BCC Minutes 06/23/2015 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
June 23, 2015
June 23, 2015
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 23, 2015
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: Tim Nance
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
/,
r atoms► -�
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
June 23, 2015
9:00 AM
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5—BCC Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Vice-Chair; CRA Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 - Community & Economic Dev. Chair
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Chair
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4— TDC Chair; CRA Vice-Chair
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER 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.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR
FUTURE AGENDA TO BE HEARD NO SOONER THAN 1:00 P.M., OR AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE AGENDA; WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.
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
Page 1
June 23, 2015
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.
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.
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 DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Jim Thomas —East Naples United Methodist Church
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. May 26, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
C. June 2, 2015 - BCC/Fire Service Proposal Workshop
Page 2
June 23,2015
3. SERVICE AWARDS
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Carolann Adams, Library
2) Jose Sanchez, Landscape Operations
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Bob DeCamp, Parks & Recreation
2) Dan Rodriguez, Solid & Hazardous Waste
3) Peter Schalt, Public Utilities Engineering
C. 30 Year Attendees
1) Bill Lorenz, Engineering & Natural Resources
2) Kathryn Nell, County Attorney's Office
3) Ray Ognibene, Water
D. 35 Year Attendees
1) Ron Jamro, Museum
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing the Brotherhood Ride Organization and the
29 firefighters and law enforcement officers who rode bicycles from Naples
to Tallahassee to honor emergency responders who have fallen in the line of
duty. To be accepted by Lieutenant Jeff Morse of the North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District.
B. Proclamation recognizing 2015 as "Victory Florida Year," marking the
70th Anniversary of the end of World War II. To be accepted by Her
Majesty's Consul General in Miami, Consul General Prodger, Lois A.
Bolin, Reg Buxton, and Diane van Parys.
Page 3
June 23,2015
C. Proclamation designating June 23, 2015 as Franny Kain and Fun Time Early
Learning Academy Day, in recognition of contributions made by Franny
Kain as Executive Director of Fun Time Early Childhood Academy, and in
recognition of Fun Time Early Childhood Academy for their contributions to
the community. To be accepted by Franny Kain, Executive Director of Fun
Time Early Childhood Academy.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Marisa Cleveland, Operations Analyst,
Growth Management Department as Employee of the Month for May 2015.
B. Presentation of the mission, vision and goals of the Multicultural
Community Advisory Alliance (MCAA). To be presented by members of
the MCAA. (Commissioner Fiala)
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
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Items #8 and#9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section
Two, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more
specifically amending the following: Chapter One — General Provisions,
including Section 1.08.02 Definitions; Chapter Five — Supplemental
Standards, including Section 5.05.05 Automobile Service Stations, more
specifically to establish site design standards for facilities with fuel pumps
and to allow facilities with fuel pumps with 8 or more fuel pumps and within
250 feet of residential property to seek approval through a conditional use
Page 4
June 23,2015
hearing; Section 5.05.08 Architectural and Site Design Standards; Section
5.05.11 Carwashes Abutting Residential Zoning Districts; Section Three,
Conflict And Severability; Section Four, Inclusion in the Collier County
Land Development Code; and Section Five, Effective Date.
B. Recommendation to consider an Ordinance Amending Ordinance Number
04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section
Two, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more
specifically amending Chapter 2 - Zoning Districts And Uses, including
Section 2.03.09 Open Space Zoning Districts, to add golf maintenance
buildings as a new accessory use within the golf course zoning district;
Chapter 4 - Site Design and Development Standards, including Section
4.02.03 Specific Standards for Location of Accessory Buildings and
Structures, to establish setback requirements for golf clubhouse and
maintenance buildings on waterfront lots and golf course lots in zoning
districts other than Rural Agricultural and Estates; Section Three, Conflict
and Severability; Section Four, Inclusion in the Collier County Land
Development Code; and Section Five, Effective Date.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to direct the County Manager to plan for sea level rise
in Collier County. (Commissioner Fiala)
B. Recommendation to direct the County Attorney to investigate and, if
appropriate, file a lawsuit against H.O.M.E. as well as its executives
and directors for the amount of$427,472.42 plus lawsuit costs for the
mismanagement of CDBG funds issued to Collier County.
(Commissioner Henning)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve the award of Invitation To Bid #15-6455,
Freedom Memorial Monument, to Gates Construction in the amount of
$1,377,971 and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract; delegate to the
County Manager or his designee the authority to carry out administrative and
ministerial actions necessary to implement the Board's direction during the
Board's absence; and to authorize the necessary Budget Amendments. (Len
Page 5
June 23, 2015
Price, Administrative Services Administration)
B. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #15-6459 to DeAngelis
Diamond Construction, in the amount of$1,545,626 for the construction of
(EMS) Emergency Medical Station No. 76, and authorize the Chairman to
execute the attached contract. (Len Price, Administrative Services
Administrator)
C. This item continued from the June 9, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to adopt a resolution establishing the Ave Maria
Innovation Zone to attract and retain qualified targeted industry businesses
in the defined unincorporated area of Collier County. (Bruce Register,
Office of Business and Economic Development Director)
D. Recommendation to adopt Affordable/Workforce Housing Population
Based Index Model Methodology, reinstate the suspended Impact Fee
Deferral Program for single family residences, and retain previously
approved density bonus units in Planned Unit Developments, and direct
staff to bring back parameters on Gap Housing. (Kimberley Grant,
Community and Human Services)
E. Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #15-6379 Collier Area Transit
(CAT) Facility Improvements - Phase II for construction of improvements at
the Collier Area Transit Administration and Operations Facility, to DEC
Contracting Group, Inc., in the amount of$1,454,508.67 and authorize the
Chairman to sign the attached contract. (Michelle Arnold, Public
Transportation Division Director)
F. Recommendation to award Request for Proposal #14-6307, Annual Contract
for General Contractor Services to the following five firms: Bradanna, Inc.,
Surety Construction Company, PBS Contractors, Wright Construction
Group, Inc., and Compass Construction, Inc. (Len Price, Administrative
Services Administrator)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 6
June 23, 2015
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 the water and sewer
utility facilities for Cordoba at Lely Resort, PL20110001984 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.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Lantana (f/k/a Vita Tuscana), PL20130000108 and
to 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 the water and sewer
utility facilities for Turnbury Preserve, PL20130002084, 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.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Aqua Pelican Isle Yacht Club, PL20110002089,
and authorize the County Manager or his designee to release a
Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in
the total amount of$50,207.15 to the Project Engineer or Developer's
Page 7
June 23,2015
designated agent.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (Agreement)
between Collier County and the LaMorada at Naples Master
Association, Inc. for a landscape improvements within the Woodcrest
Drive right-of-way.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (Agreement)
between Collier County and the Bent Creek Preserve Homeowner's
Association, Inc. for a landscape improvements within the Woodcrest
Drive right-of-way.
7) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Developer
Agreement (DA) between Citygate Development, LLC, 850 NWN
LLC, and CG II, LLC (Developer) and Collier County (County) to
design, permit and construct a portion of City Gate Boulevard North
to preserve the future Wilson/Benfield transportation corridor.
8) Recommendation to accept a proposal from CB&I Coastal Planning
& Engineering dated June 9, 2015 for Collier County 2015
Hardbottom Biological Monitoring, approve a work order under
Contract #15-6382 for a not to exceed amount of$163,112.20,
authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute the Work
Order, authorize necessary budget amendment and make a finding that
this item promotes tourism. (Project No. 90033)
9) Recommendation to approve the release of(3) code enforcement liens
with a combined accrued value of$17,718.57 for payment of
$4,768.57, in the code enforcement action entitled Board of County
Commissioners v. Sidney John Hubschman, Code Enforcement Board
Case No. CEPM20130019061 and Code Enforcement Special
Magistrate Case Nos. CENA20130019057 and CENA20140016288,
relating to property located at 2600 Coach House Lane, Collier
County, Florida.
10) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
Page 8
June 23,2015
with an accrued value of$347,269.89 for payment of$2,500, in the
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Fabian and Maria Luzardo, Code Enforcement Special Magistrate
Case No. 2005010315, relating to property located at 1195 47th
Avenue NE, Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve Category "A" Tourist Development
Council Grant applications from the City of Naples, the City of Marco
Island and Collier County for FY-2015-2016 in the amount of
$7,1 45,522; authorize the Chairman to sign Grant Agreements
following County Attorney's approval; approve the 10-year capital
planning document for Fund 195-Beach Renourishment and Pass
Maintenance; and make a finding that these expenditures will promote
tourism.
12) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for the 2015
TIGER VII Discretionary Grant application, sponsored by the United
States Department of Transportation, for the Collier Boulevard
Corridor Improvement Project, in the amount of$33,400,000.
13) Recommendation to provide after-the-fact approval for the 2015
TIGER VII Discretionary Grant application sponsored by the United
States Department of Transportation, for the Collier Community
Streets and Infrastructure Project on Vanderbilt Drive, $16,145,000.
14) Recommendation to accept for maintenance five publicly dedicated
alleyways located within the Gateway Triangle. Estimated cost
$1,000.
15) 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 Maple Ridge Phase 3
Replat, Application Number PL20150000534.
16) 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 Legacy Estates, (Application
Number 20140001803) approval of the standard form Construction
Page 9
June 23,2015
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security. (Companion to Item #16D5)
17) Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MPO) Operating Budget for FY15/16 to recognize
grant revenue of$499,791.
18) Recommendation to recognize FY15/16 Transportation Disadvantage
Planning Grant funding in the amount of$25,941 to the Collier
Metropolitan Planning Organization from the Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged and to authorize the necessary budget
amendment.
19) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve
"Cartegraph" for the work management system software licenses and
annual maintenance for the Growth Management Department.
20) Recommendation to approve the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) FY 15/16 Work Order whereby FDOT
provides compensation to Collier County for providing maintenance
of FDOT owned Roadway Lighting Systems under the State Highway
Lighting Maintenance, and Compensation Agreement.
21) Recommendation to review the April 2015 beach survey results and
endorse a staff recommendation to not renourish Vanderbilt, Pelican
Bay, Park Shore or Naples beaches in the Fall (November) of 2015.
22) Recommendation to approve a Resolution supporting the County's
applications to Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
Long Range Budget Plan Requests for Beach Renourishment Projects
for Fiscal Year 2016/17. This action maintains the County's eligibility
for State Cost Share Funding for future renourishment projects.
23) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation
of those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of a replacement bridge on White Boulevard over the
Cypress Canal. (Transportation Bridge Replacement Program Project
No. 66066.) Estimated fiscal impact: $570,000.
24) Recommendation to (1) approve the removal of a Pathway
Page 10
June 23,2015
Commitment and (2) accept a payment in lieu for certain
transportation commitments with respect to the Arrowhead Preserve
PUD Ordinance No. 2002-40, as amended.
25) Recommendation to approve Amendment to the Collier Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) Staff Services Agreement.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize advertising an Ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 2005-54, which re-established two Municipal Benefit
Units, known as Service District No. 1 and Service District No. 2, for
the purpose of providing and regulating solid waste collection,
disposal and administration, to provide alignment with the Franchise
Agreements as amended, new procedures, clarifications, and
administrative changes.
2) Recommendation to award Bid #15-6461 to Pantropic Power, Inc., in
the amount of$357,569 to provide and install a rebuilt diesel
generator engine at North County Regional Water Treatment Plant.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the third substantial amendment to the
NSP 1 Action Plan to add the resale provision and funding
distribution language and the fourth amendment to the NSP 3
Action Plan removing the recapture provision and adding resale
requirements.
2) Recommendation to award a work order to AECOM Technical
Services, Inc., using the Annual Contract for Professional Services for
Engineers and Architects Contract #13-6164, for the Clam Pass Park
Concession Electrical Service Upgrade, approve budget amendment
and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
the attached time extension to Contract Number AQQ85, Joint
Participation Agreement with Florida Department of Transportation
Page 11
June 23,2015
under the State Transit Service Development Program, to provide
funding to make necessary improvements to bus stops in accordance
with The Americans with Disabilities Act.
4) Recommendation to approve the FY 2016-2025 Collier County
Transit Development Plan Ten-Year Major Update.
5) Recommendation to approve a standard Donation Agreement that
allows JD DEVELOPMENT 1 LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, to donate a 1.14 acre parcel along with a management
endowment of$4,440.30 to the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program under the offsite vegetation retention provision
of the Land Development Code LDC Sec 3.05.07H.1.f.iii. (b), at no
cost to the County, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Donation
Agreement and staff to take all necessary actions to close.
(Companion to Item #16A16)
6) Recommendation to approve a substantial amendment to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Community
Development Block Grant FY2014-2015 Annual Action Plan and
approve Amendment No. 2 with the David Lawrence Mental Health
Center to reduce agreement allocation and beneficiaries and update
language.
7) Recommendation to accept an extension to expenditure deadline on
Fiscal Year 2011/2012 SHIP funding granted from the Florida
Housing Finance Corporation for the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership (SHIP) program.
8) Recommendation to recognize interest earnings on advanced library
funding received from the Florida Department of State in order to
support library services and equipment for the use of Collier County
residents in the amount of$629.54 and approve the necessary budget
amendments.
9) Recommendation to require the Rock Road Municipal Service Taxing
Unit (MSTU) to continue to maintain a one mile segment of Rock
Road after being paved and continuing through and until the County
financed loan of$285,000 is satisfied by the MSTU.
Page 12
June 23,2015
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement with the Department of Children
and Families for the Criminal Justice Mental Health Substance Abuse
Grant, amendments to the two corresponding sub-agreements with the
David Lawrence Center and the Collier County Sheriffs Office,
accept the termination of the associated NAMI of Collier County
agreement; and approve the amended grant budget and application.
11) Recommendation to approve a Resolution superceding Resolution
2014-141, which established the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Advertising Policy, Standards and Rate Schedule and approve an
advertising agreement, terms and conditions and package rates.
12) Recommendation to authorize the Parks and Recreation Division and
the Operations and Veteran's Services Division to establish a program
in support of the "Warrior Health and Fitness Challenge."
13) Recommendation to accept the Conservation Collier 2014 Annual
Report.
14) Recommendation to approve the Five-year update of the Final
Management Plan for Conservation Collier Alligator Flag Preserve.
15) Recommendation to approve a temporary signage program during the
2015 summer break to place temporary YMCA/CAT signs on select
CAT bus stop poles.
16) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the expenditure of
funds and other incentive activities and incentive prizes associated
with Staff and authorizing waiver of the entrance fee to Sun-N -Fun to
all participants of the 2015 United Way Walk.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Assumption Agreement from the original party Vision Internet
Providers, Inc., to Vision Technology Solutions, LLC d/b/a Vision
Internet Providers as it relates to Contract #14-6249 "Collier County
Website and e-Procurement Bidding System Hosting and
Maintenance."
Page 13
June 23, 2015
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #15-6375R,
Ambulance Pharmaceutical Refrigerators to Mermaid Manufacturing
of Southwest Florida, Inc.
3) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate revenue for Special
Services to the Facilities Management Division Cost Center and
approve any necessary Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget Amendments.
4) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to recognize and
appropriate revenue funds in an amount up to $8,200 for repairs to
Rescue Boat 80.
5) Recommendation to waive competition for Wesco Turf as a sole
source vendor to exceed $50,000 spending limit for Fleet
Management parts/service.
6) Recommendation to approve and execute a Third Amendment to
Lease Agreement with Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, Inc.
for continued use of the Roberts Center for the Seniors Nutrition
Program.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
State-Funded Subgrant Agreement 16-BG-83-09-21-01-011 accepting
a Grant award totaling $105,806 from the Florida Division of
Emergency Management for emergency management program
enhancement and approve the associated budget amendment.
8) Recommendation to approve a Federally Funded Subgrant Agreement
to accept the annual Emergency Management Performance Grant
(EMPG), in the amount of$103,468 for emergency management
planning, response, and mitigation efforts and to authorize the
necessary budget amendment.
9) Recommendation to approve a licensing agreement with DeAngelis
Diamond, LLC, to allow the use of county-owned real property on a
short-term basis for construction vehicle parking.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to confirm the appointment of Mr. David Wilkison
Page 14
June 23,2015
to the position of Growth Management Department Head.
2) Recommendation to approve a Tri-Party Developer Contribution
Agreement with Parklands Associates I, LLLP, and The District
School Board of Collier County to allow Parklands Associates I,
LLLP to convey a 15-acre parcel within the Parklands RPUD for use
as an elementary school site in exchange for Educational Impact Fee
credits in the sum of$2,050,000, which exchange is in accordance
with the Developer commitments set forth in the RPUD document,
and which sum represents appraised fair market value of the parcel.
3) Recommendation to accept the sixth annual report on the "Impact Fee
Program for Existing Commercial Redevelopment" and approve a
resolution extending the Program to July 1, 2016, based on the
continuing interest in the Program.
4) Recommendation to award RFP #15-6397 for Environmental &
Biological Studies to Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., Earth Tech
Environmental, LLC, Kevin Erwin Consulting Ecologist, Inc.,
Passarella & Associates, Inc., and CB&I Environmental &
Infrastructure, and authorize the Chairman to execute the County
Attorney approved contracts.
5) Recommendation to award RFQ #15-6434, Web Based Destination
Management System, for a database software system to Internet
Destination Sales System Global, LLC (iDSS) and authorize the
Chairman to execute the County Attorney approved contract and
make a finding that this action promotes tourism.
6) Recommendation to award RFQ #15-6433, Production of the Tourism
Guide, to Miles Media Group, LLLP and authorize the Chairman to
execute the County Attorney approved contract and make a finding
that this action promotes tourism.
7) Recommendation to approve a report covering budget amendments
impacting reserves and moving funds in an amount up to and
including $25,000 and $50,000, respectively.
8) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
Page 15
June 23,2015
to the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
9) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Category `B"
funding to support upcoming FY 15 Sports Events up to $47,200 and
make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
10) Recommendation to approve the Tourism Division's acceptance of
grant reimbursement funds from Visit Florida for Medical Meetings
marketing in the total amount of$28,476 and make a finding that this
item promotes tourism.
11) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to the Grant
Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity for funding assistance for the County's Soft Landing
Business Accelerator Project to extend the due dates of the remaining
deliverables for a period of one year.
12) Recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the
Agreement between Economic Incubators, Inc. and the Board of
County Commissioners.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board.
2) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Development Services
Advisory Committee.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
after the fact approval for the Sheriff's Office FY 2016-2019 COPS
Hiring Program grant.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
Page 16
June 23,2015
after the fact approval for the Sheriff's Office FY 2016 COPS Anti-
Gang Initiative (CAGI) Program grant.
3) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of June 4 through June 10,
2015.
4) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose and
approval of disbursements for the period of June 11 through June 17,
2015.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of$15,000 in full settlement of all claims for compensation,
damages, attorney fees and expert witness costs for the taking of
Parcel 250DAME for construction of the Sandy Lane segment of the
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP), Project No.
51101. (Fiscal Impact: $9,414)
2) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted with the same terms and
conditions, in the total amount of$684,815 for the acquisition of
Parcel 101 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Naples Estates
Limited Partnership, et al., Case No. 06-CA-1213 and approve the
hiring of Hole Montes, Inc. to seek approval of a post take cure plan.
(County Barn Road Project No. 60101) (Est. Fiscal Impact: $403,515)
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.
Page 17
June 23, 2015
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 No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations
for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the
appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification
of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural Zoning
District (A), and a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay
(A-ST), to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District
to allow up to 61 dwelling units for a project to be known as the Lido Isles
RPUD on property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard at 9130 and
9198 Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida consisting of 24.32± acres; and by providing an
effective date. [PUDZ-PL20140000393]
B. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance adopting the Florida Building
Code Fifth Edition (2014) to become effective on June 30, 2015, and
incorporate existing local amendments, exemptions and the current County
wind maps, and providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 2012-14 in its
entirety.
C. 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 Petition VAC-
PL20140001887 to disclaim, renounce and vacate County and public interest
in a portion of 15th Street as shown on the plat of Eastover, Plat Book 1
Page 97, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section
3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item has been continued to the July 7, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to execute the proposed Mediated Settlement Agreement
and Integration Agreement, which integrates Orange Tree Utility Company
water and wastewater systems into the Collier County Water-Sewer District,
to provide water and wastewater utilities to Orange Tree Utility customers
pursuant to the May 28, 1991 Agreement, as amended, between Orange Tree
Utility Company, Orangetree Associates and the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County; accept the Staff Report dated June 23,
2015 pursuant to Section 124.3401, Florida Statutes; approve existing
Orange Tree Utility contracts and agreements with vendors and suppliers as
Page 18
June 23, 2015
those of Collier County; approve 9 Full Time Equivalent positions; approve
a Resolution changing the District boundaries; and approve inclusion of the
proposed budget in the FY16 Collier County Water-Sewer District Budget.
E. Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Collier County
Purchasing Ordinance. (Ordinance Number 2013-69)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
June 23, 2015
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Ladies and
gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Collier County Board of County Commission meeting
of June the 23rd.
At this time, in order to help us have a nice meeting, please, I will
ask you to silence all your devices so they're not making noise during
the meeting.
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - GIVEN BY
PASTOR JIM THOMAS — EAST NAPLES UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At this time I would like to introduce
Pastor Jim Thomas from the East Naples United Methodist Church
who will deliver our invocation.
Please rise for the invocation and join us in the pledge.
PASTOR THOMAS: May we pray.
Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you this morning asking for
the help of the spirit as we offer our prayer in your name.
Lord, we come to you this morning asking for guidance and
direction. So often in life, Dear Lord, we see us as us and them. May
we try to -- not try to overwhelm them but to overcome differences, to
tear down the walls that divide us and to see that we are all us, that we
are all your children, and may you give us the help we need in order to
help us to work together for the benefit of all.
Lord, we ask for your guidance served in direction in all things.
We ask that you help us to be the people that you want us to be.
And we thank you, Dear Lord, for your many blessings, and we
Page 2
June 23, 2015
thank you for carrying us through our times of trouble.
And we pray this humbly in your name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At this time, and in contemplation of the
horrific tragedies in Charleston, South Carolina, we're joined this
morning by Pastor Lonnie Mills from the Macedonia Baptist Church
and Mr. Harold Weeks, the President of the Collier County NAACP.
I would ask them at this time to please come forward and give us
a few remarks regarding the horrific situation.
MR. WEEKS: I bow to my elders.
PASTOR MILLS: Thank you. Good morning.
I'd like to say this morning, we are living in a dangerous time
right now. We need to understand that we are all people. We need to
understand that tragedies is going to happen. We need to understand a
way to helm tragedies when it happen. It can happen to anyone.
