioner Fiala wanted to say
something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask Nicole --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nicole, are you -- do you guys
happen to be working with Bill Lorenz from our staff, too, as you're
working on this?
MS. JOHNSON: We have been in discussions with him. I talked
with him earlier this week. And Kathy may be able to elaborate as far
as the technical side if Bill has been part of that. But, yes, we have
been in communication with him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just want to make sure
everyone understands -- and I appreciate what Linda said about all the
meetings that have been held and how much community involvement
has gone into the development of the existing plan.
To clarify, my motion isn't to revisit what has been done. To
accept what has been done, to bolster what has been done by the
information that you want to contribute, and to ensure that the
management plan becomes part and parcel of any permit submitted
with respect to dredging or any other type of maintenance of the Clam
Bay system.
So we're not reinventing the wheel. We're not going to do more.
We're supplementing and clarifying --
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that they should be jointly
considered.
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly. And we look forward to working on
that. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Ms. Worley. She'll be followed by Garrett
Page 37
October 14, 2014
Beyrent.
MS. WORLEY: Hi. Kathy Worley, the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida.
I'd like to thank the commission for their motion, and we support
it. And we look forward to working with Pelican Bay and other
stakeholders to get this resolved.
We do agree with the commissioners that -- or Commissioner
Hiller that it should be tied -- the plan should be tied to the permit.
And we thank you for the opportunity and for listening to our
comments.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Garrett Beyrent. He'll be
followed by Marcia Cravens.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett FX Beyrent.
I live at 506 Gordonia Road in Naples.
And before you go much further, I think you should review, or
have Jeff Klatzkow review the 1986 settlement agreement that I
entered into with the county relative to Clam Bay.
I had sued the county. The Can/America Seagate Corporation,
the Westinghouse Corporation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Environmental Regulation, and that the entity at the
time was Pelican Bay Association.
And in the settlement agreement, essentially, we all collectively
agreed that the county would be responsible for the maintenance of the
estuary, which included my design for the boardwalk through the
mangroves in my subsequent bridge design that was a drawbridge so I
could get my sailboat through. And, unfortunately, not a lot has
happened in a positive way relative to lower Clam Bay.
And I did fail miserably at coming up with a design plan for Clam
Pass. It would have been more adequate for a design plan that was
basically the same as Wiggins Pass, Gordon Pass, and Doctors Pass,
Page 38
October 14, 2014
but I was really busy at the time, and I take responsibility for that
failure; however, the 2012 creation of this Pelican Bay district, I don't
know what they really are responsible for, and I kind of question the
legality of the County Commission actually creating another entity
which, as far as I can figure, it violates my 1986 settlement agreement
with the county relative to the estuary.
So I think Jeff should look into that. And I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Marcia Cravens. She'll be
followed by Michael Seef.
MS. CRAVENS: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you
for the opportunity to speak on this item.
I'm Marcia Cravens. I'm a full-time resident of Collier County. I
enjoy the Clam Bay NRPA on a daily basis, but I am here to represent
Sierra Club and our members in this area who also regularly enjoy the
natural resources of the area.
We agree with Chairman Henning and Commissioner Hiller, feel
that a lot of good work has been done by the Pelican Bay Services
Division to update the 1998 management plan and build upon the
successes of that 1998 plan.
And to that end, further protect and improve upon any losses that
may continue to occur, because the natural resource coastal barrier
system is a dynamic system, and there are always opportunities to
improve it and continue to preserve those natural resources.
It's important to understand that Collier County has a long
established protection of this area. It occurred prior to the
development of Seagate, Naples Cay, Pelican Bay, and so forth
beginning with the first zoning regulations in Collier County that
established that area as sensitive treatment, then becoming a
conservation preservation area, becoming the Clam Pass Coastal
Barrier Resources System, a federal system, becoming the Clam Bay
Page 39
October 14, 2014
Natural Resources Protection Area.
As you know, more than 50 percent of species have been lost
worldwide and, even recently, the mangroves forest have been
identified to be the most threatened forest system on the planet. The
losses to these forests continue to occur. And we applaud Collier
County Government for continuing to recognize the importance of
protecting and preserving this system.
I would be happy to work with Pelican Bay Services Division, the
Conservancy, and other stakeholders to make sure that this is the best
plan going forward to continue to protect and maintain those resources.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Michael Seef. He'll be
followed by Dave Trecker.
MR. SEEF: Michael Seef will pass and thank the commissioners
for your motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker is Dave Trecker.
MR. TRECKER: Thank you. My name's Dave Trecker. I'm
current chairman of the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
I'm going to scrap my previous speech based on what the
commissioners have already instructed.
I want to be sure I understand what you folks are asking. My take
is that you are telling us to modify the plan by incorporating assurances
that the plan will be made part of subsequent dredging permit
applications, No. 1, and, No. 2, that the concerns of the Conservancy
will be readdressed and incorporated in the plan. Is that correct? Is
that -- am I reading that correctly?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The dredge and the management are
part and parcel.
MR. TRECKER: Understood, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And some other things that need to be
Page 40
October 14, 2014
addressed within the management plan that has been brought to the
attention by the Conservancy. So, yes, you are correct.
MR. TRECKER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to clarify your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think the motion is clear, and
I think this discussion is beneficial.
And, again, the whole purpose of what we're doing here is
developing a plan to preserve the health of the mangroves, which make
up the NRPA, and the waters that flush through those mangroves, keep
those -- keep that ecosystem alive.
So it's very important to clearly define what the objective is as
part of the overall definition of the plan.
MR. TRECKER: Thank you. Appreciate your input.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I very much support the
motion. I think handling Clam Bay and Clam Pass in a holistic manner
is essential if we're to mediate the effects that man has had on this
entity. This is our greatest -- one of our greatest coastal NRPAs, and I
certainly support that.
I also applaud the motion and the methodology in handling this
agenda item. I think continuing to work in a cooperative -- in a
cooperative way and to tweak the plan is very, very appropriate.
I also hope that everybody concerned will address the actual
application permit for dredges and conceive what sorts of stumbling
blocks may be encountered in attaching this document, which is a very
worthy document, but it's also very, very detailed.
I want to make sure that the flexibility is there and the ability is
there to take care of critical pass issues in a timely fashion. Because
the pass is very, very active and it fluctuates. Numerous, numerous
times in my lifetime has it been closed and reopened in various ways
and by various forces. Timeliness is essential. And we have to have a
Page 41
October 14, 2014
methodology for the going decade that addresses that in a way.
So I applaud everything. I certainly support the motion, but I
think that the practical application should also be contemplated in your
deliberations.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. DORRILL: Could I address one thing, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. DORRILL: Just because this question is asked repeatedly.
The extension of the process to try and bring back an agreeable
management plan, then we're also asked, well, what happens if the pass
closes again.
Under the board's previous direction, we recently had a pre-
application meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers to explore
alternatives that would be available to the commission in the event that
the pass were to fail this winter.
They have a process that is called a letter of permission that had
not previously been discussed with us when we most recently obtained
the nationwide permit. This letter of permission is an intriguing sort of
mechanism that they have used as an alternative dispute mechanism to
Page 42
October 14, 2014
move projects forward.
We appear, in the opinion of the Army Corps, to be fully eligible
for a letter of permission if that pass were to close, and it would give us
the flexibility, with some limitations, to address all three segments.
You know, unfortunately the community tends to focus on the dredge
cut at the mouth of the inlet where it meets the Gulf of Mexico. But
this system has far more components to it than the width and the depth
of the pass where it meets the Gulf of Mexico.
So we are eligible for a letter of permission. And the good side is
that it does not obligate the Army Corps of Engineers to open the
federal public-comment process. When you do that, you create almost
enumerable hurdles for people who are opposed to what you're trying
to do to oppose you behind the scenes with staff at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Agency. And
sometimes, as the board knows, that can be very difficult to overcome.
So the answer to the obvious question is, if we take the time under
the direction of Ms. O'Brien to try and, at the end of the day, have a
management plan that is both easily understood by the public -- which
this plan, frankly, does. This is not the type of thing that the County
Commission spends money on and then gets, you know, shelved away.
This is a very practical plan with very specific bullet-type action items
that are both easily understood and based on science and engineering.
This is not the type of subjective sort of thing that can be used
against you, because there are elements in this particular case -- most
of you know, I'm from Sarasota. Sarasota has a very similar pass there
called Midnight Pass. Midnight Pass closed 32 years ago. It remains
closed after 32 years with significant environmental, recreational
consequences, and the community has yet to come to grips. That's the
type of competing interests that we have here.
And so I think we understand your direction. I think we need to
explore some alternative dispute sort of concepts that may be available
Page 43
October 14, 2014
to us, because some of the groups are just diametrically opposed to
each other. But I think that we can do that and do it in a productive
sort of way under the type of leadership that Ms. O'Brien has explored.
But I want you to know that in the event the worst happens, there
do appear to be mechanisms available to you to address a
comprehensive closing in both Sections A, B, and C, where the
shoaling occurs.
Thank you again just for the opportunity to clarify.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah. Mr. Dorrill, thank you very
much. Those are -- that is an example of exactly what I hope that will
be brought forward because, you know, at the end of the day, you
know, action needs to be taken, and everybody realizes that extended
delays on that are extremely harmful to what everybody's trying to
achieve.
So thank you for your innovation. I hope you'll include those
sorts of elements when it comes back to the board.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Oh, we did vote on that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Twice.
Page 44
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We voted on it twice, unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twice. Well, we really mean it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's double confirmed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Makes it twice as good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think that we can get one
more item on before our break.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDAITON TO APPROVE AMENDMENT 1 TO
CONTRACT #11-5782 WITH AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,476,040, FOR BASIN 306 OF THE
"WASTEWATER BASIN PROGRAM" FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIDDING
PHASE, POST DESIGN AND ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE FOR PROJECT
NUMBERS 70044, 70046, AND 70050 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Items 11B and 11C are time-certain items, so we'll
move to Item 11D. That is a recommendation to approve a contract
amendment related to engineering -- professional engineering services
associated with bidding post design and additional design services for
Master Pump Station 306 and the Basin 306.
And Dr. Yilmaz is available to give a presentation or answer
board questions. Pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 45
October 14, 2014
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. My button won't stay on. I'm
so sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I know. Troy.
MR. MILLER: I will check on the break, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that it's going to be
built to Thomasson Road.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you show me where on
Thomasson and what the facility will look like, please? Because that's
pretty close to all of that construction that the new development's going
in and so forth, and I just wanted to see how well it works in that area.
And have you -- and by the way, can you also tell me, have you kind
of met with the developers there, not only Collier Enterprises, but also
with the Isles of Collier Preserve? Just so that nobody's surprised.
MR. YILMAZ: Commissioner, yes. And the Master Pump
Station 306 is going to actually have more real estate than it currently
does have. It will have much more buffering, and it will be much
better positioned to be neighborhood friendly, and a good-neighbor
policy will be fully implemented, and also it will provide single point
of failure being eliminated, as you can see on the slide, for south
wastewater treatment plant force main.
So this project is mission critical, not only improves 306, but we
also are already in the process of building portions of the pipe through
private developers as part of their development.
And we are piggybacking on everything else to minimize the cost
and optimize the opportunities in right time with right synchronization
to make sure that -- improve 302 and improve 306 timely so that we
eliminate single point of failure, which is -- 80 percent of wastewater
goes to south wastewater plant. Now we will have dual way of
diverting flows and eliminate such --
Page 46
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I read all of that.
DR. YILMAZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't mean to interrupt you, but
what I want to do -- I'd love it if somebody would take a ride with me
out there and show me where it is. And I'm looking at you, Beth,
because you do that so well. And I had no idea what all was going on.
I want to look at it now, and I want to see what it's going to be.
I'm glad to hear that you've met with the developers in that area,
because people don't really like surprises. I know I don't. And I would
much prefer to hear about it upfront and know what we're dealing with
so that when people call me I have an answer for them. So that's what
I'm asking.
I don't know what it even looks like now, so I would like to see
what it's going to look like. I understand that it's going to have -- I
know that you guys do a great job. I mean, you're located right in the
middle of a neighborhood right backed up to houses right now in the
Old Lely area, and you've done a fine job, and the people in Old Lely
really respect what you've done and how you've made that such a
neighborhood-friendly wastewater treatment plant. You've done a
great job.
I'm just wanting to see what it's going to be doing from here on in.
So -- and I thank Leo for helping me along and giving me the
information I needed.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we'd be happy to schedule time
today on your calendar with your secretary for a future site visit. We'll
make sure you get as much exposure to that area as you'd like out
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Discussion?
Commissioner Nance, did have you anything?
Page 47
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
I think we can do the 10 -- or 11E --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- real quick.
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT AND RATIFY REPORTS
FOR STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS, CHANGES TO
WORK ORDERS AND SURPLUS CREDIT FOR RETURNED
INVENTORY - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF THE FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. PROPOSAL
REGARDING SURPLUS GOODS; DIRECTING STAFF TO
BRING BACK AN IMPROVED POLICY FOR THIS PROCESS
AND TO NOTIFY FERGUSON ENTERPRISES THE PROPOSAL
IS NOT ACCEPTABLE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11E is a recommendation to accept and ratify your
staff-approved change orders and changes to work orders, and I think
specifically, Commissioner Henning, you had a question with regard to
the --
Page 48
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: George, don't leave.
MR. OCHS: -- to the surplus credit for returned inventory. Ms.
Markowitz can address those questions, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Can you put the spreadsheet on
the visualizer. It's Packet Page 1,306 for the Board of County
Commissioners. And I asked George not to leave because it pertains to
him directly.
We have a contractor, Ferguson -- what is it? Ferguson what?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Ferguson Enterprises, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ferguson Enterprises that we buy
materials, multi-million-dollar materials.
My understanding, that this was leftover materials from a job that
we're not going to use. That's a correct statement?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: It's left over from actually two projects,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioners, if you look at
the first item, you show the description and the quantity of it, the
original price, the total cost for all the items in that particular one, and
the current price of what it costs today.
And then if you move over, you'll see Ferguson bid each $400.
So we have an original price of$12,000, and they're going to give us
$400; is that correct how I'm reading it? I'm sorry, $2,800.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Each price.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the final one. So that is an
extreme reduction of the original cost of a contractor that we do
business with daily, multi-million-dollar contract.
First of all, it's saying Ferguson's bid. Okay. Were there any other
bids?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Sir, what we did -- Joanne Markiewicz,
Procurement Director.
What we did, sir, was we talked with Garden Street Recycling,
Page 49
October 14, 2014
and we also, in the March 2014 auction, bid out similar products in that
auction. And the return that we got at that time was $4,400 at the
auction sale.
So when we received the Garden Street price, we also contacted
our current auctioneer and asked him to provide us with an assessment.
I received his email late to attach to the agenda, but his offer, in
essence, was about $6,100. So given Statute 27.404, the trade-in
statute, if you would, we thought this was in the best interest of the
county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it's Ferguson's offer.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not really a bid.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. George, is there anything that
we can do? I mean, when is this Ferguson contract coming due?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Mr. Henning, if I may, we knew the asset
management project was coming forward, so when we re-competed
the underground utility parts and supply contract in 2013, we
deliberately built in a trade-in policy so that we would have an
opportunity -- as asset management inventory process moved on, we
had a mechanism in place to trade in our excess inventory.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At what cost?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: In this case it was on -- 30 cents on a
dollar.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Each case will be different; each case will
be different. And, again, I'd remind the board that in March, when we
had similar products auctioned off, the value that came in from the
market was $4,400.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's for new goods or used
goods?
Page 50
October 14, 2014
MS. MARKIEWICZ: These are used goods, sir. Just as these are.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: These are used?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: These were bought -- these products, about
$1 .7 million were bought in 2010 for, as I mentioned, two particular
projects. Of the 1 .7 million, we have found we've got to return about 5
percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Of unused goods?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Of unused goods, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they're new goods.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: But it's been on the shelf since 2010.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So I'm looking at this list, and I
don't see where they're used, going bad. I mean, it's not like a loaf of
bread on the shelf; it's not going stale. These are new items that they're
going to sell for new items. They're not going to sell them for used
items unless the county is guaranteed they're going to sell them for
used items, Ferguson. No.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: I can't guarantee that, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We have to do business better
than this. There's -- there either has to be a policy of a return policy,
90 days. The staff and contractors is going to have to do better about
ordering these goods that are -- end up going to not be used, okay.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir, and that's why we've built this
amendment into -- which you approved in early September. We had
built that amendment into the current contract to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And this is the response to that
amendment?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's not good enough. That's
my opinion.
Who's next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coyle.
Page 51
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Hiller, and Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you're
absolutely correct. And in my experience, suppliers are willing to take
back unused materials at a rate far better than 30 cents on a dollar.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I was in business, and I
returned goods that were on my shelf at the true replacement cost, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, the other way to do
this is to require that these materials be used in future projects and we
not be charged for new materials by the contractor. So that could be
part of the solicitation for future bids is that we've got these supplies,
you must use them, so don't charge us for these supplies that you might
require. And that way you could get very close to the original cost, if
not more, because the price has gone up on these things.
So Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct. I think you can
do far better than that. And I hate to see taxpayer money wasted when
there are opportunities to do this in a better way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is 5 percent a normal overage? Is
that -- when you order, do you usually protect and have that as --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: With each project, there is normally an
overage, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So in that case there really
should be some standard provision in all our contracts with respect to
those overages to ensure that we do get our money back. And,
obviously, you know, returning those goods in a reasonable amount of
time should also be part of that agreement because, you know, clearly,
if there's any potential obsolescence with the material, we don't want to
be unfair to whoever is selling to us and make them take it back, you
know, five years later, and it truly may not be the value that we paid
for it as a consequence of design changes or whatever the case may be.
Page 52
October 14, 2014
So this really is incumbent on the county attorney to ensure that
all our contracts have something included to avoid this situation
coming before us in the first place. I mean, it just should be standard
procedure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Fred -- Commissioner Coyle
asked my question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Are these spare parts, ma'am,
or how was it that we came into possession of these parts?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: These were parts -- again, in 2010, when
we had a wellfield explosion, in essence, the operating department
went out, procured the materials, and saved the sales tax to the tune of
about $100,000.
Those materials went into that project, and these were materials
that were not fully used. So they have been on the shelf for about four
years, and at the time we did not return those in anticipation of use.
Now, we've not used those materials over this period of time, and
so now what we're trying to do is true-up the inventory in preparation
for the asset management.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So these were materials that
our staff purchased --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- and they used. It wasn't part of a
design-build --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this was the wellfield line
explosion on the south plant a few years ago, you recall, and we went
into litigation with the original contractors.
But as Ms. Markiewicz said, and in order to save money on sales
Page 53
October 14, 2014
tax, we did direct material purchase instead of purchasing through the
contractor.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sure. Well, I agree with
Commissioner Henning. I mean, normally when you order things that
you don't use -- I mean, you -- I've been in a circumstance where we
had to pay a restocking charge or something on materials, but we
should have a relationship with our suppliers -- if we're buying, you
know, this level of materials -- that they can restock this for us.
Of course, unless the parts are no longer current or, you know,
they're obsolete or we used them and we damaged them in some way.
But if these are new parts, there should be a return policy that, you
know, contemplates a restocking fee that's customary for the industry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I make a suggestion, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Contact the supplier and tell them
your bosses are not happy with their bid, continue this, and also, at the
same time, come up with a better policy of controls.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Contractual provision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, no, not just a contractual. You
know, staff-- I need to be reassured that staff is not purchasing things
that are not absolutely necessary, they're not going to use.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, and I don't believe that's the norm. But,
again, in this particular case, the bulk of these materials came from an
effort to move very quickly to address, literally, an explosion of a
wellfield transmission main on the south end along 951 . We had to
move quickly to get that repaired, and because we did direct material
purchase to try to save the 6 percent sales tax, we had to estimate the
quantities of materials we needed to make the repair. That's not
normal, but your message is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Tell us how long that repair
Page 54
October 14, 2014
took. I mean, I'm sure that within that time frame that you could have
returned some of that stuff.
MR. OCHS: Well, yes, sir, and I'm not debating that. You're
absolutely right, and we need to address that, and we certainly will.
My only suggestion on your motion, or request on your motion, if the
board is satisfied with the other changes to change orders and work
orders, if the only objection to this report has to do with this
surplus-inventory issue, perhaps you could segregate that out and
continue that piece and approve the balance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a motion
that we approve 16E4 with the exception of the Ferguson -- Ferguson
bids on surplus goods --
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and direct staff to bring back with a
better policy of handling such goods, go back to the contractor and,
you know, tell them that your bosses are not happy, and give them an
opportunity to be more realistic. That's my motion.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 55
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Joanne.
Let's take a 10-minute break and come back at --
MR. OCHS: 10:45's your next time-certain.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ten more minutes, 10:45.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go to our time-certain.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REPORT FROM PUBLIC
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP (PFM), THE COUNTY'S
CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL ADVISOR (FA) ASSESSING THE
COUNTY'S CURRENT INVESTMENT POLICY AND
PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CHANGES
TO THE POLICY BASED UPON INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES,
STATE LAW CHANGES AND FINANCIAL MARKET
CONDITIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT -
APPROVED; MOTION TO CONTINUE WITH THE OUTSIDE
CONSULTANT AND TO INCLUDE AN ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE REVIEW, TRANSPARENCY AND MORE
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CURRENT
MARKET; THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REVIEW AND
BRING BACK ORDINANCE 87-65 WITH AMENDMENTS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That is Item 11C on your agenda this
Page 56
October 14, 2014
morning. It's a recommendation to approve a report from Public
Financial Management Group, the county's contractual financial
advisor, assessing the county's current investment policy and providing
recommendations regarding changes to the policy based upon industry
best practices, state law changes, and financial market conditions, and
Mr. Isackson will introduce this item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Nance.
Discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's your discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to say that there are a
few things. The investment policy recommendations and
enhancements are great up to this point, but they're not -- they haven't
finished. So I think what the motion ought to be is to approve what's
been submitted so far and to give Mark Isackson, his staff, and our
consultants the additional time and payment, if necessary, to complete
the task, because everything hasn't been done.
And we -- I want to thank you, County Manager, and Mark for
working so hard in the short amount of time that you had. And we did
have an agreement when this was approved by the board that if you
needed additional time to complete, that we would willingly grant it.
So I think that is what we should do.
And the other thing I would like to suggest is, you know, I -- I
went back to -- there's an ordinance, Ordinance 87-65. And 87-65 is
the ordinance which actually required the Clerk to keep this policy
updated and basically bring recommendations to maintain this policy
as updated back to the board and, obviously, that didn't happen since
Page 57
October 14, 2014
this hasn't been updated since when, 2002, I believe. Is that what it is?
I don't recall, but it's a very long time.
So one of the things I think we ought to do in addition is revisit
87-65 and change how we -- how we evaluate or reevaluate our policy,
which really ought to be done on an annual basis.
So I'd like to suggest that the county manager -- or I'm sorry -- the
county attorney be directed to look at 87-65 and bring back
recommendations for revision so we can get this done in a timely
fashion.
And then the last thing that I would like to say is that one of the
things that we do not have -- and I'm going to tie two points into this --
is I think that since the Clerk is making these investments, there should
be some sort of performance audit done against the benchmarks that
are set out in the policy to ensure that we are, from a performance
standpoint, doing the best we can for the benefit of the public with the
public's money.
And I think that should be done by an outside firm, not by our
external auditors. This is not viewed as an audit of how they are
making investments but rather a performance audit of how this
portfolio of$600 million is being managed.
And to that end, I think there needs to be more transparency in the
reporting of the trades of securities and, you know, are we really
making money, are we -- you know, what are the commissions. We
should have full disclosure on everything involved with respect to
those trades.
And I have reviewed what is being posted by the Clerk, and I
don't feel that it's really sharing as much information as should be
shared for the public's benefit.
So if I could make a suggestion that you modify your motion to
include those components, I would really appreciate it, because I think
we really need to do this. I mean, we're talking about a lot of money
Page 58
October 14, 2014
here, and we want to make sure it's all handled correctly. Our
consultants have done a great job so far.
And, by the way, I found out -- let me just add one last thing --
that the gentleman who's the principal of the firm -- where is that
picture? The gentleman who is the principal of the firm, who is
actually doing this analysis for us, authored Florida's Investment
Policy Statute, the one that, you know, we're relying on to update our
policy. So I think that's very impressive.
So, Leo, thank you for definitely selecting the right group to assist
us in getting this done.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to commend the
consultants on a good job. I like the changes that have been made and
the recommendations here. You've done a good job, I think, of
defining those types of investment instruments that would be
appropriate.
The additional thing that I would like to see is a recommendation
to us about the kinds of investments we should be making under the
current economic circumstances to achieve our objectives of
minimizing loss of principal and maximizing interest returns consistent
with that goal.
These things change frequently based upon economic
circumstances and forecasts. And I have to admit to you that I'm not
an expert in all of those instruments and investments that we're talking
about here. But it would be helpful, I think, to the board if someone
who is familiar with all of those, who has a good grasp of the current
economic circumstances, and at least a good guess about a forecast
could say to us, here's where we would recommend you put your
money for the next 12 months or so.
And I'm not talking about durations of 12 months or so. I'm
Page 59
October 14, 2014
talking about for the investment policy, the investments you're making
this year, here is the investment mix that we would recommend to you
under the current economic circumstances and the need for funds.
That would be helpful to me.
And I do believe that performance audits are important just to
make sure people are achieving our goals. And I would recommend to
the board, although I'm not going to be here, that the board update that
investment policy as necessary on a more frequent basis than we have
done it in the past.
But other than that, I think you've done a great job with trying to
tell us where we should be going.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Those are great comments.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye, because -- did you modify it
to include the additional stuff, or are we going to do that as a separate
motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I didn't want to modify my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then I'll make -- then I'll
support your motion, but I'd like to make a second motion to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Let's go back to the -- let's go back to the motion. You said no, so
you're changing your vote?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm -- if I'm given the
opportunity to present another motion to go beyond this first step, then,
yes, I'll change it to support what -- that we'll accept what's here, and
Page 60
October 14, 2014
then I'll make a second motion to add the other issues that I brought up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I -- the commissioners are
always welcome to have a motion on items pertaining. Not pertaining
wouldn't be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I'm going to go ahead and
vote yes. I'll change my vote to a yes to support it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're changing your vote?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then I'll make a second
motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, could I just get a clarification
as to the difference between the two motions? I apologize for getting
back a little bit late.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my motion is to approve staffs
recommendations and accept the recommendations by the consultant,
which is a lot of what you said; however, Commissioner Hiller's
running for Clerk of Court, so we're going to continue this item for
these clerk items forever until 2016. So that's the difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is it -- let me just understand. You
actually make a good point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was actually planning on running
for Marco Rubio's seat. But, I mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you want me to take a step
down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and Commissioner Coyle both
said that it would be a good idea to reevaluate every year and to have
an outside source do just that. They both agreed, and I agree as well
that that's a good thing. Is that what you're trying to add?
Page 61
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Let me -- yeah. Let me
make a separate motion. We've voted the first motion, which was
Commissioner Henning's.
I'd like to make a motion, and that motion is that we continue to
engage our outside consultants to continue with the review and
recommended changes to the investment policy and to make sure that
when they do their, you know, ongoing study, that they consider
including the requirement that there be annual performance audits and
that there be, you know, recommended reporting to promote
transparency, which is extremely important for the benefit of the
public, and that, separately, in light of the fact that this review is
precipitated by an ordinance, that Ordinance 87-65 be reviewed by the
county attorney and brought back to us with recommended changes to
ensure that we have the appropriate legal mechanism to bring this
policy back on an annual basis or more frequently, if needed, to make
changes to that policy to stay current with, you know, the economic
environment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I can't argue against
transparency and performance audits. If that's the intent of the motion,
it would be hard --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. And that, you know, they
have the ability to continue, because they haven't finished. I mean,
they brought forward as much as they could do up to this point, but
there's more for them to do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's go back to the motion.
We just approved directing staff to change the policy. Now
Commissioner Hiller wants to change the policy again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. They haven't finished
changing the policy. They've brought recommendations forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, they're going to bring it back.
Page 62
October 14, 2014
They're going to bring it back incorporating the changes; is that
correct, Mark?
MR. ISACKSON: Yes, sir. We obviously have to change the
investment policy to reflect the recommendations -- the text of the
investment policy to reflect the recommendations in the report.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So that's being emphasized
again with Commissioner Hiller's motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. They have not finished
providing all the recommendations which need to be incorporated to
fully update the policy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The next thing is that the
financial advisor recognized that the policy and the investment does
meet Florida Statutes, and we have the outside auditor reviewing that
every year.
And you want somebody else, because this outside auditor is an
independent auditor. How many auditors do you want -- one or two,
or how many -- in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We are looking at a different type
of audit, Commissioner Henning. We are looking to get a performance
audit, which is not the same type of audit conducted by the external
auditor. It's a different objective and a different type of review.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you want a performance
audit. Do we want from staff the estimated cost for this in a future
agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would expect that they would
bring that as part of every agenda item. Every single time we've ever
produced an agenda item, fiscal impact is a standard line. So I don't
know that this would be treated any differently unless you think so. I
mean, maybe we're deviating from standard all of a sudden.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a part of your motion for staff
to bring back an estimated cost for --
Page 63
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you would like to add that, I
would absolutely modify my motion to include that. I think that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that included?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- definitely fair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's included in the second.
What else do you want?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I listed everything out in the
motion. Would you like me to repeat it for a third time?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, only a second time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've already repeated it twice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Don't -- you don't have to
repeat it if you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can have the court reporter read it
back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'm not going to continue this
argument. It's non-sensical.
Any further discussion? Commissioner Coyle? Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a clarification. I don't know if
I explained my request clearly enough. I understand and I know that
the consultant has recommended certain changes and percentages of
the investments and certain categories, but what I did not get out of this
was a specific recommendation that, under today's economic climate
and under reasonable future forecasts, specifically what investment
instruments should we be putting our money into.
I'm looking just for recommendations, something that the board
could take a look at and say, okay, that makes some sense, and the
Clerk could review that, and we could reach some consensus about
what our investment policy would be for the next year or two years.
Is that something that is coming back, Mark, or not?
Page 64
October 14, 2014
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, the -- for the record, Mark
Isackson. Let me mention that first.
What we did in the short period of time, as Commissioner Hiller
said, was we took the text of the investment policy, the narrative of the
investment policy, and tried to marry it up with state statute, which we
did, tried to marry it up with best practices, which we did, and tried to
make sure that there was sufficient flexibility in the language to
address market conditions. That's what we did. That's the first part of
this.
From what I'm hearing at the dais, there's a second component to
this now, which gets into Ordinance 87-65 and talks about, okay, how
do you implement what you just fixed? And that's, I think, the next --
that's what I'm hearing at least some of the board members telling me
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that makes sense.
MR. ISACKSON: -- and telling the county manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But what Commissioner Coyle is
looking for is a recommendation from the financial advisor on today's
market conditions which could change tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could, yeah.
MR. ISACKSON: That can be done, yes, but it's not part of this
-- it wasn't part of this original engagement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. But that's what he's asking.
And is that a part of your motion, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'll add that. Make sure that's
clear.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah. So we now have some
common ground here on the dais between just, you know, asking these
-- the team that's doing this review to go back and look at annual
performance audits or review of 87-65, and some more specific
Page 65
October 14, 2014
recommendations of the current economic circumstances, and I can -- I
can certainly support that and let them come back with some
recommendation on those items.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what Mark said, which is how
to implement everything that -- the procedural and the control aspect of
all of the above.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine. They should come
back with this. If they're going to come back, they should come back
and just add those items, then I'm very comfortable with what we're
discussing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, if I can, could I just introduce
the folks that were a part of the team on this; Mr. Richard Pengelly;
Ms. Rebecca Geyer from PMF; and Mr. Steve Alexander is their
Managing Director, is not here in attendance, but that's -- that's the
folks that were initially involved in putting this together.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much.
Page 66
October 14, 2014
Item #12A
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OF WHETHER TO
INTERVENE IN LITIGATION WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ("FDEP")
AGAINST THE DAN A. HUGHES COMPANY, L.P., BASED ON
THE HUGHES COMPANY'S ("HUGHES COMPANY")
UNAUTHORIZED ACID FRACKING ACTIVITIES IN COLLIER
COUNTY. (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #12B) -
MOTION TO JOIN FDEP IN THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DAN A.
HUGHES, COMPANY, KEEPING LEGAL EXPENSES AT A
MINIMUM; REQUEST A ONE MILLION DOLLAR BOND
FROM THE DAN A. HUGHES — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now we move on to 12A.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. 12A was an item that was continued from
the September 23, 2014, BCC meeting. It is a request that the Board of
County Commissioners provide direction to the county attorney as to
whether to intervene in litigation with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection against the Dan A. Hughes Company, L.P.,
based on Hughes Company's unauthorized acid fracking activities in
Collier County. This is a companion item to Item 12B.
MR. KLATZKOW: And, again, Commissioners, I'm just looking
for direction on this. We've had multiple discussions on the Hughes,
and as of this morning, I learned that Hughes has put in an application
to plug and abandon the Hughes well. So they are --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I don't see any need to enter in
a lawsuit with the DEP when they've done exactly what we said we
want them to do is abandon and plug the well, and have a nice day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'll make that a motion.
Page 67
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is the other step joining FDEP in
their suit against Hughes included in that motion, or you want to take it
in two steps?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Say that again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's two actions, as I understand
it, here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One is that we sort of settle our
disagreement with FDEP and the administrative hearing issue and then
decide whether or not we will join FDEP in suing Hughes specifically.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can make that a motion not to enter
into the lawsuit on 12A, and 12B is to accept the stipulated agreement
outlined by the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I agree with the
assessment that we have essentially won as far as that administrative
hearing is concerned. We have a stipulation that I understand is legally
enforceable. If there is a change in the administration and they have a
change of heart, we can still legally enforce that stipulation.
Is that true, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That gives me a lot of
comfort concerning that, and I think it would be a waste of our time
and money to proceed with that administrative hearing request or
challenge.
That brings us to the other issue, and that is whether we join
FDEP in their suit against Hughes. Is that a separate item, or is that
included in this one?