What I look at this time, at the thing that happened in Charleston,
South Carolina. It has come close, come close to home. It has left the
streets. It has come to the church. Church is supposed to be a safe
haven where we can come together for spiritual growth.
And what I need all of us to do today is to don't be so quick to
judge, but let us pray for one another. And even the young man that
did the shooting, let's pray that he will be safe. He needs to be saved.
His soul needs to be saved.
What happened there can happen right here. But let us, as a
community, come together and know that these things happen, but we
do have a way out, and that way is to seek he first the kingdom of God
and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.
And that I would like to do this, Father God, in the name of Jesus,
we thank you for this time, for this time together. Bring our minds
together, bring our hearts together. Let us be able to do business in a
business way. Let us realize that all of us are your children's, and
Page 3
June 23, 2015
there is no difference, but we all are your children's, and we thank you.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Pastor Mills.
Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Pastor Mills.
To segue off that a little bit, I'm Harold Weeks, President of the
Collier County branch of the NAACP.
Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning, Mr. Weeks.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning.
MR. WEEKS: When Commissioner Taylor invited me to say a
few words about the recent slayings of nine parishioners in Charlotte,
South Carolina, I was really at a loss for words, what to say.
I do send my condolences, and all the members of my branch, to
the families and friends of each of the nine Bible worshipers that lost
their lives prematurely at the hands of the hate-filled young man
Dylann Roof
I commend the church for seeking forgiveness of such a heinous
crime. I, myself, find it hard to be so forgiving. It's really tough.
African Americans have forgiven such crimes before from hangings to
church bombings and the death of young innocent girls. Let us not
forget the assassinations of forgiving souls like Dr. Martin Luther King
and Medgar Evers and others.
African Americans have endured inexcusable horrors through
these many years to practice what they preach; forgiveness.
You decide. Would you out there in the audience and those
listening on TV have the forgiveness in your heart if a black man came
among you and killed nine of your family and friends praying to your
God? You decide.
What I ask of those who do have hate in their heart and mind here
in Collier County to keep it locked inside you. When you let this hate
Page 4
June 23, 2015
erupt in public places, in the privacy of your social places, and the
privacy of your homes, remember, little pictures have ears. They're the
ones that will carry out the mission that you, yourself, cannot. Then
you, too, shall suffer.
I know the burning question out there is, will it happen in Collier
County? You decide. Could it happen? Of course it can. One quick,
sick -- one sick, unhappy creature is all this needed, and he or she can
come from anywhere. Let's make sure he doesn't come to Collier
County.
Fortunately, many organizations, like the faith-based, your law
enforcement agency, are working tirelessly to see that this does not
happen. They need your help.
When you hear hate-filled conversations, ethnic derogatory
remarks, injustices practiced, unfairness and inequalities practiced, you
decide; is this something you want to happen in your community?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, in
contemplation of these remarks, please, let's bow our heads in a
moment of silence for the victims and pray for all those affected.
(A moment of silence was observed.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ochs, will you take us through today's proposed agenda
changes, please, sir.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA) — MOTION TO APPROVE WITHOUT ITEM #17E —
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES; MOTION
Page 5
June 23, 2015
TO APPROVE ITEM #17E — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. These are your proposed agenda changes for the
Board of County Commissioners meeting of July -- excuse me -- June
23rd, 2015.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16A16 from your
consent agenda to become Item 9C under your advertised public
hearing agenda. It's the recording of a final plat of Legacy Estates.
The next proposed -- that is moved at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 17E from your
summary agenda to become Item 9D under advertised public hearings,
and this is a recommendation to approve an amendment to the Collier
County purchasing ordinance. This request is made by Commissioner
Taylor.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16D15 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11G under your regular agenda. This
is a recommendation to approve temporary signage at selected CAT
bus stops. That item is moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16D5 to Item 11H on
the regular agenda. This is a companion item to the Legacy Estates
final plat recording item. It's a donation agreement regarding off-site
vegetation retention under your Land Development Code.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16F6 from the consent
agenda to become Item 11I on the regular agenda. It's a contract award
for the production of your annual tourism guide. That item is moved at
Commissioner Taylor's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16F12 from your
consent agenda to become Item 11J. It's an amendment to the
agreement between the Economic Incubators, Incorporated, and the
Page 6
June 23, 2015
Board relating to your Collier County Soft Landing Business
Accelerator project. That item is moved at Commissioner Taylor's
request.
We have one add-on item this morning. That's Item 11 BK under
County Manager. This is a recommendation for the Board to provide
some guidance to the manager regarding payment of certain
expenditures.
We have a time-certain item today, Commissioners, at 4 p.m.
That is the previously mentioned Item 9C, the final plat recording for
Legacy Estates, and that item will be immediately followed by Item
11H.
I also have a couple of agenda notes this morning. The first note
has to do with Item 16A21. Commissioner Henning has proposed an
additional component of the recommendation, and that is to direct staff
to obtain a permit modification to renourish the Clam Pass Park
beaches after the 15-year beach renourishment permit is issued from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers. And, again, that is made by
Commissioner Henning, and the staff certainly appreciates that
direction.
The next agenda note is in regard to Item 16A25. There's an
addition to the signature block. It was signed by your interim Collier
MPO executive director, and the word "interim" was inadvertently left
off of that amendment document, so we are adding that for the record.
Item 16E5 has to do with a waiver of competition for certain fleet
repairs for the Wesco Turf contract. Agenda note here is that fiscal
year expenditures will not exceed $100,000 without Board approval.
And, finally, Item 16F6, we wanted to note, as we indicated in
your executive summary, that there would be a recommendation
forthcoming from your Tourist Development Council on the
production of the tourism guide and, in fact, the Tourist Development
Page 7
June 23, 2015
Council recommended approval of this item by a vote of 5-1 at
yesterday's meeting of June 22nd, 2015. So that's added to the record
at staffs request.
We traditionally have court reporter breaks at 10:30 a.m. and 2:50
p.m.
And those are all the changes that I have this morning, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question. I had asked for a
time-certain yesterday for the add-on item at 10:15. Is that not
approved?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I apologize. I inadvertently forgot
to put that on. Do you want to hear that -- at what time, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10:15.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which item is that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the add-on item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 11K.
MR. OCHS: 11K.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 11K.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's talk about this a second. Let's have
-- before we get into adding any time-certains, let us hear from the
commissioners. Let's see if we have any additional agenda changes so
I can sort this out. We've got a very aggressive agenda today, and
what I would like to do is I would like to go through and kind of
organize this so we can -- we've got a lot of public hearings and so on
and so forth.
So let's see if we have any additional changes from
commissioners and do our ex parte on consent and summary, and let's
begin with Commissioner Henning.
Any additional changes, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No additional changes.
Page 8
June 23, 2015
Ex parte communication on 17A, received staffs -- to the
Planning Commission, their recommendations. 17C, I talked to staff
and the petitioner. That's it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. For 9C, I've had
correspondence, emails, and calls, and I have no other disclosure other
than in 17A where I've read the staff report.
However, what I would like to understand is why we're moving --
I think it was Commissioner Taylor who requested that the new 9D be
created as part of our advertised public hearings. What's the reason for
that, Commissioner Taylor? Why is it that you want to move that to be
heard as opposed to on consent?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just want to vote on it
separately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- do that?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do you have any other changes?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. But could we go ahead and
dispense with that, like, right now?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, let's go through and get down to
Commissioner Taylor, and then we'll dispense with that item at that
time. No further changes, ma'am, other than that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wasn't adding a change. I
actually thought I had already requested yesterday to put that on.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is a change that we had
received last night, and I'd asked --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
Page 9
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the County Manager to put it on. I
only just felt that we should dispense with that first before we get into
the regular meat of the meeting.
And, sir, you are the chairman. You make that decision.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We'll -- we will -- do you have
any additional requests other than that, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No additional requests. No
corrections. But I do have some ex parte.
On 16A16, my goodness, I got a letter from Elizabeth Nelson, I
had correspondence, emails. I talked with staff before that.
And also on 17A, my disclosures are -- this is the previous
Willow Run, and so I have emails, and I'd spoken to staff about this,
and I'd also spoken to the original owner, who was Maureen Bonness,
way back when, and I read the staff report.
And then, finally, on 17C -- and this was the Eastover plat. I just
had some correspondence from the attorney and also I spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Taylor, any
additional changes other than your --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just one gentle request to staff.
On 16D12, which is the Warrior Health And Fitness Challenge, Home
Base is sponsoring that, and I understand Collier County generously
gave these extraordinary citizens and Americans who have been
severely wounded in war opportunity to use their fitness facilities at no
charge, these soldiers and their families.
I would also like staff to reach out to Naples Community Hospital
to see if they would like to partner with us in that.
MR. OCHS: We'd be happy to do that, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. As far as ex parte, I have no
further changes. I have some organizational things I would like to
establish for today.
Page 10
June 23, 2015
I have no disclosure on today's consent agenda item. On Item 9C,
Legacy Estates, I've had discussions with staff and read
correspondence from residents.
On 17A, the Lido Isles issues, I've read staff report. On 17C I've
had phone calls with the petitioner and meetings with staff.
Commissioners, what I would like to do today is I'd like to
entertain a motion, after I set forth some scheduling things. What I
would like to do is I would like to take -- in order to have an orderly
meeting, I would like to separate Commissioner Taylor's request on
Item 17E. When we come to approval of today's summary agenda,
we'll vote that independently at her request.
This morning we will hear Item 11K, at Commissioner Fiala's
request, at 10: 15, and this afternoon when we return from break, in
order to get people back to work -- we have many hearings today.
What we'll -- what we will do is we will hear Item 9B out of sequence,
the golf course maintenance item, at 1:30, and, of course, we will have
public comments prior to that.
Immediately following Item 9B, we will embark on 9A, which is
the automobile service station, so that will hopefully take place very
close to 1 :30. And then, of course, Commissioner Hiller's items, Item
9C and Companion Item 11H, will be heard at her request at 4 p.m.
At this time I would like to entertain a motion to approve today's
regular, consent, and summary agenda and scheduling as proposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And a second. All those --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Does that include the separate vote on --
Page 11
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a separate vote on Item 17E. So
we're approving it with the exception of 17E at Commissioner Taylor's
request.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: On Item 17E --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Opposed, aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did he say? I'm sorry.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning is in dissent of
the agenda with changes as approved 4-1.
On Item 17E, which is being independently considered off
summary agenda, discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Item 17E is approved 3-2 with
Commissioner Henning and Taylor dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Welcome aboard, Commissioner
Taylor. You know, it was a 4-1 before, now it's a 2-3.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
Page 12
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, it's the same vote we had before,
sir, so it's not a big surprise.
Page 13
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 23,2015
Move Item 16A16 to Item 9C: 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 Legacy Estates,(Application Number
20140001803)approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security. Companion to Item 16D5.(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 17E to Item 9D: Recommendation to approve an Amendment to the Collier County Purchasing
Ordinance(Ordinance Number 2013-69). (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16D15 to Item I1G: Recommendation to approve a temporary signage program during the 2015
summer break to place temporary YMCA/CAT signs on select CAT bus stop poles. (Commissioner
Henning's request)
Move Item 16D5 to Item 11H: This item to be heard immediately following Item 9C(16A16):
Recommendation to approve a standard Donation Agreement that allows JD DEVELOPMENT l LLC,a
foreign limited liability company,to donate a 1.14 acre parcel along with a management endowment of
$4,440.30 to the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program under the offsite vegetation retention
provision of the Land Development Code LDC Sec 3.05.07H.1.f.iii. (b),at no cost to the County,and
authorize the Chairman to sign the Donation Agreement and staff to take all necessary actions to close.
Companion to Item 16A16. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16F6 to Item 11I: Recommendation to award RFQ 15-6433 Production of the Tourism Guide to
Miles Media Group,LLLP and authorize the Chairman to execute the County Attorney approved contract
and make a finding that this action promotes tourism. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Move Item 16F12 to Item 11J: Recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement
between Economic Incubators,Inc.and the Board of County Commissioners. (Commissioner Taylor's
request)
Add On Item 11K: Recommendation to provide guidance to the County Manager in response to the
Clerk of Court's unilateral decision to withhold presentation of selected expenditures to the Board for
determination of valid public purpose and payment authorization. (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9C(Moved from 16A16)to be heard at 4:00 p.m.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 23,2015
Page 2
Note:
Item 16A21 Recommendation to review the April 2015 beach survey results and endorse a staff
recommendation to not renourish the Vanderbilt,Pelican Bay,Park Shore or Naples beaches in the Fall
(November)of 2015.
Direct staff to obtain a permit modification to renourish the Clam Pass Park beaches after the 15 year beach
renourishment permit is issued from Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the United States
Army Corps of Engineers. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Item 16A25 Recommendation to approve Amendment to the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organization(MPO)Staff Services Agreement. The attestation signature on Page 2 of the Amendment
to MPO Staff Services Agreement should read as follows: Interim Collier MPO Executive Director.
(Commissioner Taylor's request)
Item 16E5 Recommendation to waive competition for Wesco Turf as a sole source vendor to exceed
$50.000 spending limit for Fleet Management parts/service.: Fiscal Year expenditures will not exceed
$100,000 without Board approval. (Staff's request)
Item 16F6 Recommendation to award RFQ 15-6433 Production of the Tourism Guide to Miles Media
Group.LLLP and authorize the Chairman to execute the County Attorney approved contract and make
a finding that this action promotes tourism.: Advisory Board Recommendation has been added: The
Tourist Development Council recommended approval(5-1)of this item at the June 22,2015 meeting.
(Staff's request)
7/9/2015 1:59 PM
June 23, 2015
Item #2B and #2C
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 26, 2015 AND
BCC/FIRE SERVICE PROPOSAL WORKSHOP FROM JUNE 2,
2015 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Approval of the May 26th regular
meeting minutes. Is there a motion to approve those?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Motion to approve the May
26th regular meeting minutes and also motion to approve June 2nd
BCC fire service proposal workshop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second both.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excellent. There's a motion and a
second to approve both the May 26th regular meeting minutes and the
June 2nd workshop.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Both those are passed.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, before you proceed to the balance of
your agenda this morning, I would like to just take a brief moment to
thank the Board for confirming this morning on your consent agenda
my recommendation to appoint Mr. David Wilkison as your new
department head for your Growth Management Department. I think
Page 14
June 23, 2015
he's got fantastic credentials and background and good history here
with Collier County and Southwest Florida. And I'd like to call on
David for just a moment to be introduced to the Board officially and to
the public and ask him to say a few words. David?
MR. WILKISON: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David
Wilkison.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MR. WILKISON: I'd like to thank you for the confirmation of
my appointment and tell you that I'm excited and honored to get this
opportunity to lead the Growth Management Department and to tell
you I'm looking forward to working with you and working with all the
talented county staff here at Collier County. Thank you again.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. OCHS: Welcome, David.
Commissioners, that takes us to your service awards this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't he get a seat in the
back?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We'll dust him off a seat in the back there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's his official start date?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: July 6th.
MR. OCHS: July 6th, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I ask that question for your benefit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I appreciate that. So he'll
be here for our next meeting?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if you'd be kind enough to join us
in front of the dais.
Item #3
Page 15
June 23, 2015
SERVICE AWARDS — EMPLOYEE
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, we have a wonderful group of
service awards. We have two 20-year awards, three 25-year, three
30-year, and one 35-year.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we'll begin this morning by
recognizing employees with 20 years of service to county government.
Our first recipient this morning from your Library Department is
Carolann Adams. Carolann?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can't get away.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Our next 20-year service award recipient from
Landscape Operations, Jose Sanchez. Jose?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Oh, not here this morning. I'm sorry.
That takes us to our 25-year service award recipients. The first
awardee, 25 years with Parks and Recreation, Bob DeCamp.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all your service.
MR. DeCAMP: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Congrats, Bobby. Well done.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Good job, Bobby.
Celebrating 25 years of service with Solid and Hazardous Waste
Department, your Director, Dan Rodriguez.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You didn't hug him.
Page 16
June 23, 2015
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Well done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to tell you, you should go to
one of his shops, like one of the recycle shops --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. They're -- look at that.
They're so clean you can eat off the floors.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it is. It is.
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Also celebrating 25 years of county service with
your Public Utilities Engineering Section, Pete Schalt. Pete?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Pete.
Commissioners, we have three employees celebrating 30 years of
dedicated service to county government this morning.
The first recipient, your Director of Engineering and Natural
Resources, Bill Lorenz. Bill?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Bill, for everything.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's tall.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Celebrating 30 years of service with our County
Attorney's Office, Kay Nell.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All these 30-year employees are in
DROP. What a brutal world; you work for 30 years, then we drop you.
I think we need to upgrade that a little bit.
(Applause.)
Page 17
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: And our final 30-year service awardee this morning,
with your Water Department, Ray Ognibene. Ray?
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, finally this morning we have an
individual who's celebrating 35 years of dedicated service to county
government. It's fitting that he's our Museum Director, because he
seems fairly well preserved, and that is the one and only Ron Jamro.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's that archival treatment, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm always afraid of walking into the
museum. I think they're going to keep me there as a relic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You stick around long enough that they
drop you, and then they deacidify you and put you in the museum.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that concludes our services awards
this morning. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You work 30 years, and they drop you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if the audience knows what
you really mean by DROP.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And half the room leaves. Isn't it
nice they all come?
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that would take us to your
proclamation this morning, Item 4.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
Page 18
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you be so kind,
Commissioner Fiala and I were just talking about how wonderful it is
to see the support for these award winners and these service
employees. And Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Among staff members.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Among staff members. And it's
always very positive, and there's always a lot of folks there. And we
know -- we agreed, it comes from the top down. It's your management
that creates this feeling where folks are not only happy to work here;
they support each other. And you're to be congratulated.
MR. OCHS: Well, thank you, ma'am. You're too kind. They
really deserve all the credit. They're the ones out there on the front
lines doing the job day in and day out. But we appreciate the Board's
support. You give them all the resources and the tools and the support
that they need. And we appreciate it, each and every one of us.
Thanks for those kind remarks.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You're welcome.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE BROTHERHOOD RIDE
ORGANIZATION AND THE 29 FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO RODE BICYCLES FROM
NAPLES TO TALLAHASSEE TO HONOR EMERGENCY
RESPONDERS WHO HAVE FALLEN IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
ACCEPTED BY LIEUTENANT JEFF MORSE OF THE NORTH
COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we're onto Item 4A this morning.
It's a proclamation recognizing the Brotherhood Ride Organization and
Page 19
June 23, 2015
the 29 firefighters and law enforcement officers who rode bicycles
from Naples to Tallahassee to honor emergency responders who have
fallen in the line of duty.
To be accepted by Lieutenant Jeff Morse of the North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District. Lieutenant, if you'd please step forward,
and anyone else that's with them.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you ride? Did you all ride?
That is so cool.
LIEUTENANT MORSE: Thank you, Commissioners, so much
for that wonderful proclamation.
This year the Brotherhood Ride was able to honor 10 first
responders who died in the State of Florida over the past six days. We
rode 667 miles. We honored six police officers, three firefighters, and
one K9 officer.
And I'd just like to take a moment to read something to you that
we wrote and that we read to every first responder's family that we
meet along the ride to try to kind of explain what exactly the
Brotherhood Ride does.
Why do we ride to honor those who we have lost in the line of
duty? When I heard the news that one of my brothers had died, I felt
so low. We had never met. I never shook your hand. Our wives did
not know each other, nor did your kids call me uncle, but I knew I had
lost another brother.
You're a total stranger to me, but there was a lump in my throat
and a hole in my heart. Why did it bother me so much? Why could
my wife tell that I had lost another friend?
Why did I need to -- why did I feel I needed to show how
firefighters, police officers, and emergency responders are all brothers?
You had worn the same uniform as mine, that of emergency responder.
You had taken the same oath to protect lives and property, to serve and
Page 20
June 23, 2015
protect, and care for the sick, and you knew that oath was more than
just a bunch of words to get on the job.
You knew from that day that you repeated those words you had
put your life on the line to save others. You knew that if you had to,
you'd risk everything to save someone you had never met.
We are not like other workers. We expect to be in danger from
the start of our shift until relieved by another emergency responder.
We'll defend and protect anyone who calls us without hesitation.
I wonder what you thought as you made the ultimate sacrifice. I
can only hope that as you lay in the dark smoke-filled hallway or on a
dark, lonely street, you knew your brothers were coming to get to you.
We know we were unable to get to you in time, but rest assured
they finished the job they started. They made their community safe
again.
So, my brother, I was unable to be with you when you paid the
ultimate price, but my brothers and I have come here to honor you.
We know you'll say "I was only doing my job," know you were doing
the work of God and will apologize to no one for reminding everyone
that you gave your life to protect your community.
Why do we train so hard for a total stranger? Why do we ride in
all kinds of different weathers, rain, wind, cold, heat? Why do we
sleep anywhere we could find an open space on the floor? Why would
we do this for a total stranger? We wouldn't, but we will for one of our
brothers.
We always say never forget, but time does move on, and we will
-- people will forget that day. Rest assured we'll remind them that there
are families and co-workers who still have a hole in their heart that will
never be filled.
We are not the heros, but we are proud to wear the names of the
heros on our backs for all to see.
So stand down, my brother. You have completed your shift. Let
Page 21
June 23, 2015
our legs carry your memory and remind all that will listen; you gave
your life for a total stranger.
God bless our fallen first responders.
Thank you, gentlemen and ladies.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING 2015 AS "VICTORY
FLORIDA YEAR," MARKING THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE END OF WORLD WAR II. ACCEPTED BY HER
MAJESTY'S CONSUL GENERAL IN MIAMI, CONSUL
GENERAL PRODGER, LOIS A. BOLIN, REG BUXTON, AND
DIANE VAN PARYS. CONSUL GENERAL PRODGER
REPRESENTED BY REPRESENTATIVE MATT HUDSON —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation recognizing 2015 as
Victory Florida Year marking the 70th Anniversary of the end of
World War II. To be accepted by Her Majesty's Consul General in
Miami, Consul General Prodger, Lois Bolin, Reg Buxton, and Diane
van Parys. If you'd please step forward and receive your award.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I also see we're joined by
Representative Matt Hudson this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, Wayne. Come on up.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Yeah, Wayne. You should be
up here if anybody.
You want us to push your arm for effect, or won't that be
necessary?
(Applause.)
Page 22
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Representative Hudson, would you like
to make some remarks, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Commissioners, guests, first of all, the Consul General regrets
that he could not be here this morning. He will be in our community
later this evening.
I had the opportunity this year in your legislative session to pass a
resolution that was born right here in Collier County from Lois Bolin,
and it is a resolution that denotes 2015 as Victory Florida Year.
Many of you may or may not know that Florida played an integral
role in World War II, and 2015 is the 70th Anniversary of the
conclusion of World War II. May 8th we saw VE Day, and August
14th is VJ Day.
The role that was played by Florida is hard to put into
perspective. Many of you might be transplants. Many of you might be
just calling Florida home for the first time. But in World War II, there
were 170 military installations just in Florida. A quarter million
Floridians served; 5,000 paid that last full measure of devotion.
When you think about that role and the fact that we had 1,200
miles of coastline that had to be defended, we had prisoners of war
picking our citrus so that only our soldiers would have access to it and
we were rationing the rest, and you think about all the airmen that were
trained in Florida, and you think about the landing craft operators for D
Day and for the Pacific invasions were all trained in Florida, the role
Florida played, significant, absolutely significant.
And so I think it's appropriate, given the tremendous commitment
we have to veterans in this county with our wonderful military
museum, our fantastic Honor Flight system, the great Freedom
Memorial that's being championed by Mayor Sorey and others and
with your support on the board as well, that we truly take a moment
Page 23
June 23, 2015
and think about how that generation, frankly, saved the planet as we
know it.
And so this small resolution that I was privileged to pass and
share with all of my colleagues in the legislature to be able to talk
about it and bring awareness to it is just a very small thing, but it is my
pleasure and my honor to be able to present this to you for your efforts
in supporting veterans and supporting the various activities that go on
in our wonderful county.
And so with your permission, County Manager and Chair, I'd like
to present this to you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's take a photograph, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: I don't know where to look.
There's cameras everywhere. Are you done? I'm not sure. Did you get
it? That long, you could have made me tall and thin.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Some things can't be done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You've got another one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have another one there waiting
there in the wings.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Sorry. I didn't see you back
there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, you got it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Representative Hudson, on behalf of the
Board, I think everybody really appreciates it. Thank you so much for
your work, sir.
You know, looking back, we had another great Honor Flight this
past weekend on Father's Day. For me, reflecting back as a Floridian
on my father who's a veteran, my uncles who were veterans, thinking
about the fact that Fort Lauderdale Beach was completely closed off
during the duration of the war because axis submarines were sinking
ships right in the gulf stream right off the coast of Southeast Florida,
Page 24
June 23, 2015
the greatest generation has been honored and discussed repeatedly by
the Consuls, United Kingdom, the consuls of France, through
Memorial Day, through the various anniversaries, Operation Overlord,
Invasion Normandy, and then of course the end of the war the end of
this year.
So a wonderful time to reflect on the service of the greatest
generation and all those nonmilitary people in the United States that
disrupted their lives, had their families disrupted, have their lifestyles
completely disoriented in an effort to go ahead and do the right thing
and make the world safe for democracy.
So thank you all for your dedication in this effort. Representative
Hudson, we certainly receive this with a great deal of thanks and
appreciation. Thank you so very much.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Thank you, Chairman. Thank
you, Commissioners.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, can we hang that out
in the hall here for all to see?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, we will.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Those were very moving words by Representative Hudson, and
he should be commended for his efforts in bringing Florida the
recognition it deserves in the role that our citizens played in the second
world war.
I just want to remind everyone that today marks the 70th
Anniversary of the Battle of Okinawa. So it's very fitting that we're
doing this today.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Thank you all.
Item #4C
Page 25
June 23, 2015
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 23, 2015 AS FRANNY
KAIN AND FUN TIME EARLY LEARNING ACADEMY DAY,
IN RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY FRANNY
KAIN AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FUN TIME EARLY
CHILDHOOD ACADEMY, AND IN RECOGNITION OF FUN
TIME EARLY CHILDHOOD ACADEMY FOR THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY. ACCEPTED BY
FRANNY KAIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FUN TIME
EARLY CHILDHOOD ACADEMY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating June 23rd,
2015, as Franny Kane and Fun Time Early Learning Academy Day in
recognition of the contributions made by Franny Kane as Executive
Director of the Fun Time Early Childhood Academy and in recognition
of Fun Time Early Childhood Academy for their contributions to the
community.
To be accepted by Franny Kane, Executive Director of Fun Time
Early Childhood Academy. If you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And Commissioner Taylor is going to
read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. So I hope you can hear
me.
Fun Time Early Learning Academy is located in River Park, and
it's one of the first 501(c)3 entitled organizations in Collier County;
and,
Whereas, this year Fun Time will be celebrating 55 years in the
River Park community;
Whereas, Franny Kane's many accomplishments as executive
director of the academy since 2006 -- I'm sorry -- including assisting in
the lengthy construction process moving Fun Time from a dilapidated
Page 26
June 23, 2015
37-year-old double-wide trailer to a new state-of-art schoolhouse and
increasing enrollment from 36 pre-schoolers to a maximum of 84; and,
Whereas, Fanny Kane received a rare perfect score from the
National Accreditation Commission for early learning leaders for
achieving all quality markers and standards for exception preschools;
and,
Whereas, Fanny Kane tirelessly devoted nine years to the young
children of Fun Time, and through her consistent leadership and
expertise formed Fun Time into the sustainable success it is today.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 23rd, 2015, be
designated as Franny Kane and Fun Time Early Learning Academy
Day.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I remember the old place well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a great dedication.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're going to do a picture. Do
you want to say some things, too?
MS. KANE: Commissioner, you and I with tears?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right here in the center, ma'am. Show
them your proclamation.
MS. KANE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think she has some people from
the academy. Could we do another photograph if they'd come up?
MS. KANE: I'd love that. Thank you so much, Commissioner
Taylor. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Everybody that would like to be in the
photo, please come up.
MS. KANE: I love to have my board up here. I'm always
happiest when I have my board around me.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Let's go right in the middle. Get
Page 27
June 23, 2015
in there.
MS. KANE: My dear friend.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Is there a motion to approve
the proclamations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 5 on your -- oh,
I'm sorry. I'm so sorry, Fran.
MS. KANE: Thank you very much.
Whoa. I'm going to take a breath here. This is a truly amazing
honor for Fun Time and for me. I thank the Collier County
Commissioners for this incredible honor, and I especially thank you,
Commissioner Penny Taylor, for recognizing the value of our
nationally accredited Fun Time Early Childhood Academy.
I also thank our many board members who are here with us today,
our dedicated board members, who've made this very possible and the
many board members who have served Fun Time over the past 55
years.
Page 28
June 23, 2015
I thank our donors. I thank our supporters. I thank our volunteers
who have helped us to achieve our mission. The mission of Fun Time
Early Childhood Academy is to provide safe, quality affordable
education and care for children of low-income working families and to
prepare those children for kindergarten ready to read and ready to
learn.
Since 2006 I've had the privilege of serving as the executive
director. And during these past nine years, we have educated more
than 180 two-year-olds, 240 three-year-olds, 325 four-year-olds.
Fun Time has educated many of the youngest and the most
vulnerable children here in Collier County, and we have prepared those
children for success when they entered kindergarten ready to read and
ready to learn.
What if this had not been the case? What if our community had
not reached out and decided to give Fun Time a lift? What if our
community decided that Fun Time was not worth bringing back from
the brink? Wow. Today we don't really have to imagine that. Instead
today, together, we can imagine a bright and beautiful, a strong and
wonderful academic future for every single Fun Time child.
Today I'm here representing each of those very fortunate children
as I say thank you very much to each of you. May Fun Time continue
to provide for this community the quality education that our
community deserves and expects for the generations to come.
I thank you so much, each and every one of you Collier County
Commissioners. Thank you dearly.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING MARISA CLEVELAND, OPERATIONS
ANALYST, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AS
Page 29
June 23, 2015
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY 2015 — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Item 5A is a recommendation to recognize Marisa
Cleveland, Operation Analyst in your Growth Management
Department, as your Employee of the Month for May 2015. Marisa, if
you'd please step forward and receive your award.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Working through the crowd.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Here's a plaque to remember the day and
a little token of our thanks. Thank you so much, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm going to tell you a few things
about Marisa while she's getting her photo taken.
Congratulation, Marisa. Oh, she needs her plaque.
Commissioner, Marisa's been an employee of the county for four
years working with our Growth Management Department. She
exhibits exceptional leadership qualities, and she recently took on the
responsibility for the complete redesign and the content updates of our
Growth Management Division website, which is very heavily used by
our client base.
She's also redesigned the landing page for the Building
Department to make it easier for the contractors and other members of
the public to find important information on a variety of issues with
regard to permitting and zoning.
When she's not at work, she can found volunteering at one of the
many causes she supports, including the Galisano Children's Museum,
the Naples Pathways Coalition, the Naples Zoo, and the Susan G.
Komen Organization, just to name a few.
Marisa is dependable and determined, extremely dedicated to her
Page 30
June 23, 2015
department and her colleagues and the community at large and
completely deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my honor to present Marisa Cleveland, your
Employee of the Month for May 2015.
Congratulations, Marisa.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: She can't wait to sit down, you can tell that.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE MISSION, VISION AND GOALS OF
THE MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY ADVISORY ALLIANCE
(MCAA). PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE MCAA —
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, Item 5B is a presentation of the
mission, vision, and goals of the Multicultural Community Advisory
Alliance. This item will be presented by members of the alliance, and
it was brought forward on the agenda by Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, would you like to
make some remarks, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would be delighted to, if I
may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in our agenda. Oh, this is a
new one. New information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. By way of introduction, let me
tell you that Victor Valdez, the guy standing there at the podium right
now, called me a while back, and he said -- he said, come and meet
with me, so I did. And he said, I think we ought to form an alliance.
This is a community alliance. It's not a government sponsored
anything. This is just a community alliance. Not just. It's the first one
Page 31
June 23, 2015
of its kind that I know of ever in Collier County where all different
cultures get together as one and communicate with one another and
forge a bond that's strong and effective in promoting the good things in
our community and amongst themselves and reaching out to everyone
else in case there's ever a problem, or when there's something great, let
us celebrate with them.
We've never had that before, and I really commend Victor Valdez
for doing this, and all of the people who have joined forces with him.
It's a wonderful thing. So I'll stop talking, Victor, and the podium is
yours.
MR. VALDEZ: Thank you.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is
Victor Valdez, Chairman of the Multicultural Community Advisory
Alliance.
Thank you for your words.
First I want to say it's not only my idea. It's the idea of several
people that are now here but all the more because now we are a big
group of people, different culture, all in one.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to Commissioner
Fiala. Because of the support you have provided to us, we have been
able to do this work. Because you help us, we work together, and
would have this.
To the Commission, we want to thank you for the opportunity to
present our vision to continue to support your efforts to make Collier
County the paradise that we all enjoy.
Now I would like to introduce our vice-chair who will share our
mission, principles, and values. Where is --
MS. McEACHERN: I'm here.
MR. VALDEZ: She is the vice-chairman.
MS. McEACHERN: Good morning. Good morning,
Commissioners and fellow Collier County citizens. My name is Achie
Page 32
June 23, 2015
McEachern, and I'm the Vice-chair for the Multicultural Community
Advisory Alliance.
And as Victor stated, I would like to thank you so much this
morning for your time and attention as we present.
As we look at our first two slides, I'm just going to go over our
vision and our mission briefly.
As you all are aware, the population of Collier County is growing
at a rapid pace. And as the Multicultural Community Advisory
Alliance, we will work to identify, to support, and engage community
resources for the betterment of the quality of life here in Collier
County.
Our organization will make sure that our fellow citizens
collectively thrive by using not only their voices, but also their
resources for the advancement of the community.
Now moving forward, you'll see a list of our principles and
values, the first being common unity. Now, if you join these two
words together, of course, you'll have community. And the reason
why we chose this as our first principle is because we understand that a
community just isn't a group that share the same physical location, the
same nationality, the same race, the same gender, the same language,
or the same religious affiliation, but rather a group of individuals who,
together, share the same purpose, the same goals, and the same
objectives, and those who see the same vision and decide to go there
together.
And for the Multicultural Community Advisory Alliance that goal
is to be in relationship with the Collier County Government,
specifically you-all, our amazing County Commissioners, so that
collectively we can make a difference in our community.
Our next value is respect, followed by inclusion.
Then we have integrity. That's a big one for us. Integrity is one
of the most important attributes of leadership. And with this it means
Page 33
June 23, 2015
that we will always operate with honesty, morality, and sound
character. But even more importantly, since integrity comes from the
word "integral," we will be whole and complete in our methods to
serve our community.
And to conclude with our principles and values, we have
accountability and transparency, collaboration, as well as service to the
citizens and stakeholders.
Moving forward, you will see a list of our goals. Now, for the
sake of time, I'm just going to encompass them all. Our main focus
will be to use a collective voice that communicates and provides
factual information on current topics concerning local governance in a
nonpartisan, objective manner.
Our organization encompasses leaders from various professional
industries which will aid us in obtaining measurable and verifiable data
analysis. And in doing so, we will convene and connect stakeholders
to address these topics that affect the multicultural community.
Now, for the next few slides you're going to hear from one of our
community leaders from the North Naples region.
MS. ALVAREZ: Good morning. Maggie Alvarez, for the
record.
The next slide is how we're going to put the values, the vision,
and the mission together. We have prepared an organization and also a
process. So this is not just a group of people working at random.
The organization, as you can see in the center, has the executive
committee. That is a round table format that will spread to the
different networks in the community.
As you can see the network encompasses different portions of the
community, and we want to grow this network so that we can get a
deeper voice, a deeper insight in the different issues that we research
for you, the commissioners, in our community.
The bigger the network, the broader the perspective, the voice is
Page 34
June 23, 2015
bigger, the vision is there. It's not us and them, like we mentioned in
the prayer. It's the community, all of us. That network will facilitate
researching information through a survey tool.
The next is the process; it's a four-step process. Very simple.
Receive the information from the commissioners, the committee, or
the network, and we evaluate how to approach the information.
Research, media, website, and we gather this information from our
network and present it to the commissioners at the appropriate time
with maybe some options for solutions.
Once that's presented, there's an outcome. The outcome will be
shared with the public and our network so that they see the benefit of
participating as a voice back and forth, sharing information in all
different directions. When we put people to work together, there's
endless possibility.
We also have meetings for anybody that is interested in the third
Thursday of each month. So we're inviting everybody that is present to
join us, because this is for everybody, for Collier County.
And now the vice-chair.
MS. McEACHERN: What's next? I'm glad you asked that
question. Plenty.
Once we grow our members, we will assign roles, we will
determine our survey and research process, develop working
relationships, and create a resourceful website as well as recruiting of
the volunteers. So next, before we take questions, if there are any, we
would like to show you a brief video.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, they really worked at this
presentation.
MR. MILLER: I've got it over here.
(A video was played.)
MS. McEACHERN: I'll open up the floor for questions.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Well, that was --
Page 35
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make one comment.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't have a question, but I do
want to say one thing, and it's important. Multiculturalism is very
important. I come from Canada, and for those of you who know
anything about Canada, Canada very much promotes and values
multiculturalism and does so in a manner that promotes each
individual culture's identity while everyone coming together working
for the betterment of the community and the country as a whole.
So congratulations and good luck in your efforts and have fun.
MS. McEACHERN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Everybody always appreciates active community organizations.
Through an active community that's engaged in the issues of the day
that works through facts and helps inspire meaningful conversation, it
helps the local government, the staff; it helps everyone make good
decisions and achieve great results.
So welcome to the -- welcome to the group of community
organizations. We hope -- we hope that you -- that your work is
satisfying to you. I know that it's going to be more work than probably
you expect as you see how many issues that come up, you know, on a
daily basis and in a yearly schedule. But, you know, welcome to the
group of organizations.
And I would like to say thank you to Commissioner Fiala for
encouraging the development of this new organization, and we look
forward to hearing from you and helping you have a -- help us have a
great dialogue. Thanks so much.
MS. McEACHERN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 36
June 23, 2015
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At this time I would entertain a motion
to approve our presentations of today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't do that.
MR. OCHS: No, that's just for proclamations, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We don't approve the employee of the
month?
MR. OCHS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: You don't take any action on those. Thank you,
though.
Item #10A
DIRECTING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO PLAN FOR SEA
LEVEL RISE IN COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION THAT NO
ACTION BE TAKEN AND A RECOMMENDATION THE
PROPOSED GROUP RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH A
PRESENTATION IN THE FALL - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves us to Item 10A, which is
a recommendation to direct the County Manager to plan for sea level
rise in Collier County, and Commissioner Fiala brought this item
forward on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, looking out
in our audience at the number of citizens we have in attendance on two
items, this current, Item 10A, which is the sea level rise item, and also
Item 11A, which is a Freedom Memorial, I would like to try to take
those two --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't we have a 10:15?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- before we get to our 10:15
Page 37
June 23, 2015
time-certain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I just want -- heads up. We do
have nine registered speakers for Item 10A.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, if we have nine -- how are
we going to get nine registered speakers on that item in before 10:15?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, it's going to be tough, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner Fiala, would you be willing to
set your time-certain back a little bit to accommodate these two items,
perhaps?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
This item was on our agenda November 18th, 2014, by the same
person who is making the same recommendations is direct staff;
however, we already took action on this item. We took action on this
item, and it looks like -- more like a reconsideration more than
anything.
I know there was backup material that was anonymous of the
request. It wasn't Commissioner Fiala's issue. And the direction was
-- let me get to recaps -- by Judy Hushon. It was Judy Hushon who
requested the Board of Commissioners direct staff to work with South
Florida Regional Planning Council and bring back an action plan,
okay. Looks very familiar.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, the discussion was, and
the decision by the Board, is Commissioner Nance was going to
Page 38
June 23, 2015
discuss this with the Regional Planning Council and bring back
information to the Board. And my understanding, or my recollection,
he hasn't done that yet.
So, you know, that's the time to take any other action is when
Commissioner Nance brings something forward.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What is the feeling of the Commission
on these items? Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, could I -- okay.
I just wanted to say when I spoke with Judy Hushon -- and I've
spoken to a few other people in the audience, they don't want us to take
any action on anything. They want to take some action in getting
together a community organization. They're hoping to even get into
other counties as well. But it's something that they want to meet.
They're not asking us for anything. They just want us to sanction their
group, because there are a lot of things to discuss. It will take a couple
years. It's not something we can just decide nor do we have to put any
money out for staff or anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your item is different than
what it says then. It's not to direct the County Manager to work with
South Florida Water -- or South Florida Regional Planning Council
and bring back an action plan? That's not the item then?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, uh-uh. No, no. They want to --
in fact, unless I'm mistaken, they want to get together and have an
organization comprised of people who want to just share. You know,
we can't solve this problem. Sea level is going to rise regardless. They
want to prepare for it. And they realize -- Dave Trecker wrote a
wonderful article the other day. I just -- in fact, I thought it was
outstanding.
And what they're doing is, just as Dave Trecker had mentioned in
his article, we just have to start thinking about it now and start working
together, and that's what they want to do.
Page 39
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wouldn't it be more
appropriate to have a presentation just like we did the last
presentation?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I would -- I would --
can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't know who's first.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe I was.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
give this group the opportunity to make a presentation just like the
Alliance did today.
I don't think, given that there's anything that we are doing to
direct the County Manager in any way -- and Commissioner Henning
is correct, this matter has already been addressed by the Board, and
staff is doing what the Board has directed.
I really don't think that there's anything for us to do today because
it would be inappropriate to hear what they want to do as part of this
agenda item. It should be a presentation, and we should have the
opportunity to have the backup and inform ourselves as we listen to
them.
So could I make a motion that no action be taken on this item, and
that if this community wants to come back and do a presentation, that
they coordinate with you, Commissioner Fiala, to get on the agenda
maybe in the fall?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in other words, you don't want to
hear from them today; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, because -- no, because we're
Page 40
June 23, 2015
not -- this is -- no. Why would we? There's no backup. The
information here is a recommendation to direct the County Manager,
and that's already been done.
So if they want to talk about a group that they want to put
together, they should do it just like this group. And, you know, we
encourage everyone in the community to form any sort of alliance or
association that they want to help the community in whatever way they
want.
But I don't think it's appropriate right now to hear this item, but I
certainly encourage them to do exactly what this group did, which is
do a presentation.
And we told the same thing to Mr. Valdez. You recommended,
you know, come back, do a presentation, and I would suggest we do
the same thing with this group, that they come back and do a
presentation. They can do a slide show. They can -- there's a limit on
the time for presentations. I think they're limited to, like, 10 minutes,
and they could do a presentation and, you know, have their various
group members speak. But I don't think it makes sense for us to do
anything right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's all they want to do is
give a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but not now. I mean, we
need backup. We need a -- you know, it needs to be under
presentations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do you know they don't have
backup? I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We haven't received it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, this is a recommendation to direct
the County Manager, which is not what we're -- it's not what's on the
agenda. It's not what's being proposed; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But the agenda says
Page 41
June 23, 2015
recommendation to direct the County Manager to plan for sea level
rise, and we're not doing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not doing that, because
they're already doing it. And it's not to inconvenience these people
because you can do a full presentation, but you have to do a
presentation under presentations.
Since we're not taking action, it's a nonaction item. It wouldn't be
fair -- let me just -- I can see some nods in the back. It wouldn't be fair
to give you the opportunity to do a presentation when a group just like
this one was told they need to come back and do a presentation and,
you know, give everyone the opportunity to come and hear because, as
the agenda is written, it says recommendation to direct the County
Manager to plan for sea level rise. And Commissioner Henning
properly pointed out, the Board has already done that, and staff is
doing that.
So if you-all want to put together a group and you want to explain
how you want to educate and involve the community on this very
important issue, I think it's a great idea, and I commend you,
Commissioner Fiala, for doing it. But I think we should have a real
presentation by these people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I thought that that's what they
were going to be doing. I mean, we've already taken, what, eight
minutes of their -- of the time deciding -- or a couple of you have
decided that you didn't want to hear it, and I don't see any harm in
them getting up and talking about what their goals and objectives are.
I think we ought to be -- we ought to understand what is
happening out in our community. And they're looking for support, you
know, to support their efforts, which is something we all need to be
thinking about. Not that it's going to happen tomorrow, but we need to
be thinking about what's down the road and start to prepare for it.