MR. KLATZKOW: Separate items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. So this one is
including only the administrative hearing issue and the stipulated --
MR. KLATZKOW: The first item is whether or not you want to
Page 68
October 14, 2014
join FDEP. The second item is the stipulation withdrawing out of the
pending suit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I've got it reversed then.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right, okay.
So right now we're talking about the stipulation?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're talking about joining FDEP.
MR. OCHS: Yes, the lawsuit against Hughes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's where I really have
my comments, so let me get back on track here.
And I feel a little uncomfortable talking about this. I wish we
could have a closed session, but I guess we can't at this point in time.
But I heard some things during the Hughes presentation and
during the FDEP presentation that caused me a lot of concern. The
Hughes people, in their presentation, showed us an excerpt from the
Florida regulations that said that fracking was a permitted use. And
the Hughes people said on the record that they kept FDEP informed
about what they were doing.
And I have a feeling they are right, that they did keep FDEP
informed about what they were doing, and FDEP probably didn't take
the right action at that point in time. But the crux of the matter seems
to me that it comes down to the fact that after the FDEP told Hughes to
stop doing this, they continued doing it one day later. And that, to me,
is the only legal case that makes sense in that lawsuit.
And I'm wondering whether it makes sense for us to get into a
lawsuit that might drag on for some period of time and not result in
anything of any significance for us in Collier County.
And what I would suggest we do is take the money that we could
otherwise -- that we will otherwise spend on this lawsuit and approach
Page 69
October 14, 2014
the Florida Association of Counties and our legislators and see if we
can get legislation which will provide the counties more authority in
establishing control over drilling within the counties.
And I suggest that because not all counties in Florida care about
this drilling issue because it's not occurring in their counties. And, in
fact, some of the Panhandle counties would probably be very much in
favor of this drilling procedure, but we're not. And to have the
majority of counties who, perhaps, are not concerned about this to
make -- create legislation which we would feel to be oppressive is not
a good alternative for us.
And if we can get legislation created that provides the county
with greater control over what we're doing here, then I think that's the
approach we should try to explore.
And we could spend our time and effort and money on getting
those kinds of legislative changes accomplished rather than engaging
in a lawsuit that is not likely to address anything other than this one
well. And that, to me, is a very, very shortsighted approach.
I think we need to address the whole issue, and I think we need to
get as much control over it as we can, and so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I agree, it's a single issue;
however, our Growth Management Plan doesn't allow us to regulate
what wells, and that's the first thing that needs to be changed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my motion fails for lack of
second. So we're going to go -- we're going to go to Commissioner
Nance and Commissioner Hiller, then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second your motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you seconding the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It doesn't conflict with the
second motion, does it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What second motion?
Page 70
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the motion that was earlier
made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yours was kind of a two-part
motion; that's what you're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you restate the motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there was a little confusion of
which item we're dealing with. So I made a motion not to enter into a
lawsuit --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for one. The second one --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With whom against whom?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is to approve the stipulated
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Will you please clarify about the
lawsuit?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not to enter into or join DEP's lawsuit
against Dan A. Hughes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we take that separately, one
motion at a time?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's what I was going to do.
But let's finish discussion, then we can move on.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Mr. Klatzkow, is there a
period of time in which we must decide this, whether we're going to
intervene or not? Is that something that's time sensitive?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: What is the time frame?
MR. KLATZKOW: We should be in it now if we're going to be
in it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, those cases are moving forward as
Page 71
October 14, 2014
we speak.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Is there any perception on
your part or any advantage that a ministerial joining or any exposure
that we might have by joining it that you can counsel the board on? I
mean, what's the upside and the downside from your perspective?
MR. KLATZKOW: It boils down to, really, how much we trust
FDEP, both this administration and perhaps an incoming
administration. If we trust DEP to continue those litigations, then we
can simply not bother appearing in them.
If we have a modicum of a thought that, perhaps, that trust is not
warranted or if we have a modicum of a concern that perhaps an
incoming administration may try to change the course, being involved
in that litigation will give you a seat at the table, all right, so if there are
any settlement negotiations, what have you, this board will have a say
in that.
As far as litigation expenses, at this point in time, my thought was
to keep this in-house, let FDEP do all the heavy lifting on this, and
simply be there to ensure that the county's interests are preserved.
That's if we join. And if we don't join, that's fine, too.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do we have --
MR. KLATZKOW: I will tell you that this is going to be won or
lost at the legislative level, because Commissioner Coyle is absolutely
right, this only concerns one well, and fracking could involve hundreds
of wells in this county, potentially.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Can we withdraw from our
participation in the lawsuit at any time --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- or are we tied to it?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can withdraw at any day we
decide it's in our best interest to drop our action?
Page 72
October 14, 2014
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. I'm going to suggest that we
consider intervening and joining the lawsuit until it's well-established
that Dan A. Hughes has, indeed, capped and vacated the well. As long
as they take the action that they're suggesting that they have, I don't
really see a point in continuing on it, because -- and the reason is this:
We have a stipulated agreement, which is Item 12B. The Conservancy
also has a stipulated agreement that revolves almost solely on how
FDEP is supposed to conduct itself regarding the Collier/Hogan well
specifically.
Our stipulated agreement goes beyond that in requesting their
assistance with legislative action in a more -- you know, looking
forward in a more comprehensive way, which I really think is a good
idea on our part. But I don't think we should necessarily pull the plug
on being an intervener until we have a little more comfort.
If there's no downside risk, if there's no fiscal risk and no big
fiscal cost, I don't see any reason to not do it unless you can tell us that
there is one.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't see a risk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, my concern is
with whether or not there's contamination of the groundwater as a
consequence of this drilling for the first part of this issue.
And so, at this time, since we don't have that evidence and the
testing is ongoing, I'm going to go back to the point that I made earlier
that we should get a bond from Hughes, set that money aside. If there
is any contamination found, we will have the resources to start dealing
with it. And at that point in time, when there is real evidence of an
injury, we can pursue a suit against them.
I don't believe intervening with DEP at this time makes any sense.
Let DEP do what they have to do. You know, they're going at it from
Page 73
October 14, 2014
a different perspective than our perspective.
You know, I care about what's happened to the environment. I
care about what potentially could happen to our citizens. And till that
evidence comes forward, this cause is not ripe for action, so I don't see
why we would be doing that, although I would like to see that bond.
And, again, that bond is not sufficient to cover what could be a
significant injury if that evidence comes forward as a result of the
testing, but it will at least give us monies to start an action if that
proves to be necessary. So it's, you know, some protection.
So I don't -- I can't agree with you, Commissioner Nance, and I
couldn't agree in whole with you, Commissioner Henning, because I
felt that there needed to be clarify as to, you know, why we are not
intervening and that we should get that bond as a first step.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
So let me just make sure I understand what you just said, okay,
and, that is, if we join this lawsuit with FDEP and they do not perform
as we hope them to do, we can back out of that, or do you feel it's
better to be able to stand aside and not join them -- and I'm putting you
on the spot, I'm sorry -- and not join them so that if we do not agree
with something they do, we can intervene?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to show my age a little. It's like
going to the movies, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me? Say it again.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is like going to the movies, okay. The
main event, the picture here that we all came to see is the legislation,
okay. This is sort of the previews, the litigation, all right. It's -- you
can be in it; you don't have to be in it.
In my opinion, you go into this because there's an element of
distrust with DEP, okay, that you want to be able to sit at the table in
case you get a change in administrations or you get a change in policy.
Page 74
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: All right. If you do not have that level of
distrust, which is fine -- and they've been very generous with their
time, and they've been very proactive here -- there's no need to join it,
this suit. We'll just let DEP do what DEP does.
So that's sort of where I'm coming from. In either event I do need
to drop this administrative challenge, which is what the stipulation is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much for
making that clear.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have speakers?
MR. MILLER: I have one speaker, but it's on 12B, I just didn't
want to miss, because I know they're companion items.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with Commissioner Coyle
and with our county attorney that legislatively is where the issue really
becomes -- where the issue really will be addressed, and how that issue
is defined becomes very important.
I agree with Commissioner Coyle that looking for home rule on
this matter is critical because we do have different geologies, and it is
not an one-size-fit-all for the whole state.
I have already brought this to the attention of Keith Arnold, our
lobbyist. When I sat down with him to discuss what our current
priorities are, I told him that this was one of the issues I felt very
passionate about and felt was very important to address when we go to
Tallahassee this year and when we address our individual
representatives who are going to, you know, carry the agenda forward.
So, again, I want to emphasize, Leo, that, you know, I hope that
what you're hearing here will be, you know, again, reiterate it Keith,
and so that when he puts together the legislative priority list that that be
considered and that it be brought back to the board, and we have an
opportunity as a board to vote on that particular issue being at the top
Page 75
October 14, 2014
of our priorities.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I don't disagree with you, which
I go -- why I go back to, I think we should not join DEP in the suit
against Hughes, but we should get some protection, and we should
continue with our own local testing. And so as a result -- I mean, is
there any motion on the table? Then I'm going to make that motion.
I'll make the motion that we not join -- what?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's Commissioner Henning's
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I'm modifying that motion,
because I don't accept just saying, no, we are not going to participate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's your motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not a modification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I'm making my own
motion. And the motion is is that we not join DEP in this suit against
Hughes but that we request a million-dollar bond from Hughes and
that we continue with the testing to make a determination whether
there is any contamination, and if there is any, you know,
contamination found, that at that point in time we file suit against
Hughes for any kind of injury suffered as a consequence and that,
lastly, you know, we continue to work with our lobbyists and our
legislative delegation to focus on legislation to protect the interests of
our constituents with respect to how drilling is done and to try to get
the maximum amount of home rule possible towards that end.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I -- the reason that I support
intervening is that I think it's going to be a lot cheaper for us to
maintain a seat at the table and actually to get what Commissioner
Hiller is requesting rather than not intervening and engaging in a
Page 76
October 14, 2014
separate lawsuit.
There's absolutely no way Hughes is just going to cough up a
million-dollar bond. They've already announced that they're capping
their well and they're leaving. So the only way you'd get that would be
to independently sue them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't think we want to go to that
expense.
Excuse me, excuse me.
I'd rather keep our seat at the table and work with DEP if we have
a problem to solve it in that way rather than independently -- we can
also sue them at any time, but that's going to involve an extraordinary
expense and experts that we currently don't have.
So I think intervening is a -- according to the county attorney, is a
no-risk, very cheap way just to maintain a seat at the table and see how
this kind of plays out. And he has also told us that we can drop that at
any moment.
So, you know, I think it's -- I think, actually, intervening is the
cheapest and easiest way to continue to play the waiting game rather
than to try to direct something in another direction. It's the only reason
that I support intervening at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I failed to call to see if there
was a second to Commissioner Hiller's motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to clarify that the
Hughes Company, when they spoke to us --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- said that they would happily post
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails for lack of second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I was saying is that Hughes
Page 77
October 14, 2014
said that they would gladly post that bond, that they volunteered to do
that, I mean, that they had no problem posting it. So why would we
not want that security if they kindly offered to do it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because they didn't offer to do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm trying to look for some
middle ground here. I'm somewhat convinced by the county attorney
and by Commissioner Nance that maybe we should participate with
FDEP in their suit against Hughes because I think it would increase
our chances of being able to get that bond that Commissioner Hiller
wants, and doing it separately leads us into a legal battle which might
be more protracted and cost more.
I'd rather see FDEP pay those bills. And if we can spend a
modest amount of money and do this thing in-house and join the suit,
we can certainly make that bond one of the conditions of settling that.
I think we can get there faster and less expensively that way. So if we
-- if we could sort of have a hybrid of the two positions, I think we can
reach agreement on this thing very quickly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll try to, if I can remember all the
elements. That we -- and I'm going to get both of these things tied up
in that, if that's going to be acceptable to everybody, but the motion
would be that we join -- no, let's start with the first.
The motion would be that we drop our administrative appeal with
respect to FDEP and accept the stipulation as a settlement of that case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's keep that motion
separate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. We can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second it.
Page 78
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now, that's 12B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if we can table that motion and
second until we get to 12B, since we've got a speaker on there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the second motion would be to
join FDEP in their suit against Hughes provided we keep the legal
expenses at a -- as low a level as possible and that we request, as part
of that suit, a -- an additional bond of$1 million or more, if we can get
it, from Hughes to compensate for any damage to the environment or
our water supply which might be revealed through the ongoing testing
process.
Now, there really could be a third motion, if you want to do it,
which is to proceed with the legislative process. But if you'd rather
debate that separately from these two motion, that's fine with me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd rather take one at a time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, otherwise it gets confusing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- I think so, too, but I think we're
heading towards my conversation with DEP officials. And my opinion
is you need everybody at the table; you need the local government, you
need the state agency who does all the regulations, you need the
environmental community, and you need the property owner and the
well driller -- hopefully come to the table for legislation; otherwise, my
opinion, it's not going to happen. But let's get to that.
So you have a motion to enter into the lawsuit, ask for a
million-plus bond from DEP -- or from Dan A. Hughes, and whatever
else you said.
Is there a second to the motion?
Page 79
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Nance.
So we're going to discuss the second motion. Discussion on the
second motion? Any discussion?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Again, when Hughes came
to speak to us, I raised the issue of the bond. And Hughes at that time
represented that he would be willing to put up that bond. I think we
can get that security without pursuing litigation against Hughes at this
time.
I don't see why we have to join DEP. We have an agreement with
DEP that compels DEP to go forward and do what it is supposed to do
on our behalf. There's no reason for us to join if we have that
agreement that's proposed in 12B. It doesn't make any sense.
So I understand that -- isn't that gentleman with the Hughes
Company? Are you with the Hughes Company?
MR. RILEY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Were you not here at that meeting?
Could you state your name?
MR. RILEY: Yes, ma'am, Timothy Riley, attorney with the law
firm of Hopping, Green, and Sams. I represent Dan A. Hughes
Company.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you correct me if I'm
mistaken. And, you know, if I am, I certainly will change what I've
said on the record. But my recollection was that Mr. Hughes stated
that he would be willing to post a million-dollar bond for the benefit of
the county.
MR. RILEY: You are correct, ma'am, and I just confirmed with
the client that Hughes is willing to put a million-dollar bond forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't we accept that bond
and not intervene with the state and continue with the testing and let
Page 80
October 14, 2014
the state do what we have asked the state to do in that stipulated
agreement -- that stipulated settlement that we're proposing in 12B? It
doesn't make any sense to do anything else. I mean, that's the whole
point of the stipulated settlement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would think -- in possible
answer to your questions, I would just like a seat at the table. I want to
make sure that we have a voice in whatever is taking place. And, not
only that, but we have ears to listen what's taking place. And so I want
to have a seat at the table so that we can then intervene if need be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's what the stipulated
settlement is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think maybe there's an
opportunity to get both things. If Hughes will actually agree to the
additional $1 million bond and do it quickly, I like the idea of being
able to hold FDEP's feet to the fire in this process and to have a seat at
the table as long as it doesn't cost us a lot of money and time.
So if we do not join the suit, as I understand it, within a very short
period of time, we're not going to have the opportunity to join the suit;
is that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's moving forward as we speak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. It might be too late to
join it if it moves too quickly forward.
So if we can get Hughes to agree to the additional $1 million
bond, we could join the suit now and drop out any time we want to.
And it just preserves an option for us to hold FDEP's feet to the fire,
because I really believe that there are things that we don't know about
what went on here between FDEP and Hughes. And I think we're
going to be surprised and disappointed, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So your motion still stands?
Page 81
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It can stand as it is, but if we
get the additional --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You could drop out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- bond, we can drop out of the
lawsuit or continue as the board sees fit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. You said that clearly. I just
want to make sure that your motion still stands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So all in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed to the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3-2, Commissioner
Henning, Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Item #12B
A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AS IT RELATES TO OGC FILE
NO. 14-0012, IN THE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT: COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT V. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, AND DAN A. HUGHES
COMPANY, L.P. (THIS ITEM IS A COMPANION TO ITEM #12A)
- MOTION TO APPROVE THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT —
APPROVED
Page 82
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now do we want to go to 12B,
which is recommended to approve the stipulated settlement related to
OGC File No. 14-0012 in Division of Water Resource Management:
Collier County and Collier County Water/Sewer District versus Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and Dan A. Hughes?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll make a motion to approve the
stipulated settlement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle has
already had that and Commissioner Fiala seconded that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The discussion -- do you have a
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't -- I don't understand why
we're doing this if you-all just voted to sue -- to join the suit against
Hughes. What's the point?
I mean, the whole purpose of the stipulated settlement was to
compel the state to act on our behalf. So now all of a sudden we've got
ourselves involved in litigation that this settlement is directing the state
to conduct. I mean, this is just absolutely ridiculous.
We went to all this trouble to get the stipulated settlement so we
would not have to participate in that litigation against Hughes; that
they are acting as our agents; that they are supposed to act in our best
interest. And we have a seat at the table because this is a legal
settlement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the reality is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It just doesn't make any sense.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to agree to a settlement so we drop
our --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we are dropping --
Page 83
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- consent or challenge to the consent
order.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the reason we are dropping our
challenge to the consent order is because they have committed to us
that they would sue Hughes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they want us to join into it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they don't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You and I lost that, so we need to take
our marbles and, you know, work --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it goes to -- no, I hear you, but
it goes directly to this issue. So we are having a discussion on this
issue. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who else wants to discuss the
motion?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. The key elements, to me, on
the stipulated settlement are not the provisions that deals with the Dan
A. Hughes Company and the Collier/Hogan well. They are two
distinct areas in the stipulated settlement.
The most important part of the stipulated settlement has to do
with the legislative action and the participants and the agreement and
commitment of FDEP to engage all the people that Commissioner
Coyle just mentioned, going forward and supporting the bigger picture,
which is the legislative fix to our issue.
The stipulated settlement has two parts. They originally sent a
letter to us affirming their commitment, but it was centered on the Dan
A. Hughes Company and the Collier/Hogan well.
The part that they -- that was requested -- and I had some
discussions with the county attorney on this -- is what they said in their
testimony before us to memorialize that testimony, which was their
Page 84
October 14, 2014
commitment to work with us on the legislative fix and, you know, that
can include home rule, whatever other elements this board chooses to
request in our petition to the legislature, but that is a portion of the
stipulated settlement that is most important to me and the reason why I
support the recommendation to approve it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, did you have
something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to read this part of this about
the secretary's letter. The department will seek additional legislative
authority to strengthen our existing oil program regulations with --
including an update of current statutes as to address new technology
and greater -- including greater protection.
The department is committed to work collaboratively with the
county to address concerns as the legislative process moves forward.
Is that where you're kind of looking for, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have one speaker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to speak on -- I want to
discuss this point you just made.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to discuss the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, and the point that you just
brought up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just discuss the motion. That's the
only thing that's on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And as to that motion with
respect to what you just read and what Commissioner Nance just
referred to is the weakest part of the entire settlement, because as an
Page 85
October 14, 2014
administrative agency, they -- DEP can only do so much with respect
to effecting legislation.
The most important part of this settlement is DEP's commitment
to go against Hughes for what they believe Hughes has done wrong,
and that is why we have this settlement in primary part.
So it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to even have this
settlement agreement if we're pursuing litigation against Hughes,
because at that point we're in it with them. I mean, we can just make a
motion, you know, not to pursue our action against DEP and be done
with it, and you can forget about the rest of the settlement, because it's
irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ma'am, this is an agreement
between us and DEP. It has nothing to do with Hughes other than the
action that's included by -- in the letters and the other discussion. It's an
agreement between us and this agency.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, but --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The other item was between us and
the Dan A. Hughes Company.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. The issue is whether -- the
other item was whether we were going to join DEP in their suit against
Hughes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this settlement was --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Between us and DEP.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- was with -- between us and DEP
compelling DEP to go against Hughes and use its best efforts to, you
know, address any wrongdoing, if there is any wrongdoing against
Hughes.
And so why are we suing -- why are we joining that suit if we are
in this settlement looking to DEP to move forward against Hughes? It
doesn't make any sense. We don't need that settlement agreement. We
Page 86
October 14, 2014
should just -- our motion should strictly be, we are not going to sue
DEP, period, done, and forget about the settlement agreement, it's
irrelevant, because you just passed a motion that you're going to join
DEP against Hughes. I mean, again --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we call the public speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your public speaker is Caitlin Weber, Weber
(sic), from Southwest -- or from the Conservancy.
MS. WEBER: Good afternoon. For the record, Caitlin Weber
here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
We would like to express our support for the county withdrawing
its petition for administrative hearing challenging the consent order
entered into between the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and the Dan A. Hughes Company.
We're pleased to say that DEP has agreed to pursue additional
water quality testing below the underground source of drinking water
and assessment of the abandoned Boreholes 86 and 103 and an
investigation of the disposal of flowback from the Hogan well.
Now that the necessary safeguards are in place to protect Collier
County's water, the county's justified in moving forward with
withdrawing the county's petition.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about the -- what's your
position on joining DEP against Hughes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was the other item, and she didn't
speak on that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, but I -- you don't want to
speak to that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. They already -- she wanted to
speak on 12B.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know, but I wanted to hear what
Page 87
October 14, 2014
she had to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
Anybody want to have lunch, or do you want to continue on?
We're pretty much done with the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want some brownies.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's take a break and be back
at one o'clock. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had from 11 :46 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have a 1 o'clock
time-certain.
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER OPTIONS AVAILABLE
FOR THE TREATMENT OF COMMERCIAL SIGN HOLDERS
AND CONTINUE THE LONG-STANDING PROHIBITION
AGAINST UNPERMITTED COMMERCIAL USE OF THE
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY - MOTION FOR COUNTY
MANAGER TO REVIEW AND BRING BACK ANY POSSIBLE
CHANGES TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE WHILE ENFORCING
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE — APPROVED
Page 88
October 14, 2014
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That is Item 11B on your agenda this
afternoon. It's a recommendation to consider options available for
treatment of commercial sign holders and to continue the long-standing
prohibition against unpermitted commercial use of the public
rights-of-way.
And your Code Enforcement Director, Jeff Wright, will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, we have speakers on this, right?
MR. MILLER: Yes, we do, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Jeff, good afternoon.
MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jeff Wright,
Code Enforcement Board Director, for the record.
As you may recall, on September 9th, Public Petitioner Homer
Helter came before the board, and as a result of his public petition, the
board directed the County Attorney's Office and code enforcement to
work together and come back with a recommendation with respect to
the treatment of commercial sign holders.
And what you have before you is exactly that, our
recommendation. And in coming up with that recommendation, we
also listed several options that do exist that would require further board
action, and that is under Roman Numeral II of your executive
summary, and that's where a lot of the interests involved here, the
business interests and sign holder interests, will probably want to
focus.
In the meantime, we've presented what we believe is the best
option for the public, and that is to continue the long-standing ban
which has existed since 1987, which bans commercial use of the
right-of-way, including this type of activity.
And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I -- obviously, I want to
Page 89
October 14, 2014
hear very much from the public speakers, but I think this is a very
complicated discussion, and I don't believe it's one that can be had
without the board getting further information from staff on multiple
levels.
I had opportunity -- an opportunity to speak to the county attorney
about this over lunch and, you know, it's multi-faceted. We have the
public-safety issue. We most recently had a workshop that addresses
vulnerable users of the road, which also takes into consideration users
of, you know, bike paths and other -- you know, sidewalks and so
forth.
We have had issues involving landscaping and the visibility of
signage for businesses. I had a shopping center in my district where
the vegetation was very much in the way of the signs and, you know,
impeded business from being -- you know, those businesses being able
to attract customers from the street because, you know, we had these
trees that were, you know, growing -- overly growing, whatever,
happens to trees here in Florida. I don't know how you say it.
Anyway -- you can always fill in blanks for me on landscaping
issues.
And then, you know, we have the issue of free speech and, you
know, to what degree and how can we manage commercial speech.
So I really want to hear what the public speakers have to say, but
I really don't think that we should be making any decisions at this
point. I mean, I'm not sure that you have to go crazy with enforcement
all of a sudden on this issue. I don't know why you can't continue
doing whatever was done in the past and not become more aggressive
with respect to this particular ordinance, but I don't think that -- I, at
least for myself, don't feel that I'm adequately prepared now to make a
decision one way or another notwithstanding what you would
recommend or what the community would have to say.
So my motion would be to direct staff to come back to us with a
Page 90
October 14, 2014
full consideration of, you know, the sign ordinance, the -- you know,
what our landscaping standards are for, you know, commercial sites
with a view to public safety, considering that we've just looked at the
whole, you know, vulnerable user issue, and with consideration to the
free-speech concerns which are also very important, the constitutional
aspect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that so -- for a matter of
discussion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as we listen and go through this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And now we're just going to talk
about the motion at hand instead of the item under consideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, can't we talk about the item
under consideration as well?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the item under consideration
that we're going to vote on is the motion, and the motion is not to do
anything and direct staff to bring back more information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And also not to be heavy on
enforcement in the interim, I mean, to be reasonable and not look for
strict compliance, but to use their best judgment, you know, especially
if there's a public-safety concern, like, focus on that as opposed to, you
know, other situations where you might not have any cause for
concern.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what the audience has to say is
going to help us as we continue on; not only that, what each other has
to say, so that, then, as we ask staff to go back, according to the motion
that is on the floor right now, they'll have more input from the
audience as well as from the commissioners and so forth. Now, if that
is something that you do not want to hear, then I'll pull my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think it's more valuable to
listen to the public before a motion is made. But, you know, that's the
Page 91
October 14, 2014
will of the board, whatever they want to do. But Robert's Rules of
Order is when there's a motion on the floor, the discussion is about the
motion. It's not about whatever ancillary thing there is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then I'll pull my second, and
we'll talk about it later.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, okay.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to wait until after we've
heard from the public, please.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm prepared to second the motion,
but I would like to hear from the public also. But I am prepared to
second it for discussion later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would do it again.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we have -- your first
public speaker is Barry Nicholls. He's been ceded additional time from
six other speakers for a total of 21 minutes. He will be followed by
Karen Bickford.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. NICHOLLS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
MR. NICHOLLS: Good morning. I'm Barry Nicholls, owner of
Paradise Jewelry. Thanks for taking the time and thanks for
considering this seriously. It's a serious thing.
The first thing I would do is I would like to recommend that we
just continue the simplest, easiest thing, which has been continue the
status quo as it's been for the last five years, which is let us have sign
holders. It has not been a big problem. There have not been a plethora
-- excuse the big word -- of accidents. There hasn't been a zillion
problems with clutter. It's been simple and easy. We're trying to do
Page 92
October 14, 2014
business, and people that need those jobs are working jobs.
But -- so first let me say -- if you don't mind, I'm going to have to
read some of this, because I put a lot of time into it and didn't have
time to memorize it.
First let me say that this is a nonissue. It's a tempest in a teapot, if
you will. Arguments have (sic) made against having sign holders, but
(sic) they're either distractions or irrelevant, and I'll show that in a
minute.
For one thing, the issue has already been litigated. In Mobile
Exposure versus Collier County, the county paid a settlement of
$225,000 to Mobile Exposure on the issue of moving signs, not unlike
our sign holders.
First I'm going to address the reasons why I think we should have
sign holders. There's four main points.
Selective enforcement.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. Just go slower so she can get it.
MR. NICHOLLS: I'm sorry. I get excited. Just wave at me or
something, and I'll slow down. I did give you a copy that should help
later.
Is the microphone right? Can everybody hear me all right?
Okay.
The first point is selective enforcement; second, the businesses
need the exposure; third, sign holders need employment; and then it's
the freedom-of-speech issue, which is the biggest deal of all.
Now, first, selective enforcement. It has not been enforced for
five years, leading us to believe there was not a problem and, in fact,
there have been no problems. But this is also something that, because
it was never enforced, we've grown dependent on it, and the people we
employ are dependent on it. I'll cover that more shortly.
We small businesses need the exposure desperately. The majority
of people who knew customers that come in my store, about 60
Page 93
October 14, 2014
percent, we ask them, how did you find out about us? The sign. That's
a big deal.
The people employed need the jobs. That's a big deal. These
people are mostly people that can't hold other jobs. So this is suddenly
a golden opportunity for them, and it also keeps them from being
wards of the state, as it were, or leaning on charity.
Then the freedom of speech. I researched both the Florida
Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court on this issue, and
they've come down solidly on both sides of the issue. So it's a coin
toss. If we want to fight about it, nobody knows who's going to win,
but it will be a mess. Basically, I say we deserve the freedom of
speech.
Now the other side. Reasons have been given why sign holders
should not be out there. There are four -- there's five main points;
traffic distraction. Okay. Sounds valid; sign clutter; visual pollution.
Again sounds valid; employee danger, the people holding the signs are
at risk; the public right-of-way should not be used for commercial
purposes; and community status, in other words, how does it make our
town look? Well, let me address those.
First, traffic distraction. The sign holder signs are no more
distracting than all of the other signs, and I'll throw bumper stickers in
there, too. The commission has already shown that they don't think
that distraction is an issue.
If you'll notice in the illustration, we've got the sign over I-75 put
up by the State Division of Transportation that requires us to read
make, model, and license number of cars. That's not too distracting for
us at 80 miles an hour. And if we felt that it was too distracting, surely
by now we would have petitioned the state to move those signs or take
them down. It hasn't happened. Ergo, the decision's been made that
they're not too distracting; that's reasonable to believe.
The other sign is used by the county itself in the median, not off
Page 94
October 14, 2014
to the side, not by the sidewalk, in the median, to give us information,
three lines of text about various things. That's not considered too
distracting. Ergo, it's already been decided. We don't need to go back
and re-decide the issue of distraction.
Even the sheriff uses signs to show us how fast our cars are going
as we're going down the road.
I haven't seen any accidents and I haven't heard of any accidents
being attributed to any of these signs. It's a nonissue. As I said when I
started, there's five issues of why we shouldn't have sign holders, and
they're not issues at all.
In our -- in the recommendation given by Jeff Wright, I'll quote
real quickly, temporary-use approval would allow the placement of
directional ground signs in the public right-of-way in conjunction, et
cetera, et cetera, 28 days per calendar year, and an additional 28 days
may be granted by permit, by approval.
We've been told that, okay, we can't have the sign holders
anymore, but if we want to apply for a permit, we can have a sign
holder for 28 days and maybe extend it 28 days. That shows that no
one believes this is a distraction. If we can do it for 56 days, clearly it's
not a distraction. Let us do it all the time. Nobody has misused this
privilege.
If you drive around town at the height of when we've had these
sign holders out there, there's been a few sign holders on several
intersections. That's it. This is not a big issue.
In the recommendations, a report by the governor's Highway
Safety Association was referenced. That's about texting while driving.
It's not about signs on the side of the road.
There have been no accidents in which sign holding was
implicated. The only accident was a sign holder who was run over
while on a sidewalk. He was run over on a sidewalk where he had
every legal right to be whether he was a sign holder or not. Somebody
Page 95
October 14, 2014
that was under the influence jumped the curb, killed him dead, and
kept going.
And, in fact, if the sign holder -- if the sign had been enough of a
distraction, it might have saved his life, because the driver would have
seen it and not hit him. Think about it. So signs are not a big
distraction that we need to worry about.
Sign clutter. As Commissioner Nance pointed out at the last
meeting, quote, I don't think it's an epidemic or a blight on our
community. If it was any of those things, during the recession we
would have had 20,000 sign holders out there, and we really didn't. He
was absolutely right.
During the worst economy, we did not have a big problem. So
back to my original recommendation, let's leave this alone. We don't
have a problem here.
Employee danger. I just covered that. He got killed, and that's
very unfortunate, but if we're going to declare the sidewalks unsafe, it
behooves us to make them illegal for any use. If the sidewalks are too
unsafe, we need to tear them up and come up with another solution.
I'm being a little silly here, but you get what I'm getting at.
The public right-of-way should not be used for commercial
purposes. This is a little bit more sticky. But we allow people to
picket Planned Parenthood every day, okay. So it's a different freedom
of speech than commercial freedom of speech. I argue that
commercial freedom of speech should have the same rights. And I
might lose that argument in front of the Supreme Court, but the fact is,
we're members of the public, too, and if we're not denying anybody
else the use of that right-of-way, then we have every right to use it, too.
We pay taxes for those sidewalks, for those public areas and, in
fact, the whole issue here is we need those sign holders because we're
trying to be able to afford to pay those taxes. And the people that we're
hiring also pay taxes.
Page 96
October 14, 2014
Every one of my sign holders is an employee. They get withheld
social security, they get withheld taxes. They're real citizens, which
brings me to an important point about the sign holders. These are not
drunken bums standing by our roads. These are hardworking people,
and in many cases they cannot get other jobs. So at least they've been
able to become constructive, useful citizens in a way that was not
previously open to them.
When I started hiring sign holders, I called St. Matthew's House
to find somebody. They sent me two homeless guys. They pooled
their paychecks, got an apartment, and were no longer homeless. That
really touched me. That was pretty cool.
Someone approached me one day and said, how about disabled
people? Would you hire disabled people? And I said, if they can do
the job, they can have the job. All they have to do is hold a sign.
Now, one of my rules is you've got to stand up. No drinking, no
smoking, and stay off the sidewalk, actually. We don't block the
sidewalk. We're on the grass.
And they may not stand to the left of a driveway because I don't
want to interfere with the vision of a driver trying to pull right and
looking left to see who's coming. And we do all those things. But one
of the requirements is you stand up and move the sign a little bit. Too
much, you can't read the sign. What's the point?
So I was asked, well, what about a girl in a wheelchair? I said,
that's fine. We'll make an exception on the stand-up part. I just don't
really care. Just have the sign out there. She worked for me for a long
time until this first came down in February. I had to fire everybody
overnight. That wasn't right. You know, that's just not how we do
business.
And out of my own pocket I paid them for another week so it
wasn't such a blow. But when we decided to start having the sign
holders again, when we thought we had an accommodation a couple
Page 97
October 14, 2014
months ago, she refused to come back because she was afraid of Code
Enforcement bullying her. That's sad. But, anyway, onward.
As I say, the issue's already been litigated in Collier County. We
talked about moving signs. You know, I can put my sign holder on a
tricycle if that makes it right. But, again, I'm being silly, just trying to
make a point.
To recap, there's four good signs for -- there's four good reasons
for sign holders: The selective enforcement has allowed it for five
years. I recommend let's let that continue.
The businesses need the exposure. Collier County's a really tough
town to make a living in, and small businesses are the backbone of the
economy. We need a little help.