Page 42
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't disagree with you. I think
you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Let's hear from Commissioner Taylor, and then we'll come back and
see what we can craft.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One of the things, Commissioner
Nance -- Chairman Nance, we are both on the Regional Planning
Council.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's something -- as they
work through this time to try to identify themselves and reinvent
themselves, so to speak. To me this is such a perfect opportunity
because sea level rise is regional, and I think they could facilitate a lot.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I do, too. And, you know, that
issue has been broached, but there hasn't been any action taken on it
because, frankly, it is somewhat controversial with some of the
different groups there.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So what do you feel on this -- we have a
motion to come back -- to suggest they come back with a presentation
and a second. What do you --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I mean --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- think about that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I mean, I think that's well and
fine, but we've got nine folks that have decided -- signed up and spent
their valuable time here, been with us for over an hour. I think we
should allow them to speak.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, do you have any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I put it on here because I did
want to hear them speak.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to support the motion at this
Page 43
June 23, 2015
time because I think we have a -- really a full agenda, and I think -- I
thank Commissioner Henning for bringing this back (sic). I believe it
is a reconsideration, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: However, I think it's appropriate
to hear from the speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You want to hear from the speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from the speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I think it's appropriate if you
want me to answer that question. Whether I want to hear the same
thing, it's kind of like the fracking, same cast of characters. Over and
over it's going to be on our agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So what would you like to do,
sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's appropriate to
hear from those speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's take the public speakers,
Mr. Miller. We have nine?
MR. MILLER: That is correct, sir.
Your first speaker is Judy Hushon. She'll be followed by Brad
Cornell.
MS. HUSHON: Good morning, Commissioners.
I actually don't think this got settled the last time, just to disagree,
because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the recaps.
MS. HUSHON: -- the class -- your staff does not believe that
they have direction to start looking into this, so --just say that as a
basis.
We here in Collier County are totally reliant on our tourist base,
and our tourist base is reliant on our weather, our beaches, our fishing,
all of these things which, if we do have sea level rise and it does start
Page 44
June 23, 2015
to impact us -- and it's not just sea level rise. Sea level rise is going to
happen, but it's also storm and water related.
We've had water-related incidents. If these continue to happen,
we get a reputation like South Miami. That's not what we want.
We can take measures, but we don't. We haven't planned
anything. We aren't doing anything today.
The Floodplain Management Plan moves forward in this area.
That's important.
The recommendation calls for examining the possibility of a
Southwest Florida compact. Now, that's something that would have to
come from the commissioners' level to take action as a group. This can
help in consistent approaches across jurisdiction lines. It also raises
the possibility of a citizens' advisory council.
Now, I see this as a formal council to assist staff that is working
on sea level rise. I see this as something that you-all would set up, that
it would be functioning, and it could actually do a lot of the legwork
and save you staff time and money. There's work finding out what's
going on, what actions people are taking, what types of regulations
have been written, what types of things have been recommended. That
is what this action council can accomplish.
We're one of the few counties in Florida not to be taking action,
but we are considered one of the most vulnerable after Miami-Dade,
which I mentioned, and St. Augustine, which is St. Johns County.
It's time to support Commissioner Fiala's recommendation on
behalf of our county citizens. We need to do all that we can to
encourage citizens to Southwest Florida.
I recommend that you actually adopt her recommendation which
directs staff to be looking at what is going on in -- the from the
planning side on sea level rise and potentially to form this citizens
advisory group, a formal one, to assist the staff in doing that. That's
my recommendation.
Page 45
June 23, 2015
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Audubon of the Western Everglades
and Audubon Florida, which owns Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
I'm a little surprised at the discussion that happened before I got
up here. I didn't come here with any group. I have no presentation. I
came here to support a proposal for the commissioners to direct the
County Manager to evaluate sea level rise and take adequate
precautions, basically to plan for adaptation. That's what this says.
There's nothing about a compact. There's nothing even about a citizens
advisory group.
I'm here to encourage you and support the whole idea that the
county ought to be planning for its own measures and protections and
adaptation to sea level rise, which is already happening. Look at beach
erosion, beach renourishment needs, and the cost of all that. Those are
really economic as well as ecological concerns.
Audubon's interest in this is that there are sea turtles, shorebirds,
and seabirds nesting on our beaches right now. These are really
important economic and ecological resources that we want to keep, so
those beaches are valuable both as habitat and as a tourist destination.
And I think it would be in our interest, just thinking about
beaches alone. Put aside infrastructure and, you know, stormwater
management, roads, buildings, and insurance issues. We've got to deal
with sea level rise, which is already happening; otherwise, our very
economic lifeblood is going to erode, and I think the county, the
County Manager, ought to be right at the center of this, and you-all
have the power to make that direction. That's what I'm here to
encourage you to do.
Thank you very much.
Page 46
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Manager?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's gone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like you to come back.
I want to just clarify something so we don't hear the same thing
over again. You know, Commissioner Henning properly pointed out
that in 2014 we recognized the importance of the issue, and the Board
directed staff to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me reread it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you just -- could you please
just tell me, are you working on this issue? Are you incorporating the
concerns, for example, raised by Brad in the work that you're doing?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am; yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: We are -- we're reading the research. We're talking
to experts. We are making specification modifications to future
projects like bridge projects to make sure that the design professionals
incorporate the considerations of potential sea level rise into the
elevation designs and those kinds of structures.
And it's an evolving issue, as everyone knows. And just like most
other organizations, we're trying to learn as much as we can from all
the potential sources and experts out there, and we're incorporating
thoughtful changes into our design specifications.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And it is a frequent topic of discussion
almost every regional event that we go to when we talk about
long-term planning and, you know, the environment and so on and so
forth. So it is.
Now, whether it's generating discrete action in a regional way, it
has not at yet. But, you know, we're going to have to continue to
Page 47
June 23, 2015
engage these discussions.
Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nicole Johnson. She'll be
followed by Ray Judah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to repeat and reiterate
what I said, and I'm reading from the recaps.
The decision by the Board, that Commissioner Nance was to
discuss with the Regional Planning Council and bring back
information to the Board. This is when Judy Hushon, again, petitioned
the Board for the same thing, is to direct staff, and the Board decided it
was -- Commissioner Nance was going to work with the Regional
Planning Council.
So that's what I said, and I repeated it.
MR. MILLER: Ms. Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Johnson,
here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And we appreciate Commissioner Fiala bringing this issue as an
agenda item. And I guess I'm still a little confused as to staff is saying
that they are collecting information, but it was going to be the
Chairman who was going to exclusively reach out to the Regional
Planning Council.
So I think it might be good for maybe staff and the Chairman to,
in the future, give a presentation on just where the county is with this.
I think one of the things that is really needed in addition to -- in
various components of county government looking at adaptation,
creating an adaptation plan for the county in its entirety.
These adaptation plans look at, first of all, protection, which is
something that if Collier County gets ahead of the curve, I think we
can do a lot of things that will protect us from the impacts of sea level
Page 48
June 23, 2015
rise.
The second is accommodation, and we know it's going to happen,
so what do we need to do to accommodate.
And the third and final is retreat. And we don't want to get so far
down the road that our only option is to retreat from climate change
sea level rise.
So perhaps a county adaptation plan could be important. Having
a citizens committee to help collect information I think is a great idea.
I don't know if it should be the more formal County Commissioner
appointed committee or an ad hoc committee that could meet
informally, meet with staff.
But I guess my question is, for the County Manager, who on staff
is the point person for this? Because I think there are a lot of good
resources out there that the county may or may not be tapping into.
The City of Punta Gorda has an adaptation plan, and I think they
would be excellent to talk to on this. The Department of Economic
Opportunity has, essentially, a whole sub-department that deals with
adaptation planning.
So there are a lot of resources out there, and it seems like maybe
the public just isn't understanding where things are at, at the county
level and wanting something, perhaps, a little more formal as the
outcome, such as an adaptation plan.
So with that, I would ask that, you know, you move forward with
something more formal and officially requesting the County Manager
to look into this and, certainly, we support the idea of a citizens
committee to help collect information to take some pressure off staff
time and resources.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to just ask you a question.
And I guess I would put it to everyone. But it seems to me that
Page 49
June 23, 2015
we do have a vehicle, and it's the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council, that could actually assemble the region's plan. And as they did
it on the East Coast, why not do it on the West Coast. And not exactly
the same, but certainly help coordinate and reach out and assemble
information that could be brought to us.
So does that seem to be reasonable, a reasonable way to proceed
at this point, in your opinion?
MS. JOHNSON: I believe so. You know, I think that the county
would also need to look at the benefits of a tailored adaptation plan for
Collier County. And how all of those intersect, I certainly do not have
the level of expertise to be able to, you know, give you an in-depth
opinion on that.
But certainly tapping into the Regional Planning Council, and
then looking to see if the county could benefit from a very specific
adaptation plan are things that should be investigated.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What I'm saying is I think we
need to lay the foundation first and then customize --
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- it to Collier County.
MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Ray Judah.
He'll be followed by Sally Woliver.
MR. JUDAH: Hello, Mr. Chairman. My name is Ray Judah,
coordinator with the Florida Coasts and Ocean Coalition. It's a delight
to be before the Collier County Commission.
And, Commissioner Taylor, congratulations in joining an
esteemed group of colleagues here, well-seasoned and well-respected
in this community, and you're going to be a great addition to the
Collier County Commission.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
Page 50
June 23, 2015
MR. JUDAH: I also wanted to just say that we need to get
beyond the debate which still unfolds with regards to climate change.
And I think that's why I really appreciate that you brought this issue
forward with a focus on sea level rise.
There's no question that sea level rise is affecting our economy
and our environment, and that's an issue that we do need to understand
is a reality and needs to be addressed.
I did want to suggest that you-all well know that you've got 37
miles of shoreline here in Collier County, and 15 miles of it has been
designated as critically eroded by the State Department of
Environmental Protection, yet the state does not take into account sea
level rise in their own coastal construction control line which, as you
know, is associated with development permitting.
And so if you have a program that doesn't include sea level rise,
you've got a recipe for disaster. In fact, all the state takes into
consideration is historic erosion trends. Clearly, we need to take into
account sea level rise as we look at any future development along your
coastline.
I will also say this, that I'm really proud of the Southeast Regional
Compact. It was Broward and Miami-Dade and Palm Beach and
Monroe County back in 2009 that recognized in a bipartisan effort, by
the way, amongst those counties and also municipalities in that area
that came up with a regional compact in 2009 to address sea level rise.
In fact, they are already incorporating and have incorporated resiliency
action plans in their own comprehensive plan wherein which they're
actually building back-flow preventers, they're relocating their
drainage basins, they're installing pumps, they're elevating all their
infrastructure and all new development in order to address, actually, 24
inches of sea level rise by 2060.
So they recognize it's a real serious problem. And I just wanted to
applaud all of you for having the vision, the leadership with the way in
Page 51
June 23, 2015
which I read that agenda item, that was to direct staff to work with
your Chairman to be able to provide for that adaptation action plan
within your Comprehensive Plan to deal with the realities of sea level
rise.
I did want to let you know that Naples Daily News was the main
sponsor back on May 7th at Florida Gulf Coast University where our
Florida Coasts and Ocean Coalition worked with the League of
Women Voters of Lee County, and we worked closely with the Collier
County League of Women Voters in putting on a sea level rise summit.
I have copies of the brochure. You may be interested. The item
is over, but I just wanted to let you know that you will receive support
from the Naples Daily News and the League of Women Voters along
with the community itself.
So if I may present these to you or --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. You can drop them off, yes,
sir. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Sally
Woliver. She'll be followed by Susan Calkins.
MS. WOLIVER: Good morning. For the record, I'm Sally
Woliver and a member of-- voting citizen and community member of
Tim Nance's district.
And I want to thank you-all very much for the opportunity to
speak.
I want to talk to you a little bit about something I know you're
going to want to hear about; risky business. How many of you have
seen this report that was issued nationally a year ago? Have any of you
had a chance to look at this? I know, Penny, I think you have. Donna,
perhaps.
This is really important because it talks about the economic risks
of climate change. I'm going to leave my copy of the report with my
friend Leo.
Page 52
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Sally.
MS. WOLOK: And I'm going to email you each a copy to read.
What it looks at is the economic risks of sea level rise and why it's so
important, especially in a community like ours.
Judy, when she spoke earlier, said it very well, that we are the
third county at risk in Florida. We're trying to do everything we can as
a county, and certainly all of you are, to attract business to this area. If
you're looking at relocating your business, how likely are you to look
first at a county that is addressing sea level rise in their planning?
Pleased to hear the remarks this morning that we are going to be
supporting Donna Fiala's proposal and that staff is being directed.
There's a group of us, private citizens, members of the League of
Women Voters, that stand behind you ready to work with you, ready to
help alleviate staff time, and do something to keep this a great county
to live in.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Calkins. She'll be
followed by Joseph Doyle.
MS. CALKINS: Good morning. I am here as a representative of
the League of Women Voters and speaking for our president of the
Collier County League.
The focus for sea -- the issue of climate change and the effects of
it, like sea level rise, have been an issue for the League nationally as
well as locally for some time, and that's why I'm here today.
And I think that to respond -- rather than read my whole statement
now, but to respond to some of the things that have been said, I think
that as a county, our Floodplain Management Plan does certainly
acknowledge that climate change and sea level rise, to use their -- the
specific words, the quotes, is we are particularly vulnerable. It's a
major threat for us, and they identify the various reasons why and,
Page 53
June 23, 2015
quote, an elevated storm surge due to sea level rise could produce a
cascade of consequences affecting things such as land-use
infrastructure facilities, waterway navigation, the local economy,
public health and safety, drinking water supplies, and ecosystems.
That's Page 55 of our Floodplain Management Plan.
The other thing that's in that Floodplain Management Plan -- I
mean, it's a pretty interesting document. But one of the things it says is
that the county is not obligated by this document to implement any of
the projects which are suggested to adapt to and to mitigate the effects
of climate change.
So I -- from our perspective as a league, one of the things that we
feel strongly about, having looked at what other counties are doing, not
only on our coast but on the other coast, is feel that we need to really
be more focused on our plan to address sea level rise.
And I think there's probably a lot going, and maybe that idea of
the workshop where we put forth all the things that are really being
done to adjust or adapt to climate change, that would be, I think,
particularly important, and working regionally is, too.
But if you look at Florida Department of Economic Opportunities
publication, how county states (sic) in Florida address sea level rise,
you'll find that all kinds of counties near us have plans, but we're not
mentioned there except in conjunction with Charlotte Harbor climate
change.
So I think that we need to do that. And as a P.S. to that, I think
the Regional Planning Council has focused on this in the past, but we
need to revisit that strongly at a regional basis, make sure that our data
is accurate and contemporary, and we would need to move forward
both, I think, for our own county and working regionally, both.
So thank you for your time. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is
Page 54
June 23, 2015
Dr. Joseph Doyle. He's been ceded additional time from Sandra Doyle
and from Jared Jones for a total of nine minutes of time.
DR. DOYLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph Doyle.
I notice I have to wear my reading glasses these days.
Anyway, I'm here -- the other two have ceded their time, but I'm
not going to take the nine minutes.
It's more just to let you know that there are people who support
my point of view, which is going to be the contrary point of view to
what you've just heard from these other speakers.
First of all, I was -- I would like to ditto what Commissioner
Henning had said. I thought this was already settled with direction to
the County Manager back in November.
When I saw the executive summary, I was quite concerned that it
said there would be no additional staff resources requested outside of
budgeted staff resources.
Mr. Ochs and his staff already have several projects on their plate.
And this, as far as I'm concerned, is an impact to our budget.
The other thing is that it's just a little disingenuous from what I've
been hearing from all of these previous speakers about having a
citizens committee. Let's make no mistake about it, first of all, the
science of climate change has not been settled. We have two camps.
We have not had the debate, at least in this county, to finalize it, okay.
One of your speakers indicated that there was a summit a month
ago at FGCU but, quite conveniently, one of the critics of this whole
thing about climate change and sea level rise, Dr. Witherby (phonetic),
was not one of the speakers. If you look at the brochure that you've
been given and look at the agenda, all of these are really one-sided type
of speakers as to what's going on, all right.
Now, the other thing is, it's been quite clear that there is a
problem on the East Coast with sea level rise, but it hasn't been proven
necessarily that it's a severe problem over on our coast. Remember,
Page 55
June 23, 2015
they're the Atlantic. We're the Gulf. And it is very complicated.
Again, the science is not settled.
Now, I know that when the speaker in November came, there was
all talk about this big flood that we had in July because we had the big
rainstorm. Well, we all know that these storm sewers at best can
handle two to three inches an hour. When you get five or six inches in
a downpour in one hour, you're going to overwhelm our systems, that's
true, but that doesn't mean that the sky is falling in, we have to yell
Henny Penny, and go through all of this with planning for sea level
rise.
I would like to say that we actually do, in some respects, have a
moral hazard here. And John Stossel, who has reported several times
about how -- about national flood insurance, has pointed out that he's
had -- because of flooding, he's had his home rebuilt twice on the
beach.
Well, quite frankly, we knew this when we moved to Florida, that
if you're going to live close to the water, if you're going to live even on
the beach, it's the assumption of the risk. The moral hazard is, is why
should the taxpayers -- I'm looking at this from the taxpayers'
standpoint -- point of view. Why should the taxpayers have to bail out
these people who get flooded? If you're going to build on the beach,
that's your problem, you know.
Now, you should probably own your property free and clear,
because I can understand why the bank would want you to take out
flood insurance. But there's the moral hazard, okay.
I think that this implication that it's going to be an economic
impact, people aren't going to want to relocate their businesses here
and this and that, I think it's a ploy, all right. If nature and God are
going to eventually reclaim this land in the next 50 to 100 years, so be
it. We cannot defy that, okay. And that's what the argument is. That's
what a big part of the argument is.
Page 56
June 23, 2015
I will say this, though, having a Southwest Florida --joining some
type of compact is a step into the wrong direction because eventually --
this is really a ploy of the Agenda 21, which is put through the United
Nations. You will be giving up your rights if you sign into that
compact. We want local control. Collier County should have its own
destiny.
And I also have problems with the fact that this group wants to
form possibly an ad hoc committee. Who do you think is going to be
on the ad hoc committee? It's all going to be one-sided. If you do form
a committee, which I really don't want you to have anyway, but if you
do form a committee, I think they should all be appointed and be in the
sunshine and be totally representative of both sides of the issue.
So I really came here today because I'd seen this executive
summary and was concerned that action was going to be taken. But if
you're not going to be taking any action, that's fine. But I do still think
that we need to have both sides of the issue represented when we do
get to that point.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That is all your speakers on that item,
Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Well, ladies and gentlemen,
Commissioners, we have a motion on the floor to hear a presentation in
the future, and a second.
Before we take a vote, I will say that this issue is clearly going to
have to be addressed in a comprehensive regional fashion, and the
Regional Planning Council is our best and strongest regional entity
today, which is why we received the direction on November last to go
forward in that way.
I don't think there's going to be anything that's going to be very
rapid that's going to occur, but I think it will come forward with
Page 57
June 23, 2015
something that will be meaningful.
I look forward to hearing a presentation and seeing what other
information or recommendations we can get.
But at this time, is there any additional comment?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just want to thank the
indulgence of this commission to hear the speakers. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Thank you for taking your time
and coming in and addressing this issue. I know it's going to be
something that's going to occur again and again.
Hearing no other comments, all those in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes 4-1 with Commissioner Fiala in
dissent.
Item #1 1 A
AWARD OF INVITATION TO BID #15-6455, FREEDOM
MEMORIAL MONUMENT, TO GATES CONSTRUCTION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,377,971 AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT; DELEGATE TO THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE THE AUTHORITY TO
CARRY OUT ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINISTERIAL
ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE BOARD'S
DIRECTION DURING THE BOARD'S ABSENCE; AND THE
Page 58
June 23, 2015
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that brings you to Item 11A, which
was the recommendation to approve award of Invitation to Bid
15-6455 for -- to Gates Construction in the amount of$1,377,971 for
the construction of the Freedom Memorial monument and to authorize
the Chairman to sign the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we need to hear from the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do we have speakers?
MR. MILLER: I do not have any registered speakers for this
item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If we have no registered speakers, I will
call the question.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That passes unanimously.
And at this time we're going to take break for the court report
until 11 o'clock.
(Applause.)
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
Page 59
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Mr. Flanagan has just passed out a
little bit of information -- Commissioner Henning, did you get one -- a
little bit of information regarding what's going on at the Regional
Planning Council related to the past item, 10A.
I believe at this time that takes us to our time-certain; does it not,
Mr. Ochs?
Item #11K
GUIDANCE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER IN RESPONSE TO
THE CLERK OF COURT'S UNILATERAL DECISION TO
WITHHOLD PRESENTATION OF SELECTED EXPENDITURES
TO THE BOARD FOR DETERMINATION OF VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION - MOTION
DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A COURT
MOTION COMPELLING THE CLERK TO MAKE PAYMENTS
UNTIL A COURT DECISION IS MADE ON THE PENDING
LAWSUIT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That was your add-on item,
Item 11K. This is a recommendation to provide guidance to the
County Manager in response to the Clerk of Court's unilateral decision
to withhold presentation of selected expenditures to the Board for
determination of valid public purpose and payment authorization.
Commissioners, I brought this item forward as a discussion item.
Very brief history; when the county staff arrived at work yesterday
morning, we had discovered that during the -- over the course of the
weekend, without notice to my office -- and I don't know if the Board
was notified. I don't believe they were -- more than 600 invoices for
payments to contractors and reimbursement for expenses incurred by
county employees were summarily rejected with new explanations that
Page 60
June 23, 2015
we had heretofore not been given as explanations and not consistent
with either the Board's purchasing policy or your past practices and
procedures with regard to the payment procedures and processes for
these types of invoices.
So we're talking about withholding payments to vendors. You
know, we're looking at more than $325,000 worth at the last count. I'm
told by our procurement services director that since the time I authored
this yesterday and this morning there's more than 800 of these invoices
that have been rejected for these new reasons that had heretofore not
been applied to these purchases.
So I wanted to bring that to the Board's attention. It's regrettable
particularly with respect to any adverse impacts that may be a
consequence of this incurred by vendors that have entered into work
with the county in good faith, and payments, at the very least, are
going to be, it appears, delayed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Leo, with respect to these particular payables that he's
withholding from present -- from presenting to the Board, are there any
other pre-audit exceptions, or is that the only exception that he's
claiming with respect to those vendors that you've just described as
being part of that pool that he's prohibiting?
MR. OCHS: For the items that I've identified in this executive
summary, to the best of my knowledge, those are the only reasons
given at this point for the rejections.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, otherwise, the pre-audit has
been completed on those payables?