Sign holders need employment. Freedom of speech is a big deal.
And then the issues again, as I've pointed out, they're fluff
They're not real. The issue about traffic distraction, Collier County
uses more signage than we do. It's not a distraction. It's not a danger.
So I would like to recommend, please let things keep going just
like they've been. We don't need a fight. We can all walk away happy.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Karen Bickford, and she is
your final registered speaker on this item.
MS. BICKFORD: Hello. My name's Karen Bickford. I'm the
President of the Amalgamated Sign Hold (sic) Union. I stand up for
disabled people that can no longer work due to people judging them
for what they look like, not what they're capable enough to do.
My husband is one of them. My husband was hired several
different places, and he was hired over a telephone. But when they
saw him, they said, I'm sorry, we can't -- we can't employ you, because
he didn't fit in their perfect society, and he didn't look the way that they
wanted him to look because he has a disability.
Page 98
October 14, 2014
So the only thing that my husband can do to make a living to
provide for us to pay bills, which he hasn't done in three months
because he has anxiety attacks and he has an emotional/mental
disorder and everything else due to an accident that he was in when he
was two or three months old, which all you guys got an email from his
sister, which is Lisa Donavue. I am the wife of her brother.
And all that I'm asking for is let the sign holders go. You know, I
was told by code enforcement -- I was bullied. I was told -- first I was
told that they were going to charge us $100 if I didn't get the F off the
sidewalk, and then I was charged -- I was told that they were going to
charge me $1,000. And I said, you want a pen? Make sure you spell
my name right. I'm not going anywhere.
So he called me every name but my own, and he went down to
my boss, and my boss says, I'm not taking her off the corner. It's
freedom of speech.
So the only thing that I'm asking the board to do is back the
people off of these people. These people don't need to be harassed.
All they're trying to do is make a living to provide for their families.
They're not out there trying to sell themselves. They're not out there
doing drugs. We don't want welfare. We don't want social security.
We want to be able to live in Collier County, and this is the only way
we'll be able to do so.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we understand the motion, County
Manager? What are you going to bring back?
MR. OCHS: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What are you going to bring back?
MR. OCHS: Well, from what I understand, I'm supposed to bring
back a review of the existing sign ordinance, ostensibly, I would
presume, to determine if it needs to be modified in some way to make
the right-of-ways either safer or less dangerous for those that are
Page 99
October 14, 2014
vulnerable.
And beyond that, I'm -- I could stand for some clarification, if you
don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Look at the commercial aspect, the
impact on, you know, commercial businesses with respect to, you
know, what the sign ordinance says.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And to, you know, look at
commercial impact, the public-safety impact, the constitutional impact,
you know. We have to make sure that that's, obviously, the county
attorney's side of it.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I think he weighed in on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then tie that all into the
landscaping as well because, you know, landscaping has a lot to do
with signage. We've got requirements in our code that force, you
know, strip centers to have a certain amount of landscaping, which is
important and is -- obviously we want -- you know, we don't want a
concrete jungle, but on the other hand we don't want to make it so
burdensome that it blocks visibility to the point that people can't see
signs from the road and, as a result, you know, business is not attracted
to the center. So there has to be a balance.
And I think it just -- we need to review everything. And in the
meantime, to, you know, lighten up on the enforcement and just focus
on enforcement where there is a public-safety issue till we resolve
whatever needs to be resolved for the benefit of the public and
businesses and public safety.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I actually commend
Commissioner Hiller. She basically mentioned all the things I'm
Page 100
October 14, 2014
concerned about.
I'm concerned about how we handle our commercial businesses
from signage and landscaping, and let me tell you specifically what I'm
concerned about, and we've talked about these on a number of
occasions. And I'll bring this back to the sign holders, because I do
think that these sign holders can have a useful element and something
that doesn't detract from our community.
But when we create commercial centers, we regulate the sorts of
signs that can be on the building. We also regulate the sort of signs
that are on the marquees that are out front. And we regulate those
according to dimension, physical construction, size, and everything
else.
I know that there are small merchants that wait for years and
years and over a decade in order to have the name of their small
business on one of those marquees, because the marquees that are
permitted aren't big enough to allow every commercial store or
business to advertise their store business anywhere.
In addition, we have landscaping requirements that aren't
necessarily compatible with the signage; in other words, they're
designed for what they look like at installation and CO, but the
plantings are not approved based on what they look like at maturity.
So these oak trees grow up, block the signs.
I think, actually, the landscaping is a safety hazard when it comes
to commercial buildings, because our citizens are looking for shops,
and they're looking, trying to find them in between the trees and so on
and so forth. The last place they're looking is where they're driving,
because they're trying to find an address or a shop.
In addition, we then go back, in addition to that landscaping, but
the county many times will come in the right-of-way adjacent to the
road and plant additional trees. So now you've got trees that have been
planted in front of the required trees.
Page 101
October 14, 2014
So now you've really got a forest, and I believe it's to the point
where it is hurting our commercial establishments. It's certainly
hurting new businesses.
Go to that center at the corner of Airport Road on the northeast --
on the northwest corner of Airport Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
And see if you can figure out how any of those people ever let anyone
know they're in there. There's a hundred million dollars worth of
shops in there, and half of them have never ever been occupied.
They're beautiful.
They've got all the architectural standards that Collier County has
required, and those shops are empty, and it's because nobody knows
they're there.
So how do we bring this back? I will second Commissioner
Hiller's motion. I think that our commercial signage regulation needs
to be examined, and I believe we need to take a look and see if
commercial sign holders, under some certain amount of rules that are
reasonable and safe, primarily safety oriented so that they don't create a
safety hazard, and the people themselves aren't exposed to danger
might have a place in there.
And I do believe that Mr. Nicholls was right. I believe that there
is an element of commercial free speech. I don't see how we can
regulate that the tax lady that stands out in the corner every year in first
-- starting the first of April looking like the Statute of Liberty and say
that somehow they're violating the law. It just -- it just, intuitively, not
-- it doesn't meet my standards.
But I will second her motion, and just let staff come back with
some analysis on what we can do to help the commercial people and
make commercial sign holders a place somewhere in that world.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If we can hold the applause, I
think we can be a little bit more productive. I appreciate the two
Page 102
October 14, 2014
speakers, but the public time is over, and now the board is going to
consider the -- Commissioner Hiller's motion.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just wanted to make a
quick comment. The county attorney has made the observation that an
all-or-nothing approach is going to be the most defensible process
here, but -- and I tend to agree with that, because it's going to be very,
very difficult to pick and choose who you're going to permit to hold
signs.
But my concern is that a number of the alternatives that we're
given to consider are not all or nothing. They are compromises, which
I think will get us into trouble.
So I would hope that the staff would clarify that issue a little bit
and see if we can get closer to the decision about all or nothing.
But, in any event, I'll support the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to go ahead, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
Just a little clarity. I think, Commissioner Coyle, you hit the nail
on the head. For us, at least in the meantime, if you're going to pass
this motion, we need a stay on pretty much all. To say staffs going to
have discretion on what's okay and what's not okay in the interim
would be difficult at best.
If it's going to move forward for us to bring something back, I'd
rather that the board makes it clear to us that you're going to put a stay
on enforcement. Because I heard Commissioner Hiller's motion was to
lay off a little bit and use a little judgment. And that's a fine line for us
when we're out trying to manage this.
But I will tell you this: We did provide you some information,
and that governor's Highway Safety Report was inconclusive. They
talked about it on Page 29. But they note signs as a distraction. For
Page 103
October 14, 2014
the person who spent the better part of 10 years working on building
some of these roads, when you're driving down and you see someone
jumping up holding a sign -- and some don't. Some are quite quiet,
and they actually sit off the sidewalk. But some don't. Some will spin
these signs and point to a model sales center.
So it's kind of a Catch 22 for staff. I think our recommendation
was consistent, that we think the commercial use of the right-of-way is
not a good idea.
But if you are going to move forward, I'd make it clear to staff
that it's a stay on everything, because to give us judgment puts us in a
pickle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's far better that the staff be
in a pickle than for the Board of County Commissioners to be in a
pickle. At least that gives us someone to blame --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if it doesn't work out right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too -- I will support that
motion as they bring something back to us.
One thing I would like to add that I find troublesome, and that is
it's hard to find addresses. How many businesses have no address on
their business location whatsoever? And I can't understand why
everybody wouldn't proudly announce in big letters what their address
is. You can't find them at all. People worry about you can't find them
from the street. You can't even find an address, period.
And I know before we've always insisted that they have addresses
on them. Well, you find anybody that's new here in town or that's
visiting here in town, they know an address they want to go to, they've
already spotted it in a phone book or whatever, but they're looking,
they're looking, they're looking and, of course, they're taking their eyes
off the road while they're trying to find an address. We need to
Page 104
October 14, 2014
emphasize the fact that that needs to be a requirement.
Personally, distracted drivers, that's been a big thing with us, not
only around the State of Florida, but all over the nation, people who
are just answering their text messaging, just making a telephone call,
and they take their eyes off the road.
Well, of course, sign holders are there to get your eyes off the
road and to see where their sign is leading you, and that's
understandable as well. So we're going to have to find something --
and like you say, it's going to have to be an all-or-nothing, because you
can't pick and choose, and you have to -- and we have a lot of people
who are -- who maybe have some kind of afflictions and should never
take their eyes off the road because they have to concentrate on what
they're doing and where they are going.
So I think this is going to be -- it's going to be an important thing
as staff goes back to study it even further. I think you did an excellent
job with preparing this as it is and -- but when they come back to us,
we're going to have to -- we're going to have to take that big step and
make a decision one way or another. So make sure that we have the
addresses there, too.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller, are you going
to clarify your motion? You still want staff to put a stay on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what I want to do --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- this ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to ask the county attorney
what he recommends we do in the interim while staff is researching
this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the Florida Statute says the
county manager shall diligently enforce our ordinances, and this is an
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if it's an ordinance, then do
Page 105
October 14, 2014
we have a choice, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can put a stay on enforcement pending
a review of the ordinance. But I agree with Mr. Casalanguida, it's all
or nothing. I mean, it's unfair to his people to cite some people and cite
(sic) other people.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I agree with you. I agree.
The suggestion of giving them the opportunity for flexibility
actually came from the code enforcement director who suggested that I
bring that forward.
But I agree with you, I think you're absolutely right. It should be
all or nothing, as both you and Commissioner Coyle have said.
So the question is, to you, should it be all or nothing? What do
you recommend, you know, in the public's best interest? Should we --
should we stay it while we're reviewing it, or should we require full
enforcement while we're reviewing it?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is a policy decision of the board.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I've got a recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I believe that it's perfectly capable
for code enforcement to -- I think it's possible for us to put a stay on
this as long as code enforcement can go out and talk to someone when
they believe they're -- in their judgment, in their best judgment, which
I'm not afraid to ask staff to use, there is a creation of a safety hazard.
If somebody is in a particularly hazardous place or behaving --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, that's subjective.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're putting our staff in a
pickle. And somebody's going to scream First Amendment rights that
you have brought up. Commissioner Nance says I have First
Amendment rights even though -- that I got my foot in the street, I'm
not a safety problem. It's my First Amendment rights, okay.
Page 106
October 14, 2014
So you want First Amendment rights or not, that's fine, but don't
put our staff in a pickle where they have to pick and choose and then
when somebody gets killed again --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: How is staff in a pickle?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- you're going to blame them.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Explain to me how staff is in a
pickle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because you're asking them to choose
if it's public safety. You know, public safety is running a red light.
Public safety is the ordinance that we create, okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I understand your point, Mr.
Chairman, but I think people like our first responders and the Sheriffs
Department uses their best judgment on a daily basis. DAS uses their
best judgment on a daily basis, and nobody is saying that they are in a
pickle.
I don't think we're holding staff accountable for something. We're
just asking for a period of time where people can take a deep breath,
talk this out, and everybody can go forward for a few days.
I don't think any of these ladies and gentlemen there are going to
object to a methodology. I mean, maybe they don't want any controls
on them. But, you know, code enforcement always has to have the
ability to suggest that somebody's doing something that's not safe.
That's just common -- ordinary common sense, and I don't think we
can abandon common sense.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, animal services, they go by our
ordinance that this board adopted. EMS responds to emergency calls,
and the Sheriffs Department does the same thing, and they enforce the
laws.
So, you know, if you-all want to do this, I'm not going to support
it. Besides the fact, when you say the few of them that can hold signs
out in the right-of-way, that's just a small portion of the total business
Page 107
October 14, 2014
in Collier County, and you've got to let everybody, everybody hold
signs, allow them to hold signs in the right-of-way, including the
Wal-marts, the K-Marts and, oh, by the way, what about the homeless
begging for money. You want to know why they don't do that in our
streets? It's not allowed, okay. So that is the potential.
There's a cause and effect of what we do every day. And the
effect of this, the potential effect of this is having a whole bunch of
people within our right-of-way soliciting. I don't care if it's money or
business.
Now, there's a reason why a business chose to be out in the
corner, is that is their advertising. There is a reason why people
advertise in the Naples Daily News and other media sources or social
media, is they're trying to create business, okay.
To use the public's property to try to create business is not our
community, in my opinion. It is not our community. You want to do
it on the East Coast, that's fine, okay, but it's not the character of the
community I stood for.
And most concerning is, if you allow this, all businesses have the
right, and where's the public safety in this?
Look, Sunday I was driving down Collier Boulevard, and there
was a kid plucked in a seat, in a chair on the sidewalk with a sign,
okay. So who can get around that kid? I mean, I couldn't if I was a
pedestrian or -- I would have to walk around him. Is that the right of
the public's property? No. Come on.
You guys either say to staff, amend the ordinance, allow these
people, or don't allow it. That's the bottom line. That's where I stand. I
mean, sometimes -- like I said last time, you have to say no or you
have to make a decision to kick this down the road to blame, you
know, landscaping or our sign ordinance, and that's a separate issue.
That's a totally separate issue. So I'm not supporting the motion.
But I just wanted to clarify, are you going to allow staff to enforce
Page 108
October 14, 2014
our ordinances, or do you want to put a stay on it? Now, we have a
motion, and we have a second, and I'm asking the people who made
the motion, what do you want to do with our staff?
Commissioner Nance? Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I speak?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you speak on the direction?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of course.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In response to your comments as to
why we need to look at all the -- these other issues, like landscaping
and commercial signage and so forth, is because if we examine what
we are currently -- what we have currently set as standards for those
particular issues, we may find that by improving those standards might
reduce the need for people holding signs in the right-of-way as one
consideration.
And then with respect to people holding signs in the right-of-way,
the consideration has to be given whether, you know, there is a
public-safety risk, and that has to be explored. So we have to look at,
you know, whether or not it should be allowed with conditions that go
to public safety, which is why it's a good idea for staff to look at all
these various facets of this issue, not just whether or not people should
be allowed to hold signs in the public right-of-way. There's more to
the story than just that question if you're going to do a proper job of
analyzing the issue.
With respect to what should happen in the interim, I do
understand staffs quandary. I completely respect what you're saying,
Mr. Casalanguida, and the county attorney has presented us with two
options.
What -- the current ordinance requires you to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not allowed, ma'am, in the current
ordinance.
Page 109
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not allowed.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But when you prohibit it, I mean,
do you have to charge them with a fine?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You approach the business owner and
you let them know that they're in violation of the sign ordinance and
commercial use of the right-of-way, and then you usually work it that
way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you don't necessarily have to
fine them, like what we heard that one speaker describe as, you know,
an attempt to get first 100, and then $1,000 a sign.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, could we have --
and how long would it take for you to bring back the information, or
estimate?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, ma'am, for the whole sign code,
you're going to have to get a committee to review this with business
owners, and it's going to be quite a bit of work. You're looking at three
to six months, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that long?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Oh, yes, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: At least that long. Then you have your landscaping
regulations, and there's quite a few issues here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only concern I have, if we
actually have an ordinance now that has a prohibition, and the intent of
the prohibition is public safety, then my concern is that by permitting
these sign holders in that right-of-way against what the ordinance is
intending to accomplish, I would be concerned about that. But I
wouldn't, on the other hand, want to see these people punished by way
of fine, for example.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, I think that's why the stay of
Page 110
October 14, 2014
enforcement is the option for you, if I understood the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it's the opposite. I mean, it
would be allowing for enforcement but without punishment. In other
words, making -- having a prohibition and saying, no, you can't do it
but not fining them $100 or $1,000 till you come up with a solution, or
do you want to -- or do you want to allow them to do it?
MR. OCHS: I think the problem is that is a mechanism that's
built into your ordinance. So back to the chairman's point, if you're
going to enforce the ordinance, then you fully enforce. If you're going
to not enforce, then declare or impose a stay for a period of time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there's a different issue.
Telling someone that they can't hold a sign in the right-of-way and
prohibiting, you know, the physical act, the punishment is not going to
be the deterrent if they just want to come back and do it again. I mean,
you basically have to, you know, enforce it by some other means. I
mean, they're -- I don't know. I'm not an expert in code enforcement
and how you operate, so I can't -- I'm not really sure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We haven't technically written a
violation. It's mostly education. I think it's no different than someone
placing a physical sign in the right-of-way and then going to the
business owner and saying, you have an unpermitted sign, which is
essentially that sign holder.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or like those big flutter signs that
are incredibly distracting that people are posting in front of their
businesses now that really draw your eye away from the road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For us who have been living this for
about six months with lots of phone calls from commissioners and
constituents and -- between staff talking about this, and you see a
plethora of different versions of this. You see a gentleman that stands
off the sidewalk in a very safe manner, you see someone who's on the
sidewalk with a chair, sleeping, blocking the sidewalk, you see groups
Page 111
October 14, 2014
of two or three jumping, pointing to a model sale center, so that's why I
say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would you -- what do you
recommend? I mean, you're involved. You're dealing with it. And it's
not trying to pass the buck. It's really trying to find, you know, what is
the fairest solution in the interim till you come back with, you know, a
better picture for us to be able to make the right decision.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've always been consistent, ma'am. I
don't think the use -- commercial use of the right-of-way is a good idea
from a safety perspective, from a fairness perspective. The discussion
you brought up where -- the business owners. A lot of these
businesses are one street back. They're not on the right-of-way, so that
-- it's not a signage to the business. It's they're using this to direct
somebody to a business that's not on the right-of-way, because these
people already have signs.
So I think it's a distraction. I think it's a commercial use of the
right-of-way. It is a policy decision. We'll follow that.
The only thing I'll ask today is, it's either a stay on all or
enforcement on all. And my preference would be that we keep that
right-of-way clear, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Your recommendation is
enforcement till we come up with a solution?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. That's been staffs
recommendation all along.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Can you clarify your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my motion remains. The
only question is, you know, what to recommend in the interim. What's
the pleasure of the board? Commissioner Coyle? What do you feel?
Should it be a permanent ban till this is brought back or not, or a stay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It really needs to be to the motion
maker and --
Page 112
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I want to get -- this is
discussion on the motion. I would like to know what my fellow
commissioners think. I mean, it's a very important issue, and I think --
you know, I would like to hear their thoughts before I add to this
motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't mind sharing my
thoughts with you. The -- as Nick has stated, they really haven't been
enforcing this for a long time. They haven't fined anybody. I don't
know if-- we haven't collected any money to (sic) anybody. We
haven't punished anybody for doing anything.
But as you, Commissioner Hiller, point out, the failure to do that
is, in essence, a failure to enforce an ordinance. It can expose you to
legal ramifications, as you, again, have pointed out. And I'm sensitive
to that.
I agree with the county attorney's position that it's all or nothing.
Once you start trying to parcel this thing out, we're going to have
lawsuits that we've got to defend. And I -- as much as I would like to
help these business owners -- because some of them are friends of
mine, and I'd like to help them, but I can't help them by violating a
county ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's how I feel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so that's the problem I have
here. And if staff is requesting, in essence, demanding, and probably
rightly so, some clear guidance today, then I think that clear guidance
today would be to enforce the ordinance that is on the books now.
And if the commissioners or the staff wishes to take a look at this
in a broader perspective, maybe it's something that needs to be brought
back to the board and done over the following months to come up with
a more permanent approach to this.
But there are just terrible situations in other cities that result from
this sort of thing. I've been to cities where every other corner on the
Page 113
October 14, 2014
main thoroughfare going through the heart of a city consists of teams
of panhandlers going up to stopped cars at traffic lights and asking for
money. And it's organized. It's not like it's individuals who are doing
this. They are organized, because the signs on one end of town are
exactly the same as the signs four miles away on the other end of town.
It's a mass panhandling effort.
It's just like these people who used to come here and get money
for so-called veterans' organizations. They weren't -- that money
wasn't going to veterans' organizations. It was going in their own
pockets.
So it has terrible consequences if it is not controlled. And,
unfortunately, when you control things, you hurt good people.
In fact, there's probably nothing we ever do here that doesn't hurt
somebody, and that's just the nature of the business, unfortunately. So
that's what I feel about it.
If the staff feels they need guidance right now, the only guidance
we can possibly give is to enforce the ordinance. You can't tell staff to
violate the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree. I agree with you,
Commissioner Coyle.
Unfortunately, you know, the law is what it is, and until we come
up with a change to that law, I really don't believe we really have a
choice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So your statement of putting a stay on
the ordinances, you're reversing that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I never said I wanted a stay. I said
that we should consider one or the other, and I had not decided which
way to go, but having heard what --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's your motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Having heard what
Commissioner Coyle said and having heard what you said,
Page 114
October 14, 2014
Commissioner Henning, and having heard what Nick said, which is
very compelling, I think we have to uphold the ordinance and move
forward as quickly as possible to look at the totality of the issue and
bring it back so we can come back with, you know, a permanent
solution to this problem, whether it's to continue the ban, you know,
going forward or modify the ordinance in some manner that provides
otherwise.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you accept that, Commissioner
Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you care what Commissioner Fiala
has to -- feel about this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I care very much what she has to
say, but I was afraid that if I turned to her and asked her, you would
say that I was out of order and trying to be chair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, let's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I didn't want to -- I didn't want
to go down that road. I was trying to be nice to you, Commissioner
Henning. I'm working on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm glad you're letting --
allowing others to be chair that the others voted for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I am doing the best I can.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's see if that continues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's tough, but I am doing the very
best I can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know that's very challenging for
you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I like challenges.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
I agree about, you know, we can't pick and choose. It has to be
Page 115
October 14, 2014
one way or the other, and I think that we have an ordinance in place,
and it's been on the books for a long time.
And as much as I would like to do everything I can to
accommodate the people here today, I think we have an ordinance that
we must comply with.
I find, as an ancillary idea, impulse buying, like a Dairy Queen, I
mean, you need a sign. You don't need a sign holder, but they're
usually located right on the storefront. That's an impulse buyer. But
for taxes, for instance -- I don't remember what the tax company's
called, but whomever, holding a sign, you're not going to drive in there
just because there's a sign there, because you're going to go someplace
when you have your taxes and you want them to be taken care of, not
just because somebody's got a sign.
And, I'm sorry, but it's the same thing with jewelry. I'm not going
to drive in there if I'm not going to buy any jewelry. You know, I
think those -- they bring attention to something, but I think they're
more of a distraction than anything else.
I think store addresses -- I'm back onto the store addresses things.
Right now, with the GPS's, they'll lead you to most any store anyway.
Things have gotten so modern. Before, we used to have everything
spelled out for us. They don't even have much of anything in the
phone book anymore, because you can find it on GPS.
But for those people who are looking for addresses, they need to
be able to find them, and I don't think a sign holder will get that done
either. So I'm with you on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there any further discussion
on this topic?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not going to support the motion. I
think it's -- you're not sending a clear message to the petitioner. And
the reason this is on the agenda, I think you ought to say we are going
Page 116
October 14, 2014
to enforce our ordinance or we're not going to enforce our ordinance,
and that's not what the board did. So that's how I'm going to vote.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that what the current motion
states?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The current motion states that
we're going to enforce the ordinance and direct staff to go and look at,
you know, other ancillary issues related to signage and free speech and
landscaping and bring that back for our review at a later date.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So this ordinance is not going to come
back for -- whether to enforce or not enforce?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. We're saying we're enforcing
the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So this issue is dead, and the
alternative --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, this issue is not dead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The alternative would be look at other
ways for promotion of business such as signage and landscaping; is
that what I understand?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we're not bringing this ordinance
back?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This ordinance should come back
because we need to be sure that there isn't some means to allow for
this, and if there is no means, then we're going to leave the ordinance
as it is. But I think staff should have the opportunity to look at the
issue in total in light of the other considerations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I was correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we are definitely upholding the
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In the interim.
Page 117
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're upholding the ordinance
until staff comes back. And if staff recommends that we continue
upholding it as it is, then we will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the board will get a second shot
at this later on, but right now what we're saying is that the staff will
enforce --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the existing ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's the primary thrust of the
motion, but you're also saying, staff, if you can find ways of improving
the situation, come back with some additional recommendations to us,
and we'll consider something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If they can. And if they can't, then
we continue to uphold the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I would have no problem
with that since it does provide specific guidance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think that's what the motion
really said in the beginning, but I think I could vote for the motion that
you just made.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It did. That is what I said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And I just told them to look
at everything, so -- because, you know, landscaping affects the
visibility of signage, and we have codes that, you know, potentially
might be too onerous. Maybe we need to look at, you know, our
Page 118
October 14, 2014
landscaping -- the LDC with respect to landscaping and the impact on
the visibility of commercial signs. We just have to look at everything
and consider all the various angles of the issues.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1 .
Public comment or our advertised -- advertised hearing. What's
the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many members of the public
are here to speak?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, how many public speakers
do we have?
MR. MILLER: We have two registered public speakers for
public comment, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And what about Item 8A, I believe it
is?
MR. MILLER: I think it's 10.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's the pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's hear the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Isn't it 8A?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would say let the public speakers
speak so that they don't have to sit through this entire hearing, which
could take some time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 119
October 14, 2014
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Item 7 it is, sir, public comments on general topics
not on the current or future agenda.
MR. MILLER: You have two registered speakers. Dr. Joseph
Doyle, and he will be ceded three minutes of time from Sandra Doyle.
DR. DOYLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you
for taking public comments. Dr. Joseph Doyle, board certified in
public health and preventative medicine, resident of Collier County for
over 10 year.
And I'm here today in follow-up to my previous address in June,
on June 24th when I was here to raise a concern about
multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis and other diseases coming through
the southern sovereign border with the illegal migration of minor
children and thereby posing a potential health risk to our population
and also a potential negative impact to our tourist-dependent economy
as those children find their way to Florida and other -- either indirectly
through the underground channels or directly by the federal
government to foster homes and group housing. We know that's
happening on the East Coast.
Well, today, in October of 2014, we are beginning to enter our
next tourist season as well as cold and flu season. And now we have
two new health threats confronting our community, or potentially
confronting our community, which is the Enterovirus D68 and Ebola.
EV D68 almost exclusively causes a respiratory illness similar to
the common cold. Now, as I just said, we're entering cold and flu
season.
Page 120
October 14, 2014
Ebola usually begins suddenly with influenza-like symptoms such
as fatigue, fever, headaches, and pain, muscle and abdomen
complaints.
So, you know, it can be confounding to our emergency rooms as
to what's going on. And you have to take a good history. And I'm sure
you're all familiar with the current events that have been going on in
Dallas with the person who came over from Liberia. He, basically --
allegedly lied on his exit documents, went to Brussels, came into the
United States, ended up in Dallas, went to the emergency room there.
And we know that 76 percent of our nurses have not really
received an adequate in-service at this point in time. The CDC is --
has been a well-respected agency for giving consultation but, as we
can see, they're not really giving us much leadership these days. In
fact, some people are asking Dr. Frieden -- and I knew of him before
he was with the CDC -- to resign.
In fact, the joke was, in public health when I was doing my
residency, that the CDC was the only respected agency in the federal
government because they were the only agency outside of Washington,
D.C. They happened to be based in Atlanta.
And as we can see, their respect lately has been quickly eroding
over their handling of this Ebola epidemic.
And what's concerning about the case in Texas is the fact that this
nurse who was taking care of the person who's diseased was apparently
wearing all of the garb and everything, and the CDC recently threw her
under the bus and said that she broke protocol. We don't really know.
That's still being investigated.
But it does raise the possibility and the question -- because we
still don't really know much about transmission -- as to whether there
could possibly be an airborne component here.
Right now, we're -- the current thought is that it's still not, but the
interesting thing is that an NBC news team was over, under the
Page 121
October 14, 2014
direction of Dr. Nancy Snyderman, and they had -- one of their
freelance cameramen contracted Ebola.
Now, I don't know too many cameramen -- and we have a couple
here -- that really get involved with touching the patients and that sort
of thing, so you kind of wonder how he caught it. He's in Nebraska,
still living and taking treatment.
Dr. Snyderman and her crew came back home on a chartered jet
and put themselves into self-voluntarily quarantine.
And we can go on and on as to, you know, how -- the missed
opportunities as to how this case has been -- this whole epidemic has
been handled by our federal government, and I'm here because,
obviously, you're the local government, and there's some things that we
can possibly do.
We know that the administrative controls failed. As we said, the
traveler to Dallas allegedly lied on his exit documents. There was
nothing in place with U.S. Customs. Now, when he came through, he
should have been flagged with the Liberian passport, but he was
outwardly appearing fine. He didn't have any fever at that point in
time, because it does have up to a 21-day incubation period, and that's
part of the problem when you have communicable diseases.
And as I mentioned in June, we don't have modern-day Ellis
Island, although we could have a virtual Ellis Island if we put in some
of these administrative controls.
And then, of course, we talked about the fact that our emergency
rooms and urgent care centers are just now getting up to speed with
screening and asking the right questions. But you can't -- with so
many millions of healthcare providers, nurses and doctors, you know,
you would have to have other mechanisms in place.
And so what I'm looking at here is to ask the board to consider
stepping up our surveillance through the emergency management
operations and/or some type of interdisciplinary task force that we
Page 122
October 14, 2014
talked about in June and have a standing agenda item here to this board
for the next six months to all your meetings for update on education
and surveillance.
And the second is to look into a local mandatory quarantine of--
of tourists visiting here identified on their passports as coming from
central African nations as well as our own wealthy people who go over
to Africa on safaris. When they come back, they should have a
mandatory 21-day quarantine.
And we have do have the public health statutes here, Florida
Statutes 381 through 408; 392 specifically deals with tuberculosis.
But I would ask the County Attorney's Office, working with the
health department, the local health department -- and you give $1 .6
million to their annual budget, so they should listen to some -- you
know, to you for some type of consultative advice -- but to look into
our own ordinance for quarantine until this epidemic is over.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I think -- well, I
personally want to hear more from the health department about their
preparedness to deal with Ebola.
Commissioner Coyle, you're getting ready?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- I'm probably just as
outraged as you are about how this is being handled at the CDC. I
know firsthand from having -- from my military experiences and being
in Africa that we are incredibly naive about these things.
We always take the optimistic position, and we don't think of the
worst-case scenarios. And I think it probably would be a good idea if
we were to start doing something more aggressively here in Collier
County.
It is clear to me that unless we start identifying some isolation
facilities -- and it can't necessarily be in one place, but it's -- it has to be
in a few places; otherwise, you're not going to have the number of
Page 123
October 14, 2014
qualified people to do the job.
You cannot possibly train all of the medical care personnel at
every hospital in the entire United States. It's not going to happen.
There are too many opportunities for something to get by, and the only
way we're going to solve this problem is to designate a few centers in
the nation where people can be quarantined under the care of people
who have been properly trained with procedures that are proven and
enforced very carefully.
And if we need to do something like that here in Collier County, I
think we need to have those conversations. It's very, very dangerous to
take these things lightly. And we just have too many people who are
incredibly naive about what happens to them in foreign countries.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Nance, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Yes, I too, agree with that. And I think aside from just the local
health unit, I would like to hear what the hospitals have done in
preparation just to make sure that they have a preparation plan in place
in case -- in case they're infected with -- you know, or in case anybody
infected happens to come here, we need to know that they have a plan
in place, and also we probably need to know from our water and
wastewater treatment plants what they're doing.
I never had thought until I read about the wastewater treatment
plants having a plan in place in case, you know, they also receive some
of the Ebola by way of humans. Thank you. I didn't want to say too
much more about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I share your concern. Let's
face it, within the next six months, 50 percent of the people that are
going to be in our county will have traveled here from somewhere else.
Page 124
October 14, 2014
And there isn't a busier airport anywhere in our nation than Atlanta. A
whole boatload of those are going to go through Atlanta.
So, you know, being prepared locally, I agree with that. I don't
know what can be done, but our people in charge of public health
should know best. But I think that our board should strongly send a
message to our congressional delegation to start doing something at the
national level. If we don't stop travel from some of these at-risk areas,
this genie is going to get out of the bottle, if it hasn't already.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, is there anything you can
bring back to the board by way of recommendation as to what we can
do to start the process of ensuring that we don't end up with an
epidemic here or that if something does happen we're prepared to deal
with it?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. In fact, I made that note for your next
agenda to get a presentation made by your public health officials and
your emergency management officials, your community health
professionals from the hospitals and other areas, and be happy to reach
out to Dr. Doyle as well.
And we can give you an update of the planning that has already
occurred and also spend some additional time in dialogue with the
board about future plans or additional actions that you might like to see
us pursue either on your behalf or in conjunction with the state or the
feds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's an extremely
important discussion to be had. Is this something that can be handled
in a presentation at a board meeting, or is this something you'd rather
have as a workshop? Because it is a very significant issue, and I don't
know how deeply you want to get into this subject and how many
people you would want to bring in; if you want to bring in
representatives of our local hospital in addition to the, you know,
Page 125
October 14, 2014
public health department, if there's any local representatives of the
CDC or any other agency that might need to participate in this type of
planning.
MR. OCHS: My preliminary suggestion, Commissioners, is we
schedule this as a presentation at a board meeting, give you a good
thorough briefing, and then if you, based on that, think that we need to
expand this into a workshop type of a meeting, then we can follow
quickly on the heels of that and set up a workshop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That makes sense. Well, if you
could reach out to Dr. Doyle and have him assist you, if he's willing --
if you would be willing to volunteer some time to help, that would be
great.
DR. DOYLE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
DR. DOYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? That's it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was all of your registered
speakers for public comment, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shall we go on a break before we get
in -- Terri, are you okay or you want a break?
Okay. Well, let's take a ten-minute break and be back at 10:20 --
or 2:20.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's go to our public hearings.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, no, wait. I forgot. Troy told me
that, inadvertently, a slip was missed and that we do have one more
public speaker.
MR. MILLER: That is correct, under public comment, Mr.
Robert Wallace.
Page 126
October 14, 2014
MR. WALLACE: I'm back because last month when I petitioned
the Court -- or the board to put a halt on building in excess of LDC
403.5 and 605.1, you felt it was not the thing to do. I'm coming back
to try and plead with you a little bit more.
The house going in next to me is my example. That house is
being raised, the ground around it. It has nothing to do with FEMA
finished floor level. The ground around it is being raised to
six-and-a-half feet. The -- 403.5 specifies it can only be raised 18
inches above the crown of the road. Eighteen inches above the crown
of the road is five-and-a-half feet, not six-and-a-half feet.
Why am I worried about that extra half a foot or one foot? That's
because that's 15,000 gallons of displaced water. So when the Marco
River rises during a storm -- and it will happen -- that's 15,000 gallons
of water that's going to be displaced towards my property every single
minute that the Marco River -- and that water moves at a minimum of
one mile an hour. That's why I'm concerned.
And it's not just the one house. There's -- this is the second house
being raised to six-and-a-half feet on my street and not the only one in
my community, okay.
I also talked to you about the fact that we're using sand-set pavers
as impervious -- as pervious surfaces. So we allow the development of
a lot. The house next to me will be developed at 80 percent, not 40
percent, which is what the code requires.
I was -- we had the engineer come in and say, well, we're
allowing sand-set pavers because someone named Stan said it was
okay. Well, the EPA doesn't use Stan's. The DEP doesn't use Stan's
sand-set pavers as a design.
So we're permitting sand-set pavers throughout this county, which
are impervious surfaces shortly after they're installed, as opposed to
using the an impervious -- a pervious or permeable paving system
promoted by the University of Florida, promoted by -- well, I'm
Page 127
October 14, 2014
running out of time again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead, you have time.
MR. WALLACE: All right. So what's basically happening is
we've got excess runoff. All of our models are showing we're building
out at 40 percent when, in fact, we're building out at 80 percent. We
have excess runoff. It's running into our waters. So when the EPA
comes to you and says your waters are dirty, maybe it has something to
do with the fact that we have more runoff than we're calculating
because we're using sand-set pavers as opposed to proper paver
systems.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick, could I ask, have you guys
been out there recently to check this out and check out all that Mr.
Wallace has said? We don't want to be having anything going on
illegally.
MR. FRENCH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Jamie French. I'm Deputy Administrator of the Division.
The inspections at 11 East Pelican Street are continuing to
commence and, as we stated during Mr. Wallace's last appearance in
front of you, is that we will continue to monitor the progress of the site
to ensure that it is built to the approved plan.
So, yes, there are inspections that are taking place currently at this
location. And in the event they're not built to plan, that will be failed
inspection, and the contractor or the design professional would be
required to make that correction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe after -- maybe tomorrow we
could meet or something.
MR. FRENCH: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to see -- you know, he's
stated some things on the record, and maybe you and I could even go
Page 128
October 14, 2014
and take a look for ourselves or you -- I could go out with an inspector
or something, okay?
MR. FRENCH: Be happy to do that, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right.
MR. FRENCH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Leo, now let's go to our
advertised public hearing.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2014-222: AMENDING THE AVE MARIA
STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) TOWN PLAN AND
SRA MASTER PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION
4.08.07.F.4 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND
SPECIFICALLY TO: ADD SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED Z
LOTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL ZONE; ADD
600,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSING TO TOWN CENTER 2B;
REDESIGNATE 155 ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL
TO TOWN CENTER 2B; REDESIGNATE 90 ACRES OF TOWN
CENTER 2A TO NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL; REDESIGNATE
52 ACRES OF TOWN CENTER 3 TO NEIGHBORHOOD
GENERAL AND MOVE AN ACCESS POINT ALONG OIL WELL
ROAD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF
OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP KEAIS ROAD IN
SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE
29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND 16 THROUGH
18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN COLLIER
Page 129
October 14, 2014
COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PETITION SRAA-PL20132012] —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That would be Item 8B.
This item does require that ex parte be provided by commissioners,
and all participants are required to be sworn in.
It is a resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners amending the Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area
Town Plaza and the SRA Master Plan in accordance with Section
4.08.07.F.4 of the Land Development Code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The county attorney informed
me that we should allow cross-examination from, I guess, a
representative of the community. So we're going to slow this process
down a little bit to allow that.
But we have to provide ex parte communication after we swear in
all of the people that's going to participate; the applicant, staff, and the
public.
So anybody wishing to participate in this item, please rise and let
the court reporter swear you in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication on this item.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I have read the staff report.
I've had meetings with representatives from the petitioner. I've
attended a community meeting, which I arranged for. I've met with
community members. I have met with staff. I have received numerous
letters, emails, and correspondence which I have here in my ex parte
communication record. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've reviewed the staff report. I
have received emails and calls from you (indicating). How do I -- I
Page 130
October 14, 2014
don't want to mispronounce --
MR. KLUCIK: Robb Klucik.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Klucik. I don't -- I didn't want to
mispronounce your name -- and you (indicating), Mr. Yovanovich, and
I learned how to pronounce your name a long time ago. A lot worse
than his, but -- yeah, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I've had letters, emails. I also briefly
talked to Mr. Klucik and Mr. Yovanovich.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, have met with Rich
Yovanovich and David Gensen, and also I went on a site visit with
Mark Strain on the 15th of September. I've had many emails -- I read
them all -- and meetings and calls and correspondence. And all
throughout the agenda here -- I even have everybody marked that
wrote a letter to us and made note of each one of those. So I have -- I
am prepared.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have reviewed the staff
report dated September the 4th, 2014. I have met with representatives
of the petitioner. I have received correspondence and emails from
people opposed to this petition, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Klatzkow, it's my
understanding anybody getting compensated to participate or try to
sway the board on either side needs to be a registered lobbyist.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a quasi judicial proceeding so that
the attorneys do not have to register. That's in your rules.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: The lobbyist is more for the legislative
matters.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We will have the petitioner
present, and then after that, staff present. We'll get to the public right
Page 131
October 14, 2014
after that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Before we get started, if I can, for the
record. I appreciate that, I guess, Mr. Klucik -- or, I guess, anybody
can cross-examine our witnesses. I just don't know when to break.
Should I put all my witnesses up like I normally would do, or should I
stop with one witness and then we would do cross-examination? I just
want to know the process I should follow since we haven't ever really
allowed cross-examination in the past. So I just want to know how to
break it up, the presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Preference?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I think the fair thing, we'd allow the
applicant to put on his presentation; let staff put on their presentation.
If during the time Mr. Klucik wishes to speak he wishes to ask any
person any question, whether it's one of Mr. Yovanovich's experts or
our staff, you can do it then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or County Commissioners?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You can do it any time you want.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That, I'm used to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you.
For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
With me I have David Gensen from Barron Collier Companies; David
Hurst from Barron Collier Companies as well; Wayne Arnold, who's
an AICP, professional planner, who you've accepted as an expert
witness on many occasions. He's the professional planner on this
matter; Norm Trebilcock, who has also been accepted as an expert in
transportation consulting matters, will be here to address any
transportation related questions; and Russ Weyer with Real Estate
Econometrics, who's also been accepted as an expert in the past
regarding financial matters, will be here to answer any questions
regarding our requested application.
Page 132
October 14, 2014
Before you today is a petition to amend the town plan for the
Town of Ave Maria. There are primarily two amendments to this
document, and this document is a rather large document. This is it.
And you have roughly 16 pages that we're amending in this entire
document.
It is not a wholesale redo of the Town of Ave Maria, as has been
alleged by the different correspondence that I've seen and the different
video presentations that have made their way to YouTube.
The first amendment is to relocate portions of two of the currently
approved town centers to the already approved town center along Oil
Well Road. What you have today -- hopefully -- there you go.
What you have today -- this is the current plan. You have a town
center along Oil Well Road, and that's the town center that I'll show
you in a moment as being expanded. You have a town center here,
which is Town Center No. 3, and this is Town Center No. 2 along
Camp Keais Road.
We're taking a portion of the town center along Camp Keais
Road, a portion of the town center here, and adding it to the town
center along Oil Well Road.
And this is the revised master plan that we have been showing
and has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commissioners
and your staff. You can see the Camp Keais town center has gotten
smaller, as well as this activity -- I'm sorry, this town center here and,
finally, this is the town center along Oil Well Road that we're here to
discuss expanding this activity -- this town center will be
approximately 211 acres when we're done. So we're taking 155 acres
from the other activity centers and moving it to this town center along
Oil Well Road. That's one of the amendments.
The second amendment that I don't believe has received much
discussion or were as controversial is to add a zero lot line product to
the Town of Ave Maria. We already have some zero lot line product
Page 133
October 14, 2014
within the Town of Ave Maria. We needed to change some of the
development standards to allow for zero lot line product that we would
like to construct out in the Town of Ave Maria.
I think it's important that we discuss what we're not here to
discuss today, and we're not here to discuss any changes to sidewalks
or any of the trails out in Ave Maria.
We may come back to discuss those items, but today we're not
here to discuss those items. So that's not on the table for discussion as
we go forward today. And we're not here to discuss any changes to the
root barriers that go along with installing the required trees in the
Town of Ave Maria.
Again, we'll probably be back to make that change, because that
change was not controversial. But for procedural reasons, we can't go
forward with it yet.
You've received a lot of correspondence from residents regarding
our proposed amendment alleging that we haven't followed the SRA
amendment rules as far as they're set forth in the Land Development
Code. You've had speakers speak at the Planning Commission
regarding the process we're going through to amend the town plan,
again alleging that we haven't followed the SRA amendment process
set forth in your Land Development Code.
And then you have, I believe -- if I mispronounce his last name, I
apologize -- a Mr. Pakaluk and Mr. Klucik alleging that not only did
we not follow the right process, that what we're doing is illegal and not
consistent with state statute or your Land Development Code.
I can emphatically say that both Mr. Pakaluk and Mr. Klucik are
incorrect in their analysis of the law at the state level as well as at the
local level.
I looked up the property appraiser's records, and it looks like Mr.
Pakaluk bought his home in August of 2010, and Mr. Klucik
purchased his home in 2007.
Page 134
October 14, 2014
Based upon their comments, it appears to me that neither
gentleman is familiar with the history of the Collier County Rural Land
Stewardship Program nor the state Rural Land Stewardship Program. I
know the commissioners are, but I think it would be beneficial for
some of the people in the public to understand how we got to where we
are and how the Town of Ave Maria came about.
In 1999 I think there was a final order that the state -- or the
governor and cabinet said to Collier County, you're not doing enough
to protect your environmental resources. And we came up with, in
response to that, the Rural Land Stewardship Program as well as the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. The Rural Land Steward Program is
the eastern lands, which is where the Town of Ave Maria is.
That program was approved in approximately 2002. Before that
program existed out in the eastern lands, you would get five-acre
developments -- you got one unit per five acres. People were
concerned that that would be an inappropriate way to develop and
would unnecessarily harm very important environmental resources out
in the eastern lands.
The property owners that were in the eastern lands came together
and worked with state DCA as well as your local -- those locals, the
county representatives, to come up with a program that was a
voluntary program to protect environmental resources, to make sure
that agricultural uses continued and didn't go away prematurely,
because there was a lot of growth that was occurring, and also to make
sure that there were other economic alternatives for Collier County.
They were looking for opportunities to change the economic aspects of
how we survive here so we didn't rely solely on construction or
tourism. We wanted other economic incentives.
So this program came about in 2002 with the consent of the
property owners out in that area. And that program requires property
owners to do two things if you want to participate. If you have
Page 135
October 14, 2014
environmentally sensitive lands, you basically create a stewardship
sending area that will generate credits, that then you then take and put
into the less environmentally sensitive areas, which are your
Stewardship Receiving Areas. And in your Stewardship Receiving
Areas you have a range of types of developments that you can put on
your property. The most intensive development is the town concept.
So through this process, Collier County came up with an
innovative program that did the things I just talked about, preserved
agriculture, preserved agriculturally sensitive lands, and allowed
people who had land to develop their land and gave them an
opportunity to provide other economic alternatives for development in
Collier County.
The -- this program is actually the basis for the state statute that
came about that a couple of people are saying we're violating. We're
not violating the state statute. The state statute is based upon what we
did here in Collier County. This process became a process that now is
available throughout the State of Florida because Collier County took
the time to come up with an innovative program to allow for a
balancing of rights for property owners and protected the environment.
So it's a little ironic that we're being accused of violating the program
we, in fact, established.
The first application of the Rural Land Stewardship Program was
the Town of Ave Maria. It's a university-based town that was approved
in June 2005. It was approved with 11,000 dwelling units, a
6,000-student university, 600,000 square feet of retail, 510,000 square
feet of office, 400 hotel rooms, and a lot of other development that
could occur on the 5,000 acres that is the Town of Ave Maria,
approximately 1,000 of which is the university.
So we went through a very detailed review process to get the
town approved. There was a lot of economic data analyzed in order to
determine where we could develop. There was economic information
Page 136
October 14, 2014
provided. There was transportation studies done, all resulting in the
approval of this book, which is the town plan for the Town of Ave
Maria.
Again, we're being criticized that we haven't done our proper
analysis regarding the impact of the town on environmental, the Camp
Keais Strand, and other environmentally sensitive resources. All of
that was done when the town was approved in the first place as well as
impact on the transportation system.
We also did additional updates on the transportation system,
which Norm Trebilcock will talk to you about, because one of the
things we're doing as we've reallocated the acreage that's already in the
town center concept and moving it to Oil Well Road is providing for
600,000 square feet of, basically, business park, i.e., light industrial
type uses to occur in Town Center 2B, which is now this roughly
200-acre town center.
Now, people think that that's, you know, a lot of new business
park uses. Well, in fact, that's not the case. We've always had
business park uses in this town plan; unfortunately, in order to obtain
business park uses, we had to use our office space allocations to get
business park uses approved.
So right now we have roughly 200,000 square feet of business
park uses, which is the Arthrex complex on Oil Well Road that has
been utilizing 200 square feet of our office space. It's my
understanding that Arthrex is going to expand about another 60,000
square feet. So roughly 260,000 square feet of our business park uses
has chewed up our office space uses.
That didn't make any sense to us, so we've come through and
asked for a specific category of 600,000 square feet of business park
uses, and we've analyzed the impact of that additional 600,000 square
feet on the transportation system to make sure we're not creating
failures and as well as on other infrastructure related sewer and water
Page 137
October 14, 2014
and things like that. So we've done that analysis of that additional
600,000 square feet.
Now, we've been hearing that this business park concept is a new
concept and was never part of the Town of Ave Maria, and now we're
changing Ave Maria from a university-based town to an industrial
park.
Now, they're calling our use an industrial park, and I'm assuming
it's for very specific reasons, because the first thing I thought about as
an industrial park was Newark, New Jersey, where you have the nice
smoke stacks, and it paints a pretty vivid image of bad, ugly stuff that's
going to occur in the Town of Ave Maria.
Well, that's not what we're proposing. We're proposing light
industrial uses to occur on that property. We're looking at good, clean
industrial uses that will be high-wage paying jobs.
And, in fact, the uses we're requesting are already in the town
plan and already allowed in Town Centers 2 and 3. These uses are not
allowed in Town Center 1. But the town center we're talking about,
these uses are already permitted, and they're in Appendix C of the town
plan that was approved in 2005. This is not a new use. They're not
new uses. They're no new change to the concept of what was
originally approved in the town plan.
So we're -- we are where we are. We are trying to implement
uses that are already allowed within the document. In fact, the
document that was approved in 2005 requires us to have a business
park. The business park is a required element of the town. So all we're
doing is implementing what the town plan already said we had to do,
which was to build a business park, and the business park was
supposed to be either in Town Center 2 or Town Center 3.
So we're not doing anything new, as we're being accused of
doing. We're not changing the overall town plan and in any way going
away from a university-based town. We are living up to the
Page 138
October 14, 2014
university-based town. I mean, we're proud of Ave Maria University
being part of this town. We're not trying to do anything to detract from
that concept.
We're just looking at providing economic opportunity for people
who want to live in the town, high-wage jobs and, even for people who
may not want to live not town, high-wage jobs. That's been something
that Collier County has been trying to do since I can ever remember.
Back in the early '90s when I was in the County Attorney's Office we
were talking about creating high-wage jobs in Collier County. We
needed to have nice, good business parks. That's what we're trying to
do.
Now, we're roughly 211 acres in the town center that we're trying
to create. Assuming we put all 600,000 square feet of these business
park uses within that town, that town center, there's no way we're
going to be using all of the 200 acres for 600,000 square feet. That's
3,000 square feet an acre.
We will probably need 50, 60 acres for the business park uses.
That means the remaining 140 to 150 acres will be the other uses that
are allowed in the town center, which includes office, retail,
residential. You will get the very same town center you were
originally going to get in this town plan. You're not going to get a
200-acre industrial park, as being alleged by our opponents.
We have gone to the Planning Commission twice. Your Land
Development Code requires that we have three context zones in the
town. You have a town core, which you can see on the master plan;
you're supposed to have town centers. We have three of them; and
we're supposed to have neighborhood general, which is basically your
residential development.
The Land Development Code pretty clearly provides that these
uses are to basically go from one to the next to the next without any
buffers. That's what the LDC says. The LDC says that your town
Page 139
October 14, 2014
centers are supposed to be adjacent to your neighborhood general
residential development without a buffer. That's what the LDC says.
Now, that became an issue for -- and rightfully so, an issue for the
residents in the -- in the Del Webb community, in this area right here.
This golf course community is a Del Webb community, and they had
concerns about a town center allowing the business park uses being
that close to them without a buffer.
We thought that was a legitimate concern, and we spent a lot of
time between the first Planning Commission meeting and the second
Planning Commission meeting to address their concerns. And Wayne
Arnold will take you through the details, but we're basically going to
have a 60-foot-wide buffer that, between the berm and wall
combination and plantings, is going to be in excess of 14 feet tall.
The best visual I can give you is the Creekside Commerce Park
that we have up off of Goodlette-Frank Road, also a business park
being developed by Barron Collier Companies. The buffer between
that business park and Pelican Marsh, the Bay Colony portion of
Pelican Marsh, which I would think we all know is probably the
highest end of the homes in there, it's going to be a similar buffer to
what is between the business park on Goodlette-Frank Road and the
Bay Colony portion of Pelican Marsh. So we took those concerns
seriously, and we addressed those concerns in our project.
The proposed changes to the town plan are, in fact, consistent
with the LDC. We've followed the process. The LDC says that we're
allowed to amend the document.
For anyone to believe that in 2005, if you adopt a document this
thick and this detailed, that there's not going to be change over time
has no understanding of planning and how things change and evolve
over time. You amend your Comprehensive Plan; you amend your
Land Development Code to address things that change.
I think that if you believe that there would never be a change to
Page 140
October 14, 2014
this document when you bought into the Town of Ave Maria, that was
an unrealistic or an unreasonable expectation and, frankly, something I
would hope you would not want your developer to do. You should
have a developer who is responsive to changes in the community and
changes in opportunities.
Keep in mind this developer has invested probably $250 million
in this project. They're not going to do anything silly to harm that
investment, let alone harm the investment of those who have already
bought there and will continue to move forward.
Now, we've had some unflattering things said to us publicly.
They're on YouTube. I don't need repeat them. But the plan is
consistent with the LDC. It is consistent with the statutes. It is not an
incoherent, inconsistent, or mischievous document, as claimed by Mr.
Pakaluk.
We're not making wholesale changes to this document. We're
simply implementing the uses that are already allowed in the
document, and we're accounting for that by adding 600,000 square feet
of business park uses so we can properly account for that and not take
it away from the office uses that have been approved for this project.
We don't believe in any way that these changes take away from
the concept of a university-based town. We think that they
complement a university-based town.
Your county attorney agrees that we're consistent with the Land
Development Code and state statutes, your planning staff agrees that
the proposed amendments are good planning, your Planning
Commission, after two days of hearings, unanimously approved the
amendments before you.
Wayne Arnold's going to take you through the 16 pages of
amendments that we have. They're short, they're brief, but he'll take
you through those. And then Norm Trebilcock will take you through
his road analysis or transportation analysis to assure you and the
Page 141
October 14, 2014
residents that we have properly looked at the 600,000 square feet.
With that, that's my introductory comments, and then if you have
questions of me now, I'm happy to answer them. If not, I can answer
any questions later.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a couple questions.
The area that you're converting, that's now designate for
residential --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Parts of it are designated neighborhood
general.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Neighborhood general.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Neighborhood general is residential?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir, with some limited retail options,
but it was designated as residential; yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a need to change the
requirements of SSAs?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. We already have the necessary
credits for the development of the project. So we've already created
the SSAs out in the very same area. And that brings up a good point.
We've actually been alleged that we've created these SSAs a hundred
miles away. The reality is is we created the SSAs within the Rural
Land Stewardship Program close by to the project that we're
developing today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there going to be an amendment to
the resolution in the SSAs to reduced -- how many credits?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, that's already been accounted for.
There won't be a need to make any change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's not going to be any exchange
-- there's not going to be any addition or deletions from the credits?
Page 142
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. What happens is is you use
credits to impact land, acres. It's not what you -- it's not -- or it's not
like housing. I mean, you don't say, I need so many acres in order to
get four units. You get your -- you get so many credits to impact an
acre, so that's how it works.
So we're not impacting any more acres than have already been
allocated in the town plan. We're just simply moving some town center
acreage from Camp Keais and the other one, as I pointed out, to Oil
Well Road where, obviously, the transportation infrastructure is
available, unlike Camp Keais Road where the road infrastructure isn't
really there to support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: An acre use or -- or uses, or just an
acre, per acre?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a per-acre credit allocation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two questions. What is the
percentage buildout in the Del Webb community behind the larger
town center?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just approximately.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you know approximately?
Approximately a third is what we're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the other question I have is
why are you doing this? What's the --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Why are we doing this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're doing this because we believe that
there's an opportunity to build upon the energy that's already been
established by Arthrex coming out to the town. We think there are
other Arthrex-type businesses that will want to come to the Town of
Page 143
October 14, 2014
Ave Maria, and putting them in a business park setting versus up off
Camp Keais Road makes more sense and will be far more attractive to
bring in those businesses out to the Town of Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're attempting to create a
cluster --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- an economic cluster as opposed
to spreading the businesses throughout.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It gives -- yes. It allows for the
synergy to occur.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And when -- what's going to
happen -- like, where you have that little town center, what does that
allow for? Does it leave the utility for the smaller centers?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That will continue to provide retail and
office options for office residents in that area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So local support?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. Which is one of the things that
town centers are supposed to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the one beside the service
district is going to serve what purpose?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will also provide similar type, local --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Local.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- options or maybe some big box options
for the residents of the Town of Ave Maria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the -- this -- the parcel of
land adjacent to the town center that's being expanded on Oil Well
Road, in the corner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: To the far right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This a sod farm.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what?
Page 144
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sod, a sod farm.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's a sod farm. I'm just
asking in terms of, you know, what the impact could be. And you've
created all the buffers, and the residents are happy with the buffers that
you've proposed for the town center?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I could tell you that not all the
residents are happy, but I think that the majority of the residents are
happy that we've created this buffer between the -- the town center and
future residential development.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've given consideration to
lighting and noise and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: All of that was considered and addressed
in our standards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wayne will take you through the details
of the buffer and the lighting, but we took into consideration all the
comments we heard from the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wayne, when you get up there, what I
see in our Land Development Code is landscaping minimums are in --
the same as the town core. And I'm reading in the section where it
refers to the town center. And the town core is a 40-foot-width buffer.
Am I reading it correctly?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady
Minor.
I'll have to open my SRA document and compare them. But the
way I read the code is that there are no minimum buffers required
between the town center and the neighborhood general. And, as Mr.
Yovanovich indicated, we're providing obviously no buffer. We're
providing a buffer at the request of many of the residents and your
Planning Commission.
Page 145
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'll refer that to staff. And I'm
trying to get to the meat of it, but it's II --
MR. ARNOLD: If you have a page number, I'll be happy to --
excuse me -- I'll be happy to look at it. I have the SRA document in its
entirety.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking the Land Development
Code or the -- this book right here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Land Development Code.
MR. ARNOLD: Oh, my mistake. I apologize.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's the MUNI code online that I'm
reading.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, what section was that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Four -- let me get to it. I mean, it's a
large document, but you-all ought to know what the code is for your
community. And what the -- I know there's not a maximum buffer. I
think there's a minimum buffer. I'm still trying to get to the top of it,
but it's far down there.
So, anyways, maybe -- Mike, maybe you could address that when
we get up about the maximum and the minimum.
MR. ARNOLD: And I'll look through that, too, sir. I've got the
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's 4.08.07. But let's continue on with
your presentation, and let's answer that. I don't think there's a
maximum buffer, and you're proposing a wider buffer than 40-foot; is
that correct?
MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. Yes, we're proposing a
60-foot-wide buffer on our northern interface with the neighborhood
general that's along the Del Webb property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So my question really is a moot point,
is you're providing more than what's required under the land
development.
Page 146
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: Far more.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Even though we may disagree there is
a requirement within the town center --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we're --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- it doesn't matter.
MR. ARNOLD: We're proposing a buffer that's -- I think you're
not going to find anything that's in your current Land Development
Code that comes close to this buffer requirement that we've imposed
upon ourselves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: And as Mr. Yovanovich pointed out, I'm going
to go ahead and walk you through the pages. I think that's the best way
for the public. I've got each page, and it has a strikethrough and
underline on it, and I'll just briefly point out what that modification is.
But I thought before I did that, I would just affirm what Rich said.
You know, as professional planner, we deal with your Land
Development Code and Growth Management Plan and the state
statutes regularly. And although there's only one of these, which is the
Town of Ave Maria SRA, we've done an extensive analysis, and we've
evaluated the state statutes. I've looked at the Land Development
Code, the Growth Management Plan, and I don't find the
inconsistencies that have been pointed out by some of the opponents of
this proposed project and, in fact, I think we further all the goals and
objectives of your Comprehensive Plan and your Land Development
Code with regard to the Rural Land Stewardship Program.
You know, it's been said by others that, you know, we're putting
this on the periphery of the project, and that's inconsistent somehow
with what the town centers were supposed to be. But I think if you
look at the existing plan that Rich had on the visualizer, we already
have town centers that are on the periphery of the project. We have
one that's on Camp Keais Road, and it will remain; smaller size. We're
Page 147
October 14, 2014
expanding the one on Oil Well Road for the reasons Rich has
indicated, and so those were already there.
I don't know how we're inconsistent with anything in the Land
Development Code. I don't find a reference that says these cannot be
adjacent to the external boundaries of our town. I don't know where it
says they have to be central to the town. We think this makes good
planning sense to allow what, as Rich said, the synergy that's been
built, the infrastructure that's been put in place that supports the
Arthrex 200,000-plus square feet for other business park type users to
come in and make this a synergistic place.
We've added buffer standards on Oil Well Road, and we've talked
about the buffering and setback requirements from Ave Maria
Boulevard to ensure that there's not some industrial looking building
and landscape that is going to be seen by the public or the residents.
So, you know, I liken what we've done to, you know, any other
town where you have areas. They're not necessarily contiguous to the
town center. I mean, if-- we're all familiar with Naples.
Commissioner Coyle and I are residents of the City of Naples, but 5th
Avenue South is one distinct town center area, you have Third Street
South shopping district, you have what they call the D Downtown,
which is a corridor that includes U.S. 41 .
They're all vastly different, but they all function. They're all part
of a town. That's what we're supposed to be creating here. That was --
the planning concept was to allow people to retain and gain an
economic benefit by preserving lands that should be preserved in
perpetuity for environmental and agricultural purposes.
Now, Rich and I were in Tallahassee when these things were
discussed, and the governor's order was very specific; you've got to go
back, do a better job, Collier County, in protecting your environment.
They don't want to see five-acre ratchets created throughout Collier
County. This was the response to that. This was the model, as Rich
Page 148
October 14, 2014
said, for the state statutes so others like Collier County can do
something that makes sense for its rural areas.
So you have to take this in the context for which it was created,
and that is something not just -- this isn't your typical planned unit
development. This is a town. It is meant to be a town. We're 500
units into 11,000 units. This has a long way to go. The developer's
here for the long haul. They are here, and they're committed.
So I would say, in my professional opinion, having reviewed it,
we are consistent with state statute, we're consistent with your
Comprehensive Plan, and we're consistent with your Land
Development Code.
Planning Commission debated this a long time. We had a lot of
compromise. We had a lot of discussion, and we think we've fairly
responded to most of the valid concerns that were expressed.
So with that, I'll walk you through the changes and be happy to
answer questions as we go, or after, whatever your pleasure.
The first change actually appears on part of the executive
summary that's part of the town plan, and it's simply adding the
reference to 600,000 square feet of light industrial and warehousing. I
don't know if we need to debate it. It's pretty specific but, likewise, on
the next page, there's a table. We've inserted the reference to the light
industrial and the warehousing.
The next few pages -- it's actually Pages 3, 6, 8, and 12 of your
document. They relate to part of that public facility impact that we
prepared, and we analyzed the potable water, sanitary sewer, and the
solid waste impacts of adding the 600,000 square feet of industrial
space.
I don't know if you want to look at each page in particular, but it's
just recalculating based on the use rates that have been expressed for
similar projects. And the conclusion was there's adequate capacity in
the Town of Ave Maria system to accommodate that.
Page 149
October 14, 2014
I'll put the pages up there just for your reference. We'll look at
that. It's making some simple adjustments to the table and text.
The next change is to our table of contents for the project.
Leo, if you can help me go all the way to the bottom, you can see
that we've added an appendix reference, and that's to show a street tree
spacing criteria and exhibit that is going to be added to the document.
Rich likes the aerial photos, but this is the actual color exhibit that
is the town plan that reflects the Town Center 2B and the southern
boundary.
One thing I would point out here that was also debated at the
Planning Commission -- and we have added some text to address it.
There's a road called Anthem Road that goes into the Del Webb
community, and there's a gravel dirt road connection today that the
Barron Collier family has barricaded to prohibit people from cutting
through that area. We've made a commitment to go ahead and keep
that closed and put in interconnection criteria that would allow that to
be opened only upon the urging of the Del Webb community itself
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you point that out for me?
MR. ARNOLD: And we've modified this exhibit -- yes, ma'am.
It's in that area. That road, if you look at the aerial -- sorry to make
you dizzy.
If you look at the aerial photograph, you can see there's a dirt road
connection into the Del Webb community that cuts through to Arthrex
Way. And the residents didn't like the cut-through traffic, and so the --
we've agreed to barricade that. And we've reflected the change on our
master plan to show that the road doesn't connect.
The next change was simply to an inset exhibit on the Town
Centers 2 and 3 to show that the Town Center 2B has been expanded
on the southern boundary.
The next change was made to reflect a deletion of an old
reference to the Development of Regional Impact that was rescinded
Page 150
October 14, 2014
this morning, and we also added a reference to the FAR that's out of
your Growth Management Plan for the business park use.
And this is the good page that has the most modifications, and
this is where we've addressed the enhanced landscaping and
development standard commitments for the Town Center 2B area, and
this is where it's described what our buffer requirements are with the
60-foot width.
We've expressed additional setback requirements from our
northern boundary and other boundaries from Ave Maria Boulevard
and Oil Well Road, and these largely came out of the discussions we
had at the first and second Planning Commission hearing.
But I can go through the details of that if you'd like. It's a
60-foot-wide buffer. We've committed to an 8-foot-high berm with a
6-foot hedge, two staggered rows of canopy trees or palm clusters no
more 30 feet on center, 14 feet in height at time of planting, and those
are to be installed with each concurrent phase of construction as the
project would extend to the east.
We've said that we have to have shrubs and ground cover other
than grass on 50 percent of the 60-foot-wide buffer area.
We have a 70-foot building setback from our northern boundary,
and these are limited currently in the town center to four-story
maximum building height. So you've got a 70-foot building setback,
which would be far greater than a 40-foot height -- or four-story
building, sorry.
Oil Well Road, we introduced a 50-foot setback for light
industrial uses and a 20-foot setback for other nonresidential uses
because, as Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, the town centers were meant
to be a mixture of uses, which also includes residential.
And then there is a buffer that was installed along Oil Well Road.
We're going to supplement that buffer. Rather than require a
secondary buffer, it will be supplemented with additional plantings.
Page 151
October 14, 2014
And on Ave Maria Boulevard, there's an existing buffer that's a good
buffer. We think it's adequate. Planning Commission agreed. And
then we've established a 50-foot building setback for any light
industrial use and a 20-foot setback for any other nonindustrial use. So
that's kind of the recap on the major changes we made for that.
The next change was to the neighborhood general designation.
This simply, again, was an inset map that's included in the document.
We revised it to be consistent with the revised boundary of the
neighborhood general.
We had a lot of discussion about street trees, and there was
ultimately approved, at least by the Planning Commission, a
modification to the street tree planting program. But this -- the
amendment on this page simply says that we don't get to double dip
and count trees that are planted outside the right-of-way as our street
trees. So it was put in to ensure that we're not double dipping on our
counting.
You heard reference to a zero lot line product. Ave Maria was
already permitted to build a zero lot line product. This reflects the
development table with the insertion of that product type.
This page is an entirely new page which shows a typical lot
configuration for it, and the necessity of this was to build a very
specific product type that wasn't originally contemplated. So we have
development standards that would allow that to be built.
There's a continuation page that further discusses that. It's in your
packet and others. We can certainly discuss it, but I don't think there's a
lot of meat to be discussed there.
This was a cleanup item from one of the prior admin --
amendments that had been prepared. This should have been deleted
from that document. It was not, so it's being taken care of this time
around.
And the last changes that were approved are the referenced
Page 152
October 14, 2014
Appendix F, which were the residential streetscape and the
nonresidential streetscape tree plantings, and David Hurst and David
Gensen can certainly talk to you a little bit more about it. But we were
looking for flexibility from the straight 40-foot spacing criteria in order
to deal with some real live situations out there where there are utilities
and there are driveways and there are other reasons why you can't
necessarily space things exactly at 40 feet.