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioner, I don't know. I think you'd
have to obviously ask Crystal at the end.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask Crystal.
Crystal, is the pre-audit complete on those payables?
Page 61
June 23, 2015
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner, because part of the pre-audit
function includes the requirement that we validate for legal purposes
and Board approval --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except for that -- go ahead.
MS. KINZEL: I'm going to try to finish the answer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
MS. KINZEL: Part of our process to pre-audit includes the
determination that the Board has approved the expenditure and that it
serves a valid public purpose. Primarily it's determined by the Board
of County Commissioners but validated by our office.
We do that as part of the pre-audit process, so we weren't able in
the cases that are referenced -- and I don't have the specificity to these.
We received this this morning. I'm not -- I've not vetted the particulars
that Ms. Markiewicz might have come up with, so we'll be glad to go
over and look at those, but it really is rather routine on most items.
We reject items all the time back to the department for a variety
of reasons. These are for this particular reason.
And I wouldn't want anyone to lose sight of the fact that we have,
I think it's about -- it's over 16 million was processed in the last two
weeks compared to the 300,000. So I really would not want the
vendors to get a misperception that nothing's being paid by the county
or that payments are being withheld. What is being withheld is the
validation of our pre-audit function. And on these items, we've been
unable to verify them so we've asked for additional information back
from the county departments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not clear on your answer.
Have you done everything with respect to pre-audit testing except
for getting what you feel is the necessary approval from the Board?
Have you done all the other testing, or have you not done any of the
other testing?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I don't have specificity as to the
Page 62
June 23, 2015
list that's being referenced in your executive summary, so I really can't
answer that question in detail.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, let me just make a
couple of comments. The Clerk of Courts does have to pre-audit the
payables; however, once he has completed that pre-audit, the Clerk
should note whatever the exceptions are that he's identified in that pre-
audit, and then he should move that payable to the Board for resolution
through our staff.
Now -- thank you very much -- to the extent that he is
withholding these payables from coming before this board because of
an exception, as the one Crystal has described, in his mind -- or what in
his mind is an exception, and refusing to make payment as a
consequence of what he deems to be an exception, the Clerk of Courts
is usurping the Board's authority.
The Clerk of Courts does not have the discretion to decide
whether or not a payable should be paid. That is vested solely with the
Board of County Commissioners. And what should happen is that
once the Clerk has identified his exceptions through his pre-audit
testing, that payable should come to the Board, and the Board should
decide how those exceptions should be resolved and whether they are
deemed acceptable or unacceptable to the Board.
And the Board then has to decide whether or not the expenditure
presented for payment serves a valid public purpose. The Clerk cannot
substitute his judgment for ours. The Clerk cannot make the decision
to withhold payment.
The Board has liability. If the Board authorizes an improper
payment, the Board has liability under Florida Statutes, just like the
Clerk has liability under Florida Statutes if he improperly pre-audits
and says a payment in his opinion is legal, or I should say an
expenditure is legal. But at the end of the day, payment is at the
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 63
June 23, 2015
So I think what we need to do to resolve this situation is I think
we as a board need to direct the Clerk bring forward all payables that
have been pre-audited, and he can note what he deems to be an
exception with respect to that pre-audit, and then we as a board should
review those pre-audited payables, review those exceptions, and if in
our determination we believe he is correct, we should not authorize
payment, and if we deem that he is incorrect, we should authorize
payment.
And, secondly, we at the same time to the extent that we deem
that the exceptions don't compromise the legality of the payable, we
will find a valid public purpose with respect to those payables, and we
as the Board are the ones who at that point in time authorize payment.
The Clerk will try to argue that he is the custodian and that as a
consequence we don't have the ability to authorize payment unless he
authorizes payment alongside us, and that's not true.
In fact, the Florida Legislature in 2005 made it very clear in
Florida Statute 218.45, that -- let me just specifically reference the
section. It's in Section 23D -- that the Clerk is not the custodian of the
county's cash. In fact, what it says specifically is that the selected
depository, in other words, the bank that we select, becomes the
custodian of the unit of local government with respect to each financial
deposit instrument for its account.
So we are the final deciders. We are the only ones that have the
discretion to pay or not pay. The Clerk does not. He is not the
custodian of the county's cash. Those are held in custody by the bank
depository. And very importantly -- and this is what this statute that
I'm going to reference next specifically provides, which is 136.06 --
clearly each check or warrant drawn from those depositories will be
signed by the Chair of the Board, not cosigned by the Chair and the
Clerk. And you have to read a statute as written, and that's how it's
written.
Page 64
June 23, 2015
And it says that the Chair's signature will be attested to by the
Clerk or secretary of said board with a corporate seal thereof affixed.
So the Clerk can't use his signature on checks or warrants issued
by the county, or I should say withholding his signature on checks or
warrants of the county as a basis to deny these vendors payment.
So I think the -- you know, one of the solutions, which is what I
would consider a non-litigious, peaceable solution is to -- as I said, let's
direct the Clerk to advance those pre-audit the payables, the ones that
the County Manager just described are now being withheld from
payment by the Clerk, to the Board of County Commissioners, let's
review what the Clerk has identified as an exception, and let's take
responsibility and make a decision whether or not we find that
exception is valid or not, and if not, then let's move forward and
approve that these payables -- the underlying expenditures serve a
valid public purpose and have the Chair sign those warrants. Let's
appoint a secretary to the Board, and let's have the secretary of the
Board attest to the Chair's signature exactly as provided by the statute,
and let's get these vendors paid.
Because the Clerk's argument is very clearly wrong, and it is very
clear from our statute, from -- I'm sorry, from our ordinance and from
the -- and from Florida Statutes that what we have been doing for the
past 15 years is absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I'm going to make
a couple comments, and then I'm going to go to Commissioner
Henning.
The Board of County Commissioners in Collier County has a
purchasing policy. We confirmed it again today by a vote of the
Board. It's a policy that has been substantially the same the entire time
the Clerk of Courts has been in elected office in Collier County.
He has chosen for the vast majority of that period of time to work
under that policy. It is only recently he has suggested that the policy is
Page 65
June 23, 2015
somehow illegal and has suggested to the Board of County
Commissioners that he was going to pursue court action to determine
if, indeed, that policy was legal.
Through my votes, I fully endorse that. I absolutely do not want
to proceed with a policy that is illegal, and I fully endorse letting the
Court make a determination based on our policy and based on
everybody's performance and the issue as a whole whether it is a legal
policy or not, and we can await that decision.
In the meantime what we have is we have a unilateral decision
not to pay selected invoices, which is okay if it functions within the
interlocal agreement we have with the Clerk. But the Clerk does not
choose to honor the interlocal agreement he has with the Board which
outlines a policy for dispute resolution. It outlines a series of events
that are to take place if his pre-audit suggests that an expenditure is not
to be paid. And if he so chooses to do that, he can certainly do that,
and staff will respond as is called for in the purchasing policy in our
interlocal agreement.
But I sincerely doubt that since Friday, June 18th, that the Clerk
has done a pre-audit on 800 transactions and deemed them all to be
somehow lacking.
So my concern is shared with Commissioner Hiller's remarks that
the most important thing for us to do is to realize that we have to
continue to function. We have a purchasing policy. That's the only
policy we can act under. That's the only policy the Clerk can act under
until a court rules otherwise.
We have to conduct business in the county, and we have to go
forward, and we have to have people that should be paid get paid and
those that somehow fall short of our system be treated as the system
provides.
So I am very concerned that we're not meeting our obligation to
our vendors and, just as importantly, to our county employees.
Page 66
June 23, 2015
So I'm going to ask the County Attorney for his recommendation
or his opinion on what action we have as an option to compel these
payments to be made until the Court can take action on the issue that's
under review.
MR. KLATZKOW: If what you want to do is to compel
payment, that will require an order of the Court. To get that order of
the Court, the Board of County Commissioners would have to bring
suit against the Clerk seeking this injunctive relief.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion we do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion for discussion.
I don't -- I don't know quite yet what the ramifications are, but I would
like to hear it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, we'll have discussion.
Let's go to Commissioner Henning and continue with our review.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller said that
we need to direct the Clerk of Court to make payment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Put it on the agenda -- actually
put it on the agenda. So the question to the County Attorney is, do we
have authority over the Clerk of the Court?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't direct. I didn't say that we
direct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we have authority
over the Clerk of the Court to give direction to him?
MR. KLATZKOW: The Clerk is an independent constitutional
officer. That's why if you wish to compel action by the Clerk, it would
require a court order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And how long would that
take?
Page 67
June 23, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It could be a while, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: If the issue is nonpayment of vendors, I do
not think it would be that long, no, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's look at the
issue. If you look at the add-on item on the executive summary, the
County Attorney -- or County Manager is saying through his executive
summary -- for travel reimbursements saying, I believe is the Clerk,
please provide evidence that the BCC has specifically approved the
expenditure to this employee.
Now, is that a denial of payment, as stated by the County
Manager, or is it a question? What is it?
MR. OCHS: Sir, it shows up in your system as a rejection of the
invoice request for payment processing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And is the rejection because
they need more information? I mean, what you put in here is -- and
I'm assuming this is coming from the Clerk -- please provide evidence
that the BCC has specifically approved the expenditures of this
employee. Is that the reason?
MR. OCHS: That's one of the reasons, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The next one is goods
and services of purchases. Please provide the agenda item to where the
expenditure to this vendor or expenditure of these goods at the rate was
specifically approved by the BCC. Is that why it was rejected?
MR. OCHS: In some cases, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: So he knows full well that those purchases were
below $50,000 and the Board did not approve them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Well, you're providing
a little bit more information than on your executive summary and the
discussion.
Page 68
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the real issue goes back to
what's in the courts now --
MR. OCHS: In part, sir, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is he's forcing an issue that he
tried to -- and some may call it a dispute resolution on an interlocal
agreement. He was trying to work with staff and this board until
somebody decided to run for the Clerk's Office -- tried to compel them
to comply to the law under Florida Statutes.
125.74 states the County Manager shall negotiate leases and
contracts subject to the Board's approval. That's the whole thing that's
in the courts.
So we want to take -- spend the taxpayers' -- more of the
taxpayers' money, Commissioner Nance, to compel an issue that is
going to be answered anyways?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No. I suppose, sir, we want to just shut
down the entire Collier County Government while the Courts are
thinking about it -- excuse me -- and we're not going to do that. We are
going to remain with our policy that is in effect and has been in effect
for 15 years and was revalidated today until the Court determines it.
If the Court determines it's illegal, then obviously we're going to
have to do something else. But why do we want to hold our vendors
and our citizens and our employees hostage while the Clerk goes
through this game of cat and mouse waiting for a court determination?
This is unconscionable action by the Clerk to take his issue,
which he wants to determine in court, and use these people as personal
pawns and abuse them while this is being determined. Let's just let it
be determined and go on down the road. That's what we need to do, in
my view.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me finish here. Let me finish
here.
Page 69
June 23, 2015
You want to compel the courts to take action to pay these bills.
You want to spend more of the taxpayers' money.
Here's a reasonable action that this board can take is direct the
County Manager to put these expenditures on the agenda for the
Board's approval and to see it fits the valid public purpose. That is an
action that we can do today is get these items on the agenda.
And we don't have to wait on the courts. We don't have to wait
till interrogatories and all the other stuff that goes along with putting
things in the courts. We can take action today. We can take action at
the next meeting. That's my proposal.
But you've got a motion and a second to spend more -- waste
more of the taxpayers' money, so I'm ready to vote on the stupid
motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, are there any of these
transactions that have been presented to you? Have you received a list
of the transactions that are being withheld by the Clerk, sir?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, our procurement services director
has run a report based on the information that was placed by the
Clerk's department in the financial system, and that's how we
developed this list. So, yes, we know what the expenditures that are --
have been rejected are and for what reasons. And these are reasons
that, until this weekend, have never been written into the financial
system as reasons for rejections.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Is it your suggestion that each
and every one of these transactions that's been presented to the Clerk
for payment has been processed and delivered to the Clerk through the
existing purchasing policy that's been approved by this board?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Each of these transactions has been
approved through the existing purchasing policy that's been approved
by the Board of County Commissioners, has been delivered to the
Page 70
June 23, 2015
Clerk, and the Clerk has decided to reject them based upon the concept
that the purchasing policy does not provide the specified evidence of
approval?
MR. OCHS: Not for all, sir. Those -- for the transaction with
vendors I would say that's correct. For the withholding or rejection of
reimbursement to employees for travel expenses, I'm not sure that
that's all covered in your purchasing ordinance completely. It's
covered in Florida Statute obviously.
And, for example, $15 mileage reimbursement has been rejected
because suddenly now for the first time, we have to somehow provide
the proof that a particular individual for a particular travel
reimbursement for a particular training event has been specifically
approved. It's in the budget. It's always been a part of your budget.
And, again, until this weekend, we've never, to my knowledge, been
asked to provide that level of detail.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But each one of these transactions has
been forwarded to the Clerk based on a legal basis of approval?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance, you were very articulate. You made the
point perfectly.
The Board has a purchasing ordinance, and that purchasing
ordinance is deemed valid until overturned by a court of law. In fact,
any action taken by the Board of County Commissioners is deemed
valid until it's overturned by a court of law, and the Clerk has to act
accordingly.
He doesn't have the unilateral discretion to decide whether what
we as a board have decided is policy or local law is valid or not. He
must conform until a court says otherwise and, therefore, he must do
Page 71
June 23, 2015
what he is limited to do by law, which is to pre-audit.
Law has not given him the power to decide whether or not
something should be paid. The only body politic that can decide
whether or not there is approval for payment of a county expenditure is
this Board of County Commissioners, and he cannot decide that.
And as a result, he needs to do his pre-audit, turn those payables
over to the Board, and allow us to decide whether or not we deem it
appropriate to pay these vendors. In the absence of him doing that,
then I think we need to do exactly what the County Attorney has
advised, and that is we take this matter before a judge and let a judge
order payment be made for these vendors.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Nance?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am. Ms. Kinzel?
MS. KINZEL: Yes. Just a couple of things that Commissioner
Hiller pointed actually somewhat makes the Clerk's point in our
assessment of a legal purpose.
We absolutely agree with you. This Board of County
Commissioners is the one that has to determine the expenditure is valid
from your perspective. The next step is, then, that the Board,
independently and separately -- and there is much law out there
regarding that issue. He reviews the validity, the Board's approval, and
the invoices add up, that they're appropriate. That is a subsequent act
to this board approving an expenditure.
And we agree, the Board needs to make the determination of that
expenditure, absolutely, first and foremost. And the Clerk does not
even review those items until the Board has made a determination that
those expenditures are valid.
So our audit function comes after the Board's action and after,
then, staff is authorized to make the expenditure. Those things should
be done up front before an expenditure is even made, and then the
Clerk reviews those in a pre-audit function before we disburse the
Page 72
June 23, 2015
funds in payment. That's the process that has been followed for years
and years.
And I just need to clarify that, because we do recognize the
Board's authority. That's part of what this entire issue is, that we are
looking to this board to approve these contracts and agreements that
staff have signed and issued to vendors.
We notified vendors, so there would be no detriment to vendors,
that this was occurring. It's a relatively small amount that we can begin
working towards. That's what was issued back to the departments.
And, really, that's the point of bringing the stuff to the Board of
County Commissioners before it comes to the Clerk.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you're telling me that none of these
800 transactions have to do with the fact that the Clerk has deemed that
those have been lawfully approved?
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. Our question is because we
have been unable to determine that they have been approved by this
Board of County Commissioners. And if we are unable to make that
determination, we can't determine that it's a legal payment.
So we have asked the questions of county staff to please provide
where those approvals have been forthcoming. Those were the
questions asked.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Does the Clerk have a copy of the
purchasing policy?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Has he read it?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you're saying that these 800 items are
not covered by the purchasing policy?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, they require additional
information and an action of the Board that we can validate for us to
make a legal payment.
Page 73
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So we're at a loggerhead.
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. It is quite -- it's quite simple.
If those expenditures come to the Board, which the list is already held
by the County Manager, put them on an agenda. We've been saying
that for three months. All that needs to happen is put the list for the
Board to approve. Then the Clerk reviews it for a pre-audit function
and issues the disbursement. Quite simple.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a point of correction. I don't
believe our County Attorney advised us to do anything. I think he
provided information based on Commissioner Nance's question.
Second of all, I would like to ask the County Attorney if we
could, indeed, take the list that we have here -- I believe Ms.
Markiewicz has it in her hand -- and add it to this agenda today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Problem solved.
MR. KLATZKOW: Here's your issue. Here's your issue. You're
about to go away for two months, all right. So if we're going to take
the position that we will put all of these payables on a -- in a report and
the Clerk will wait until the Board approves it, I don't know what you
do for the next two months. So you have that issue to deal with.
The second issue you have to deal with is I've never heard the
Clerk say that he would accept ratification, all right. If the Clerk is
now going to say he'll accept ratification, that's a new twist, and I think
it's a positive movement.
If the idea is to have a payment report that goes to the Board -- in
all agreements it goes to the Board in a formal report and the Board
approves that, if that satisfies the Clerk, that is one possibility. But I
will tell you that you do have a Prompt Payment Act here, all right.
And I don't know how you get through these breaks that the Board
takes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But be that aside, and I don't
Page 74
June 23, 2015
mean to interrupt you. Are we able to take this list that is here in this
room today and add it to our agenda for approval?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can you do that? Yes. But at the end of the
day, you've had no chance to review that list. You have no idea
whether or not those expenditures are -- are valid.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then we could put it on at a next
meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: You could put it on for your next meeting,
yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I believe we have a
workshop on Thursday, and it could probably be added to a workshop.
But could we not have a meeting established? Can we --
MR. KLATZKOW: You have one more meeting before your
break that you could do this, but now -- look, this is your purchasing
policy and this is your purchasing ordinance, okay. If it is your wish to
change that, that is your prerogative, all right.
What Ms. Kinzel is telling you is that the Clerk is, in essence,
asking for that change, and that's up to you whether or not you want to
do that. If you don't want that change, you don't have much choice but
to compel a payment through a court order.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir.
MR. OCHS: I would just respectfully like to remind the Board
that Ms. Markiewicz and I are engaged in active litigation brought
against us by the Clerk. This board decided not to join that action, and
that's fine. But to be having these discussions that may impact my
defense or the defense of Ms. Markiewicz without our attorneys
present and being somehow, you know, strong-armed into making a
policy change that may impact that active lawsuit, I think, is
ill-advised, at least from my perspective.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, I think it's clear that the Board
Page 75
June 23, 2015
has an established methodology of approving expenditures.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have it. It is being contested by the
Clerk of Courts. That's okay. I don't -- I do not object to that.
MR. OCHS: Nor do I.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I actually at this point really would like
to know, personally, if we're following the law or not. I think it's
questionable, okay, what the outcome is going to be. I don't know
what the outcome is going to be. I'm sure every other county in the
state and every other clerk in the state is also anxious to see what the
courts determine on this, since they're all working the same way we
are. I don't think that Collier County is doing anything irregular.
And the purchasing policy has been set up -- and we've discussed
this ad nauseam. I'm not going to go over it today. But it is set up this
way so that the County Manager's agency can manage the county and
can expend money in a timely fashion to conduct the business of
Collier County.
As I stated before, the Board of County Commissioners does not
-- is not the operational arm of the county; the County Manager is.
And the County Manager has to have the ability to direct his staff to
conduct the business of the county even in the absence of the Board of
County Commissioners, all right. We have to have a provision for
that.
And this purchasing policy, I think, is very well thought out, and
it does that; it gives the County Manager a reasonable amount of
leeway to conduct business on the idea that the Board is going to come
back through the elements of the purchasing policy and approve each
and every one of these expenditures in one fashion or another, as is
outlined by the policy.
So if the policy is in error or illegal, I certainly would like to
know. But in the meantime, I see no reason to beat up our vendors and
Page 76
June 23, 2015
beat up our employees.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Nance?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much.
You know, I'm going to weigh in on this, first of all, to say we've
authorized the County Manager years ago -- actually about 20 years
ago. We authorized the County Manager to conduct the business of
the county and pay the expenses under $50,000. We're not always
here. Sometimes we're gone over, say, the Christmas holiday or the
Thanksgiving holiday, and certainly we're gone when we're in recess in
the summer.
The county -- if we had to do this every single -- for every single
expenditure all summer long, no one would get paid.
And can you imagine how high the prices will go on what the
vendors charge us because they're not sure if they're going to get paid
or not. And so, you know, our taxpayers suffer with that. If the
taxpayers have to pay a higher rate because they don't know if they're
going to get paid at all, that's very, very tough on taxpayers, and I
worry about that tremendously.
We gave the County Manager this authorization for reasons just
like this, for when we're gone. We're going to be leaving in a couple
weeks, and now he's going to have to run this county, but we're not
going to be here to ratify anything.
Up until three months ago, all 67 counties in the State of Florida
always operated this way; 66 of them still do so that they can function
and run a business and be a savings to the taxpayer.
Now, we don't ever have to authorize the county Clerk about his
expenditures. We never see them. He never has to come to us and say
-- to say, can I pay this money for all these attorneys to sue you?
Nope. He just continues to do that. So he's the only one that can
authorize us. We cannot authorize him.
Page 77
June 23, 2015
Our policy was set in place, but apparently our policy doesn't
apply as far as the Clerk's interpretation goes and, as you can see, it
bothers me.
Then, for instance if we ratify everything at the next meeting, if it
doesn't -- if our ratification of the public -- of the valid public purpose
doesn't meet his approval, he can stop it anyway. So what good is
ratification if it's not going to meet his approval or if he doesn't like
what we do? It's -- folks, if you don't realize, this is very
disconcerting, and the taxpayers are the guys that are going to have to
pay for it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a purchasing ordinance.
That purchasing ordinance is deemed valid until overturned by a court
of law. The Clerk of Court has to respect that ordinance as written
because it is the law.
We have a County Manager who is engaging in nothing more
than an administrative function. He is making purchases. He is not
authorizing payment of those purchases. We, as the Board of County
Commissioners, are making the decision whether or not those
purchases ought to be paid, and we are making those decisions in
accordance with our purchasing ordinance.
There is no statute that requires a specific type of approval. It
provides -- the statutes provide there shall be approval by the Board of
County Commissioners. That approval could be pre-approval, that
could be approval prior to authorizing payment, or it can be approval
after payment, which is ratification.
And we have, as a board, decided by law when that approval, that
statutorily required approval, will be made. It's the law, and the Clerk
must follow the law. It is not for him to now decide that he finds our
Page 78
June 23, 2015
law to be improper and, therefore, he will choose to conduct himself in
a different manner.