So we have two exhibits that were approved by the Planning
Commission. The details really are in the notation that says we're still
going to maintain a 40-foot maximum spacing; however, there are
some exceptions built in for when that 40 feet can be adjusted.
And that's -- this is the typical with homes. This is the typical
streetscape plantings when we have -- they call it nonloaded, which
means they're not homesites that directly abut that roadway.
And those are the revised pages to the SRA. And I think -- as
Rich mentioned, we don't think this in any way has a wholesale change
to the plan for Ave Maria, the future of Ave Maria. I think -- as Rich
said, I think we all realize that a project that's going to have a
20-year-plus buildout will have changes; technology changes, things
change, product changes, our needs change. I think we've all
experienced that, and no different here. This process is different.
We committed through the process that although neighborhood
information meetings are not required for an SRA, we will adhere to
the neighborhood information meeting requirements going forward.
And I believe the Planning Commission directed staff to, again,
process an amendment to require such.
With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. After listening to everything
you said -- and, of course, sidewalks weren't mentioned, but this is
something that was repeated over and over and over with the letters
Page 153
October 14, 2014
that the people from the community sent to us, mainly that they're a
family community, they -- you know, kids ride bikes, some of them
have four kids, five kids, seven kids, and not only that, but they wanted
to be able to make sure that they have pathways and so forth.
Now, I heard Rich say that we're not going to discuss it at this
time, but that makes me feel that then you're going to get one thing
over with and then come back and adjust it later to eliminate sidewalks
on one side of the street. How can we assure that you won't do that?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know if I can give you the assurance that
we won't attempt to modify the sidewalk exhibit in the future. We
originally submitted it as part of this SRA and withdrew it. There were
some code provisions that are going to prevent us from doing it
without another code change, so we withdrew that amendment.
And I think that, taken literally, if you look at the exhibit -- and
I'll put a portion of it up. That's the pathway exhibit, but it doesn't
really match the land plan that's occurred, because, you know, this was
created before the first plat was ever approved for the community.
So there are just some adjustments that really don't make sense.
It's really hard to read. It doesn't really define certain things like a trail
but yet it's listed on there. And, taken literally, every cul-de-sac, every
eyebrow would have to have two sidewalks on every street. And we
really don't believe dual sidewalks are necessary for every street
application.
And we think you can still create a walkable community without
-- without having sidewalks on both sides everywhere. That was the
basis for the original submittal.
And, like I said, I don't think I can guarantee we won't come back
to try to make modifications to this, but it is not on the table today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions for Mr. Arnold?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nance.
Page 154
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
Mr. Arnold, I had one individual that addressed specifically some
of the questions on landscaping. Is there any landscaping in Ave
Maria other than an environmental restoration that is not irrigated?
The question was whether the proposed berm and the plantings
that were being proposed were, indeed, going to be irrigated if that sort
of planning required. Is that the case? Because I don't see language
that indicates it, but I'm not -- what I'm asking you is if the landscape
planning and the code requires irrigation, if not specifically omitted,
what --
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Give me some comfort on the --
taking care of these plantings.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Your Land Development Code requires
that without a deviation we have to adhere to the Land Development
Code standards for landscaping. It requires planted landscapes to be
irrigated. The berm and buffer will be irrigated.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Good afternoon. My name is Norman
Trebilcock with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, and I'm a
Professional Engineer and Planner with 25 years of local experience in
the transportation field.
I was responsible for preparing the traffic analysis for this project,
the traffic analysis, though, was prepared in coordination with your
staff where we agreed on a methodology for analyzing the traffic
impacts.
From a traffic standpoint, the proposed change is this simple. It's
the addition of 600,000 square feet of manufacturing, which is an
Institute of Transportation Engineers, or ITE, Land Use Code 140.
As a mixed-use development and remote location, Ave Maria has
Page 155
October 14, 2014
a very high internal capture rate. That looks at the different land uses
that reduces, basically, the external traffic of the development;
however, in looking at this project, and staff, we agreed to a lower
internal capture rate.
The current rate you have overall in Ave Maria is over 60 percent,
and we analyzed a 35 percent internal capture rate, which means we're
showing more traffic is going to go to the external road network, and
that's really just for analysis purposes for looking at roadway impacts.
We assigned the project trips to the county road network, and we
looked at background traffic, looked at growth, looked at a trip bank,
all in agreement and concurrence with staff to grow the traffic.
The net result of this analysis concludes that the minimum levels
of service standards are not exceeded with the addition of the project.
We also reviewed access and overall intersection improvements,
and those will be needed; those get addressed as we go into individual
development stages where we look at turn-lane improvements and
other such things that we call site-related impacts, and those will be
analyzed and approved at platting and SDP time.
We'll also mitigate for impacts through the impact fees as well.
So, in conclusion, the project is not an adverse traffic generator
for the roadway network at this location.
I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: None. Thank you.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's our basic presentation going over
the planning and transportation related aspects. You've got a lot of
documents that are already part of the record. I didn't feel the need to
go through every one of the documents. I just want to hit the
highlights.
Page 156
October 14, 2014
So, with that, we're available to answer any questions you may
have regarding the proposed amendments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go to staffs
presentation -- presentation.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem, and I'm a Principal Planner in Zoning.
We have other staff members here today that may be able to
address more specific questions. We have Nancy Gundlach, who is a
Landscape Architect on staff; we have Reed Jarvi, for Transportation;
and Mike Bosi for Comprehensive Planning and other zoning issues
that may arise.
Suffice it to say, staff has reviewed it. You've seen the staff
report. We are recommending approval finding that it is both
consistent with Growth Management Plan and meets the intent of the
Land Development Code.
Other than that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to
respond.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mike, do you have something to say?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, zoning director.
I just wanted to address your question related to the requirement
for buffering. And you're correct, it's LDC Section 4.08 which deals
with the Rural Land Stewardship Area. And, specifically, it says,
within the context zones, that each of these shall be blended without
the requirement for a buffer. So as it's required by the LDC, there is no
requirement between the different transitions between the context
zone. So this additional buffering is above what the Land
Development Code would require.
And back to an original point, I think, at the beginning of the
discussion, when the SRA was created, 17,000 acres of SSA were
Page 157
October 14, 2014
created to create this 5,000 acres of SRA, and they expended 26,500
and some-odd credits, and those credits were expended at eight credits
per acre. And that eight credits per acre covers the range of land uses
that are allowed for within the -- the Stewardship Receiving Area. So
that's how -- that's why there will be no requirements for any
adjustments to existing -- the SSA expenditure within the project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, Mike. Thank you.
I did look it up. It's under the description of town center. It's
saying landscaping minimums are the same as town core. And you go
back to town core, and it talks about landscaping buffers.
So I would assume it's landscaping within the parking area,
landscaping within the right-of-way, landscaping around the buffer,
just landscaping in general.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they are minimum codes; they're
not maximum. So you can -- you can put a thousand feet if you want
there. It doesn't make sense, but you could.
MR. BOSI: You're correct, Chair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Okay. We're going to go to public speakers. Normally what we
do is allow each public speaker three minutes. County Attorney
Klatzkow convinced me that we should be a little bit more lenient on
this, so let's try to stick to the point.
Now, this is quasi judicial, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. So the speakers should be limiting
themselves to evidence of facts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Evidence of facts, yes. And this takes
a supermajority vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I lost that one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not quasi judicial, is it?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's quasi judicial, but this particular one
Page 158
October 14, 2014
requires a majority vote.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's go ahead.
MR. MILLER: All right. Mr. Chairman, your first speaker, with
ceded time from three other speakers, is Michael -- excuse me, sir --
Pakaluk. Am I getting that close?
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Pakaluk?
MR. PAKALUK: When can I do the cross-examination?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can do it now.
MR. PAKALUK: That's not part of my time.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, would you come up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we're -- you know, this is your
time, so let's utilize it --
MR. PAKALUK: I have many things to say in
cross-examination, then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He has to talk on the record. You
have to be talking into a mic.
MR. MILLER: You have to be on the mic, sir. We cannot get
you on the record if you're not on the mic.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Like I said, we're going to be lenient,
but "let's stick to the facts, ma'am," and --
MR. PAKALUK: Ma'am?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's a joke, you know.
MR. PAKALUK: Well, it's not -- doesn't seem funny to me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm sorry. That was a --
that was an old TV show.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Friday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So, yeah, let's stick to the facts
and, again, we're going to be lenient with your time.
MR. PAKALUK: Great. Well, I believe that under a quasi
judicial process, I'm -- I give -- I have the opportunity for
Page 159
October 14, 2014
cross-examination; isn't that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, start.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. May I cross-examine Attorney
Yovanovich, please?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
MR. PAKALUK: Attorney, do you know what the distance is
between the proposed commercial park and the Camp Keais Strand?
MR. YOVANOVICH: My -- first of all, I don't think you
understand what an attorney does.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I gave was opening comments
regarding the purpose of the amendments. My experts are the ones
who provide expert testimony regarding planning issues.
So you can ask me all kinds of questions regarding the facts, but
that's not my role in this case. My role in this case is to provide
opening argument, closing argument. I don't provide factual
testimony.
So I'm going -- I'm not going to answer that question because it's
not something that was in --
MR. PAKALUK: Well, you helped me. You asked whether I'd
look at the SRA and the extensive environmental studies that were
done and, yes, I've read all of that. I've read the almost hundred pages
of environmental studies.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's great.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. May I ask you a question that's relevant
to that, or could I ask somebody else?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can.
MR. PAKALUK: I can't cross-examine someone who hasn't
spoken, so you're the only one to cross-examine about this.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I'm not the person you need to
cross-examine about this. So you could put on your own expert, if you
Page 160
October 14, 2014
have an expert, but I'm not the person you cross-examine regarding
environmental testimony.
MR. PAKALUK: Well, let me ask you this question and tell me
whether you can respond to this question. So you spoke favorably of
the due diligence that was shown at that time; isn't that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
MR. PAKALUK: Are you in favor of that kind of due diligence
when there's some kind of substantial development project?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the County Commission, when
they approved the project originally, did their job.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So if there was substantial change in a
development, let's say an industrial park that's roughly a mile long, and
it's located about a mile away from a major environmental resource
and no due diligence had been done on that before, because this wasn't
contemplated in 2005, would you, on the basis of your logic, say that
that's probably a good idea to undertake at this point?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will tell you that the Land Development
Code is very specific about what we have to follow and do regarding
an amendment to an approved town plan. And I will tell you, in my
professional opinion we complied 100 percent with the Land
Development Code requirements that have been adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
And I will tell you that we have complied 100 percent with the
required analysis of the impact of our proposed changes to that plan.
So I think that we have done the appropriate analysis, the county
staff has required us to provide the appropriate analysis, and I think the
appropriate analysis is in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Could you direct me to where that
analysis is? Because I haven't seen it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Then you must not have gone and looked
at the transportation study that was provided to your staff, the analysis
Page 161
October 14, 2014
on the impact on utilities, and the stuff that Mr. Arnold --
MR. PAKALUK: There's no analysis of the effect on Camp
Keais Strand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, our county staff does the
analysis whether the amendment complies with the board's rules. So if
you're questioning whether that was done correctly or not, you need to
ask our staff of that.
Now, you know, Growth Management Plan, you're questioning
about distance between Camp Keais Strand and this already approved
development I think is a moot point, because it's already been
approved. They're just moving their uses around.
If you've got any other questions about analysis, we need to
address that from staff.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. PAKALUK: You mentioned that light industrial use is
envisioned in the SRA. Could you tell me, according to the SRA, what
should a light industrial structure look like?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There's development standards in the
SRA document.
MR. PAKALUK: Can you tell me what those are for a light
industrial structure?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You can ask Mr. Arnold that question.
It's already in the document. I do not have every provision of that
document memorized, but there is a section --
MR. PAKALUK: That was part of your argument that there was
no change in the plan by transposing of light industrial use to Oil Well
Road.
MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, I didn't say we were doing a
light industrial use. What I said is Appendix C, which is already in
your document, sets forth all of the business park uses. We're not
Page 162
October 14, 2014
changing any of those uses, and both the Town Center 2 and Town
Center 3 document says we're allowed business park uses. That's what
I said.
MR. PAKALUK: Right. And the SRA stipulates how light
industrial structure needs to be built?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we will build it according to the
SRA.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Well, very good. So it needs to have
retail front; do you know that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. It has to be built according to the
SRA.
MR. PAKALUK: That's in the SRA.
MR. YOVANOVICH: In your opinion.
MR. PAKALUK: It's in my testimony, which I submitted to the
board.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I can tell you -- let me ask you a
question.
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What is your expertise, other than you're
a philosophy professor at Ave Maria University?
MR. PAKALUK: I'm a citizen who's studying the law and trying
to figure out why this makes sense, and it doesn't make sense to me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That doesn't make you an expert in
planning, nor does it make you an expert in the law.
MR. PAKALUK: But you should be able to answer to the
satisfaction of a citizen a reasonable question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And I did.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay, fine.
Let me ask you, since I'm not a lawyer and you are a point of--
you are a lawyer, you said that -- which is correct. I know the history
of the RLSA in Florida, so I know that it originated in Collier County
Page 163
October 14, 2014
and that it's used as a model for the Florida Statutes.
Once that model is incorporated into the Florida Statutes, does the
model become authoritative for the interpretation of those statutes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can tell you that our project is 100
percent consistent with the Florida Statutes.
MR. PAKALUK: But can you answer that question?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I did.
MR. PAKALUK: Does that model become -- does that model
become authoritative for the interpretation of the statutes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It becomes a guideline for how we're to
adopt our Rural Land Stewardship Program.
MR. PAKALUK: That's not an answer to my question.
Is it authoritative for the interpretation of the Florida Statutes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: First -- no.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. That's my point. Thank you very
much.
Once acres in the SRA are purchased through the preservation of
wetlands or areas of natural beauty elsewhere, does it follow that
because the acres for development have been purchased through this
cap-and-trade-type agreement that anything goes within the area of
development or -- obviously governed by the SRA, but do other
guiding principles of the RLSA involving rural stewardship and
stewardship in the natural environment remain in play?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have no idea what you just asked me.
That question was -- if we were in a court of law, I would be objecting
as to form, because I have no clue what your question was.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So break it down for me.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay, thank you.
So you explain the stewardship receivership -- the stewardship
receiving area concept.
Page 164
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yep.
MR. PAKALUK: It's a cap-and-trade concept. So Barron Collier
purchased, with 17,000 acres, the right to develop 4,000 acres within
the Ave Maria SRA; isn't that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you forgot the university but,
basically, yes.
MR. PAKALUK: Right, okay. Thank you. Okay. So a thousand
acres for the university.
Once that land is, in this way, purchased through a
cap-and-trade-type program, is it the case that, say, as a libertarian
would say or a free-market person, it's basically discretion of the
developer to do whatever developer wants; is that the case?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So the alternative would be -- is the
developer bound by general principles involving RLSAs in the Florida
Statutes?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The developer -- our program, that is the
county's program, is consistent with state statute. We are -- we are
required to follow the Land Development Code --
MR. PAKALUK: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- which we have done.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. This is a yes or no question, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's not a yes or no answer.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So you're saying that, yes, the
developer is -- continues to be bound by the guiding principles of the
RLSA even though the acres for development have been purchased
through a cap-and-trade-type arrangement?
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I'm saying is the developer is
required to follow the Collier County Land Development Code process
to entitle an SRA and to amend an entitled SRA. We are following
those Land Development Code processes.
Page 165
October 14, 2014
MR. PAKALUK: As a lawyer, do processes ever end up with
wrong results?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Not when I do it.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Very good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I ask you a question?
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're referring to Florida Statutes.
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you tell us the statute that you're
referring to?
MR. PAKALUK: 163.3248.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 163 point --
MR. PAKALUK: It's in the written testimony I submitted to the
board; 163.3248.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. PAKALUK: Chairman, if I -- Chairman, Commission, if I
may, this -- I actually did want to give this to you for the record. May
I give you this?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I object to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That -- are you giving it to
everybody?
MR. PAKALUK: To the -- it's for the record, this document.
Fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to give that to the Board of
Commissioners?
MR. PAKALUK: I want to give it to the board, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, what is it? And the board
needs to vote on whether we're going to accept any documents.
MR. PAKALUK: It was for the record. It's just a copy of my
statement for today and a photograph and a letter from the general
counsel of Arthrex. That's all. That's all it is.
Page 166
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does -- well, we're going to
have to read it before it goes in the -- in the record. Would that be fair?
MR. PAKALUK: Well, I don't want you -- I don't want to burden
you with reading it. That's fine. It's not -- it's not necessary. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like -- why doesn't he just
read it on the record?
MR. PAKALUK: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you just -- why don't
you just read it, read the article, read your statement?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think he wants to be helpful within
the proceedings.
MR. PAKALUK: That's right. The written statement is too long
to read. I have a statement, which is an oral statement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Read the article from the attorney.
MR. PAKALUK: The letter from Arthrex just involves whether
there's a need to expand the industrial park for the sake of Arthrex, and
the general counsel explains that there isn't. Do you want more --
MR. YOVANOVICH: We didn't say there was. Our testimony
was, is we believe that Arthrex will be a good catalyst for --
MR. PAKALUK: That was your testimony, but a letter from
David Gensen at least implied or suggested otherwise. He denies the
suggestion. It's understandable that that construction of the document
was what he had in the mind; nonetheless, the sense of it, by people
who read the document, was that Arthrex was being brought in.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The evidence on the record today is that
we were using Arthrex as a catalyst for this business park because we
believe it makes sense, okay. That's the testimony that's before the
board today and has always been before the board.
MR. PAKALUK: And there's no need to expand the commercial
park to accommodate Arthrex's -- at least in --
Page 167
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think Arthrex said that they'll --
they never have any intensions to doing that. They're saying their
current plans don't require this.
Arthrex is a big business. Who knows? They may at some point
say, you know what, that's great. There's space for us. But this isn't
being done for Arthrex.
MR. PAKALUK: Attorney, I have one last question, and thank
you for your patience.
So you said the logic -- and we're -- this is what we're talking
about. The logic of building off the energy of Arthrex to allow for
more synergy to occur. All right. So suppose this one-mile-long
industrial park, or commercial park, whatever you want to call it, is a
big success, there's a lot of energy there.
What would be -- and as David Gensen has said, there's no more
room for -- or little room for commercial industrial parks in Collier
County, would there be any hindrance or obstacle to Ave Maria
development's coming back and saying, this was such as success, we
want to build another commercial park? Could that, in principle, be
done?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify part
of your question.
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: First of all, this is not going to be a
one-mile-long industrial park. This is going to be a 211-acre town
center, of which approximately 60 acres will be utilized as a business
park with the allowed business park uses. It's not going to be an
industrial park. So let's clarify the facts, and then I'll answer the
question.
MR. PAKALUK: They call it a -- it's called a commercial park in
David Gensen's letter. Is that acceptable to call it a commercial park?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll call it what I just called it, if that's
Page 168
October 14, 2014
acceptable to you.
MR. PAKALUK: I'd like to use David Gensen's --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to your question is, in every
land use application in Collier County a property owner always has the
right to come back later and say I'd like to make a change, and you go
through a process like we're going through today, which is a public
hearing process.
And let's go your hypothetical all the way through. There is
absolutely no more land left in Collier County to support a business
park, and we've got some land left in Ave Maria. We could come and
petition the Board of County Commissioners and say, we think it
makes sense. And they may tell us yes; they may tell us no. So do we
have the right to come and ask? Absolutely.
MR. PAKALUK: Great. And so they can tell you no. It's good
to have that idea down.
MR. YOVANOVICH: They could tell us no.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you,
Attorney.
I have a question for Mr. Arnold.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller wanted to -- and
I apologize -- talk about a previous point that you brought up.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like you to read the letter
from -- that you received from Arthrex on the record. I want to hear
what they're saying.
MR. PAKALUK: You want me to read it for you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
MR. PAKALUK: Dear Michael, Andy Owen forwarded me your
letter -- sorry -- forwarded me your email, and I'm happy to respond.
Page 169
October 14, 2014
And I apologize for the delay, as I was out of town.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the date of the letter?
MR. PAKALUK: You know, it's an email. I did not extract that,
but it's roughly a week ago. I can get that from my phone if you wish.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's fine.
MR. PAKALUK: And it's from John W. Schmieding, Vice
President and general counsel.
First, thank you for your email. I feel it is important that we work
closely with our community. Not only is Arthrex committed to helping
its employees obtain a living wage, we are also committed to being
good stewards of the surrounding natural resources.
With that said, I do believe you are misunderstanding Arthrex's
involvement in the proposed changes you cite. First, we have had no
involvement whatsoever in any of these proposed changes to the town
plan. Second, we gain no benefit from what you have described as the
changes to the plan.
Arthrex is absolutely committed to working with all of our
neighbors to ensure that we synergistically fit into the beautiful habitat.
We have no plans to, nor would we ever, be involved in creating a
line of factory buildings. We have spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars on landscaping to soften our building's appearance to the
neighboring community, and we have plans to continue to add a berm
and trees to further beautify the property.
We appreciate you keeping us updated, but we really have no
involvement in this proposed plan. Feel free to contact me if you have
any further questions.
Kind regards, John.
I believe that was actually sent on Wednesday, October 8th,
because we had invited Arthrex to a town meeting on the 9th. And
when they wrote this letter, it became clear that it was not necessary to
invite them.
Page 170
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a question --
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for you. I'm looking at the Florida
Statutes that you provided --
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and we thank you. And I want to
just read the first paragraph.
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And tell me if this does not -- if this
violates the Florida Statutes. A rural stewardship area designation is to
establish long-term incentive-based strategies to balance and to guide
the allocation of land so that it will accommodate future land use in
manners that protects natural resources, natural environment, stimulate
economic growth and diversity, and encourage retention of land,
agricultural and other traditional rural uses.
Is it -- is there any way that it is violating that particular part of
the statute?
MR. PAKALUK: It is not violating that statute, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. In the last part, the last
paragraph of the statutes, it's recognizing Collier County Growth
Management -- the duly adopted Growth Management Plan
amendment by Collier County is found in compliance of this chapter
and recognized as a statutory rural stewardship area and to be afforded
incentives within this section. And that was, you know, last amended,
2012.
So I think that we can -- since the statutes recognized -- and you
tell me if you agree with this or not. Since the statutes recognizes that
our Growth Management Plan is in compliance, we can use our land
use laws for references under this cross-examination. Is that a fair
assessment?
MR. PAKALUK: In general, yes, I think that's correct.
Page 171
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, good.
MR. PAKALUK: As of 2012, I believe, which is the date of that
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We haven't changed our stewardship
MR. PAKALUK: True.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- area --
MR. PAKALUK: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- in quite a long time.
MR. PAKALUK: So the principles -- but principles of the RLSA
would now become extremely salient and important. So the question
of whether the proposed amendment is violative of the RLSA becomes
much more important if one reads the statutes in the way you're
suggesting.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask him a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah, hang on. I just -- you
know, we need to establish -- I mean, we have experts on our Land
Development Code and our Growth Management Plan here. If you're
going to refer to statutes, we need to include more people. All I'm
saying is, is the Florida -- State of Florida's already recognized that our
Growth Management Plan is the rural stewardship area, so we can
refer to that.
MR. PAKALUK: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's do that then.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask him a question while he's up
there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think Commissioner Hiller
wants to ask a question, too. Ladies before attorneys.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Uh-oh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to say age before
beauty, but I'm not going there, because you're younger than me, and I
Page 172
October 14, 2014
wouldn't want anyone to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: You could do both.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There you go.
All right. What are you objecting to? What do you not like?
What do you not want and why? And I need an evidentiary basis. It
can't just be feeling, because this is an evidentiary hearing.
MR. PAKALUK: I wish I had more feeling. My wife says that I
should.
Well, that's a very good question. I think it's both substance and
process, all right. So right now we're having conversation with Barron
Collier and AMD and their attorneys and their experts and so on. Why
didn't this take place four months ago, all right? We had a cursory,
very quickly thrown together and really not very illuminating meeting,
which didn't even satisfy the requirements of a neighborhood
information -- sorry -- information meeting.
So there's no transparency. There's no disclosure. There's no
discussion. There's no answering concerns and questions like this.
That's the process, an absence of process.
We are homeowners. I don't have deep pockets. My equity is in
my house, which the attorney had investigated online and, you know,
some pitiful investments on the side. This is a huge business deal for
me. This is, you know, the course of my life.
I've invited and encouraged a dozen people to come to settle in
Ave Maria, and they have on my representations, and those
representations are those that I received from Ave Maria Development
when I purchased in 2010. They present the town in a certain way, all
right.
The town is a kind of pedestrian-friendly, bicycle-friendly,
pastoral, natural beauties integrated with town. Not that it's -- okay.
Well, let's say it's not a hundred miles away. Let's say it's 20 miles
away but the RLSA, okay. It's not that natural beauty is 20 miles away.
Page 173
October 14, 2014
It's that natural beauty is integrated in the day-to-day life. That's why
people have moved there. It's very beautiful.
And a commercial park does not satisfy the principles of stepwise
change in densities. It doesn't satisfy the principle -- any kind of
aesthetic principle, and -- sorry. I lost my train of thought.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Take your time.
MR. PAKALUK: It's purchased at the -- thank you -- purchased
at the price of removing acres from the town center and, at the same
time -- and this may have been, so to speak, AMD's blunder, the -- this
change is coupled with a proposal -- and we said it's off the table, but
it's on the table definitely for all the residents I speak to -- a desire to
remove sidewalks and not plant trees.
All right. So to me I put those things together in the absence of
disclosure and transparency, because we're completely in the dark,
right.
And when Commissioner Nance visited he said, well, you guys
are worried, and he wanted to kind of dampen people's worries. And I
would say, well, in the absence of information, right, if you see some
things look disquieting, like the abandonment of principles of
integrative development, right, the abandonment of the notion of
neighborhoods with town centers embedded in them, and the
abandonment, apparently, of a trail system and sidewalks and trees, it's
natural for people to put all those things together and make the claim
which I've claimed, which is that this is a new plan, that Barron Collier
says it's not a new plan, we're just moving this acre from here to there.
But, I'm sorry, that is not sufficient to say this is not a new plan. Trust
me, it's not a new plan.
Lots of times people make small changes and they don't realize
they are actually big changes, or they're unintended consequences
down the road, right, like the logic that, if a commercial park is good
now it's going to be good for -- in 10 years from now. It's not as
Page 174
October 14, 2014
though land is going to sprout out up in Collier County to provide
alternatives for commercial parks.
Now, I see -- I see the employees of Arthrex commuting there, all
right. So 400 to 700 employees yesterday in Ave Herald said 700
employees commuting. I'm not aware of anyone who's settled in Ave
Maria. I'm sure there are a couple, and that, you know, will be a
counterexample to me.
But, generally, they're commuting, all right. And the reason
they're commuting -- well, we can kind of fill in the reasons, right.
Most people would prefer to live near shops and, you know, the beach
and the schools and so on of Naples, all right.
So there has to be, in my view, somebody in Ave Maria of really
strong reason for settling there as opposed to Naples, and that has to be
its natural beauty. When you move to Ave Maria, you're moving to
the edge of the Everglades and you're experiencing an Everglades-type
experience, all right.
So if somebody moves in and -- comes in and says, well, we want
to build a whole bunch of-- call it commercial park, whatever it is. It
is a mile-long strip, because I've driven along many times with my car
and measured it. And this is going to be the front of the community,
and it spoils the view from Del Webb.
And, by the way, AMD did nothing whatsoever to suggest that
spoiling the view should have been moderated until it was actually
supposed to be composed (sic) upon them. They showed no interest,
and one would think that would have been a principle of the RLSA, all
right. They showed no interest in doing that.
And now they're really going at -- if I may introduce as evidence
-- can I show something on the screen?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. You can give it to the county
manager over here.
MR. PAKALUK: I was walking through the Maple Ridge area
Page 175
October 14, 2014
yesterday. I took this photograph. It's a little hard to get perspective
because, you know, on the horizon parallel lines come together but
those aren't parallel lines. What happens is that the grass strip -- in the
background at the turn you can see some wood and planks on the
ground.
But I actually have a whole bunch of pictures for commissioners
if they'd like to see it up close.
May I bring this, Chairman? Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You just want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just pass it down.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- provide that to the Board of
Commissioners?
MR. PAKALUK: It will be much easier to see it than --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are these the same?
MR. PAKALUK: The grass strip -- the grass strip narrows to a
foot, all right. So my natural conclusion is they've actually built these
neighborhoods, they're building neighborhoods which actually can't
accommodate sidewalks.
And certainly no trees are going to grow in that one-foot-wide
strip between the sidewalk and the street, all right. So my thought is,
well, that's why they wanted that done. That's why they wanted it to be
done so quickly in the middle of the summer.
David Gensen said that he wanted to approach the commissioners
in the middle of the summer without any kind of town discussion and
pass these amendments. That's what he said last Thursday. I may
have misunderstood him, but it's -- the videotape is on our website.
That's what he seems to be saying.
And this looks like a change in the plan, because the houses and
the streets and so on just don't look like that from old Ave Maria. This
looks like a new concept of how the town's going to be developed. Put
commercial park in there and cram as many houses in as small a space
Page 176
October 14, 2014
as you possibly can, get rid of the sidewalks, get rid of the trails, get rid
of the trees.
And that's attacking what I regard as the chief appeal of moving
20 miles from Naples and having to drive an hour on Sunday to get to
the beach -- of moving to Ave Maria. That's being destroyed in what I
think is a short-term gain, a sense of short-term gain.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're not here today to address
sidewalks or trees. I mean, the landscaping that was proposed for the
zero lot line project that's the additional project provides for trees along
the roads and provides for sidewalks. I don't believe that that was
eliminated.
MR. PAKALUK: Not for this -- this is Maple Ridge, though.
This is not -- Maple Ridge, the houses are being built so closely
together that the grass strip cannot be five feet, which is what the
RLSA requires --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's --
MR. PAKALUK: -- and it can barely be one foot here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not the issue before us. I
mean, that issue is something you need to deal with with our staff and
talk to either our planning and permitting staff or our code enforcement
staff. That's not an issue that's before us with respect to this vote. So if
there is a development out there where somehow the development
standards that have been approved by this board are not being
respected, that's a staff issue and another discussion.
So focusing on what's before us today, which is concentrating the
town center on Oil Well Road and having two smaller town centers as
opposed to three equal size town centers is what's before us today. So
that's what I want to focus on --
MR. PAKALUK: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because they've said -- they've
committed that they're not going to eliminate the pathways, and they've
Page 177
October 14, 2014
committed that with respect to the new development they will have
sidewalks and trees, and they put an exhibit up with respect to that.
So I just want to stay focused on what's before us, because this is
an evidentiary hearing on that.
MR. PAKALUK: Yes, and I appreciate that. And I'm not
presenting it to discuss that matter, per se.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And let me --
MR. PAKALUK: You're perfectly correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me --
MR. PAKALUK: It's simply as --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- interject here.
MR. PAKALUK: -- evidence in regards to changing the plan of
the town. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Part of the --
MR. PAKALUK: That's the only connection --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- requirement --
MR. PAKALUK: -- which I'm introducing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- today is the zero lot line.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For that one development, for one
project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. For the whole Town of Ave
Maria.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's an allowed use within the town,
correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you want to expand that to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- all of--
MR. YOVANOVICH: The -- we're not going to have zero lot
line on every development in Ave Maria. We want that to be an
option.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What is your request on zero lot line?
Page 178
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: You have the detailed standards. And I
can get Mr. Arnold back up here to go through the Development
Standards Table to tell you how we would have to develop a zero lot
line community within Ave Maria. I can put Wayne back up here, but
we are not asking for any deviations to the landscaping requirements
with regard to the zero lot line development or the sidewalk
requirements with regard to the zero lot line development.
Zero lot line developments are probably in every PUD that has
come through since I can remember.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My question was, you brought up the
issue about the amendment to allow zero lot line --
MR. PAKALUK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or something of that nature.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you tell me what the request is?
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, for the record.
We are adding a product that is called the Z lot. There's been a
prior interpretation that the town plan allows zero lot line product. We
are establishing specific development guidelines for Ave Maria
Development in order for them to implement and build certain unique
product types that are zero lot lines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So his concerns are valid,
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what I'm asking. Are
you looking to allow -- does this change put you in a position where
you can put zero lot line product throughout the balance of the
community, if that would be your choosing?
MR. ARNOLD: Technically, yes, assuming that somebody
would want to build the next 10,500 units as all zero lot line; probably
highly unlikely given the product choice and unit types. I mean, as
Mr. Yovanovich mentioned, almost every planned development that
Page 179
October 14, 2014
comes through this commission adds some form of zero lot line
development as a development option.
It's not used largely, but it's been used very successfully in
Fiddler's Creek, Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh. I mean, they're all very
beautiful communities. They don't seem to detract it at all from their
character. I don't think they will here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In the Vineyards, however, they have
more landscaping than what we're seeing on the visualizer.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not done either.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, the project that's shown there -- I'm not
personally familiar with the streetscape that is on your visualizer, but
that is an active, under-construction subdivision. It's not complete.
You're not seeing --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the requirements of
landscaping within the neighborhoods, the residential neighborhoods,
whether it's zero lot line or not? The streetscape --
MR. ARNOLD: Right now the streetscape requires them to be 40
foot -- they have street tree requirements of 40 feet on center.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Between the street and the sidewalk?
MR. ARNOLD: I believe that they're currently required to be
between back of curb and sidewalk.
MR. PAKALUK: But what depth or width of the grass strip
between back of curb and sidewalk?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the dimension of the exhibit that
he's showing you, I'm sorry. I mean, the curb itself is probably two
feet wide, as a reference point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's where you've got to put
the trees, right?
MR. ARNOLD: Which -- one of the suggested changes that's
before you today was to allow modification where -- for instance, a fire
hydrant that's clearly visible there. If that happens to fall at a 40-foot
Page 180
October 14, 2014
interval, we need some flexibility on where to plant that tree.
And staff also supports not necessarily having every tree between
back of curb and sidewalk. It could be appropriate to have the tree, in
this case, on the right side of the sidewalk still offering the same shade
for the sidewalk and the street.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, just continuing. You know,
if you look at DiVosta's projects, like Village Walk and Island Walk,
they have sidewalks, and they're heavily vegetated, and they're all zero
lot line projects. How are you going to -- how would you compare
yourself to those projects?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, Village Walk, for instance, has a variety
of housing types. Not all are zero lot line. But I do know that they
have had issues with their street tree program because, as those trees
mature, they're having sidewalk conflicts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They -- they built -- they planted
way too many oaks. But let's focus again -- like, take Island Walk, for
example. They're all zero lot line in Island Walk, I believe.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one is that one?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's the one on the other side of 75.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not as familiar with Island Walk as Village
Walk, but I wasn't aware that all the product in there was zero lot line.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And for the majority of Village
Walk, it's zero lot line also. They have, I believe, you know, a few
homes that are not. But they're -- and they're primarily zero lot line.
And when you say "zero lot line," are you saying -- like, how many
feet between each house? Like --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Ten feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ten feet. Five feet on each? You
know, the question is, I mean, if-- I can't imagine that you're going to
try to develop something that is not going to sell the project because,
Page 181
October 14, 2014
obviously, if you do that, it would be a disservice to yourself. But at
the same time, you want to develop in a way that preserves what was
originally intended, that you have a beautifully vegetated and walkable
community, so --
MR. PAKALUK: With due respect, Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- maybe there's some way you
can, you know, give these people the assurance that, you know, that is
what you are doing by way of this change. And maybe you want to
make -- and I don't know if you can do this, but maybe you want to
make a representation that you will build a certain percentage as zero
lot line, because I'm sure, as you said, that your intent is not to build
100 percent as zero lot line.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I think that -- just so you
know that the landscaping requirements for the zero lot line product
are the same landscaping requirements for all of the other
single-family product within the town. So it's a uniform plan
regardless of product type.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And -- but just to confirm that
what you're proposing as the landscape plan today -- is that a change
that's going to be universal throughout the entire project, or is that
limited only to zero lot line homes? You showed a streetscape with
trees planted so many feet on center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where we -- we ran into conflicts where
we were able to move a couple of feet one way or the other?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. You put up a rendering of a
street with trees.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Let David Hurst --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know which one.
MR. HURST: David Hurst, for the record.
Let me see if I can find that exhibit. I know exactly what you're
talking about. Yep. Is that the one?
Page 182
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So what does that
represent?
MR. HURST: That represents -- the intent of this exhibit was to
indicate the conflicts that we run into when we're actually developing.
They're utilities, water, sewer, irrigation services, FP&L transformers,
light poles. Collier County has a separation requirement for light
poles.
So what we were trying to do is provide some kind of backup to
support our request to allow some flexibility in these situations so that
we're not having somebody go out there and find a tree at 41 feet and
go, you guys broke the rules. That's not the intent. The intent was to
provide flexibility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a practi -- yeah, I understand.
So, for the record, you're not changing the landscape standards that you
have had in the past. You're going to continue them into the future.
MR. PAKALUK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're adding zero lot line as an
option for future development?
MR. PAKALUK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it isn't your intent to turn Ave
Maria into a town of zero lot line homes?
MR. HURST: That's correct. And if I may expand a little bit.
The Z lot product is zero lot line, but it's a 10-foot separation between
each structure. And the only reason why it's zero lot line is there's a
shared wall, so -- and I've seen it on the east coast. They basically --
somebody's side yard is their neighbor's wall, and -- but the separation
remains the same, 10 feet between structures. No different than the
majority of houses already permitted out there, and no different than
the majority of houses. And, frankly, in Island Walk I was the project
manager for that, so I'm familiar with it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, were you?
Page 183
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I think with respect to your
concerns, it appears that the testimony is is that they're not going to
change the landscaping design, and --
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MS. GUNDLACH: Excuse me, but I've been asked to clarify
something.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: By who?
MS. GUNDLACH: County attorney, assistant county attorney.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I've asked her to clarify, because
I'm not sure if you-all understand what is being changed here as to the
location of the trees, if trees are required to be placed.
Can you put the other thing back up?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Remove the photograph,
because it -- we're not talking about that.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That -- does this work?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sometimes.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, let me try to show you on here.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So these are trees that they're showing
on their exhibit. Correct, Nancy?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, that is correct.
MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. On your other plan, the trees
were here, okay. So they're still 40 feet on center, approximately, but
instead of being in between the curb and the sidewalk, they're now on
the outside of the sidewalk, okay. That's what's being changed with
this proposal, and it wasn't clear to me that you understood that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we didn't understand it that way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, I have to say it makes
Page 184
October 14, 2014
more sense as it's being proposed now than on the other side. I think it
enhances the properties to have the trees, you know, surrounding the
homes as opposed to on the other side of the sidewalk overlooking the
road. I mean, I think it will be visually more attractive. And I'm
thinking back to DiVosta's projects which are beautifully landscaped.
And I believe, for the most part, that's how they did it as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I will. I will tell you, I'm very
sensitive to this discussion. I was fortunate enough to work with
Pelican Bay very early in the concept of that community, and I was
also privileged to work with the Vineyards in the very early -- actually,
from the very first day it was planned out as a community.
And the development of Ave Maria is going to be very, very
much like the Vineyards. The Vineyards was 90 percent land that had
been farmed. It was flat as a pancake. It had no natural plantings. And
those beautiful communities, if you will go and you will look at them
today, you will see what can be done with landscaping over a couple of
decades. You know, that -- that development is now 30 years old, but
you have to realize that when it was at the beginning, it was exactly
what the bare land at Ave Maria looks like.
And it's very important that trees be planted in the right way and
the right place. And I would definitely encourage some reevaluation,
not only of what gets done in Ave Maria, but what gets done in Collier
County, because you should never plant some of your beautiful trees in
a back of curb to front of sidewalk situation. This is not going to
produce the results that you want. It won't give you the beauty and the
canopy that you're seeking long term.
And make no question about it, it's going to be 20 years before
you get that really warm feeling when you go into these communities,
but it is possible. But in order to do that, you have to have flexibility
in your landscaping. You cannot do that with a tape measure. You
Page 185
October 14, 2014
have to do that with really good cognitive planning and thinking about
how you want your community to look and how you maximize space.
It's all about maximizing space.
So when you look at Ave Maria and you look at those
neighborhood general parcels, it's very true, the appearance to the
current residents is going to be much different when you get those
11,000 homes that always were projected for Ave Maria; they were
always projected there since the beginning.
It's going to look much different, but you can have an active role
in making that beauty take place. The Vineyards is absolute testimony.
Pelican Bay is absolute testimony that you can go in an area and you
can conserve natural features and achieve the same thing.
So I think you should be encouraged by changes like the
placement of those trees there. Because in my professional opinion as
a horticulturalist, that is terrific change that's going to -- that's going to
be meaning (sic).
I really do not care for that little strip of grass there for a couple
reasons. Number one, it wastes your beautiful lawn space, and it is a --
it's a terrific maintenance expense. It's not doing anything for you. It
gives you a complex look, but it's not going to give you that covered
sidewalk that you can get if you plant the trees as is on this exhibit.
So, I mean, I really do -- if I thought this was horrendous from a
landscape point of view, I would have certainly jumped to it, but I
actually think it's a wonderful and thoughtful change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's take a 10-minute break for the
court reporter and come back at four -- well, let's come back at four --
MR. PAKALUK: I still have just two or three points.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. No, you're still up there.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue, sir.
MR. PAKALUK: Yes, thank you very much.
Page 186
October 14, 2014
Well, I've tried your patience for a long time, and I appreciate
your questions, as they manage to draw out my view, and I've been
able to state it well. But I just have -- I just have a couple of small
points. I do have a cross-examination question I'd like to ask.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And who's this for?
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. I'll do that first, and then I'll wrap up.
Norman Trebilcock.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Trebilcock.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. For the record, Norm Trebilcock.
MR. PAKALUK: I'm sorry.
Mr. Trebilcock, is it a principle of development in the RLSA,
according to your understanding, that pedestrian and bicycle use are to
be favored and incentivized over automobile traffic?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, that wasn't the part of the analysis we
were required to do.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So you have no knowledge of what the
RLSA says in that regard?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not with respect to that specifically, no.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So you don't see any aspects of the
proposed amendment which would serve to advance that purpose of
the RLSA? In your expert opinion, could you say there's anything
about the proposed amendment that actually does incentivize
pedestrian and bicycle traffic?
MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't -- I don't -- I see it neutral -- a
neutral --
MR. PAKALUK: A neutral.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. He said the project is not an adverse
traffic generator, but that's as regards the interior of the SRA; isn't that
correct?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, that's with regard to the external
Page 187
October 14, 2014
roadway network of Collier County.
MR. PAKALUK: So even Oil Well Road would be included
under that?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct, yes.
MR. PAKALUK: Well, have you -- I'm wondering whether you
did a study of the impact of traffic on Oil Well Road. For example,
how many cars are coming/going each day from Arthrex, and
commuting how many miles and if the park were filled to full
occupancy, what kind of traffic that would result in.
MR. TREBILCOCK: No. That wasn't the specific analysis.
What's required is what they call a link analysis where you look at the
roadway link --
MR. PAKALUK: Okay.
MR. TREBILCOCK: -- and look at the existing traffic and future
traffic and look to grow that traffic; not with specific origin and
destination. That's not typical in this manner.
MR. PAKALUK: Are you aware that there are two schools on
Oil Well Road, a middle school and a high school?
MR. TREBILCOCK: There's -- which point of Oil Well Road? I
mean, there's a number of schools along Oil Well Road.
MR. PAKALUK: It's closer to Immokalee Road. Between
Everglades and Immokalee Road there are two schools, a middle
school and a high school.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. I believe there's an elementary,
too, I thought.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So, yes, there's a number of schools,
yes.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Three schools there.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes.
MR. PAKALUK: So have you studied the impact of the traffic
Page 188
October 14, 2014
from, say, a fully occupied commercial park on the school traffic itself
then and -- because you do have to slow down to 20 at times when the
school is in session. And, of course, there's a lot of, you know, school
buses moving in and out. Did you study that as part of your study of
the traffic?
MR. TREBILCOCK: We looked at -- again, we looked at the
links of roadway and the county establishes capacity of those links,
and that's what we evaluated.
MR. PAKALUK: So this particular question you did not study?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not that particular micro issue, no.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. What about spillover issues as regards
Randall? It sounds like that's something you would capture in your
study. I mean, I love to golf. I'm at Valencia all the time golfing. I'm
aware that a lot of people take Valencia rather than Oil Well Road.
Is that an issue if you have -- I understand there's 700 employees
at Arthrex; almost all of them commute a single person in a car. If you
had, say, four Arthrexes or five Arthrexes, that would be 3,500 cars
going back and forth every day.
Are there spillover issues as regards Randall Street (sic) that were
addressed in your study?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Again, the adjacent links were evaluated
and analyzed as well. So we --
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So is this the sort of thing that you
think it might be proper to ask residents of Randall Street how they
would respond to it or what kind of increase in traffic they would
tolerate or something like that?
MR. TREBILCOCK: That's not typical. Really what you look at
is the county establishes links and capacities of the various roadway
links, and that's really what we evaluate objectively. We don't go out
and do personal interviews, per se.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. Is there any kind of environmental
Page 189
October 14, 2014
impact from traffic that's part of your study, like carbon footprint of all
the cars going back and forth?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. In your study when you were given
certain parameters to do, were you instructed as to whether these cars
going to Arthrex and back, or the commercial park and back, which at
any time migrate over to moving from Ave Maria to the commercial
park -- is there any plan or expectation that the -- you know, as far as I
know just about everybody at Arthrex, everybody commutes. Is there
any plan or expectations that part of the plan that eventually is going to
be migration over to commuting from Ave Maria rather than from
other areas?
MR. TREBILCOCK: Not as -- again, as an issue. What we did
look at is, overall, what we call internal capture which would address
an issue like that.
And from a traffic standpoint what we did is we tried to be
conservative and look at as much impact on the external road
networks, and so we did use a lower internal capture rate. Instead of
the 60 percent, we went to 35 percent.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay. So, sir, you're an expert, and I
appreciate that.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir.
MR. PAKALUK: Experts typically give qualified opinions.
Given these additional questions that I raised, did you want to add
any qualifications to your opinion or say that it has restricted use or
that it's, so to speak, something we just accept unqualified?
MR. TREBILCOCK: No, I stand by the study that was submitted
to Collier County.
MR. PAKALUK: Okay, great. Thank you very much.
MR. TREBILCOCK: You're welcome. Thank you.
MR. PAKALUK: Well, I just have a closing statement, really,
Page 190
October 14, 2014
and that's to -- I would like to urge the board to vote against the
amendment. And my reason is that there's -- I don't see a time element
here, that is to say, if we're -- if sidewalks and trees are out of the
question, so construction at Maple Ridge is not even in the picture,
even at Coquina, or perhaps divide the amendment.
By the way, I should say that the alliance takes no view on the
zero lot housing. We see it in general as an improvement over the row
houses, the townhouses that were going to be at Middlebrook
according to the original plan, so it looks like a step up in
development.
I suppose we would like to see some kind of hard number and not
just leave it up to the market forces and confidence in the developer
that that number of zero lot houses is going to remain below a certain
percentage.
And just on this general point of having safeguards that are put
into the zoning laws -- and we all appreciate that, that's what zoning
laws are for and code is for.
When we asked -- when I asked earlier what is the requirement
for the grass strip between the back of the curb and the sidewalk,
nobody knew the answer to that. It's -- you know, I would -- you could
say, well, maybe they're not supposed to know the answer to that. But
I would say that -- to my mind that struck me as lack of due care.
They ought to know the answer to that question.
Actually, there are two answers to the question. I don't know the
legal status of the answer to that question. The SRA says three feet,
and the RLSA says five feet. Roma Street, which is the marquee street
which -- on the basis of which Maple Ridge sold all its homes, has a
broad five-foot strip. It's very, very attractive. Some of the streets
going off of that have something close to five feet. But as we see as
you -- and in general it's three feet or under for the surrounding
neighborhood.
Page 191
October 14, 2014
Now, if you live there, you know this, all right. You look into it.
You want to figure out, well, is this right or not. But the developer
doesn't seem to know. I would say doesn't seem to care, all right. If
you don't know the answer to this question, you don't care about the
answer to this question.
And as far as I can see, there are just two things that are
safeguards against the developer. One is the ideals that the developer
fears and the other is the law. Those are the only two things.
I don't trust the market. So Commissioner Hiller asked earlier,
well, would you do something that was against your interest? Well,
selling downmarket can be an economic interest as well as selling
upmarket. So just the market forces alone I wouldn't trust. I think it
has to be either an ideal that the developer embraces or some kind of
restriction in law.
And what I've been emphasizing again and again as regards to the
RLSA, that I don't see the idealism in our developers. They're fine
people. I enjoy sparring with David Gensen and so on, but I don't see
it. I don't see the passion about the beauty of the neighborhood, the
pedestrian friendliness of the neighborhood, the natural integration
with the natural beauty of the neighborhood. I don't see these things.
And so that's why I'm looking for safeguards in law against our
developers, frankly, because I don't see the passion for the idealism, as
indicated in their lackadaisical response about the grass strips.
Well, I just have a closing statement, and that has to do with
asking you to vote down the amendment, except I would divide zero
lot line and say I have no objection to that, speaking on behalf of the
alliance and most of the people I know. They view that as a positive
thing.
I think it has -- the yes/no I think is not -- a yes vote, I think, is not
constructive, and a no vote is constructive. A yes vote is a kind of
approval of a certain sort, by implication, not by intention, of the
Page 192
October 14, 2014
manner in which this amendment was developed without, I believe,
any kind of real process of transparency or due process or full
discussion of these kinds of things which are really very interesting
among the public.
And, you know, there is the concern that, you know, again, the
beauty and the code, they're not really being followed correctly by the
developers, and a yes vote looks like it's not attending to that problem.
A yes vote, I think, raises a concern about how Ave Maria is
going to fair in a 30, 40, 50-year horizon in the county.
It heartened me to hear various commissioners describe Ave
Maria in the way that I regard it. It's kind of a gem in Collier County.
I teach at the university, I know the students, and I've taught at
some pretty prestigious universities. I think Ave Maria has the
potential to become a really fine university, all right. And you
combine that with a really beautiful neighborhood and you have just a
superb combination that's hardly rivaled anywhere else in the country.
Stanford -- I'm not going to claim that Ave Maria University is
like Stanford now, but it has academic excellence and a beautiful
natural environment. That's the sort of thing that I believe Ave Maria
should be striving after and you, as commissioners, ought to be
shepherding the town towards.
I don't see a commercial park as helping in going in that direction.
I do -- I think there's an opportunity cost. In other words, I don't see
the developers doing much to incentivize the movement of
programmers, architects, designers, telecommuters to Ave Maria.
I think the big ticket, big player type of development is easier.
Admittedly we're in difficult circumstances, so it's understandable they
go to what's easier. But that's easier. It doesn't mean that it fits the
town over the long run. It's easier, but it doesn't fit.
So I think a no vote is a constructive vote. A no vote says, okay,
this is interesting, you certainly have a case, but there's something to be
Page 193
October 14, 2014
said on the other side. The best result is going to be by further
consideration of this, by incorporating the concerns expressed not by
me in the alliance but by constituents and residents of Ave Maria
incorporating those with the legitimate concerns, you know, Arthrex
and so on, of development to Ave Maria.
So I do think that a no vote sends everybody back to the drawing
board, promotes dialogue, promotes due process, promotes
transparency, and will lead to the best result.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You had asked earlier in your
conversation something about why -- you know, the grass strip there
and what's the difference, and you said nobody gave you an answer.
MR. PAKALUK: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wanted to give your answer --
give you my thought as to what it's there for. And I thought it's for the
safety of the people walking on the sidewalk.
MR. PAKALUK: Oh, no. It was how wide it should be
according to the code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Okay, thank you.
MR. PAKALUK: That's a good point, all right. So
Commissioner Nance was suggesting during the break that a sidewalk
right on the street can be sometimes an inefficient use of space and
very attractive.
One might argue -- and you make a very good point -- that in a
retirement community solely yes. But if there are a lot of kids running
around, that perhaps raises a question. So you might want to have
some kind of shrub border or something, but that's a very interesting
consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's six foot.
MR. PAKALUK: Six foot, you believe.
Page 194
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Separation.
MR. PAKALUK: Well, the RLSA says five and the SRA says
three, so they're at odds with each other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The sidewalk is five foot. The
separation between the drive lane and --
MR. PAKALUK: Between the back of the curb and the sidewalk
should be, you think --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Six foot.
MR. PAKALUK: I'd love to see six. Well, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'm really having a hard
time even believing that we're having this discussion. I grew up in a
neighborhood, and the sidewalk was right on the road, and there was
never an issue, and it was a beautiful community. And I live in a
neighborhood right now which has no sidewalks at all, and it's a
beautiful community.
So, you know, I appreciate everyone going back and forth on five
feet, six feet, four feet, you know, but the bottom line is I think what's
being proposed in this streetscape is very reasonable and I think will
lead to, as Commissioner Nance said, an attractive development down
the road.
I'm not sure that I can justify turning down what's being asked
here because you would like a green strip between the back of the
sidewalk and a road. I mean, that would just not make any sense to
me.
MR. PAKALUK: That's not really been part of my case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The fact that you say you that
really don't object to the zero lot line, which was a little bit of a
concern of mine given that there's consensus in the community that
that's okay and you consider that an upgrade, well, then I most
certainly will support it.
Page 195
October 14, 2014
So I don't have a problem with the streetscape. I think, you know,
if the community is okay with zero lot line and the developer sees it as
beneficial to develop in that way, I think it's a positive thing then.
And with respect to the concentration of, you know, a business or
a business park, if you will, on Oil Well Road and basically an
extension of Arthrex, from an economic development standpoint to see
businesses cluster in an area I think is a good thing.
And from the standpoint of the community and your goal for
beauty to concentrate business in one area as opposed to having, you
know, three business complexes is a better way to go in the long run. I
think it will benefit your community and will preserve and lead to
probably enhanced values by being localized.
The fact that the developer has agreed to put in a very substantial
buffer between the industrial complex or the business complex -- or
whatever you want to call it, I forget. You went back and forth on
whatever the name of this park would be -- and that they are
committed to, you know, controlling noise and light and views both on
the backside with respect to their residential neighbors and on the front
side with respect to the street -- and I like the fact that Arthrex is
committed to bolstering landscaping and making it that much more
beautiful as people drive down Oil Well, that they have a nice visual
when they look at that company's facade -- all goes to me making a
motion to support what the petitioner has asked for. I hear what your
concerns are.
I don't believe that what is being proposed here today is going to
go against your objective, which I agree with. I think it is a
tremendous community, I think it has a great university, and I think the
combination of the beauty of the community and the university will, in
the long run, make it a very successful community for a lot of happy
people.
MR. PAKALUK: Well, I hope that you're right about that. I
Page 196
October 14, 2014
would just say that grass strip is really just a -- I just use that as
evidence. It was never my discussion, per se.
And I am concerned with questions of legality. And I know I was
called out by the attorney for saying that I think some of the changes
are illegal, and I think they're illegal relevant to the plain sense of the
law, and our attorney's going to discuss those things.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I make --
MR. PAKALUK: But if the town center in defined as a certain
way in the RLSA where the language of "shall" is used -- and you as
an attorney know shall means must for the law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me just say this. I don't
want to debate this with you --
MR. PAKALUK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- at this point. I've made a
motion.
MR. PAKALUK: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think I've heard at least what
I need to know. You know, I just -- you haven't persuaded me with the
level of evidence that I need to have to be able to vote no. And the
petitioner has persuaded me with compelling evidence that a yes vote
is the reasonable and fair vote in this decision, with no harm to any of
the residents. And that's what I'm always concerned about. If I think
residents are going to be harmed in any way, I get very aggressive on
those issues to ensure that those residents are protected, that their
interests aren't being compromised. But I don't see that here. And I
would be all over it if I thought there were issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, might I
suggest we listen to the rest of the speakers? We have six more to go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well -- yeah. I mean, this is an
ongoing thing. So I think it would be more prudent to do so, but that's
just the way it is. Can't accept the motion, a quasi judicial, when not
Page 197
October 14, 2014
everybody has given testimony, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, sorry. I thought we were
done. I didn't realize that there were more speakers beyond you. My
apologies.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and you have to close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought you were representing
everybody.
MR. PAKALUK: No. I'm sorry to say that there are other
speakers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I'll withhold my
motion. But as of right now, based on the evidence I've heard --
because I thought that was it -- then, yeah, I'm -- you all know where I
stand now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I don't make up my mind until all
evidence is presented.
MR. PAKALUK: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, you are such a superior
man. Can we clone him? I mean, I swear to God, that silver -- that
silver hair, that dark suit, that incredible brain. I mean, I'm moved. I
am moved. Maybe I could find a man just like you to many one day.
I'd like that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, he's stepping off the dais,
and maybe you can convince him to do so.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker, Mr. Chairman, is
Robert Klucik. He's been ceded time from two other speakers,
Maureen Wing and Debbie Oswald.
Basing this on the opinion from the County Attorney, that's five
minutes per speaker, 15 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my.
MR. KLUCIK: Thank you. Robert Klucik, for the record. I live
Page 198
October 14, 2014
in Ave Maria at 5142 Ave Maria Boulevard. I've been there for seven
years. I was one of the first residents.
I also am representing the Ave Maria Community Alliance, a
civic nonprofit corporation that represents the interests of dozens of
homeowners and students and residents in Ave Maria, Florida.
I represent my parents, Robert and Sally Klucik, who also live in
Ave Maria in the Del Webb community; I represent Thomas Hardy,
who also lives in Middlebrook in Ave Maria; and Mr. and Mrs. Louis
and Veronica Ferraro, who live in Bolero community; and also Dr.
Michael Pakaluk, who lives in Hampton Village in Ave Maria.
So I'm coming before you -- and I represent myself as well, so I'm
not just here as an attorney for my clients. I'm also representing
myself.
Now, the issues that concern me and that I'd like to speak to
specifically are the legal issues. And I don't know, did you have a
chance to read what I sent? I realize I sent a lot, and I sent it at the last
minute.
And I would ask you to turn to what I sent. Specifically, I'm going
to be referring to the exhibit, Exhibit B, which has some of the
excerpts from relevant authorities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you step over here to this
side, over here, so you can put those on the -- the County Manager will
help you put those on the visualizer.
MR. KLUCIK: Sure.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you happen to have an extra copy so I
can read along?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We actually had two copies in here.
MR. KLUCIK: Anyone else need a copy?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What page again?
MR. KLUCICK: Okay. If you go to Exhibit B.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: B?
Page 199
October 14, 2014
MR. KLUCICK: The questions that I think -- and they're based
off of some input from Mr. Klatzkow, which was good input, which
was to kind of focus on some of the issues that are in the staff report as
to the -- you know, the legal barrier that will guide your decision. And
I narrowed them down to -- if you look at Page 2 of the letter I sent
you.
Does the petition seek changes that violate provisions in the
RLSA overlay? Does the petition application contain everything
required in the Florida Statute for RLSA? Does the petition seek
changes that are incompatible with adjacent land uses? And does the
petition seek changes that violate commitments the petitioner has made
to landowners in Ave Maria so that granting the petition would cause
them undue harm to those landowners? And does the petition's
amended SRA document accurately reflect the SRA changes that are
actually being sought by the petition?
So, in other words, does -- do -- those 16 pages, are those the only
pages that would need to be -- have strike-throughs and add additions?
So specifically as to the RLSA, if you can go to Page 2 of that
Exhibit B -- actually it's the first page. I'm sorry. And we're going to
go to the definition of town center. The definition of town center -- it's
in Section 4.08.01 . It defines it as a context zone intended to provide a
wide range of uses, including daily goods and services, culture and
entertainment, and residential uses within a town. It's an extension of
the town core, which is -- if you're familiar, that's where the oratory is
in the very town center where the condominiums are. However, the
intensity is less, and the town center serves as a transition, a transition
to surrounding neighborhoods.
Now, obviously the point of me reading these is to suggest that
moving 155 acres from locations in which they are actually very near
neighborhoods and are walkable, et cetera, that we're moving them --
I'm sorry, I can hear you. If you'd keep the noise down.
Page 200
October 14, 2014
The -- when you do that you're switching from a use that seems to
be very valid and certainly envisioned in this portion of the Land
Development Code, and you're all of a sudden creating something very
difficult that actually is being walled off. There's going to be literally a
mile-long wall.
So if you go to the second page of that Exhibit B, it also then
discusses town center design criteria. It has to be pedestrian friendly.
It shall be designed in a progressive rural to urban continuum. The
town center and the neighborhood general areas, when you have those,
they have to blend into the other without the requirements of buffers.
So I would just like to suggest there's a reason that passage is in
there. The reason that passage is in there is not to relieve developers
from considering transitions and considering compatibility and so that
they don't have to bear the expense of buffers.
I think, quite obviously, the reason that's in there is to suggest that
it would be against the whole concept of the town, of an SRA town,
which Ave Maria is, which is different than all the other towns. This is
an SRA community. And so when you have an SRA community you
have to blend in.
You can't create something by virtue of the fact that it needs a
mile-long 60-foot wide, 15-foot-high buffer. I mean, that seems to tell
everybody something, that that wouldn't be something that fits the
definition of town center such that you would need some other motion,
petition, application from the petitioner to accomplish what it wants to
accomplish.
So why worry about that? Well, because there's law, there's code,
there's process, and there has to be a floor. And we're asking that you
make sure that we have a floor that protects us so that we can't just
ignore definitions that are currently present and binding. And these are
binding at the RLSA level. This isn't the SRA. This is the RLSA.
Now, if you go on, the next section, Section D, context zones,
Page 201
October 14, 2014
again, it mentions the urban to rural continuum. Context zones are
intended to guide the location of uses and their intensity and diversity
within town and provide for the establishment of the urban to rural
continuum, which I would think it would be very difficult to argue that
walling off a mile-long commercial zone -- that it's actually supposed
to serve the needs of the people to provide culture and entertainment
and all those lovely things that I mentioned earlier, that is not
accessible. It's going to have a huge berm. It is not accessible to Del
Webb.
They actually said we don't want to have anything to do with that
because it's ugly, because it creates noise -- light pollution and noise
pollution. We don't want anything to do with that, except that's what is
supposed to serve their needs, and it's supposed to be accessible. I
mean, we're concentrating all of this zone that's allowed and it's
actually envisioned as helpful and useful to residents and we're saying
we're going to scoop all that up throughout Ave Maria, that was a great
plan, apparently it's not working financially, or Arthrex decided that
they didn't want to build where they own the land over at the end of
John Paul II Boulevard, so we're going to get rid of all that, move it
down to the other end where it's near no neighborhood and where it
appears to be ugly to the people that have to live next to it, and that's
what we're going to pretend is a town center.
And I think that pretense is what, really, the problem is. It isn't a
town center. It might be an authorized use, but in order for them to
have that authorized use, they have to actually apply in a manner that
would -- it would be permissible, and they have not done so.
So it says town center. Again, the town center shall provide a
wide range of uses, including daily goods and services, culture and
entertainment within walking distance.
Okay. I did some math. There's no place that's within walking
distance now, especially because they put the berm there. It's going to
Page 202
October 14, 2014
be a mile to get there, or more for most people. Even the Del Webb
residents, they have to go all the way from where they live and have to
walk all the way around, go onto Ave Maria Boulevard and find the
entrance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me where it says
mile-long? I've been --
MR. KLUCICK: Oh, that was in my letter. But if you -- I mean,
it's very easy --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You had four very long letters in
here.
MR. KLUCICK: Sure, sure. If you go to my letter --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Some are the same.
MR. KLUCICK: Sure. I did. I'm sorry. Page 1 at the very
bottom. And that's just my math. I mean, I did it on Google, and he
did it in his car.
It's from where Arthrex is now all the way to the very entrance of
Ave Maria, all along Oil Well Road. That is one-mile long. And if
you had been following along at home when we had the Planning
Commission meetings, they actually did agree. Everyone said that, you
know, there's going to be a berm that goes the whole back length of
this commercial town center. Although I don't want to call it a town
center; this commercial park.
Okay. So like the town core, which is, again, where Ave Maria --
where the oratory is and where those condos are, that beautiful place,
kind of reminds us of maybe the Mercado or some other really nice
developments.
Like the town core, the town center is the primary pedestrian
zone, which now pedestrians have no access to unless they drive there,
which is kind which funny, and which is what you would be approving
if you voted yes today. It's designed at human scale to support the
walking environment. It's the main street area of the town. And
Page 203
October 14, 2014
building shall be positioned near the right-of-way, wide sidewalks
shaded by street trees and architectural elements.
And the following design criteria shall apply within the town
center. And I pulled one out. Buildings within the town center -- here's
how we get compatibility. They are made compatible through similar
massing, volume, frontage, scale and architectural features. In other
words, they do something beautiful that makes sense, which probably
isn't a huge building like we have at Arthrex. No one was paying
attention when that was put up. But that really probably doesn't meet.
No one was looking. But we even have in the SRA code now, you
have to have -- it's supposed to look like a store front.
In the SRA code right now there's a picture. There's a diagram
that shows it's supposed to look like a store front. And I actually did
put that in there. I thought I did. Maybe I didn't. I guess I didn't. But
it actually shows that the front of any building like Arthrex has to
appear to be a store from the front.
And they themselves, the developer, has consistently at public
meetings talked about -- and they're going to come to you with this,
that they want to have a new design -- architectural design review
system.
Yes. Okay. Here is -- so if you look at that, that is a diagram
from the SRA. I guess there's a microphone. Can you hear me?
Okay. If you look at here, it says right here that that little
rectangle there where my finger is is supposed to be showroom. So it
says other retail and nonresidential uses: Light industrial fabrication,
retail showrooms, and distribution. Buildings will be permitted when
showroom retail office portion of building spans the complete frontage
or appropriate facade articulation, and it returns no less than 15 feet
deep along the side elevations.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It says "or."
MR. KLUCICK: Excuse me?
Page 204
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: It says "or."
MR. KLUCIK: Okay, I'm sorry. Or appropriate facade
articulation returns no less than 15 feet deep alongside elevations.
So are you saying that you met that? I'm sorry.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm saying the word "or" is in there.
MR. KLUCICK: Right, right, right. Thank you for pointing that
out. It is an important one.
And to the extent anything that I've said or written up to this
point, you know, is erroneous and just factually wrong, you know, I
don't want to be -- I'm certainly not doing that to be -- and I'm not
saying that you did. Some have suggested that we're being deceitful,
but certainly that's not our intent.
So in any event, we go to that section and we see that -- now,
again, we have this walled off section that's 205 acres that is not
accessible to pedestrians and bicycles, except if you -- I guess if you're
putting on -- you know, having your workout. But it's not to provide
daily goods and services in a pedestrian friendly environment that
actually encourages pedestrian activity.
And that's really the problem. We don't have -- you know, when
we're looking at one of the questions, which was compatibility, there's
a way that the RLSA indicates the compatibility is supposed to be
obtained, and that's through the buildings themselves. And it would
seem as though the berm just is -- just can't be part of it because, as we
know, a berm as defined in the LDC is to be a buffer, and a buffer is
when you have to separate uses because of adverse effects. That's the
definition.
So we have a compatibility problem. And it doesn't go
progressive rural to urban. They just slapped that on at the end.
There's no progression.
Hey, there's no progression. There's a berm. That's what a berm
means, zero progression. You know, that's really another definition for
Page 205
October 14, 2014
berm. Shall blend into. It has to mean something. We can't ignore that
that says shall blend into adjacent neighborhoods without buffers.
That's there for a reason.
Now, you know, I don't know if you recall why it's there, but it
seems that it's there because the idea was everything was supposed to
be -- flow together, and we don't have that here. We have an
admission even by counsel. He actually admitted that -- and he
actually told you here that, of course, that the Del Webb residents
wanted a buffer, because it was obvious that you would need one.
So to -- the other issue that I wanted to cover as well is that the
process, again, here, if they wanted to have this -- make this happen,
what they would have to do is they would have to ask for an ordinance
change to the RLSA to allow for a redefinition of town center or to
allow for -- or to make a change. I believe there's a way that they can
ask for a special district, a special use district, but that's not what
they've done here. They're trying to go the shortcut route.