We are governed by the law before us, and that is the law we have
to respect, and that is the law that he must respect until or if a court
deems otherwise.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to call the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's when.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because I have the advantage of
sitting next to Ms. Kinzel, I think you wanted to speak before, so --
MS. KINZEL: Oh, I'll wait for your comments.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. My comment was to hear
from you.
MS. KINZEL: Oh, okay. Thank you, Commissioner.
Several things have been put on the record.
Actually, Commissioner Hiller, the Clerk does have an
independent obligation and a legal responsibility to assess anything
that transpires prior to payment being made but after approval by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Additionally, Commissioner Fiala, the statement that no one gets
paid, I think that is scary to the public. I think it's unreasonable. We
just approved $16.4 million on today's agenda to pay vendors that were
appropriately approved, appropriately contracted and moving forward.
This is a minor amount that have been determined to have a lack
of specificity or a lack of information to enable us to properly process
the payable.
So the majority of your vendors are being paid. These are not.
We've asked for additional information.
The Clerk and Jeff-- the Clerk has made very clear several times
that ratification under the same circumstances as Frankenmuth allows
Page 79
June 23, 2015
would be acceptable to him. The Board has the authority to ratify
staff s actions. He has said that on several occasions, and that still
continues to be our position. You can ratify staffs actions after the fact
under certain parameters established by law, and they are established.
So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would he accept that ratification or
decide that that wasn't something that met his --
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner. He has said if it's a valid
legal purchase otherwise and you have ratified staff as accepting or
approving the expenditure, then we would make the expenditure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ms. Kinzel, the Clerk of Courts has sued
the County Manager on the basis that the purchasing policy is illegal.
He's already taken that action. He's already decided that this
purchasing policy is illegal.
I think the Clerk has an obligation to wait for the decision on the
courts before he starts wholesale denial of payment based on the fact
that he doesn't like the purchasing policy. It's a simple, common,
ordinary --
MS. KINZEL: Well -- and, Commissioner Nance, you know, we
have been working with the Board for almost two years to try to
resolve this issue and get clarification on the contracting. It's
unfortunate that the circumstances are where they are, I agree with
you. It's in court.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's in court.
MS. KINZEL: We can wait for that. But in the meantime, to
expedite payment to vendors, if that is really the goal of this board, you
can approve the list based upon what Purchasing puts forward. Before
the expenditures come to the Clerk, the Clerk will then do his pre-audit
function and determine the legality of payment and that the Board has
made a decision regarding the expenditure. And that's our process, and
then we bring back the disbursements list to be recorded in the Board's
Page 80
June 23, 2015
records. It would be simplified.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's very clear that the Clerk is taking the
action based on the concept that the purchasing policy is invalid.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I guess I'm going to say it
many times, and I'll say it again. If I have any desire of the outcome
today is that cooler heads prevail. If I could wave my magic wand, the
County Manager would sit across from the Clerk today and settle this.
This is about power. This is about a silly little sandbox argument that
has no basis for the taxpayers' benefit. This is personal, and it needs to
stop.
Why are we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We didn't start it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It doesn't matter who started it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, it most certainly
does, ma'am. The Clerk has sued the County Manager, and the Clerk
is refusing to make payments that are validated by this board.
The Clerk is the one taking the action. The Board is not suing
anybody. The Board is trying to conduct business. The Clerk is
refusing to do his job.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Because he wants to fight over the policy
of this board. He's refusing to do his job, and he's suing our employees
for doing what we asked them to do.
Mr. Ochs is of no fault. He has taken direction from us. He's
doing his job the way we tell him to, and he's getting sued by the
Clerk.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: As I said, I wish that cooler heads
would prevail and that the County Manager and the Clerk would sit
together and work this out.
MS. KINZEL: And, Commissioner Nance, just one thing that --
Page 81
June 23, 2015
surely, the Clerk of Courts has brought up the issue of the contracting
numerous times, and -- yes, but the Clerk has a separate role to play.
And to say that our office is not doing our job when, in fact, it is the
very specific job of the Clerk of the Courts to determine these things is
inaccurate. So I had to put that on the record. I mean, the Clerk's job
is to approve it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I am putting my signature on these
transactions. His job is to attest to my signature. If he would do that
and wait for this court opinion, I would appreciate it.
MS. KINZEL: Okay. But --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But he doesn't want to do that. He wants
to involve our vendors. They sent a letter, a nasty, threatening letter
that created consternation to every one of the vendors of the county
suggesting that under certain circumstances they might not get paid in
a way that they can't even determine. It's up to the Clerk. So I think
we're --
MS. KINZEL: No. It really is a process.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think we're at an impasse, and I'm
going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hear the motion again.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear the motion again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To direct the County Attorney to
file a motion to compel the -- how would you like it phrased, County
Attorney? To compel the Clerk to follow the Prompt Payment Act and
to follow our purchasing ordinance and to immediately pay these
vendors.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Until the Court determines otherwise.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. That's the -- the motion is to
direct him to take this to the courts.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: For injunctive relief?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
Page 82
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is that your second, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #10B
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE AND, IF
APPROPRIATE, FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST H.O.M.E. AS
WELL AS ITS EXECUTIVES AND DIRECTORS FOR THE
AMOUNT OF $427,472.42 PLUS LAWSUIT COSTS FOR THE
MISMANAGEMENT OF CDBG FUNDS ISSUED TO COLLIER
COUNTY — MOTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO WORK WITH STAFF AND HUD TO RECTIFY THE
EXPENDITURES AND IF APPROPRIATE TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH LEGAL ACTION — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves you to Item 10B on your
agenda this morning. That is a recommendation to direct the County
Attorney to investigate and, if appropriate, file a lawsuit against
H.O.M.E. as well as its executives and directors for the amount of
$427,472.42 plus lawsuit costs for mismanagement of CDBG funds
Page 83
June 23, 2015
issued to Collier County, and Commissioner Henning brought this item
forward.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The issue is if it's
appropriate to file a lawsuit.
According to HUD, the taxpayers are on the hook for almost a
half a million dollars spent by H.O.M.E. and its directors on rehabbing
houses. There has been three audits done on this issue, two of them
said there's not enough information to see that these monies were spent
in accordance to the grant.
So, yeah, I make a motion that we direct the County Attorney, if
appropriate, take all necessary actions to rectify the expenditures of
$427,000, I think it is, and that includes working with HUD, staff and,
if appropriate, file a lawsuit against the H.O.M.E. and directors. That's
my motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a second for discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think we should hear from
staff on this, don't you?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have a second for discussion.
Mr. Ochs, could you give us a little update as to where you think
we are with HUD and how your office is responding to their letter.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I'd be happy to.
Our staff, Mr. Carnell and Ms. Grant along with Ms. Belpedio
from the County Attorney's Office, had a conference earlier this week
with HUD officials in Miami and their legal counsel to discuss the four
components of the letter that was sent by HUD to the county board last
week. Those discussions are ongoing.
We were advised that we have 30 days to provide any
documentation or rebuttal information to the letter.
We are working, as I said, closely with Mr. Klatzkow's office to
Page 84
June 23, 2015
prepare that document. And we already know that at least one of the
components of the letter having to do with environmental audits was in
error, and we have corrected that through follow-up correspondence to
the original letter.
We also believe that some of the other information in there
relative to some of the other areas would benefit from some additional
information from the county to HUD.
So it's an ongoing process, sir. I don't believe that that letter
required any obligation of the Board to make any payment at any
specific time at this point, and I would defer to Mr. Klatzkow for better
legal advice there. But at a staff level we are working to put together
information that we think would help facilitate additional decisions by
HUD as it relates to this grant.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So no one in staff or the County
Attorney's Office is considering this a demand letter for payment?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a demand letter for payment, but it's not
an order for payment.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And the difference would be what, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's easy to ask somebody to pay you.
You've got to demonstrate to me that it's something that I actually owe,
and that would require an enforcement. I don't know that we owe any
of this.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. One of the concerns that I had --
and, you know, people have asked me a couple questions, and I don't
really know the answer to any of this. But it seems to me that the
administrators at HUD and the administrators on county staff at
present are completely different staff members than those who were
involved with past deliberations and discussions on these same items;
is that the case?
MR. KLATZKOW: This goes back a very long time, this
transaction, so I have no doubt that many of the people are no longer
Page 85
June 23, 2015
involved with it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So we're going to -- we're trying
to reach accommodations so that people actually understand what the
issues are and see one last time before we come to a determination if,
indeed, we owe this money or not. Is that the process we're in, Mr.
Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's the process I'm engaged in.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do we have an opportunity to sue
H.O.M.E. or its members, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know yet.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You need to make that determination
then.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So that being the case, can we really
make that request of the County Attorney, Mr. -- Commissioner
Henning? I'm going to go to Commissioner Taylor, but then I want to
go back to Commissioner Henning and -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hiller and Fiala.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm confused. Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So as I understand, based on what
the County Manager and the County Attorney has said, there's a
demand letter but clearly there's no obligation. And we have no
obligation till an order is issued by, as I understand in this case, the
Department of Justice.
As a result, to your point, Commissioner Nance, there is
absolutely no legal action that we can take against H.O.M.E. because,
as of this point in time, the county has suffered no loss and it would be
inappropriate for us to try to sue to recover something that we haven't
lost. So I absolutely don't see any legal basis for filing a suit against
H.O.M.E.
Page 86
June 23, 2015
But, secondly, I have a concern about the statute of limitations
both with respect to HUD as well as with respect to H.O.M.E. And I
question whether, at a minimum, with respect to H.O.M.E., that even if
there were a clawback, that we could recover because of the limitations
issue from H.O.M.E. at all.
So I don't see now or in the future that a lawsuit against H.O.M.E.
could happen, and that's preliminary. There might be a review that
suggests otherwise, but at this point in time I absolutely do not see a
lawsuit, and for the -- again, going back to the primary reason, and that
is the county has suffered no injury that would justify it.
So I'd like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a second. We have a motion we
have to dispatch of.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's our motion? Oh, you've
got a motion. Oh, yeah, okay. Well, then I'd like to call the question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning made a motion,
and it was seconded by Commissioner Taylor, but right now we're
going to go to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, for point of discussion.
And I wondered if Commissioner Henning might modify his motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala first, and
then we'll circle back.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
I happened to meet Mr. Barlow when he was first starting this
project, and he was just doing this all out of his own money. He never
got involved in this at all, and he got contractors to help him. And he
was just paying them. And he didn't want any money for this because
he was an ultra wealthy man himself, and he just wanted to help other
people. That was what he started out doing.
Somehow then H.O.M.E. entered into it. But our staff that you --
Page 87
June 23, 2015
you see Kim Grant sitting right there. She wasn't even here then. She
wasn't even in the county then. This was handled by other staff
members who -- and I'm going to say this as politically correct as I can
-- who were not always correct in their filings and didn't follow
through on many things. The Clerk caught that over and over on
different things, and eventually that staff is all gone because there were
problems.
And one of them we were talking about right here was the
environmental impact. Well, with the environmental impact, they had
filed all of their environmental impacts with our staff. Somehow, I
don't know how, but the staff didn't get it to HUD. And so -- but Kim
has -- Kim has them in her position. Right, Kim? Have you sent it to
them? Have you sent a copy to them yet so they can see?
MS. GRANT: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great. So they have all of that
information there.
And so we found -- as I was reading through this, I found, like for
-- submitted by the county, but the thing is the county was in error.
And here was another one, documentation of compliance. Well, it was
the county error again. And then there -- oh, my goodness. There
were, like, six different places where I found this to be true. I won't go
through them and belabor it anymore except that everything was done.
It just wasn't documented correctly in most cases. And we've tried to
remedy that.
Nobody stole any money. Nobody owes anybody, except our
staff now must clean up what the other staff left them with, and that is
submitting the proper records to HUD. Why this came -- why this
surfaced again -- although it's good that it did, because now we're
going to get our recordkeeping straight on this whole agenda.
But all in all, folks, nobody stole anything and nobody owes
anybody anything. We just need to -- our staff needs to submit the
Page 88
June 23, 2015
correct information that they've found in our files that had not been
corrected before. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Robert's Rules states that the one
that calls the motion is the one that makes the motion or seconds it. So
I want Commissioner Taylor to finish her question to me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What I'd like to do,
Commissioner Henning, is ask you if you'd modify your motion to
reflect what the discussion is at this point what -- in terms of--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Direction?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would look like direct
the County Attorney to investigate and make -- if appropriate, file a
lawsuit, also work with staff and HUD to supply the proper paperwork
to rectify the issue of an alleged (sic) by HUD that we owe $127,00 --
427,000; is that it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Yeah, that's a part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you're modifying your motion
to reflect that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. And I would second
that motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's inappropriate to direct the
County Attorney to file suit based on what we don't even know is
going to happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't the motion.
Page 89
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You said that -- what's the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Geez.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Geez.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is if it is appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So I don't think the County
Attorney should make a decision as to whether or not it's appropriate.
The Board of County Commissioners needs to make a decision
whether or not it's appropriate to file a suit based on what ultimately
comes out of the County Manager's Office and the County Attorney's
Office working with HUD.
If it turns out that HUD rejects our explanations and we feel that
our explanations are justified, we can object to HUD. If we lose
against HUD and for some reason have a basis to recover from
H.O.M.E., at that point in time we can direct the County Attorney. But
to take any sort of action or to direct the County Attorney now in the
absence of knowing what HUD may or may not direct from us and
whether or not we were to accept what HUD directs would be
inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's only one problem with
your statement.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, if you would
support having the County Attorney bring back options to the Board
for filing a lawsuit, I could support your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's what I understood the
motion was. He --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He's going to bring back options to the
Board.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask the -- since I was
Page 90
June 23, 2015
speaking...
County Attorney, what options could you bring back at this time?
MR. KLATZKOW: I hate to predict the future, because I'm
really not very good at it. But one likely course of action here is going
to be HUD will bring an enforcement action. At that point in time, if
it's appropriate to bring in H.O.M.E., since they're the central character
here, I think I would be bringing in H.O.M.E. into that enforcement
procedure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, wouldn't you do that as
a matter of course? I mean, if HUD were to -- or if the Department of
Justice were to issue an order, wouldn't you bring that to our attention
and tell us under the agenda that, you know, this is your
recommendation? I mean, we don't have to direct you to do that.
You're going to do that automatically. That's your job.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're in session, I can do that. If you're
not in session and you were going to be gone for two months, you
know, I would like the ability to move ahead with this if it's
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what about -- well, I'm just
very uncomfortable about approving something I don't know. I mean,
I hate to just give you the absolute right to move forward with legal
action. I don't see why that can't wait.
If HUD issues an order, you need to, if you deem it appropriate,
defend against that order. If you deem it not appropriate to defend
against the order, then we can give you direction to comply with
whatever the order is. But that has nothing to do with H.O.M.E.
The decision to sue H.O.M.E. can wait. We can make the
decision to sue H.O.M.E. when we come back in the fall and we know
what has transpired between the county and HUD. Because right now
the issue is between the county and HUD, and to take -- to give you
Page 91
June 23, 2015
direction to sue H.O.M.E., I think, is completely inappropriate since
we don't know to what degree H.O.M.E. is responsible for any
clawback that could be justified by HUD. And we don't even know
that -- we don't even know the extent of any potential clawback.
There is no reason we can't wait until December to decide to sue
H.O.M.E. if the Department of Justice orders a clawback of this money
and we comply.
MR. KLATZKOW: If HUD is not happy with the conversations
we're going to have with them and they forward this for enforcement
action, you may not be here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you still are going to deal
with HUD. That has nothing to do with H.O.M.E.
MR. KLATZKOW: But what I'm saying is that it might be
appropriate at that point in time to include H.O.M.E. within that
enforcement action. I don't know yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you mean?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's no different than asking somebody for a
hold harmless or indemnity or anything else. If we find ourselves in an
administrative proceeding with United States Government, it may be in
the best interest of the county at that point in time to bring in H.O.M.E.
I don't know. If you're in session, I'd be happy to bring it back for your
direction. If you're not in session --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what you're saying is
completely different. Now what you're going -- what you're
suggesting is that you're going to join H.O.M.E. in some administrative
hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I am saying is I don't know the future,
okay. And what I'm telling you is that it is not outside the realm of
possibility that you will be named in an enforcement action by the U.S.
Government on this. The central character here is H.O.M.E. I do not
think it would be inappropriate to bring in H.O.M.E. to that
Page 92
June 23, 2015
administrative proceeding.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically what you're saying is
that if we're sued administratively or if we -- well, if an order is issued
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not an order yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. That's what I'm saying. If
an order is issued -- okay, go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what else to tell you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you saying that there will be
an administrative hearing that you anticipate after the 30 days?
MR. KLATZKOW: There may be -- and I don't know the future
-- an administrative hearing filed while you're out during the summer
recess.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you would seek to join
H.O.M.E.?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As a co-defendant?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you want the authority to join
H.O.M.E. as a co-defendant against HUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: If I deem it appropriate, yes. If you're in
session, I'd be happy to come back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't the attorney for H.O.M.E.
here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you mind?
MR. FRIDKIN: Would you like to hear?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'd like to hear what you
have to say.
MR. FRIDKIN: Thank you for the opportunity. What I'd really
like to say first and foremost is I want to come back to planet earth for
Page 93
June 23, 2015
just long enough to talk about the program.
I want to hand out, if I may -- can I just hand out to you an article
that appeared in the publication -- I think it's called Naples City Desk.
May I approach, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure.
MR. FRIDKIN: I've got five of them.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The commissioners can do what they
want with them, sir, but we'll just give them to them, and we'll let them
deal with it as they deem appropriate.
MR. FRIDKIN: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Sir, can you state your name?
MR. FRIDKIN: Oh, yeah. For the record, my name is Jeff
Fridkin, and I'm an attorney for John Barlow.
And what is important in this to notice is the likelihood you're
ever going to get a Justice Department order. You should listen to
your counsel, not Mr. Barlow's counsel on that issue. But I see the
possibility as slim to none despite whatever efforts your Clerk of
Courts -- or he's not your Clerk of Courts, but -- may make to make
that outcome be different.
The Justice Department isn't going to bring this because the
purposes of the federal funds have been satisfied immensely here.
Low- and very-low income people are in homes, very comfortable
homes, and are in a position to actually better their lives upon the sale
of those homes.
And if they are to better their lives upon the sales of those homes,
all of the federal money as well, frankly, as that part of the state money
that hasn't burned off, based upon the way the program was set off--
set up, will come back.
So I just -- as you discern -- and it makes all the sense in the
world for you to get your lawyer's advice. I couldn't have asked you to
do anything more than that. You've got a lawyer. I would -- I could
Page 94
June 23, 2015
never criticize a board for seeking the lawyer's advice about what to do
in these kinds of situations. But I just wanted you to know from a
starting place that this was a good program.
The other thing I'd like to let you know -- and then I'll answer
whatever questions I can -- is that Mr. Barlow has already made it
known to Ms. Grant, and I'm here to make it known, that to the extent
we have information that can be helpful -- because we are a body of
volunteers who made no money on this but volunteered to try to solve
a then existing problem in our county. We can help.
If Mr. Ochs' office needs us, ask us. We've been forthcoming.
We'll continue to be so.
Any questions I can help you with?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, any questions for
Mr. Fridkin?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, nothing for Mr. Fridkin.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Let's go to Commissioner
Taylor, and then we have some public speakers, I believe; Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, please.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I wait until we've heard from
the speakers, and then I'd like to make my remarks.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure. Push your button again, and we'll
hold your place.
Thank you.
Let's hear from the public speakers, sir. How many do we have?
MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fridkin has signed up
as a public speaker. Did you have any more to add, sir?
MR. FRIDKIN: (Shakes head.)
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. So your remaining speakers are Dr.
Joseph Doyle, who's been ceded an additional three minutes from
Sandra Doyle and from Jared Jones. That is a total of nine minutes.
Page 95
June 23, 2015
And this is your only other speaker.
DR. DOYLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Dr. Joseph
Doyle. Actually, Mr. Jones has left, so it would be six minutes, but I'm
not going to need that much time.
When I first saw this item on the agenda -- and I had seen some
newspaper articles as well -- I was a little confused as to what dollar
amount we're talking here. Is it the 427,000 or 472-, because it says
there's some program income as well. So I didn't know how much we,
the taxpayer, might be on the hook for. That was -- I wanted to clarify
that just as an administrative point.
But what I'm more concerned about as a taxpayer is twofold.
Number one, as a -- paying federal income tax -- and many, many of
us pay more federal income tax than we pay in property tax to the
county locally.
If this was mismanaged money, it's still federal money, you know,
federal taxpayers. You know, what were the outcomes, et cetera, et
cetera, but more to the point for the local taxpayers. This is the second
time in probably about three or four months where the federal
government has asked for money back for a program that was
mismanaged. I believe there was about $200,000 a couple months ago.
And so my concern as a local citizen is what can we put in place,
what controls, county government, through County Manager, et cetera,
to oversee these types of programs real time so that we don't get asked
for the money by the federal government a couple years after the fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't take the money.
DR. DOYLE: I agree. You know, I have the same problem with
the School Board. They think, oh, well, this is free money. Well, it
isn't. We're responsible for it. And at the end of the day, if it isn't
administered properly, we locally have to pay it back, so it's not free
money, right.
So that's why I'm saying, what could we put -- and I don't know
Page 96
June 23, 2015
what controls that are already there, but obviously since I'm here and
having seen this -- this has happened twice in recent memory that, you
know, maybe we need to review what controls need to be put in place
to enhance this so this doesn't happen again.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Okay. We have everybody's lights on. Let me give a little
guidance here. We have a motion and a second on the floor which
basically allows the County Attorney to have some discretionary
management during the period of time of our recess --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to go forth with the County Manager
and address this situation.
Can we please address this topic so we can bring this to a vote.
I've got Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner -- excuse me --
Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Hiller.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much. That was
my question. What does -- let's repeat this motion so we're very clear,
and I would -- I'm not trying to stop my colleagues from speaking, and
I welcome to (sic), but I would like to call the question after the last
two lights are out.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Mr. Klatzkow, can you please
tell me, is there any money missing at all? I mean, we talked about
this, so I know the answer.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. If you're asking me do I think there
was any misappropriation, my answer is no, I do not. This is about, as
I understand HUD's claim at this point in time, recordkeeping.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's -- I knew that answer, but I
Page 97
June 23, 2015
just wanted it on the record from our County Attorney.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, please be brief.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. It would be --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It is hungry (sic).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're asking for so much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I am just making a simple request, and
she has been so accommodating today. So, Commissioner Hiller, do
you think we should have the vote?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, do you
remember when we used to have a timer up here for Fred Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- I think we have -- I think
we have a real issue. And the issue -- and this is something I didn't
think about, is that we hold these mortgages on these properties, and
when these properties sell, the county will be recovering these funds.