And, unfortunately, we didn't start looking at this for any other
reason that (sic) they shoved it at us at the last minute. We got a notice
from the county that was indecipherable, and then everyone asked me,
hey, Robb, what does this mean? Well, I didn't really know what it
meant, but I found out. And it meant that there were going to be these
changes.
And so I really go, you know, to the law here. I think that that's
our main concern, that this buffer is actually -- I don't know what you
could say that makes any sense that this pedestrian access that's
throughout the SRA -- over and over and over again, there's so many
provisions in which they emphasize that it's supposed to be a
pedestrian friendly community and that these town centers are
supposed to provide these essential services on a daily basis in a way
that people would walk to them, and their daily lives would be part of
that.
Page 206
October 14, 2014
Well, they've taken all that away except for that tiny little strip,
which is going to be a strip mall at the end of John Paul II Boulevard.
And so that's supposed to now serve all the neighborhoods at the north
end, all of Emerson Park and all of Maple Ridge; that's where they're
supposed to go, the adjacent neighborhoods.
So, of course, I'm happy to answer your questions if you have
any. I don't know if you -- if you find my analysis here -- I mean, if
you find any substance to it or any validity to it, but it seems to me as it
has to mean something. And right now we're all being asked to ignore
what it means for the sake of progress. And I ask you to -- you know,
to not approve it for that reason.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Kay and County Attorney,
can you both come up?
MR. KLUCIK: And can I just make a comment that I did ask
Kay these very specific questions as to how this particular -- I asked a
series of like 10 questions specifically on these provisions that I just
went over, and I got -- I just got a response that said we think it meets
-- you know, she was very polite, but we've done an analysis; we think
it meets the requirement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You represented to the board that
what was being proposed today by the petitioner was consistent with
the Growth Management Plan and with the Land Development Code.
MS. DESELEM: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain how that is the
case in light of what's being presented here? And how was Arthrex
permitted to be developed in that town center area based on these, you
know, excerpts from the Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use
Element, and the Land Development Code that we have before us
now? Can you explain that?
MS. DESELEM: I can't speak to the Arthrex development
Page 207
October 14, 2014
because I didn't review the plans for it. I don't know -- perhaps Mike
Bosi might know, but he may not either.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay. Let's just focus on
this one.
MS. DESELEM: But we went through the relevant -- we, being
staff, went through the relevant indications of the Growth Management
Plan. And in the staff report there was an analysis that showed that, in
staffs opinion, we believe that the petition was consistent with the
Growth Management Plan. Likewise --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you just -- I understand the
general conclusions you've come to. You've explained that. But can
you go to specifically what this gentleman just represented and explain
how this does or doesn't meet what he's suggesting? And, you know,
maybe he's referring to the wrong sections and maybe this doesn't
apply, but I think you need to be specific in explaining how this is or is
not -- whatever he's presenting is or is not correct.
MS. DESELEM: Do you want me to go through each and every
item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Why not?
MS. DESELEM: Okay. I can do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just like he did. Just rebut what he
has said.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, okay. I'll begin on Page 1 of 3 of his
analysis. And, obviously, the definitions are what the definitions are.
And the town center, the same way, a definition is what a definition is.
And as we have it right now on Page 2 of 3, they're talking about
the general design criteria, and I'm looking at what seemed to be --
mine's a gray copy, but it seems to be highlighted. Pedestrian friendly
at this point. Since they have removed the sidewalk considerations,
staff believes it is pedestrian friendly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you go back to the definitions
Page 208
October 14, 2014
and --
MS. DESELEM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- explain how this proposed
project falls within the definitions of a town center? Because what
we're doing here is approving a modification of the town centers.
MS. DESELEM: I think you have to go back and look at the
actual SRA document. And in that SRA document it does allow for
warehousing uses, and it does allow for research uses. Those are all,
like Mr. Yovanovich said, already allowed uses. They're not changing
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you're saying is, is this
information is limited and the actual SRA document includes
warehousing and the type of business that -- like, an Arthrex in a town
center?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Appendix C, I went through it earlier
today and just highlighted some of the things that are allowed under
retail and office. Laboratories are allowed. Industrial and commercial
machinery and computer equipment is allowed, light manufacturing,
medical/health manufacturing/warehousing and
warehousing/distribution centers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- and all of that is basically the
detail behind the general definition. Those --
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- are the enhanced definitions in
the SRA -- in the approved SRA document?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So then continue on with
the walkability.
MS. DESELEM: If I can find it again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sony. I didn't mean to interrupt
you --
Page 209
October 14, 2014
MS. DESELEM: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- but I wanted to make sure that,
you know, for the record it does include the uses which exist and could
potentially be developed in that town center.
MS. DESELEM: Staff is looking at the item 2.A.X on Page 2 of
3 where it talks about how they should blend in with others without the
requirement of buffers. It still doesn't require buffers. The applicant
has offered a buffer based on input taken at the Planning Commission
from some of the people that live nearby that wanted to see those
buffers. There's no prohibition of buffers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So if I understand correctly,
the applicant could actually build this without the buffer, and without
the buffer it would conform with what is referred to on Page 2 of 3 --
MS. DESELEM: I believe that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- in this document.
So what the applicant is actually doing is accommodating the
community by adding a buffer because that's what the community
wants, to be separated from this town center project that sits on Oil
Well Road?
MS. DESELEM: That's my understanding, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That is what my understanding
was, but I want to make sure that's understood. Because the
presentation that was just made by the resident, an attorney, was that,
you know, the buffer went against what's in here. But that buffer is
actually -- I mean, basically the petitioner could do away with the
buffer and we could approve it and that would be fine, and I guess that
would satisfy the residents.
MS. DESELEM: That would satisfy the element of the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would satisfy the resident and
the -- the resident and the Land Development Code.
Page 210
October 14, 2014
MS. DESELEM: It would satisfy the Land Development Code.
I'm not sure all the residents would agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, one resident would be happy,
because he just said that he didn't like the buffer.
MS. DESELEM: Going on about the town center to a provide a
range of uses. This project hasn't been built out yet. We have no idea
what uses might be there. It could, indeed, include all of those, some
of those, or any combination of those. We don't really know. So I
think it's premature to say that it's not consistent with that policy. We
just don't know.
But, again, you know, what they had allowed for in Appendix C
is just what they're talking about now. And as they mentioned, they
were trying to not take it out of their office use that they're allowed to
have but, instead, establish something that really addressed the use that
it was, which is, you know, the Arthrex use that's there now.
And I don't see where he went into any more detail on any of the
other items in here. If you wish, I'll give you my professional opinion,
but I don't see where he went into any more of the details.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think he was concerned that the
smaller town centers wouldn't provide sufficient amenities to service
the residents in that -- in those particular sections of the project.
MS. DESELEM: That's possible, but I don't know that for a fact
at this point because I don't know how it's going to develop out. It
might have just exactly what they need, or it may not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much -- how much square
footage is left in those two -- you know, how much leasable or
developable square footage is left in the two town centers once they're
modified?
MS. DESELEM: Personally, I don't know. The applicant may be
able --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
Page 211
October 14, 2014
MS. DESELEM: -- to respond to that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, Kay. Thank you so
much for your answers.
MS. DESELEM: Certainly. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Mr. Yovanovich -- or maybe
Mr. Gensen can answer this question.
How many people were estimated to live in Ave Maria at
buildout? Roughly 30,000; am I in the ballpark?
MR. GENSEN: I think once -- for the record, David Gensen with
Ave Maria Development.
I believe that at buildout, including the university student
population, it was around 30,000 people, yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's what I recollect. And Ave
Maria University, like the other -- you know, if you were to look at
some of the very early planning estimates, was just one of the towns
that was projected to be in the Rural Land Stewardship Area.
I believe there were some exhibits that showed as many as 20
possible locations where similar towns could be but, ultimately, the
buildout in eastern Collier County in that area was supposed to be 3- to
400,000 people regionally. Is that fair to -- I think that's a number that
has been bandied around by the University of Florida.
MR. GENSEN: I believe that's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So as these towns start to build out
and start to reach maturity, they're going to support each other, and
they're going to form a larger area of community such as we have in
the western part of Collier County -- in other words, the different areas
will support each other, the different neighborhoods, and so on and so
forth; that Ave Maria was never intended to be a bedroom community,
per se. It was pretty much considered to be a mixed-use balance
community offering places where people could live, work, and play all
Page 212
October 14, 2014
in a master planned community; isn't that right?
MR. GENSEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So within these town centers and
other areas, all the goods and services that are going to be required for
Ave Maria to be successful and to reach its full opportunity, you're
going to have to have every service that's required out there; isn't that
the case?
MR. GENSEN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And that means there's going to be
good things, there's going to be things people are going to want to be
next to, and there's things that people are not going to be want -- want
to be next to and not going to want to see particularly.
And I'll give you a classic example, and that is Collier County as
we have today, which actually has grown up -- today it's actually a
bedroom community to itself. That's what Collier County is. And I
don't think anybody can find a community that's prettier than Collier
County. If you know where one is, I'd like you to tell me where that is.
But also understand that one of the reasons that it's that way is it's
absolutely loaded with beautiful buffers. That's what's used. And
there's not always a smooth transition. This board, as a matter of fact,
have to deal with those transitions every time we meet. We have to --
we have to gather together our resources to try to see how we're going
to have an acceptable transition from a residential community to a
commercial community or to -- you know, as high as C-4 or C-5. How
are we going to do that? How are we going to keep noise down? How
are we going to do that?
And over and over again here's what people tell us: We don't
want to see it, we don't want to hear it, we don't want to see the light
and, no, we don't want any connectivity. We don't want a road.
I've had testimony and emails that say I don't want a road that
connects Arthrex and that park to Del Webb. I've got somebody else
Page 213
October 14, 2014
that goes, what do you mean? You mean we're not going to be able to
walk there? Well, wait a minute. You either want to walk there or
drive there or you don't. So what is it --
MR. KLUCIK: But the RLSA provides for that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So what is it -- so what is it that --
well, maybe it's Never Never Land, sir, but I don't know of any
community that I've ever seen -- you put up an exhibit here that had
what it called fabrication surrounded by trees, okay. If every one of
the businesses that's going to provide the City of Ave Maria with
everything it needs is going to be surrounded by forest, you're going to
need another 1,000 acres to put all these services in and hide them.
MR. KLUCICK: But it's what we're counting on. I mean, it's
your -- you passed the RLSA; your body. I know not you. You passed
the RLSA. Your body approved the SRA. There needs to be a floor.
You need to enforce what's there. That's all we're asking for.
And the fact that I understand and have empathy for my Del
Webb residents, that I understand that that's not something that they
should have to put up with doesn't take away from the fact that I would
like to have some of those services where they are supposed to be, near
me, according to this plan, this SRA and the RLSA.
The RLSA envisions -- and to your other point, the RLSA
envisions that Ave Maria will be different. Ave Maria SRAs will be
different by code.
So to the extent you're saying we have to be -- you know, I don't
know any other place. We've already established, SRAs are unique and
Ave Maria is very unique. We, Collier County, broke ground in this
area. They wrote probably all the code, the petitioner. They probably
drafted every single thing here.
So now that I'm saying please, would you enforce what's there,
you're saying, oh, well, don't get in the way of development.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, sir. I'm not saying that. What
Page 214
October 14, 2014
I'm telling you is ride around in Collier County and take a look at a
community that you would like to emulate -- and I think you only have
about 1,000 of them to choose from -- and tell me what's wrong with
some of these communities. You -- I think you are imagining
something that's a Utopian impossibility.
MR. KLUCIK: No. I think that the RLSA provides for town
centers scattered throughout a community that step up and step down
gradually, that don't need transitions. To say that -- I mean -- and, by
the way, Commissioner Hiller -- and I realize there's so much going on
here, but I didn't say that I don't like the buffer. I actually was glad that
at least we got some concession, because they did not want to do a
buffer. They didn't offer a buffer. They were dragged kicking and
screaming to a buffer. So let's get that out of the way. And I helped
with that.
But what I said is the need for a buffer is proof that the petition is
clearly inconsistent with the RLSA and the SRA because it envisions
La La Land. I mean, so then change the RLSA. If it's too fanciful -- I
counted on that. That's the law. That's the code. The code apparently
is La La Land. So you need to change the code, and this can't be
approved until you do, or else you're ignoring the code. And if that's
what you want to do, I understand you can. You can ignore the code,
but you would be doing that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, you're advocating for no
change.
MR. KLUCIK: No, I am not. I already told you there's a way to
do it. I actually proposed how they could do it, that they could actually
provide a change to the RLSA or they could ask for a special district,
which is already allowed. They could say, you know what, we want to
do something more commercial that the town center doesn't really
allow, the RLSA allows for that, and we're going to petition for that.
Now, everyone kind of thought that's what was happening in a
Page 215
October 14, 2014
small degree when they moved Arthrex, and they -- and we kind of all
said, okay, well, that's good, that's good. You know, it's a small
change. It doesn't disrupt everything. It's kind of, you know, out on
the edge. It certainly doesn't seem like it's a town center. It seems
more like it's a, you know, commercial zone. And so we didn't -- you
know, it's not -- I'm not against having some commercial zone, but you
have to do it the right way, and this is not the right way. This is -- this
is --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do you like what exists in the
center of Ave Maria right now?
MR. KLUCIK: Right. And that's -- the town centers are
supposed to be more of that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Do you like that? Do you like that?
MR. KLUCIK: I do.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, then you show me how
what's there now conforms with what you're saying has to exist?
Because it doesn't conform with any of that. There's no gradual
transition there at all like what you --
MR. KLUCIK: Oh, yes, there is. If you look at the plan -- you're
actually wrong there, Commissioner, because if you look at the plan,
you have the oratory and its surrounding buildings, and then the next
layer was supposed to be -- and it's still in the plan, it's still platted for
it -- is supposed to be really nice townhouses surrounding a parking
lot. And then the next step down is supposed to be the neighborhood
that is now Maple Ridge was supposed to be townhouses that are part
of Hampton Village. It was going to be Hampton Village townhouse
community, and then it was going to be Hampton Village.
So it's exactly what the RLSA says it has to be. And I understand
that didn't work, whatever. But what you're doing is you're saying
because it didn't work, we can now ignore the RLSA. And I'm saying
I don't think so. I don't think you can ignore the RLSA.
Page 216
October 14, 2014
I think that you have to -- they have to put something forward that
actually follows that code. And what we have before us denies the
people that are expecting those daily goods and services within
walking distance. It denies all of us that.
So the fact that I think that they should be protected with a berm
because the plan is so incompatible with what's supposed to be there as
a town center does not take away from the fact that I demand to be able
to walk to the town centers and ride my bike there. You couldn't even
do it if you wanted to because you have to go all the way out and
around.
So you're going to approve something that does not comply.
Regardless of, you know, your prior conception going in, it doesn't
comply. And we will press this if we need to. I mean, it's that
important.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I ask him where he lives?
Where do you live on this map?
MR. KLUCIK: Where do I live?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where do you live?
MR. KLUCIK: I don't think that's relevant.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is, because you just said I demand the
ability to ride my bike.
MR. KLUCIK: I'm representing clients as well. My clients
demand that as well, and the people in the Ave Maria Community
Alliance demand it as well.
And if you are in Emerson Park, the only place that you can walk
to or bike to is now a tiny little strip mall at the end, which you've
taken 90 percent of it away. At the end of John Paul II Boulevard
there's this tiny little strip --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Klucik, this is -- I'm going to
represent to you, because you probably have no idea whether this is
right or not. This is the original Ava Maria SRA master plan.
Page 217
October 14, 2014
MR. KLUCIK: Yes, I know that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where were these people going to their
town center on that plan when it was originally --
MR. KLUCIK: Okay. You know what?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where were they going?
MR. KLUCIK: You know what? That plan was there, and
everyone could see it. So when they bought, they understand. And
there was golf courses, and they could -- I'm answering your question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: This plan changed --
MR. KLUCIK: I'm answering your question.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Where were they going?
MR. KLUCIK: I'm answering your question. That plan has been
presented to people as where these goods and services will be, and now
you're taking 90 percent of that and shoving it at the end of town so
that it doesn't -- it doesn't provide the services that the RLSA says that
need to be there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So we, essentially, moved this Town
Center No. 2 -- not all of it. We moved this Town Center No. 2 to
down here on Oil Well Road.
MR. KLUCIK: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we, essentially, moved that,
and we left town center, town center, town center. So you now have
four town centers where you previously had three. And I would say
we are better serving the entirety of the town by the change we're
making and making it more walkable. Would you agree?
MR. KLUCIK: No, because you've created a town center at the
end that's a mile long that takes up 205 acres which is -- totally
overwhelms any of the other town centers in size and --
MR. YOVANOVICH: How big was this town center?
MR. KLUCIK: -- you've made -- I'm answering your question.
And you've made it all concentrated behind a wall so that there's
Page 218
October 14, 2014
not a single person who will go get ice cream, buy a book, whatever
they do, goods and services, culture and entertainment. I'm supposed
to be able to bike to that. All of my neighbors are supposed -- my
clients are supposed to be able to bike to that, walk to that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Klucik, it's a real simple fix. Is it
your alliance's desire to remove the berm?
MR. KLUCIK: It's not, no. I'm not going to --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So --
MR. KLUCIK: You know what, your premise is insane. If you
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's insane because you don't want to
acknowledge--
MR. KLUCIK: It shows that the developer -- it shows that the
developer -- I'm sorry. He asked me a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. You were done. You didn't
ask for cross-examination.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. I thought was allowed that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You were, but you didn't ask. But
we're going to get to the other speakers.
MR. KLUCIK: And I didn't have cross-examination either,
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLUCIK: I also would like cross-examination, which I
have not had a chance to do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You all didn't ask. You said you were
done. You stepped away from the dais. And you asked if there was
any questions. There were questions. That was it.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Ried or Carole
Carpenter.
MR. KLUCIK: You told me that I could cross-examine. I
specifically asked with him beforehand if I could.
Page 219
October 14, 2014
MR. KLATZKOW: And I said you had 15 minutes, and --
MR. KLUCIK: All right. Well, thank you for your attention, and
I know you'll --
MR. KLATZKOW: All good things must come to an end. I
mean --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MR. KLUCIK: I appreciate you listening to what I had to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You had more than 15 minutes.
MR. KLUCIK: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: The Carpenters have left. Gina Statzman. I'm
sorry if I'm saying that incorrectly.
MR. KLUCIK: Gina's left.
MR. MILLER: Daniel Henderson. He will be followed by
Carlos Figueroa.
You'll be, I'm sorry, after Mr. Henderson. I'm sorry, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me
speak today, and thank you for your service to the county.
I heard a lot of things today, and it's a little hard for me in five
minutes to get through some of this.
So first of all let me say that I did not buy my home in Ave Maria
before the development was built. Just in case anyone wants to
research that, they can see that I couldn't possibly do that.
But I did see Ave Maria from the very beginning. I was out there
driving along, looking at the site when it was just first being built, the
first time the road was opened up so you'd go into it.
I made the decision to move to Ave Maria with my family a
couple years ago, and I've been living there ever since. And I've been
listening to what you've been talking about here. And, you know, the
procession that we've seen so far says we have a plan for a town, which
is a town that I bought into, that says, as Robb rightly points out, that
you're building a self-sustaining community. That's really what it says.
Page 220
October 14, 2014
Ave Maria is supposed to be self-sufficient. You try to make that
happen through your law by your financial impact statement that says
it needs to be revenue neutral or positive, but it's intended to be a
self-sufficient community.
Now, a self-sufficient community, just as Commissioner Nance
says, needs to have goods and services that sustain the neighborhood.
So when I heard what was going on here, I got the vision of you've got
this body, the body has a heart, the body has a liver, the body's got
some kidneys and, you know, they're all envisioned uses of the body,
and they all have a function.
And what I heard was we're going to take two-thirds of the heart,
one part of the city, and move it down there for the liver and say,
you're now liver and that's going to make everything okay. Well, I
wouldn't want a body like that, and I really wouldn't want a town like
that.
And my concern was, straight out, that when you've got 11,000
homes and you've got just a tiny amount of retail, you're not serving
the community. You don't have sufficient leftover town centers to
service the community.
What you're going to have is a bedroom community with a
commerce park. You're going to have people coming into the
commerce park, going out of the commerce park, and you're going to
have people in the city going out, who knows where, Immokalee,
which you'd have to widen the road to really support going out to
Immokalee or, you know, 45 minutes into Naples.
And people who live in that bedroom community had better find
something there that they like because, you know, they're not going to
get the self-sufficiency, they're not going to get the goods and services
they need.
So that was my concern. And, you know, it's really what the crux
of this argument is.
Page 221
October 14, 2014
But I think I heard something that changed my mind today.
Because what I heard was, no, that's not what's going to happen.
What's going to happen is today we're going to ask for 600,000 for a
commerce park. We're going to build the town some more. We're
going to realize, ah, we need more retail. Well, we'll just come back
and we'll amend it and we'll change some of the residential out and
we'll add some more retail. We'll just build and mish and mash
whatever we need to suit the neighborhood at the time.
And, you know, if that's what's going on, I think it's just important
to understand that that's not what was envisioned. Ave Maria was
envisioned to be a planned community. That means you had some
foresight and some thought, and you had limits to what you're building
and you planned it out so that you could build a community that people
would want to go into, would have a reason to, a community that
would move me all the way from Texas, which is where I had been
leaving -- although I visited Florida very frequently -- to the Naples
area, to Collier County.
Okay. So you're changing that and it's out. We now know that
Ave Maria is not a planned community. It's a community that has a
developer that's going to develop it however they see best and, you
know, if this is approved, a council that will go along with it.
And, you know, there was something else that I heard twice. Mr.
Nance, I think you said that -- at our neighborhood meeting, you said
one of the reasons why you wanted to move what's going on from the
town centers down to Oil Well Road, it's because Oil Well Road is a
six-lane road that can support it. Do you remember that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Well, you know, Oil Well Road is
not a six-lane road. There is one place where you turn onto Everglades
that is six lanes. Most of it is either two-laned or four-laned with bike
paths. How would you ever envision that being a six-lane road?
Page 222
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, I assure you that will be a
six-lane road in your and my lifetime --
MR. HENDERSON: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- a very, very fine one, and it will
grow to match the growth of Ave Maria. Ave Maria doesn't really need
a six-lane road right now.
MR. HENDERSON: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But --
MR. HENDERSON: It is not -- I asked a question; you
answered.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Go ahead.
MR. HENDERSON: And if you want to give me the time back,
fine, but otherwise -- it is not a six-lane road now. It is envisioned in
your mind to be a six-lane road. It's envisioned in other peoples' mind
to become a six-land road. But it isn't now, and it's a little
disingenuous to say that it is because of one thing.
You know, you go on out and you see that. What you've got is a
planned road that includes bike paths, and it includes a space between
the bike lanes. It's what people look at and they envision as, this is
rural. Well, you know, that's only until you can do something better.
And that's what you're doing with Ave Maria. And, you know, now
that it's out in the open, well, at least I know what's going on.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final public speaker on this item is Carlos
Figueroa.
MR. FIGUEROA: Emphasis on the word final. My name is
Carlos Figueroa. I'm a resident of Ave Maria, 5883 Plymouth Place. I
moved into Ave Maria October 31, 2007, the second person that
moved into Ave Maria. I have seen Ave Maria grow in a modest way
during the last seven years, a long time.
There are just three points that I want to bring to the table. When
Page 223
October 14, 2014
I look at the people that are responsible for the development of Ave
Maria and the corporate entities that are in Ave Maria -- and I'll name
them by name. You're looking at Barron Collier Company; you're
looking at Tom Monaghan who founded the university; you're looking
at Pulte, the builder of Del Webb where I live; you're looking at C.C.
Devco, the builder of Maple Ridge that everybody's happy with Maple
Ridge the way it's growing; and you're looking at Arthrex, the
corporate main presence in Ave Maria.
I have to say, if I had my personal choices, and I had the choice of
every other company in Collier County that I could invite to Ave
Maria, I would invite those five companies in the same order. I
wouldn't try to take anyone out in exchange for something that I don't
know, or a better company that I don't even know the name of it.
I've heard remarks and legal representations and questions back
and forth about a mile-long and seven Arthrexes. It's just the name. I
mean, we're using words here very loosely, because I wish we had
seven Arthrexes in Ave Maria, seven companies that are the same
quality of company as Arthrex.
Now, second point. Somebody said we have to get these guys in
here kicking and dragging. Well, the fact is that, you know, I attended
the town meetings. They listened to all the issues that were raised by
the residents of Ave Maria. Most of the residents that were at those
town meetings and raised all those objections, a lot of them were
incorporated into the amendments that were presented to you all.
And as a matter of fact, when I turn my back and I look now here,
I see a lot of those 70, 80 people that were at the town meetings,
they're not here because their meetings (sic) were satisfied -- their
desires were satisfied.
So for one, two, three people to claim to represent the majority of
people in Ave Maria, I don't think that's a fair use of their time, your
time, or your time.
Page 224
October 14, 2014
Third point. Your function as Commissioners, I would guess, is
really for the county to grow, and I would hope, you know, following
the law and following all the other legal mumbo jumbo, pardon the
expression, but the fact is that we need growth. We have a dream that
was dreamed eight -- seven, eight years ago back in 2005/2006 when I
started visiting the Vineyards at Ave Maria University down there.
And today we have maybe, out of 5,000 homes, we have 500. So
we're really 10 percent of what this dream was meant to be.
Why is it that we argue back and forth about, you know, bringing
commerce into Ave Maria. Commerce is not going to come into Ave
Maria unless we bring people to live in Ave Maria, because commerce
doesn't follow blind alleys.
So if you look at this in a commonsense way, I think that
everything that they are doing is really trying to develop growth on the
residential area, and that will bring them additional corporate names
that are of first quality and that will bring employment and so forth.
So, to me, it's just very common sense. I really, you know, give
them credit for listening to the residents of Ave Maria when they, in
major numbers, have expressed their, you know, opinions and their
desires.
And to you-all, thank you for your time, and I hope we get this
well done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Now, if we can stick to questions, not political statements or
opinions or things like that, then we can start closing the public
hearing, and you can have those political statements, opinions, and so
on and so forth.
Do you have questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no political statements,
opinions, or any other thought related to anything along the lines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not now, not now.
Page 225
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not now or for the rest of
today.
I do want to talk substantively about what was just said.
You know, a concern I have is that as this community develops,
that there's only so much retail and office for -- that a community like
this can absorb. And I'm talking independent of that town center,
which is being expanded on Oil Well.
And if you have four town centers for some 30,000 people -- you
know, it reminds me of a project in my district which, at the outset, had
a similar fate to Ave, and that's Pelican Bay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's your question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me get to it. This is very
important, because Pelican Bay had the same concept of having, you
know, the retail and office adjacent to the residential. And the question
always is, you know, how much is enough? How much is too much?
And when I see what you've proposed here -- and, you know,
obviously I would defer to the planner, to Wayne to ask this question.
Do you think that the composition of four town centers -- and one is
more of a business center. But, say, three retail centers and with the
fourth being the office business complex, if you will -- is a proper
balance, given the -- you know, the residential volume, the residential
density of this project or, said another way, do you believe that the
ratio of the intensity to the density, given this plan, is reasonable?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I do. I think that the tradeoff that we're
making is a good one overall for the community, and I think that
they're -- as the community grows, obviously the demand for the retail
grows. I think, as you heard earlier, there's not a commitment that
there's going to be 600,000 square feet exactly built in this area. There
is going to be retail. There can still be residential. There can be
offices.
So I think you're going to end up with a good combination of
Page 226
October 14, 2014
those, and I think that the demand will be there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I'm thinking, you know,
on a ratio basis, when -- and I can't talk to you about the exact square
footage because I don't know the details with Pelican Bay. But with
Pelican Bay you, in effect, had two centers. You have, you know, the
Waterside which is, you know, one commercial complex, and then you
also have, you know, that Pelican Bay Shopping Center on the corner
of Vanderbilt and 41, and that community has about 15,000 people,
and then you had, obviously, a lot of business development, you know,
office around the area.
What you also have is additional surrounding development that
provides for supplemental retail and office and other uses, which I
expect will also happen around Ave Maria.
Ave Maria is not intended to be an island in isolation, is it? I
mean, is there an intent to have other development in reasonable
proximity to that project?
MR. ARNOLD: You do have other towns that will be coming
before you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I remember the map that
showed, you know, all sorts of little towns all over that area.
MR. ARNOLD: Your code makes provisions for hamlets,
villages, towns, et cetera. So you can have various scales to respond to
those long-term needs for the community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So when I look at a ratio of what
is, in effect, like, four town centers to 30,000 people -- and I think back
to, you know, Pelican Bay, which also had a very, very slow start.
Everyone thought Pelican Bay was -- remember going back with
WCI? I think they went out of business.
I just think that what you've presented here -- and I'm addressing
the concerns of that second to last speaker, because I do believe all
concerns need to be vetted. It would seem to me that this is a
Page 227
October 14, 2014
reasonable plan in light of, you know, the ratio of density to intensity.
MR. ARNOLD: We believe that it is. And it's really, as we've
said -- and we'll debate the point whether or not it's a significant
change or not to the overall context of Ave Maria, but we've
reallocated square footage based on where we think the development
and the town needs to go.
There are other town center areas located in proximity to the
center of town where the piazza is and things of that nature. Spreading
them out over the course of four areas as opposed to three we think is a
very good change. I think it readdresses some of the issues that you
heard complaints about us not meeting the walkability and the context
of what the SRA was supposed to be. I think it certainly hits it
squarely in the face. It's exactly what it should be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm very sensitive to what
residents have to say, and I have to say, looking at the facts as they
have been presented, considering all the evidence in front of us, you
know, I'm not going to make a motion. We will close the hearing, and
we'll talk about it further.
But I go back to I don't see the harm. I don't see any evidence of
harm. I, in fact, see evidence of an improvement. And we're not
talking about a development that has only 2,000 homes. We're talking
about 30,000 homes. Is it 30,000?
MR. ARNOLD: It's 11,000 residential units.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Forgive me, 30,000
people.
So 11,000 homes versus a project of 2,000 homes, and buying
into a project with 2,000 homes is very different. I think you have to
expect there has to be some expectancy of some change; not material
change. And I don't see this as a material change. I see it as a
modification that results in an improvement and hopefully will draw
more people to buy into the community.
Page 228
October 14, 2014
MR. ARNOLD: We hope so, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a question. Mr. Bosi?
Leo, can you put that up there?
I believe you're the growth management manager or director and
land development manager and director; is that true?
MR. BOSI: I'm the director of comprehensive planning in the
zoning department, so yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, who interpretates the
code, the Land Development Code?
MR. BOSI: The director of zoning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And who's that?
MR. BOSI: Myself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. I just want to make sure
I'm asking the right person.
Can you zoom into the neighborhood streetscape. And tell me
what they're proposing is not a deviation from the code, where you see
a sidewalk of five foot, a green space between the sidewalk and the
travel lane of six-foot, and obviously the street.
MR. BOSI: Within each of the depictions, they have the street
tree in between the sidewalk and the back of the curb. So placing the
trees on the outside of the sidewalk towards the house site is not
depicted within the subscriptions --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a deviation from the code? I
mean, they're actually putting the trees between the houses; is that
correct?
MR. BOSI: That's what's being proposed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. BOSI: What's being requested. I think it would be an
additional design, whether you want to call it an additional design or
deviation, it's -- I think that's the choice of the individual of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hold that mike --
Page 229
October 14, 2014
MR. BOSI: I think that would be the individual discretion of the
speaker, but it's an addition or it's a deviation, whichever you'd like to
refer to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, if they want to not put
the trees there, that's a deviation. Between the street and the sidewalk,
that's a deviation if they're not going to put that.
And, obviously, the example that the gentleman brought up in --
I'm assuming it's in Ave Maria, that space between the sidewalk and
the street is not six foot, like depicted in the Land Development Code,
but I'm assuming that's in Ave Maria. I am not for sure. I just don't
recall.
So if they do not provide the street trees as per the example in the
RLSA, is that a deviation?
MR. BOSI: There's a provision within the -- within the landscape
section, and it talks about streets. And it says, alternatively, Collier
County Transportation Services may approve additional cross-sections
as needed to meet the design objectives.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Additional. Additional, not --
MR. BOSI: Yes. And that's where I had said I think this could be
constr -- what they're introducing is -- what the applicant is doing is
not asking the Collier County Transportation Services to approve an
additional design cross-section. They're asking the Board of County
Commissioners to approve it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Approve -- approve what?
MR. BOSI: The alternative that's being proposed today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the bottom line is you're not saying
this is a deviation from the code?
MR. BOSI: I think it's clearly an additional. It's an additional
design. Whether you want to call that a deviation, I think if--
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, it would be viewed
as an additional design.
Page 230
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm trying to get to the motion,
whether it's going to be approve a deviation from our land code, or it's
not a deviation. That's what I'm trying to figure out. And that's what
the motion maker needs to determine and the board needs to
determine; however, you're the expert of Land Development Code.
MR. BOSI: And I believe that the provision that says that the
transportation services may approve additional cross-sections, what the
applicant's asking the Board of County Commissioners to do is to
approve an additional cross-section within the town.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just amplify on that just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'm satisfied with what he said,
but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm puzzled as to why you're
not saying it's better than what we require, the minimum that we
require, or it's worse than what we require. What --
MR. BOSI: I'm not making an evaluation as to the design quality;
just trying to say how it fits with the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does it provide more plantings than
our minimum requirement?
MR. BOSI: I believe it could provide an equal. I think what it
does is it provides an alleviation of a long-term issue that we found
within a number of developments in terms of sidewalk -- sidewalk and
the root structures in the right-of-way creating problems that we've had
some issues with some of the older subdivisions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Michael, I agree with you when you
provide a two-foot separation between the sidewalk and the driveway;
however, that isn't what's in this drawing here. It's much greater than
two foot. And that is what we're seeing throughout the county is the
right-of-way has narrowed substantially. But I -- you know, if it's not a
Page 231
October 14, 2014
deviation, we don't need to address it, and that was my only question.
But with that said, now I'm going to have my statement of what I
think about this proposed amendment.
It always was proposed -- I was here, Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Coyle was here when the RLSA was presented in Ave
Maria. It was presented, not only the RLSA, but Ave Maria is a
self-sustaining community. And nobody talked about jobs. There has
to be jobs. We can't guarantee that people that seek jobs within a
location is going to live in that community; however, a planned
community has to have all those elements.