We will be getting these federal dollars back. So I fail to see how this
is going to work. I mean, you're going to sue to recover from a party
that has turned over the assets.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For funds that aren't missing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what you're -- well, don't we
have mortgages? I thought --
MR. KLATZKOW: I never said I was going to sue H.O.M.E.
What I said, during your recess if there's an enforcement action
brought against the county, I think it would be appropriate for me to
bring H.O.M.E. into that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Well, that's really a
different issue.
So, essentially, what you want is authorization to join H.O.M.E.
as a defendant in the administrative action if one is brought forward
while we're in recess?
Page 98
June 23, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in the absence of us being in a
recess, you will bring this matter back before us and allow us to make
a decision based on the facts that we will have at that future time?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I can live with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing no further comments --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, it's my motion.
It's giving full latitude to the County Attorney including suing
H.O.M.E.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what you said before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is. I mean, it's open,
absolutely open. He is the legal advice of the county -- Board of
Commissioners. And, yeah, one of them might be what you have
stated, that we ask H.O.M.E. to join us in defense of HUD, but it's just
open ended.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but it's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not limited.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is -- I can't support something --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the motion, and I made
the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, and I'd like to
comment. I can't support anything that's open ended. I can support
exactly what the County Attorney said, and what he has said makes
sense. But to suggest that we're going to delegate, you know,
discretionary decision making with respect to whether or not to sue
H.O.M.E. for what, I don't know, is completely unreasonable. And I
won't delegate that. It absolutely is.
Page 99
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow has already indicated --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The first is the right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and made his commitment to the
Board; have you not, sir?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the motion isn't that. He has to
do what the motion is.
MR. KLATZKOW: Honestly, I'm going to implement your
Board direction. I'm just -- I'm waiting to hear it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's repeat the motion one more
time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, let's repeat the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I liked your version, but we heard a
different version.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I prefer what Commissioner Nance
said, too.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I thought we -- I thought when we came
to suing that the -- unless there was something unbelievably
compelling, he was going to bring back options to the Board. I thought
that's where we left it, Commissioner Henning, but maybe I'm wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not what Henning is
saying now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, what you said --
and the stenographer can -- court reporter can repeat it -- is exactly
what my motion was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, your motion is too open ended.
I mean, what Commissioner Nance said I could support. What the
County Attorney has said I could support, but I can't support your
open-ended motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's not go on break.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's act on the motion. All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 100
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we know what the motion -- are
we acting on the words that you said as you interpret them?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's don't confuse it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, see, I'm having a problem voting
because I remember him saying lawsuit. I do not remember you
saying lawsuit. And I think that lawsuit is premature.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, would you
please restate your motion so that all the commissioners understand
what it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then I will ask the court
reporter to go back --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not sure I can find it. There
were, like, 10 of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was, you know, work with
staff, the County Attorney work with staff, see if you come to
resolution. If not, take whatever necessary items, including legal
action, to resolve it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And that's what I second. Yes, I
will second that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So that's the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we got three in favor, so
far.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We've got three in favor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the others need to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, what do you
interpret by his motion, so I understand, so I can decide whether or not
Page 101
June 23, 2015
to support it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I will be working with the County Manager,
all right. And if there comes a point in time where I believe that it's
necessary to take action against H.O.M.E., I will do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or have H.O.M.E. join in.
MR. KLATZKOW: Whatever action I deem appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's very open ended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will we be having an advisory about
taking any legal action? Like Commissioner Henning said before, we
keep jumping into legal action. We haven't really, but -- and you
know, that all costs taxpayer dollars, too, especially when no money's
missing.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I completely
understand joining H.O.M.E. in an --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- administrative action, but to sue
H.O.M.E. --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the problem?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- before we get to hear it when
that can wait till September, I think, is overly broad.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We've got three in favor. All those
opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just don't like the lawsuit part; I'm
going to say aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So it's 3-2 with Commissioner
Hiller and Fiala dissenting.
With that, we are going to recess for lunch until 1:21 so that we
can get some nutrients for the second half of this meeting.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
Page 102
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I believe that it's time for citizens'
comments for issues not on the present or future agenda.
Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have one registered speaker,
Mike Barbush.
MR. BARBUSH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike
Barbush representing the Goodland Civic Association.
I have three or four things I'd like to talk to you about today.
Basically I'm here to kick the beehive.
The first one is Goodland Drive 92A, an update on that. And our
fire contract is in the process of being renewed. I'd like an update on
that. And the road going in and out of Goodland with the impact from
the park -- we've got our boating park that's been down there, and it's
been used a tremendous amount. Maybe we can get some paving
going on down there on Goodland Drive West. And the last one is I
attended a DEP and FWC meeting last night at Rookery Bay, and
they're considering a critical wildlife area on the lump which is outside
of Cape Romano, the shoaled area on the other side of Cape Romano
for the least terns. It's in the beginning phases of that. I was out there
with a couple of fishermen from Goodland last night.
That's just an informational thing. If-- I see no problem with it,
and most of the people that I've spoke with in Goodland don't.
But I urge everyone that's got any interest in that area out there,
whether commercially, recreationally, or that sort of thing, to get on
Page 103
June 23, 2015
the DEP and the FWC website. We're in the initial phases of this
critical wildlife area. What that does is basically does not allow any
boating activity or disturbing the birds in any way, shape, or form out
there on the lump.
So -- but I'd like to start with -- I'd like an update on where we are
with the City of Marco Island and the Goodland Road 92A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nick?
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the Board here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: County Manager had an item to
discuss with you at the end, yeah.
MR. OCHS: Yeah. Mr. Chair, what would you like me to
respond to?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. At some point are you going to
come back with a little update as to where we are in the saga of 92
going into Goodland there?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I was going to do that during staff
communications, if--
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- that's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, would you like to say it now
that Mike is here, or -- and you can repeat it or just --
MR. OCHS: Sure. Commissioners, we -- staff met, along with
Commissioner Fiala, Mr. Casalanguida, and myself and City Manager
Hernstadt from the City of Marco along with one of their city
councilors, and also County Attorney Klatzkow. As a result of that
discussion, I have drafted a letter that memorializes the results of that
meeting, and I was planning to present that to you this afternoon to ask
you to endorse this draft that I could send along, then, to the City
Manager in Marco.
Essentially what it says is that I would go ahead and begin the
Page 104
June 23, 2015
process of releasing the first of two annual installments owed to the
City of Marco under the Board's interlocal agreement for the current
fiscal year, calendar year -- or Fiscal Year '15 provided that the City
Council during their summer budget reviews endorse the City
Manager's recommendation to use a portion of those proceeds to enter
into a design contract for improvements on Goodland Road.
And so we -- that is essentially the outcome of that meeting. If, in
fact, they go ahead and do that and earmark that money, I would then
begin the process to give them the second installment of the FY '15
installment that's due, and then we proceed accordingly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we're moving on it, Mike.
MR. BARBUSH: Well, I appreciate that. And I just want to say,
Leo's done a great job with trying to maneuver with the City of Marco,
and obviously after nine years of trying to get him to do something,
here we are at the end where we're looking towards our last two
payments for the city, and I just hope we can come to an amicable
relationship. It seems like there's a little bit of animosity right now,
and I hope we can overcome that, get past that, and get something
happening with the road here. It's been a long, drawn-out proposition.
Back in the day when Nick was down at the meetings in
Goodland, they wanted to do a hydrologic study. Well, they're doing
that right now. They've got sensors on either side of 92A, and they're
trying to figure out the water flow under the road.
I don't know where we're going with that, but that was what the
city wanted to start with, and they are actually doing that now. So
they're taking baby steps towards hopefully where we want to be.
The second part, we've renewed our fire contract with the City of
Marco for one year.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that's an annual renewable contract
that will administratively renew, so that's a continuing service contract.
MR. BARBUSH: All right, thank you, Leo.
Page 105
June 23, 2015
And then the last thing is, the park's been used a tremendous
amount, and we -- you know, we have no problems with the park
whatsoever, Margood Park and the boating park. But the roads going
in and out of Goodland, maybe if we could get somebody down from
transportation to take a look at Goodland Drive West, in particular.
We've got a couple potholes that are recurring. And it's nothing major.
I just wanted to bring that up while I was here.
But, again, I just want to thank Leo and Nick and you-all for, you
know, your diligence here when it comes to the City of Marco, and I
hope we can come to some understanding with them shortly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That road does need to be
fixed because it wasn't built originally to accommodate the boats and
trailers and tractors that pull them.
MR. BARBUSH: Well, the saltwater also. They're pulling --
boats are pulling saltwater out, and it's deteriorating the road, so it
needs to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, Nick, you've got that addressed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. I'll take care of him.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, you called it a lump. I
always called it the hump.
MR. BARBUSH: The hump, the lump. Same thing. See the
thing is, the thing is shifting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's lumpy and humpy. Are they
recommending no landing on boats?
MR. BARBUSH: Right now they're recommending that. What
they've done is they've -- I don't know the last time you were out there.
They've got signs, and they've got some ribbons and whatnot. But their
contention is that there's been a lot of the least tern nests that have
failed on Morgan Island and even parts of Sand Dollar Island in front
Page 106
June 23, 2015
of Marco, and they're saying that those terns have gone down to the
lump down there, or the hump.
And they wanted -- there's a 500-acre area that they want to
designate as the critical wildlife area. You can still go around it. Some
of the fishermen were concerned last night, the mullet fishermen about
how -- you know, because the fish set up on the back of the sandbar
back there. They just don't want people landing on the sandbar
anymore and disturbing the birds is basically what it is.
And this is probably a nine -- a nine-month procedure. I think the
first they're talking about doing any closures is March 31st of 2016.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that be a year-round
closure?
MR. BARBUSH: No. They're talking about from March 31st to
August 1st, but then again that's a variable thing depending on when
the terns come and go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. BARBUSH: But this is something that's kind of-- you
know, one of the questions asked last night was -- this is something
that I asked the question. Is this reviewed every year, every five years,
or whatever happens?
Because when we got into the 10,000 Islands reserve thing, I was
a stakeholder with that. That's a five-year review, and then they, you
know, decide what they're going to do with that. This is kind of
forever. If there is some, if-- say we have a hurricane and it destroys
the sandbar, there's a long, drawn-out process, and it's supposedly a
10-year process to remove that from the CWA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll get together with you later
and see how we can make some comments.
MR. BARBUSH: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
Page 107
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Mr. Ochs, you know what
I'm going to ask you. How many more payments are required of the
county to go to Marco Island?
MR. OCHS: We have two more -- excuse me -- two more
installments in Fiscal Year '16 and Fiscal Year '17 of$1 million per
year.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, when we come back, I --
clearly, health, safety, and welfare. This road needs to be --
MR. BARBUSH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- needs to be at least shored up.
But I am one commissioner that says that money is deducted from our
payments to Marco Island, because that money was given to Marco
Island to make this road whole, and they've not done it yet.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
MR. BARBUSH: Thank you. Appreciate it.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, would you consider this letter then
endorsed by the Board so I can move it forward to my counterpart at
the City of Marco?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you send it to us so
we can read it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. I would like to read it.
MR. OCHS: Will do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, we had a workshop with the
City of Marco on this issue.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the conclusion of that
workshop with respect to the payment on the county's side was what
after further discussion? Because the conclusion of that workshop was
Page 108
June 23, 2015
that you were going to be working with them to come to some
understanding.
MR. OCHS: Well, what they told you at the workshop was they
would go back and fund the hydrologic study, which they did, and that
they were going to discuss as a city council what other action they
would be willing to take with respect to 92.
They did have an item scheduled on their agenda. It was a very
brief discussion, so we followed that up with this meeting that I just
described to the commission. And, essentially, the agreement moving
forward is that if we will go ahead and make the first of our two
installments for the current fiscal year, they will -- excuse me -- the
City Manager will recommend to the City Council that they put
funding in their FY 16 budget to fund a complete design that will be
done by the end of Calendar Year '15 for improvements to that road.
And if, in fact, the council commits to that, then I would
requisition the second installment of the current FY15 installment to
them, and we would then come back to the Board with a
recommendation to share in our portion of the cost of the county's
section of 92A in Goodland.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the cost -- the balance of the
cost would come from them? You're going to put --
MR. OCHS: For the design, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just the design for them? And the
rest of the costs would come from us?
MR. OCHS: Well, our pro rata share of the design we would
recommend that we pay, and then, of course, whatever construction
estimates come out of that design, we would come back to the Board
and seek approval to enter into an agreement with the city for our pro
rata share of the improvements to the county's section of that road at
the same time that they're doing the repairs on the city portion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the payment for the city
Page 109
June 23, 2015
portion --
MR. OCHS: We don't know what the cost of it is yet. Nick, I
don't know if you have even -- without the design, it's hard to know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think, you know, that since
this issue has been addressed at a workshop and you are following
through on this, you're going to bring back an agreement --
MR. OCHS: Ultimately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that you will have with them,
and then we will fund based on that agreement if we agree with that
agreement?
MR. OCHS: Prerogative of the Board, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, may I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That probably is the best way to do
it. What would you prefer?
MR. OCHS: Well, you know, I have to turn to your County
Attorney. You're in a current legal interlocal agreement, funding
agreement with the City of Marco and, you know, that agreement
needs to be interpreted and, ultimately, perhaps, defended, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's the issue whether or not
this becomes a modification of that agreement or if this is a new
agreement or if this is part of the agreement as it exists and that your
interpretation falls under what we currently have.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I only -- my only reminder to the
Board is the current agreement allows the city to use that money not
only for 92A but for maintenance and repair of other roads in the City
of Marco.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my recollection, wasn't there a
provision in there about public safety, and wasn't that a priority?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
Page 110
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so if it was a priority and it
was about public safety, doesn't this road repair put it at the top of the
budget?
MR. OCHS: Sure. In your staffs opinion and I believe in the
majority of the Board's opinion, that's the case. I can't speak for what
kind of priority, you know, the City Council puts on that in their road
program. That's the dilemma for us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anyway, you'll bring this all back
to us so we can review it, right?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I'll send this letter out, and that would
be the first step --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or not.
MR. OCHS: -- in moving this forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, we may not have to. I
mean, if it's under the current agreement and the current agreement is
to be interpreted the way we're discussing, then it wouldn't have to be
brought back to us because you've already got an agreement that you're
working under. You know, if you're talking about some modification
or a new agreement, then you would bring it back.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, for clarification, it would be a
cost-sharing agreement. So we have a portion of the road that's on
county property, approximately 10 to 15 percent. You'd want to do
that project holistically, so it would be a cost-sharing agreement for the
county portion of that road outside of the interlocal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it would actually -- you don't
need a cost-sharing agreement. You basically would just need an
agreement as to the county portion of the -- well, I mean, why do you
even need an agreement? If you're going to repair the county portion
of the road --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be one vendor, ma'am, one
vendor under one contract probably by the City of Marco, and there
Page 111
June 23, 2015
would be county portion that would do -- they would do a county
portion of the road, and we would agree to pay them for the county
portion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you would just have a separate
agreement for the county portion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And leave the other agreement
intact, and they would have to pay out of our allocation on that first
agreement?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: However they would pay is up to
them, but as long as they fix the road, we'd pay our proportionate
share.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner Fiala
and Commissioner Taylor, and let's let staff bring something back to
us. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let me say first of all the
design is going to be anything that they tell them it's to be. Who is
going to decide what -- their design might be totally different than
what our design would be, because we want to do it the right way. I
don't know that they would want to do it that way.
Because they have no taxpayers down at the end of this road, by
the way. All the taxpayers down at the end of the road are ours. It's
county property at the end. So they derive no money to fix it nor
maintain it other than the money we've been giving them.
So first of all, do we have any say as to what the design should
entail?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Ma'am, we'll review what that
design is, and if we don't think it's adequate, we'll bring that matter
back to the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And Commissioner
Page 112
June 23, 2015
Hiller said something about the safety and so forth. And we define
safety maybe a little bit differently than they. Maybe -- because when
we were talking about safety before, they put some stones into a couple
of the potholes and put "no parking" signs down there.
You know, our design is -- you know, our interpretation might be
a little bit different as well. So I want to make sure that as long as
we're pumping money in there, we also get some of the benefits from
it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: "We" meaning our Goodland
people, our citizens.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they have to have -- there has
to be -- I mean, what we have to preserve is accessibility. And one of
the issues, I believe, if-- and, again, I'm working from memory -- was
that water was under the road and that that road was going to be raised
and the engineering was to raise the road, not as Commissioner Fiala
points out, limited to, like, filling potholes. Because those people, in
the event of an emergency, have to be able to be rescued, trucks going
in, them going out, not just everyday use. And I thought that was the
issue that made it a public-safety hazard as it currently exists.
MR. OCHS: That's essentially correct, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm glad to hear the conversation.
I'm glad to understand that the county is going to be a very much part
of the design.
And it is my understanding, if-- we're getting to a design phase,
so the Conservancy has done what they needed to do down there or
they're involved.
So I just hope going forward that this agreement that you struck
that we'll read in the letter indicates that this money that we're giving
them is earmarked for this road, because if it's not, we're going to end
Page 113
June 23, 2015
up paying for it because we're more concerned about the health, safety,
and welfare of the Goodland residents going forward, not just this year.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let's move to our 1 :30
time-certain. Mr. Ochs, I believe this is Item 9B.
Item #9B
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING CHAPTER 2 - ZONING
DISTRICTS AND USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.09 OPEN
SPACE ZONING DISTRICTS, TO ADD GOLF MAINTENANCE
BUILDINGS AS A NEW ACCESSORY USE WITHIN THE GOLF
COURSE ZONING DISTRICT; CHAPTER 4 - SITE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.03
SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR LOCATION OF ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, TO ESTABLISH SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR GOLF CLUBHOUSE AND
MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS ON WATERFRONT LOTS AND
GOLF COURSE LOTS IN ZONING DISTRICTS OTHER THAN
RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND ESTATES; SECTION THREE,
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FOUR,
INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION FIVE, EFFECTIVE
Page 114
June 23, 2015
DATE — MOTION TO APPROVE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. These are your advertised public hearings.
Item 9B is a recommendation to consider an ordinance amending
Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code.
Commissioners, this is an LDC amendment as part of your
previously announced LDC amendment cycle. This particular item has
to do with changes to the open space zoning districts to add golf
maintenance buildings as a new accessory use within the golf course
zoning district.
Ms. Caroline Cilek will present or respond to questions from the
Board.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At this time we're going to open the
public hearing, and we're going to require everybody to testify -- to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't do that under LDC.
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We do not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was a good idea, though.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's going to require a supermajority of
four votes, though; am I right on that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which means you can, like,
disregard the truth.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. That's one out of two.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You were right on that one, right?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I was right on that one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So that's good.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ms. Cilek?
Page 115
June 23, 2015
MS. CILEK: Yeah, Caroline Cilek, Land Development Code
Manager with our Growth -- Growth Management Department.
And I just wanted to add that this amendment was unanimously
approved by our Planning Commission with a vote of 6-0.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Move approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What -- this is -- can you go over
the specifics of the amendment, please.
MS. CILEK: Yeah, I'd love to. So as Mr. Ochs relayed, the
amendment proposes to add golf maintenance buildings as an
accessory use to the open space zoning district, and that is the
component of the amendment that requires the two hearings, one to be
held at night at our next board meeting.
And if you look at the amendment itself, it has two main
components; one adding golf maintenance buildings under 2.03.09,
and then the second part is to add a setback requirement. Currently the
LDC does not have any setbacks required for golf maintenance
buildings.
Often these fall under a planned unit development. So at that
time setbacks are established. This amendment would only apply to
straight zoning or conventional zoning districts, and we are basically
recodifying a portion of text that was in the LDC prior to
recodification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have any public speakers on
this?
MR. MILLER: No, we do not.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. This is a
noncontroversial issue. When are you taking personal leave?
MS. CILEK: Oh. Around September 22nd.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
Page 116
June 23, 2015
MS. CILEK: Thank you very much. We're very excited.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I thought he was talking about
the golf accessory buildings --
MS. CILEK: Maybe I'll visit one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- like non-personal issue, which
they really are. Congratulations.
MS. CILEK: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Any further comments or
questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Hearing no other comments, all those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just for the record,
Commissioner Hiller, I think Commissioner Fiala seconded it. Did
you not?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did she?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Speak up, girl. Can't hear you
down here.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: She's quick on the trigger down here,
ma'am.
Page 117
June 23, 2015
Item #9A
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR:
SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, ADOPTION OF
AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER
ONE — GENERAL PROVISIONS, INCLUDING SECTION 1 .08.02
DEFINITIONS; CHAPTER FIVE — SUPPLEMENTAL
STANDARDS, INCLUDING SECTION 5.05.05 AUTOMOBILE
SERVICE STATIONS, MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ESTABLISH
SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH FUEL
PUMPS AND TO ALLOW FACILITIES WITH FUEL PUMPS
WITH 8 OR MORE FUEL PUMPS AND WITHIN 250 FEET OF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO SEEK APPROVAL THROUGH A
CONDITIONAL USE HEARING; SECTION 5.05.08
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS;
SECTION 5.05.11 CARWASHES ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICTS; SECTION THREE, CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; SECTION FOUR, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND
SECTION FIVE, EFFECTIVE DATE - PROPOSED AMENDMENT
CHAPTER 5.05.05 — AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS LDC
SECTION 5.05.05 C — A STAND ALONE CONDITIONAL USE
PROVISION — MOTION TO APPROVE — FAILED; LDC
SECTION 5.05.05 — SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS — MOTION
DIRECTING STAFF TO BRING BACK ENHANCED
Page 118
June 23, 2015
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALL STATIONS
ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT THE JULY 7, 2015
ADOPTION HEARING — FAILED;
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUS MOTION
REGARDING THIS ITEM THAT FAILED — APPROVED;
MOTION TO ADOPT ALL SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS BUT
NOT 5.05.05 C, BRING BACK A DEFINITION FOR THE TERM
ADJACENT AND WORK ON ENHANCED STANDARDS FOR
SERVICE STATIONS WITH 16 PUMPS AND ABOVE THAT
ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. I think that takes us to our next
public hearing, which is 9A, sir; is that correct?