What I heard -- what they're proposing is to allow more of the
Arthrex but more, potentially, of ancillary uses that services Arthrex,
such as FedEx, such as, you know, the office supply store.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Drug stores.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The drug store is going to be in the
town core and other town centers.
This is going to be a central facility to service that area of jobs
and, also, hopefully you'll have a carpenters shop there. Because the
folks are going to need a carpenter shop, they're going to need a
plumber, they're going to need a locksmith, they're going to need a
lawnmower repair --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You could be the locksmith.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- lawnmower repair person and stuff
like that.
So do you want those uses separated from residential? Yeah, I
would say so. I think that is proper planning.
So with that, that's my statement about this proposed amendment.
And the public hearing is closed.
Mr. Yovanovich, are you done, I should say, before I close the
public hearing?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir, we're done.
Page 232
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Public hearing is closed.
Now, there's discussion between the board to make a motion to
accept with amendments or just as it is.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to motion -- make a
motion that we accept as proposed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there a second to the
motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Hiller,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing -- Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I think that Ave Maria is --
has had a very difficult start primarily because of the recession. But I
think that thoughtful change is in order to take advantage of
circumstances.
I believe that Arthrex is a gem base for which Ave Maria can
develop a wonderful economy, a wonderful situation for jobs, a
wonderful situation for industry, an example on how to do it.
To me, that building is as beautiful as exists in Collier County.
It's certainly as beautiful as any of the university buildings out there.
It's a showplace, and it's managed by a tremendous individual that's
going to attract other significant businesses.
And, you know, you're going to have -- each of the communities
in Ave Maria, just like the rest of Collier County, is going to have its
own character. Some of them are going to look a little different. Some
of the landscape is going to look different.
But along the way, for you to achieve the goal that I think I've
heard all the residents say they want, is you're going to have to be
Page 233
October 14, 2014
flexible and adapt to make the magic continue to happen. You can't be
going forward with Ave Maria looking backward.
I think these amendments are timely, and I don't think they have
any downside for the community whatsoever. If I did, I'd have a great
deal of anxiety. But I think they're thoughtful. I think that the -- I think
the developer continues to exhibit the fact that they are thoughtful and
they are committed, and so I can certainly support the amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Could you go to the map of
Ave Maria that shows the various business centers?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The proposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And also the one that --
probably the one behind this, the one with the highlighted things there.
First I'll start with a question concerning this. When we're talking
about the town center -- well, first, tell me again the kinds of uses that
are allowed in the town center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The range of uses that are allowed in a
town center include office, retail, light industrial, manufacturing,
business park.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Those very uses are both in the SRA and
the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now let's go back one page
here.
Now, understanding that the wide range of uses are permitted in
the business park, how can we adhere to the provision that buildings
within the town center shall be made comparable through similar
massing, volume, frontage, scale, and architectural features? How do
you make a light manufacturing facility similar to a pharmacy or a
food store?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- we're still subject to the county's
Page 234
October 14, 2014
architectural standard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We will do that like you do in the urban
area. We'll meet -- we'll meet the appropriate architectural standards to
allow buildings -- although they're not the same size, they'll be
appropriately designed to where they will be compatible and fit in
architecturally. They're not going to all be identical as far as size, but
they'll be -- architecturally your code makes that happen by the
different articulations you have to do for certain sizes of buildings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, if I wanted to be
argumentative about this I would say to you that a manufacturing
facility besides, say, a pharmacy does not meet the requirement of
similar massing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we can move the pharmacy further
along in that town center. It doesn't have to be right next to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm just trying to make a
point here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Now, let's --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Am I going back? I'm sorry. Do I go
back?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, stay where you are. Stay
where you are.
Let's presume that you did not relocate any portion of the town
center before for the purpose of providing space for Arthrex. Okay?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Arthrex was placed up in the
upper right-hand corner. It would have been probably Town Center 1
or 2?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
Page 235
October 14, 2014
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I have that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What impact would that have from
the standpoint of traffic in the residential areas of Ave Maria?
MR. YOVANOVICH: You're talking about under this concept?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My guess is you'd probably have a lot
more traffic coming through the town --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to get to that town center if Arthrex had
been developed there versus where we have them here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it was a logical move to put
Arthrex where it is now, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's one of the points we made early at
the Planning Commission. It makes sense to have the town center by
Oil Well Road to keep people from going through town.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you were going to have
complementary kinds of businesses located in Ave Maria, you
wouldn't put them up in the northeast corner, would you? You would
want them to be fairly close to Arthrex.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That makes all good planning sense.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all good planning sense
because it reduces the amount of traffic that goes through the
residential areas, but it does one other thing, and it's something that one
or two of the speakers touched upon. The people who work at Arthrex
right now are commuting from some other location. Most of them are
not living in Arthrex.
I think it's reasonable to expect, over time, that more of them will
begin to live in Ave Maria because it's just a lot more convenient.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
Page 236
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a logical thing because
no services are going to locate here in Ave Maria until you get enough
rooftops to support the businesses there. There won't be a movie
theater. There won't be an ice cream shop. There wouldn't be a
shopping center. There won't be a lot of things. There won't be an
Italian restaurant or a French restaurant. People will have to drive out
of Ave Maria to go somewhere else.
So this idea that Ave Maria is right now supposed to be
self-sufficient is an extremely idealistic concept. It will take decades
before that happens. And the decisions you make now to encourage
people to come to Ave Maria to work will, in fact, help that happen
more quickly because they will ultimately come there to live.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are good things. It is
sound planning to anticipate that sort of thing and locate those kinds of
centers exactly where you have placed them, because you don't want to
adversely impact the residential areas.
It is entirely logical that you do that. And I think -- I'll have to
spend a minute endorsing something that was said by Commissioner
Nance earlier.
Collier County didn't get to where it is now by accident. When I
first saw Collier County, there was no lush landscaping anywhere. The
lawns were wire grass and sandspurs. If you went outside after dark,
you were eaten alive by mosquitoes. And the -- I didn't see any royal
palms. It was all scrub palmetto and Brazilian peppers.
But Collier County is one of the best communities in the nation,
and it got there because of sound planning which this board and boards
prior to this board and responsible developers made the right decisions.
And none of them, including this board, is smart enough to design a
plan, etch it in concrete, and expect it to be successful 20 years from
now. There's not a person in this audience who is that smart.
Page 237
October 14, 2014
We have lived through the controversies of an overpass at Airport
Road and Golden Gate Parkway where the building of the overpass
was the absolute worst thing you could ever do. It would destroy the
quality of Naples, and nobody -- a lot of people didn't want it except
the people that had to drive back and forth on that road.
Today there's no opposition. Things turned out okay.
Same thing was true with the Naples Daily News building. The
fact that somebody was building an industrial building across the street
from a fairly exclusive residential community was the end of the
world. People would be able to see that building, and they might even
be disturbed by the noise created by this industrial facility. It's been
built and everything is fine.
But over and over we have had these kinds of controversies. And
we've found that if we stick to fundamental principles and not get too
excited about change over the short term, we'll all benefit from it.
And I think -- and one final note. I've seen communities that had
sidewalks and bike paths, wonderful landscaping, and nobody talked to
each other, nobody ever saw each other. There was no sense of
community. I've seen other communities that have no sidewalks
whatsoever; people walk in the streets, and they bicycle in the streets,
and it's a wonderful community to live in.
The point is that the quality of the community is determined by
the quality of its residents. And if residents can adapt to change and
help manage it in a constructive manner, we will all succeed, and it
will be the community that you want it to be.
So with that, I'm ready to vote in favor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you call the question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. If you're ready to vote. You had
your light on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why I had it on, to --
Page 238
October 14, 2014
because I think -- and I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion -- Jeff, are
we okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who's my second? Who's my
second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Are you okay? You need a break?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just make one comment? I
think that the public speakers are really great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, hang on. Do you need a
break? You okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to say, I think the
public speakers were very articulate, and they put forth a lot of effort,
but I think the evidence spoke for itself. But thank you for coming.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Now we go to staff and
commissioners' communications.
Page 239
October 14, 2014
Leo?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. A couple just quick items.
The first has to do with upcoming workshops.
For your December workshop, December 2nd to be specific, the
City of Marco Island has accepted the proposal or the offer for a
workshop, so I just wanted to confirm that with the board. That's
December 2nd.
We are looking tentatively at a workshop in February to go over
the operations of your library system and cover some of the policy
issues that Commissioner Nance was interested in on February 3rd.
And the last item related to workshops, Commissioners, was back
in 2012, as part of your Evaluation and Appraisal Report to your
Growth Management Plan, the direction was given to work on a
revision to the Housing Element of that Growth Management Plan.
Your housing staff and your comprehensive planning staff, along
with the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, have been doing
just that for the last 24 months or so. They have a plan now that
they're ready to present to the board.
My question for you, Commissioners, is, do you want that
presented at a regular board meeting or as part of a workshop? My
recommendation is a workshop. I've seen the materials. I think it's a
subject that lends itself more to a workshop than a quick board
presentation, and I was wondering if the board had any interest in
either January or March of next year, that we schedule that in as a
workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't really care, do you,
Page 240
October 14, 2014
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would prefer March.
MR. OCHS: March?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think March -- no, seriously,
March. I think coming back after the holidays --
MR. OCHS: Yeah, holiday is tough.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we're going to have a backlog,
because we have only one meeting in December.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're going to have a lot of
work in January. So I think March is more appropriate.
MR. OCHS: Is that a consensus, Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree with these two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know. Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. I'll work on that for March.
I'll send you an invitation, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. I'll
respond to the invitation, too.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
The other thing I have is Commissioner Henning received this
letter from the sheriff recently, and I'll just draw your attention to the
last paragraph. It's on the subject of the medical marijuana
referendum, and he had asked the chair to ask the board to provide
some guidance to the staff to be allowed to work with him on
construction of potential means and methods of dealing with some of
the issues that fall out of that medical marijuana referendum.
So, Mr. Chair, I don't know if you had any more thoughts on that
or how you'd like to direct the staff.
Page 241
October 14, 2014
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody have any objections to
county staff working with Sheriffs Department on potential impacts of
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm glad that they're going to
take it --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the proposed amendment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think it's very important.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're going to take that to heart
and work on it soon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you really care, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do. I really, really do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we want to hear about your
thoughts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, no. I'm just saying
that I would ask that you consider going a step further than that, not
just working on it, but consider doing something that the City of
Naples has done, which is to prepare a draft ordinance that will
specifically define where these facilities can be located and under what
circumstances they can operate, because I'm fearful of this legislation,
quite frankly.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And just so you know, the staff and I have
been working on a tentative schedule that would allow us to get a
proposed LDC amendment on that very issue to you at your November
18th meeting. And in failing that, certainly at your December 9th
meeting, but we're shooting for November 18th if the referendum
succeeds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Nance, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Just for everybody's
information, there are a couple of nurseries in the eastern part of the
Page 242
October 14, 2014
county associated with our current agribusiness industry that actually
meet the standards of the state for producing medicinal marijuana, just
so you're aware of that. And there's not that many -- there's not that
many in the state that qualify, but there's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's the address?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Coyle's been asking
me for farming information, so I kind of suspect he's got some thinking
for Oregon out there somehow, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a public service
announcement for the DEA. We're the government, and we're here to
help.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nobody has any objections.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. What I would like to
suggest -- I agree with Commissioner Coyle, and I actually have been
thinking about this. I did pay attention to what the city did, and I
spoke to Drug Free Collier early on when this was all starting. And I
had suggested to the executive director of Drug Free Collier that she
research what's being done in other jurisdictions and come back with a
proposal, at that time it was, you know, to me that I could then bring to
you-all to see what we could do by way of local ordinances to address
this issue.
So if staff is going to work with the Sheriffs Office, I'd ask that
you'd also call Drug Free Collier and talk to their executive director
and get the research that they've pulled and what recommendations
they might have.
MR. OCHS: I'd be happy to do that, ma'am. We're doing research
as well with other jurisdictions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 243
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. This may sound like a really
weird question, but -- and forgive me for my naivetO, but can you
already get medical marijuana by a prescription?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not in the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you can't at all, huh?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can in Michigan and Oregon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. I thought you could
anyway and, I mean, if you were ill or something -- that's how much I
know. I know I'm not very in tune.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oregon you can, and California you
can.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've got a neighbor who might help you, but,
you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So -- thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Since you brought up
Oregon, within days I saw all these little shops get set up along Main
Street, and they've since closed up for some reason. I think the police
clamped down on some of them and found them doing illegal things.
But, you know, it's going to be very difficult to control. There are a lot
of loopholes in this thing.
And the thing that still puzzles me about this is that doctors tell
me that there -- there are prescription drugs one can get to serve the
same purpose, so why is this needed at all for medicinal purposes?
And I can only conclude that people just want to abuse it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's the reason that there's a
lot of support for it, apparently. I didn't realize we had that many
potheads in Florida, but I also didn't understand the severity of our
mental-illness problem here either.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: After all your years of service,
Commissioner Coyle, you can say that with a straight face, really?
Page 244
October 14, 2014
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can, I can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Leo?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Comments from commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: None for you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I just love working with
Commissioner Coyle. I just love the way he addresses things, I love
his sense of humor, and I'm going to miss you like crazy when you're
gone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Lhongay margales?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does that mean?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Galet Fercent, all things must end.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amen to that.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The only comment I have is there
-- near the end of the month on the 22nd is going to be a major meeting
of the South Florida Ag Council, and they are -- the South Florida Ag
Council is a group of businessmen and agri industries that are
supporting the continued funding of the Southwest Florida Research
and Education Center under Dr. Arnold. The construction with the
multi-million-dollar grant that was secured last year is going along
very well.
My thanks to Nick Casalanguida and all the staff in planning and
permitting for helping Dr. Arnold move that forward, but we're going
to -- this year we're concerned with continuing funding, so I'm going to
be bringing information, an agenda item to you very soon supporting a
Page 245
October 14, 2014
resolution and, of course, we're placing that continued funding for that
facility on our priority list for legislative action for this coming year.
Very exciting.
And I can truthfully say that we've started out with a -- since Dr.
Arnold's arrival, we've started out with a wonderful cooperative
relationship. Now the University of Florida is working very close with
Big Cypress Basin on water-management issues. I think they're going
to be invaluable to help us with our watershed management plans and
all the things that we're going to have going forward.
So it's been a great re-start for that facility, something everybody
should be excited about and be very proud of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Leo, I hope that your staff is going to
correct the gross error on my entry badge and get that to me pretty
soon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They put an expiration date of 2019
instead of 2016.
So with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned.
**** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Nance
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1 — Continued to the November 18, 2014 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 246
October 14, 2014
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE WATER, SEWER AND IRRIGATION UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR THE LIPARI-PONZIANE PL#20130002052
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VERONAWALK PHASE 4C-3 AND 4C-4
PL20110002799 AND THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR BLUEBILL AVE TURNAROUND AND RESTROOM
FACILITY PL20110002730 — PUBLIC UTILITIES FOUND THE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR LAPLAYA GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY,
PL20110001962, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $14,225 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT —
Page 247
October 14, 2014
PUBLIC UTILITIES FOUND THE FACILITIES TO BE
SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2014-207: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF MANCHESTER SQUARE (AR-8518) AND
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS AND
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $199,799.70
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF CARRARA AT
TALIS PARK REPLAT, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20140000714 THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF COQUINA AT MAPLE
RIDGE PHASE 1, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140000068)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY— THE
DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
Page 248
October 14, 2014
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF TRIANGLE PLAZA
AT LELY RESORT, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140000728 —
THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TWINEAGLES GRAND
ARBORS, PHASE TWO C BLOCK 109, (APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20140000392) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A10
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF SLATER ESTATE,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001315, AND AGREE TO
RELEASE THE COUNTY'S INTEREST IN A CONSERVATION
EASEMENT OVER A 15-FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND IN
TRACT D, PLAT BOOK 33, PAGES 78-80 WHICH WILL BE
REPLATTED AS THE EASTERN 15 FEET OF THIS PROPOSED
SLATER ESTATE PLAT — LOCATED OFF OF ISLES OF CAPRI
ROAD
Item #16A11
Page 249
October 14, 2014
RELEASE OF A CASH BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
WHICH HAD BEEN POSTED AS A PERFORMANCE
GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH CEDAR
HAMMOCK EXCAVATION MODIFICATIONS, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20130002534 — FINAL INSPECTION WAS
CONDUCTED ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 AND APPROVED
Item #16Al2
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $23,348 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH LANDINGS AT BEARS PAW, EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) PL20130001066 — WORK HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS
COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A13
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A PERFORMANCE
BOND NO. 105870796 IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,600 WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH MAPLE RIDGE AT AVE MARIA, EARLY
WORK AUTHORIZATION (EWA) PL20140001226 — THE WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS
COMMINTMENTS RELATING TO THE SECURITY
Item #16A14
Page 250
October 14, 2014
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE
BOND NO. 210950 IN THE AMOUNT OF $290,800 WHICH WAS
POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH RAFFIA PRESERVE, EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) PL20130001805 — WORK HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS
COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A15
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE
BOND NO. 6414722 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 ,000,000, WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT
NUMBER NO. 59.902, FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH AVE
MARIA NORTH SPORTS PARK FACILITY — WORK HAS BEEN
INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS
COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A16
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE
BOND NO. 5032305 IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000, WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT
NUMBER NO. 59.958, FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH SOUTH
COMMERCIAL CENTER AT FIDDLER'S CREEK — WORK HAS
BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED
HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS SECURITY
Item #16A17
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE
Page 251
October 14, 2014
BOND NO. 964119209 IN THE AMOUNT OF $265,360 WHICH
WAS POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN
EARLY WORK AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20140000514)
FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE —
WORK HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS
FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS
SECURITY
Item #16A18
THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE PERFORMANCE
BOND NO.'S 80107032 AND 80107033 IN THE AMOUNTS OF
$121,400 AND $60,400 WHICH WERE POSTED AS A
GUARANTY FOR EARLY WORK AUTHORIZATIONS
PL20140001097 AND PL20140001464 FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE
PHASE 2 AND ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE PHASE 3,
RESPECTIVELY— WORK HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE
DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO THESE SECURITIES
Item #16A19
A WORK ORDER WITH CB&I COASTAL PLANNING &
ENGINEERING, INC. TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING PEER REVIEWS CONTRACT NO. 13-6164-CZ
FOR A TIME AND MATERIAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$21,916 (PROJECT NO. 80165); NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT; THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO EXECUTE THE WORK ORDER AND MAKE A FINDING
THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM — PERFORMING
Page 252
October 14, 2014
TWO PEER REVIEWS FOR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR WIGGINS PASS MONITORING AND
HISTORICAL BEACH DATA REVIEW
Item #16A20
CONTRACT NO. 14-6257 TO PROVIDE PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES AS REQUIRED BY THE DOCTORS
PASS JETTY AND EROSION CONTROL PROJECT FOR
$148,266 (PROJECT NO. 90029) TO HUMISTON AND MOORE
ENGINEERS AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM — RESTORING THE SOUTH JETTY TO
ORIGINAL DESIGN CONDITIONS AND INSTALLING AN
ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURE
Item #16A21
AWARD ITB NO. 14-6321, "TRAFFIC SIGNS AND RELATED
MATERIALS," TO THE FOLLOWING VENDORS: OSBORN
ASSOCIATES INC.; MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & SIGN CO.; AND
ALLIED TUBES & CONDUIT CORPORATION PER THE BID
TABULATION SPREADSHEET AND REJECT THE BID
RESULTS FOR BRACKETS AND DELINEAR TUBES AND
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
REOPEN BIDDING ON THESE ITEMS AT A LATER DATE —
PROVIDING ROADWAY SIGNAGE MATERIALS
Item #16A22
A MULTI-AGENCY AGREEMENT TO COOPERATIVELY
COORDINATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS VIA
Page 253
October 14, 2014
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND REVIEW
- PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (ICAR) — BETWEEN FDOT,
COLLIER MPO, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL, CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
Item #16A23
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT (PARCEL 221RDUE) REQUIRED FOR THE
EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM EAST
OF WILSON BOULEVARD TO 20TH STREET EAST. (PROJECT
NO. 60040). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $3,277 — FOLIO
#39269480005
Item #16A24
RESOLUTION 2014-208: DESIGNATING AN OFFICIAL TO
PROVIDE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY FOR RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM
SUSTAINABILITY, TOURIST OPPORTUNITIES, AND
REVIVED ECONOMIES OF THE GULF COAST STATES ACT
OF 2012 (RESTORE) GRANT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED
THROUGH THE FEDERAL GRANTSOLUTIONS ONLINE
GRANT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Item #1625
Page 254
October 14, 2014
RESOLUTION 2014-209: A STANDARD ZERO-DOLLAR
CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(HEREINAFTER "FDOT") PERTAINING TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF SR 951 AND FIDDLERS CREEK
PARKWAY AND A RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING AND
CONFIRMING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'
AFFIRMATIVE VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION
AGREEMENT
Item #16A26
HEARING THE 2014 OUT OF CYCLE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENTS, FOR AMENDMENTS WHICH CHANGE
THE ACTUAL LIST OF PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL AND
PROHIBITED USES IN A ZONING CATEGORY, DURING
REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOARD MEETINGS AND WAIVE
THE AFTER 5:00 P.M. HEARING REQUIREMENT — TO BE
HEARD OCTOBER 28TH AND NOVEMBER 18TH
Item #16A27
THE RELEASE OF SIGNALIZATION EQUIPMENT FOR
INSTALLATION BY GRANADA SHOPPES ASSOCIATES, LTD.
FOR THE JOINTLY FUNDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT ON
US41 AND CREEKSIDE BOULEVARD AND 107TH AVENUE
NORTH, WHICH UPON COMPLETION WILL BE OWNED BY
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY
Page 255
October 14, 2014
Item #16B1
CRA RESOLUTION 2014-210: AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
(JPA) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION ("FDOT") TO OBTAIN PROJECT
FUNDING FROM FDOT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$20,645 FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "MAIN STREET
MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS" AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS
Item #16B2
THE SHORTLIST OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PURSUANT TO
RFP NO. 14-6237, AND AUTHORIZES STAFF TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CRA AND THE TOP
RANKED FIRM, AMEC ENVIRONMENTAL AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., FOR "CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES, FOR THE
IMMOKALEE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II
(IMMOKALEE DRIVE) PROJECT" — SERVICES RELATED TO
DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PEDESTRIAN FACILITY AND
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WEST IMMOKALEE
AREA
Item #16B3
THE SHORTLIST OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PURSUANT TO
RFP NO. 14-6252 AND AUTHORIZES STAFF TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CRA AND THE TOP
RANKED FIRM, AMEC ENVIRONMENTAL AND
Page 256
October 14, 2014
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC., FOR "CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES, FOR THE
COLORADO AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT" —
SERVICES RELATED TO DRAINAGE SYSYEM AND
PEDESTRIAN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
DOWNTOWN IMMOKALEE AREA
Item #16B4
SUBMISSION OF A $25,000 GRANT REQUEST TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
(DEO) RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGIC
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY PLAN FOR IMMOKALEE — TO
BRING SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO THE
AREA
Item #16B5
REJECT A PROPOSAL FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF A
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND BUDGET RENT-A-CAR
SYSTEM INC. — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2014-211 : SATISFACTIONS OF LIENS FOR THE
1993, 1994, 1995, AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE
COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL
SATISFACTION OF THE LIENS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $58.50 TO
Page 257
October 14, 2014
RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIENS
Item #16C2
AWARD REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #13-6166-01 TO
TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $452,000; EXECUTE THE FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT MOMENTARY PARALLEL OPERATION
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT; AND, A $300,000
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT CLOSED
TRANSITION SYSTEM, PROJECT #70069 — TO ELIMINATE
THE NEED FOR PLANT SHUTDOWNS DURING TRANSFERS
BETWEEN FPL AND AUXILIARY GENERATOR POWER
Item #16C3
A $719,710 WORK ORDER UNDER REQUEST FOR
QUOTATION #14-6213-5 TO HASKINS INC., FOR IMMOKALEE
ROAD 36-INCH WATER MAIN PRESSURE TESTING, PROJECT
NO. 70103 — ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD BETWEEN QUARRY
DRIVE AND 39TH AVENUE NE
Item #16D1
THE CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT ON COUNTY
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR UTILITY
SERVICES AT THE GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK —
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF NEW IRRIGATION QUALITY
WATER LINES ON GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
Page 258
October 14, 2014
Item #16D2
REQUEST FOR QUOTATION NO. 10-5510-51 TO BRADANNA
CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $179,919.44, FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "TIGERTAIL BEACH PARK
PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS," THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,689.44, AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES
TOURISM — INCREASING THE NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES AND UPGRADING THE GRAVEL/SHELL PARKING
LOT TO ASPHALT WITH ADDITIONAL CURBING
Item #16D3
THE FINAL PROGRESS REPORT FOR THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
REINVESTMENT GRANT PROGRAM TO BE SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Item #16D4
THE REVISED "CERTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
REGULATORY REFORM ACTIVITIES REQUIRED BY SHIP"
AND SHIP CERTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012,
2012/2013, AND 2013/2014 TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Item #16D5
AN AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. TO PROVIDE
Page 259
October 14, 2014
SNACKS AND/OR SUPPER FOR AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS
AT FOUR COUNTY LOCATIONS: EAST NAPLES
COMMUNITY PARK, GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER,
IMMOKALEE SOUTH PARK AND EAGLE LAKES
COMMUNITY PARK — NO FEES FOR THE MEAL SERVICE TO
PARTICIPATING SITES SINCE SFWDB IS REIMBURSED BY
THE STATE
Item #16D6
AWARD THE QUOTE TO SOUTHERN SIGNAL AND
LIGHTING, INC., UNDER CONTRACT #10-5503 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $28,200 TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SIGN AT
BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE PARK AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM —
THE NEW SIGN WILL INCLUDE AN ELECTRONIC LED
MESSAGE
Item #16D7
AN AFTER-THE-FACT WAIVER OF ALL TENANT RENTAL
LATE FEES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
PROGRAM, IN AN ESTIMATED APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$2,000 FOR THE RECENTLY CONVEYED GILCHRIST
APARTMENTS — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2014-212: SUPPORTING COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT IN HOSTING THE 40TH ANNUAL FLORIDA PUBLIC
Page 260
October 14, 2014
TRANSIT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE AND ADOPT A
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ONE TIME EXPENDITURE
OF FUNDS TO PROVIDE BUS PASSES TO THE CONFERENCE
PARTICIPANTS NOT TO EXCEED $7,123.50 — THE
CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 26-28, 2014 AT
THE NAPLES GRANDE BEACH RESORT
Item #16D9
TWO AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENTS AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENTS WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE ALZHEIMER'S
DISEASE INITIATIVE AND HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY
PROGRAMS TO ADD ADDITIONAL GRANTOR LANGUAGE
AND INCREASE GRANT FUNDING FOR FY 2014/2015. (NET
FISCAL IMPACT $132,683) — AMENDMENTS 001 TO ADI
203. 14.001 AND HCE 203. 14.001
Item #16D10
AN "AFTER-THE-FACT" CONTRACT, ATTESTATION
STATEMENT AND BUDGET AMENDMENT AWARD FOR THE
NUTRITION SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM FROM AREA
AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. (NET
FISCAL IMPACT $38,255.) — CONTRACT NSIP 203. 15 THAT
RUNS OCTOBER 2014 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2015
Item #16D11
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $3,548.49 IN
CARRYFORWARD FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE EARNED
Page 261
October 14, 2014
FOR THE 2014 SUMMER FOOD PROGRAM — PROJECT #33323
Item #16D12
RESOLUTION 2014-213: PROVIDING AFTER THE FACT
APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF SHIRLEY CONROY
RURAL AREA CAPITAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT
APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT $233,192 TO THE FLORIDA
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF FOUR
ADDITIONAL PARATRANSIT VEHICLES
Item #16E1
ROUTINE AND CUSTOMARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2014 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET FOR
APPROVED OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS INTO FISCAL YEAR
2015 FOR OPERATING DEPARTMENTS TO COMPLETE
WORK
Item #16E2 — Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PERIODIC AUCTIONS,
ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND/OR DONATIONS TO 501C3
ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT FISCAL YEAR 2015 FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZE TRANSFER
PAPERWORK; AND ACCEPT, RATIFY, AND RECORD A
REPORT OF THOSE ASSET ITEMS ONCE THE DISPOSAL HAS
BEEN FINALIZED
Page 262
October 14, 2014
Item #16E3
AFFIRMING THE USE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
CONTRACT FOR MOBILE COMMUNICATION SERVICES
WITH SPRINT AND VERIZON SO THAT PAYMENTS MAY BE
ISSUED FOR ACCRUED INVOICES — PROVIDING CELLULAR
EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
Item #16E4 — Moved to Item #11E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2014-214: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F2
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT WITH 2050, LLC,
REPLACING TRAINING AND MANUFACTURING INSTITUTE,
INC., CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
(FORMER) FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHICH
IS ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 49 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES AND AUTHORIZE THE
CONTINUING USE OF THE FLORIDA NATIONAL GUARD
FOR JOB VERIFICATION PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO RESCIND THE AGREEMENT IF
THE CONTEMPLATED PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY BY
2050, LLC DOES NOT OCCUR IN A TIMELY FASHION —
LOCATED AT 2050 COMMERCE AVENUE, AT THE
Page 263
October 14, 2014
TRADEPORT TECHNOLOGY PARK IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16F3
THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN FOR
THE NAPLES, MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES CONVENTION
& VISITORS BUREAU (CVB) AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F4
THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT'S SPORTS MARKETING
SECTION SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA SPORTS
FOUNDATION GRANT APPLICATION TO SUPPORT THE HITS
TRIATHLON EVENT IN JANUARY 2015 IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $3,500, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE APPLICATION, AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F5
TOURIST TAX FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE SPORTS EVENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE EVENTS LISTED BELOW
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EVENTS PROMOTE
TOURISM — COMPETITIVE BASEBALL ASSOCIATION,
GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL, HITS TRIATHLON, INC.,
NAPLES SPORTS FOUNDATION AND FITNATION
MAGAZINE
Item #16H1
Page 264
October 14, 2014
RESOLUTION 2014-215: APPOINTING JAMES E. MORRIS TO
THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2014-216: APPOINTING CAROL PRATT AND
RE-APPOINTING KAREN ACQUARD AND MARK FILLMORE
TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE
Item #16H3
RESOLUTION 2014-217: REAPPOINTING RICHARD TAYLOR
TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD
Item #16J1
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE
PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 24,
2014
Item #16J2
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE
PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 THROUGH OCTOBER 1,
2014
Item #16J3
Page 265
October 14, 2014
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE
PERIOD OF OCTOBER 2, 2014 THROUGH OCTOBER 8, 2014
Item #16J4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $33. 13
RECOGNIZING INTEREST EARNED IN SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS' 2013/2014 FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES
GRANT
Item #16J5
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDER THAT
THE TAX ROLL BE EXTENDED PURSUANT TO SECTION
197.323, FLORIDA STATUTES — DUE TO THE VOLUME OF
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD PETITIONS, HEARINGS WILL
EXTEND INTO 2015
Item #16J6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,419 TO
THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S FY2015 BUDGET — DUE TO
DOR DECREASING THE PROSPOSED FY2015 BUDGET
Item #16K1
PAYMENT FOR MEDIATION SERVICES BY ANDREW G.
DIAZ FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF PARCELS TAKEN FOR THE
IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY BARN ROAD (PROJECT NO.
Page 266
October 14, 2014
60101), AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
RETAIN MR. DIAZ FOR FUTURE MEDIATIONS UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE ATTACHED LETTER — TO SETTLE PENDING
EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION
Item #16K2
A JOINT MOTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO
RESPONDENT, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SOUTHWEST,
INC.'S INTEREST IN THE TAKING OF PARCEL 113FEE IN
THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NEW PLAN
FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)
AND US 41 (PROJECT NO. 60116). (FISCAL IMPACT: $7,500.) —
LOCATED AT THE FREEDOM SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2014-218: AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE THE
ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF THE WHISTLER'S
GREEN APARTMENTS
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2014-36: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009-21, THE MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED, BY
INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING
UNITS FROM 1,121 TO 1,233; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE
Page 267
October 14, 2014
NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE
ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 19.7± ACRES OF
LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE
MIRASOL RPUD; BY INCREASING THE DWELLING UNITS
FROM 1,121 TO 1,233; BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE
RPUD FROM THE MIRASOL RPUD TO THE ESPLANADE
GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD; BY REVISING
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE
MASTER PLAN AND REVISING DEVELOPER
COMMITMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) BORDERED
ON THE EAST BY FUTURE COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951)
IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF
1 ,658.3± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
[PETITION PUDZA-PL20140000099]
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2014-219: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item 417C
ORDINANCE 2014-37: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2012-23
IN ORDER TO RECONSTITUTE THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY AUTHORITY TO A FIVE-MEMBER CITIZEN
Page 268
October 14, 2014
GROUP WITH MEMBERS HAVING NO AFFILIATION WITH
ANY HOSPITAL, FIRE DISTRICT, EMS, MUNICIPALITY OR
THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND TO
ELIMINATE THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR'S SUBCOMMITTEE
Item #17D - Moved from Item #8A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2014-220: A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 380. 115(1)(B), FLORIDA STATUTES, APPROVING
THE APPLICATION FOR RESCISSION OF THE TOWN OF AVE
MARIA DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT; PROVIDING
FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW;
PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESCISSION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
ORDER, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE POST-RESCISSION
DEVELOPMENT WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS; PROVIDING
FOR CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR RECORDATION;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
NORTH OF OIL WELL ROAD AND WEST OF CAMP KEAIS
ROAD IN SECTIONS 31 THROUGH 33, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST AND SECTIONS 4 THROUGH 9 AND 16
THROUGH 18, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA [PETITION DRIABN-
PL20130002016]
*****
Page 269
October 14, 2014
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
r,1045 , ril '
TOM HENNING I HAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
fats,: ., 0-,, • -,
ofi..,„\fiLtA,
v _ .AttestaStE rmans
These minutes approved by the Board on L L i 13/14 , as presented
or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 270