MR. OCHS: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. This is also a Land
Development Code amendment proposal regarding supplemental
standards for automobile service stations to establish site design
standards for facilities with fuel pumps and to allow facilities with fuel
pumps with eight or more fuel pumps and within 250 feet of residential
property to seek approval through a conditional-use hearing.
MS. CILEK: Thank you. So, yes, the second amendment today
is regarding LDC Section 5.05.05, automobile service stations.
And I'd like to briefly begin by describing the purpose and intent
of this LDC section. The section relays that it is designed to ensure
that automobile service stations or gas stations do not adversely impact
adjacent land uses, especially residential ones.
During the Board's most recent discussion of this topic, staff was
directed to address both compatibility of gas stations and look for any
studies related to fuel vapor mitigation that are applicable to the State
of Florida.
To address the concept of compatibility with residential uses, staff
looked at codes from other communities and received a lot of great
Page 119
June 23, 2015
input at Planning Commission meetings.
We have identified distance requirements for gas station in other
communities in the state and examined the number of fuel pumps at
gas stations over time in our county.
In addition, we've reviewed design guidebooks specifically
geared toward enhancing compatibility of gas stations near residential
uses.
With regards to studies on the impacts and the mitigation of fuel
vapors, staff and the Planning Commission were unable to identify any
specific studies in the State of Florida. Our research included
contacting the Florida DEP, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and, following public comments from the Planning
Commission, we also reached out to academic resources. The
Planning Commission also requested relevant studies at any
opportunity that they had.
It should be noted that at the June 8th Planning Commission
meeting, public comments were provided, and members of the public
informed the Planning Commission that a study to examine this issue
could be commissioned by the Board. This idea was noted by the
Planning Commission but it was not voted, and I simply share it with
you for your awareness.
Today there is a very important decision which needs to be made
and that is whether this LDC amendment includes a conditional-use
provision. As you all are aware, a conditional use is a public hearing
process, and the proposed use is reviewed to determine if it is
consistent with the LDC, the GMP, and if it will adversely impact the
public and neighboring properties.
Through the conditional-use process, site design standards can be
added to make sure that it is compatible with the surrounding area.
The LDC current amendment currently includes the
conditional-use provision, which is as follows: The public process
Page 120
June 23, 2015
would be required when a station has eight or more fuel pumps and is
within 250 feet of a residential area.
The baseline site design standards that would be applied for gas
stations located adjacent to residential would be used through the CU
process as well.
Now, please keep in mind that this proposed language is a starting
point for your discussion today. All of the provisions are totally open
for adjustment and tweaks. For example, the number of fuel pumps
could be adjusted, the distance could be adjusted, the conditional use
could be in or out.
In connection with the conditional use, staff and the Planning
Commission have identified three exceptions to the process. These
exceptions create a visual and physical separation between the gas
station and the residential property.
The first one would be a gas station that would be separated by a
minimum four-lane arterial or collector right-of-way -- right-of-way
from the residential property. So the road would sit in between the two
uses. This image describes the general concept.
The second exception is a separation created by an off-site
building of a certain size. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend that the off-site building is 125 percent of the canopy
length; however, as noted earlier, this could be tweaked and adjusted to
be a building of a different size.
The third exception is a separation created by a designated
preserve. Following public comments at the Planning Commission
meeting, this exception requires that the preserve provide a 100-foot
separation and be 80 percent opaque and be at a height of 12 feet.
Staff and the Planning Commission have also prepared site design
standards for the gas stations. All of these standards address
compatibility. The first set applies to all gas stations in all zoning
districts. The second set applies to those that are adjacent to residential
Page 121
June 23, 2015
uses. And as you can see from the list, those that would apply adjacent
to residential property would be increased or enhanced site design
standards from the baseline.
The next couple slides are illustrations of these site design
standards. The first one would be the enhanced landscape buffer
between the gas station and the residential property. As you can see, it
would be very wide -- it would be 30 feet -- and would include an
8-foot masonry wall on top of a 3-foot berm. On either side would be
a row of canopy trees, and they would be spaced 30 feet on center and
staggered so that it would maximize the tree canopies along the entire
buffer.
This is the view from the residential side.
The next two slides identify canopy roof standards. There are two
options provided in our amendment. This one identifies a sloped roof
with roof-edge changes.
The next one is a change in the projection or recess of the eave
fascia. Now, both of these roof changes are based on existing LDC
text in our architectural section of the code.
And with that I'd like to conclude with a map of seven gas
stations or automobile service stations that are in the process of being
developed or have been approved through the site plan process. And
as you can see, they range in the number of fuel pumps and are located
across the county.
With that, I'll open it up to Board's comments on the amendment,
and I welcome all feedback.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller, how many public speakers
do we have just to start with a question?
MR. MILLER: We have nine, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have nine.
Questions or comments from board members.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's start after we hear the public.
Page 122
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who would like to hear the public
speakers? I see everybody.
Let's start with the public speakers then, sir.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your first speaker is Rich
Yovanovich, and he'll be followed by Tom Hardy.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich. You've heard me speak before regarding the proposed
amendments to the Land Development Code. Mr. Hardy will talk
about the enhancements or changes to the development standards. I
want to talk to the issue of the conditional-use process.
As you've heard me say on multiple occasions, C4 zoning and
other zoning districts allow gas stations as a matter of right. Those
property owners who own those C4 and other gas stations have the
right today to build a gas station. They're not limited to the size nor the
number of pumps. The fact is, they have that right.
What's being changed today is you're taking that right away and
making them go through a conditional-use process to maybe keep a
right they already have today or maybe keep the right they have today
with enhancements to cost them more money to develop the site or
maybe not develop the site because of the new enhancements, or you
can flat out deny the conditional use because, for some reason, now
that site shouldn't be developed as a gas station.
You've heard me say before, and I said this at the last meeting that
we had, that is going to trigger a Bert Harris case. You have a right
associated with the property. If you, the county, decide to change
those rights, that is exactly what the Bert Harris Act was adopted to
address, to compensate property owners for when the government
changes the rules of the game.
Now, anybody who bought property adjacent to C4 property
knew that a gas station could go on that property, along with a whole
lot of other uses that could go on that property that, in some opinion,
Page 123
June 23, 2015
may be far worse than a gas station.
Your Land Development Code already addresses compatibility
standards, because you have very specific standards regarding the
design of gas stations. You're making some tweaks to those standards
today, to those compatibility standards, but you're also imposing a
whole new process that will make it a political process where a
political process doesn't exist today.
Today it's an administrative approval. You go through the Site
Development Plan. If you meet the code requirements, you get your
gas station because you have a right to a gas station. Now you're going
to put someone through a process where we have to come through the
political process.
We have to get four out of five commissioners to approve it. And
if there is neighborhood opposition, those neighbors are going to
believe you can turn that down for any reason, meaning if they don't
like it, you can turn it down. You're giving them false hope at a
minimum or leading to litigation because, at the end, if we meet the
criteria, we're entitled to that gas station.
There's no useful purpose in going to a conditional-use process
where a property owner has a current right to develop that standard.
So we request that the Board of County Commissioners abandon
this conditional-use process, stick with the rights that currently exist on
the property, and that whatever tweaks to the site design standards that
Mr. Hardy will address and your staff has addressed should address
those issues. But don't be led down the path of a political process for
the approval of gas stations and take away rights that are already
vested in a person's property.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Tom Hardy. He'll be
followed by Garrett Beyrent.
Page 124
June 23, 2015
MR. HARDY: Good afternoon. Tom Hardy, RaceTrac
Petroleum. I believe I may be one of the catalysts for these
conversations that we've been having for the last year.
We've -- I think it would be a little disingenuous if I got up here
and talked about where we didn't -- maybe had some heartburn about
conditional use, so I'll leave that to -- as a debate.
What I'm more concerned about is some of the architectural
standards. We've enjoyed our process over the last two years of
developing here in Collier County and developing a product that meets
your current code that -- and that's developed the gas canopy and a
building with certain facades that meet your code.
Our first store in the county was Airport-Pulling. That was
developed under City of Naples standards, and that has a certain look.
Our second store is on Manatee Road down on 951, and that has a
different look. One thing that we'd like is to have a brand consistency
within the county.
So when we go to start talking about making architectural
changes to the code, set aside specific sites or anything like that, but
having it consistent from one site to the next, that's what we're very
interested in.
So when we start seeing changes in canopy or specific ways to
design a canopy, we have real heartburn about that, because we already
have stores in development under the existing code that's going to look
totally different than any of those potential standards. We believe
we've got two canopies that are attractive. They're not our corporate
consistency, which is the red, white, and blue that you've seen in Lee
County and other parts of the state.
And then also there's signage and things of that nature that there
are tweaks that we would like to have a conversation about to make
sure we get a consistent look across the county.
The canopies are important to us. Staff has suggested allowing a
Page 125
June 23, 2015
waiver process for a banding around the canopy. We like that, because
that would allow us to take our Collier County stores and make it look
like the City of Naples, because that's the first one we built; that's the
one we like.
So there are some things that the staff has suggested that we like.
There's others, mainly the architectural standards on the canopy, that
really give us heartburn.
So I'll be more than happy later on to answer any questions about
that. I would just prefer to leave it up to the section of the code that
says to match the existing building. And there's -- that gives us a little
leeway to design our canopies.
So outside of that, we're interested in the architectural changes;
special exceptions maybe is a little heartburn, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Garrett Beyrent. He'll be
followed by Vern Hammett.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, I'm Garrett Beyrent. I've been
in the development business in Collier County for 44 years. I should
be institutionalized by now.
Any case, I just happen to own a gas station site. My first
dubious development of commercial impact was mandated by the
county in 1980. They made me bring my shopping center as a planned
unit development. Had six out-lots for gas stations, one 20-acre
shopping center. Two gas stations were actually built, and then I
learned the difference between -- the difference between a gas station,
a service station, and a convenience store that just happens to have gas
pumps in front of it.
And long story short, the first gas station was a Mobil gas station.
It was actually a fueling depot. The second one was a Super America.
That was our first convenience upscale gas station. And both of those
have been torn down and been replaced by restaurants.
Page 126
June 23, 2015
The third gas station I did was a Mobil gas station. It was the first
gas station in the county ever to actually pump over a million gallons
of fuel in one month, and that was actually a service station as opposed
to a fueling station. And that is now Joey D's Italian Restaurant. So it
still looks just like the gas station we built, but it's a really great
restaurant.
The other two corners of Davis and Airport were gas stations.
They've since -- one was torn down, was a Union 76, and the other was
a convenience gas, and last year they ripped out the tanks.
And, little by little, I finally realized that my Hess gas station out
next to Hooters was never going to be built because right next to me
was built a RaceTrac gas station. And I thought it was odd, because it
didn't look that big. So I went out and I counted the pumps, and it has
24 pumps. I said, why does this thing look so much smaller than the
one on Airport Road? And the reason is, is actually the one at Airport
Road only has 20 pumps.
I said, why does it look so much bigger? And it turns out that the
pumps are like individual lane pumps. They're actually gas station
pumps for the convenience of the convenience store, have nothing to
do with gas. The further gas stations are apart, the more fuel you use
and the more money you make for the gas station companies.
A gas station actually makes more money off of 99-cent bag of
peanuts than it does on a gallon of gas. And that was told to me by the
district manager of the Mobil Oil Corporation, so I believe it.
Anyhow, I would change the Land Development Code to get out
of 1987 into the year 2015.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Vern Hammett. He'll be
followed by Richard Grant.
MR. HAMMETT: Good afternoon. My name is Vern Hammett,
Page 127
June 23, 2015
for the record. I'm just a Collier citizen.
So with regard to the latest Land Development Code language,
while it's certainly better than what we have, and it does address some
of the compatibility issues associated with a mega-station located
adjacent to residential property, my concern, however, is that it must
allow for the utmost flexibility in addressing site specific unknowns,
and what I mean by that is in this conditional-use process that our
decision makers, when they look at a site comprehensively and
something comes up that may not be articulated in the conditional-use
process from a criteria standpoint, that they can either impose
requirements or prohibit altogether.
And I think that's an important consideration, because in our older
communities, you know, mega-gas stations are a completely new
entity. Our planners never envisioned this type of intensity of use in
our older communities. And in many cases, sometimes the
infrastructure's completely inadequate.
I can give you an example. So with the drastic increase in traffic
that something like this will produce, it might require a massive
overhaul of the road, sidewalk, signaling, and signing, which may not
be feasible for this specific use.
And, you know, that's only one example. I mean, so -- and I think
that whenever you look at it from a site specific standpoint, things like
this can come up, and we have to have the flexibility to be able to
analyze that and take it into consideration.
So with that being said, I have far larger concerns about the health
and welfare issues. They were introduced by our own growth
management with the evolution of this language. I find it difficult to
understand that our union's largest state by population and economy --
and, of course, I'm talking about California -- recognizes that there are
health and welfare issues associated with living in close proximity to a
large gas station. But we here in Collier County have dismissed it
Page 128
June 23, 2015
because we aren't certain whether the same risks exist in Florida. This
uncertainty isn't acceptable when it comes to the health and welfare of
our citizens.
The only solution here is to enlist an outside environmental group
that specializes in air-quality standards to provide an unbiased study
which includes testing air samples for benzine and internal combustion
engine exhaust particulates in the vicinity of existing mega-station
locations.
Only then will we know definitively that living in close proximity
to a large station does or does not pose potential health risks.
As a result of my concern, I've enlisted the expertise of Dr. Henry
Cole, an expert in air pollution associated with large service stations.
He's working on a document that will specify the impact of air
emissions from a large service station specific to our county.
I expect it to be in your hands by July 3rd, and I'll spare you his
credentials, but I sent you an email with all of his -- with his resumO.
Finally, it's vitally important that we all remember that the
foremost mission of this commission is to ensure the protection of the
health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of all the citizens of Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Hammett, what business are you in,
sir?
MR. HAMMETT: I'm an airline pilot.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Richard
Grant. He'll be followed by Bruce Anderson.
MR. GRANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Dick Grant,
attorney for some property owners. I'm not going to use my full three
minutes. I'll make it very easy. The clients I represent are various
owners of different portions of the Naples Bay Resort which is
bordering Frederick Street in East Naples. I realize this has nothing to
Page 129
June 23, 2015
do with the old plan of a year ago to put a RaceTrac station there, but
the interest my clients have in this is that they believe that whatever
provisions of the current code that now exist that should regulate gas
stations should not be relaxed in terms of how it might apply to that
site.
I believe the current code does have a 500-foot distance
separation from existing facilities. There may be other ways that this
situation could be managed.
I'm not prepared to get into particulars today because, frankly, I
was just asked yesterday to come here and speak to you, and primarily
because the client doesn't want to seem to be disingenuous and show
up two weeks from now and have issues and not have alerted you to
the fact that it might have concerns.
So with that said, I have nothing particular to say other than the
interest of the client I'm representing is that the situation should be
regulated certainly not less strenuously than it is today. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bruce Anderson. He'll be
followed by Dan O'Berski.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Anderson from the law firm of Cheffy Passidomo.
I'm here representing Price and 41, LLC, which owns
plus-or-minus 4 acres of vacant land at the intersection of Price Street
and U.S. 41, which is across the street from the commercial
development area at Lely Resort. They want to build a Wawa store
there.
There are several problems with the proposed LDC amendment.
I guess initially I would ask, has an inventory been taken of all of the
vacant C2, C3, C4, and C5 parcels which would have a by-right
permitted use stripped from them and made a conditional use because
the property was within 250 feet of a property line zoned residential.
I would suggest, respectfully, that you need such an inventory so
Page 130
June 23, 2015
you can quantify the county's exposure to damages under the Bert
Harris Act. One of the standards under the Harris act is whether a
governmental action has taken away or placed an inordinate burden on
the right to a reasonably foreseeable land use.
Certainly a use that is permitted by right is a reasonably
foreseeable land use and protected under the Harris act.
Has an inventory been taken of all developed C2, C3, C4, and C5
properties which already have a gas station or a convenience store and
are within 250 feet of residentially zoned land? Again, you need such
an inventory in order to quantify the county's exposure for damages.
The way the ordinance is presently written, if an existing gas
station is destroyed or is torn down to be rebuilt, then a conditional use
would be required to rebuild it if it's within 250 feet of residential
zoning. Now, that hardly seems fair.
The current moratorium on service stations is applicable to
commercial lands which abut residential property, but this Land
Development Code amendment greatly expands the regulatory reach to
commercial lands which are adjacent to residential property.
Now, there's a big difference in the Land Development Code in
the definitions between abutting and adjacent and how the
measurements would apply.
Abutting means that where properties share a common property
line or boundary at any one point.
Adjacent includes the definition of abutting and it expands on that
to state that if properties are separated by a public right-of-way,
easement, or water body, they are considered adjacent.
And compliance with the new strict design standards would be
required no matter the width or the distance. Using the "adjacent"
standard would literally mean that if you have homes on the east side
of I-75, which is a public right-of-way, that it would be considered to
be adjacent to a store on the west side of I-75.
Page 131
June 23, 2015
The same result would occur if a service station is on one side of
a lake and a home is on another side of the lake. Under the LDC
definition, they are considered adjacent no matter how big the road is
or the lake.
I would suggest that if you're going to use a standard, use the
well-understood term "abutting" as you did in the moratorium
ordinance, which means, simply, they share a common property line.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up,
Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
Lastly, as far as how distances are measured, they should be
measured from the gas pumps, not from the property line of the
convenience store. Without gas pumps, it's just a small grocery store
and deli. So it is the gas pumps which trigger the special standards
and, therefore, the measurement should be taken from the gas pumps.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dan O'Bersi (sic) -- am I
okay -- and he'll be followed by George Kleser (sic), if I'm saying that
right.
MR. O'BERSKI: Hi. My name is Dan O'Berski. I have a unique
position as I'm the exclusive representative for Wawa in Collier, Lee,
and Charlotte County. And so as a family-owned company, we're
extremely concerned about the safety and security of all families.
That being said, our standards of design and service root back
primarily to a dairy company. So we are bringing a food service that
has what is being defined as mega-gas as a convenience oriented
component.
The convenience component is very important to consider. There
is not a destination factor here. People drive past gas stations and pull
in. Though we want them to come to our gas station, they don't tend to
Page 132
June 23, 2015
drive too far out of the way for a gas station. The additional
improvements required are significant on all of these, and traffic is
considered under the standards that you guys have set forward. So site
improvements will be made where needed and where required.
On a property-owner basis, this is both -- well, it's very disturbing
to me to have the potential to lose value in property that I own that we
want to develop in an agreement with a significant and very strong
client. It's just -- it's concerning when government steps in and starts
taking rights away from people.
The onerous nature of getting approvals and the risk associated to
it -- all commercial development is extremely expensive, and the
design and rights that we're already obligated to obtain we're happy to
proceed with and bring a quality development that will bring both
taxpayers -- or tax money on behalf of an improved station. There's a
significant investment base on both the ownership as well as Wawa,
and -- including jobs and economic opportunities.
Unlike most traditional gas stations, Wawa has long-standing
history of paying far above the normal market and bringing very
quality opportunities.
The look and design, we make investments on both sides, both for
Wawa and property owners to ensure that your property, both rights
and appearances, are maintained and protected.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Kleser -- I hope I'm
getting that right -- and followed by Robert D Pratt (sic).
MR. KLEIER: Hi there. I'm George Kleier. I represent Naples
South Shopping Center, which is at the corner of Rattlesnake and 41 .
As everybody knows, that property has struggled many years even
before we owned it.
We've been in ownership for over 10 years on the property.
Page 133
June 23, 2015
We've strived to improve the property. I think we bring a unique
perspective to this whole discussion because we're looking at a
redevelopment plan, and that redevelopment plan would mean
bringing in some great retailers, you know, possibly a Wawa, possibly
a medical use, possibly other tenants that would follow a development
like this.
And as we met with staff and got positive feedback from them
regarding the possibility that we can do this, we ran into the issue of
this code would turn around and block it altogether.
We are in a C4 zoning and, you know, our rights being taken
away is very disconcerting.
The -- you know, we're very concerned about the intersection, the
property, also the community. We would love to see this property
improved not only from an economic standpoint, but also from a
reputation standpoint. There have been many things that have come on
the table to be done, and we just can't seem to get it off to the next
level. And this opportunity would give us the chance to make a drastic
change in the market.
So we would like to see this tabled or put aside so that we can go
forward with our development. That's -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is
Robert D. Pratt.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Pritt.
MR. MILLER: Pritt. My apologies, sir.
MR. PRITT: That's okay.
Yes, for the record, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission,
my name is Robert Pritt. I find myself in a very strange situation. I
agree with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Anderson on a matter, and that
might be a new high or a new low, depending upon your point of view.
Mr. Kleier, my client, has --
Page 134
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're just giving them credibility.
Sorry, guys.
MR. PRITT: Thank you.
Mr. Kleier's already given you the thumbnail sketch of the
particular property that we're concerned with, and that is the Naples
South Plaza. The owner is Naples South Realty Associates. And it is --
from the owner's standpoint, it is a well located property, but it has
suffered economic obsolescence.
The proposal that we have would be to remove the northwestern
part or the -- it's on the north side of Tamiami Trail East, and -- I'm
sorry -- on the east side there, furthest away from Rattlesnake
Hammock Road, that would be the part that would be removed, and it
would be torn down for a gas station of this nature, whether it be
Wawa or RaceTrac or anybody else, so we'll be glad to talk to them.
But we have been in negotiations for some time now.
And this is something that's really needed. That particular
property is probably more vacant than having anyone in it and rented,
and this would be a real shot in the arm for a nice plaza -- otherwise
nice plaza down at that end. So that's a good thing.
The problem is, I looked and looked around the property, and you
can't really see it from the property itself, excuse me, but from an aerial
you can see that the back of the property nips, by about 50 feet, an
adjoining property that has multifamily residential. And so it's not
much, but it's just enough to put us into the ordinance and into the --
into this rezone.
And in effect, because of the 250-foot and the internal buffer, the
external and the internal buffers, it just could not be developed under
the new standards that are here. So, obviously, we're here for a selfish
reason, but that is the situation that we're kind of stuck with.
Our request would be that, first of all, consider not adopting the
ordinance for reasons that you've heard already; secondly, consider
Page 135
June 23, 2015
reducing the setback distances by, let's say, half. That would solve our
problem, we think; and, thirdly, if you're going to adopt the ordinance,
would you please consider adding a provision to the effective date that
actually grandfathers in those properties such as this one.
I've drafted a sample sentence that could make the situation go
away. I've given it to your County Attorney. It would just be one
sentence in there that would say, if I say may, just add to the effective
date transition period, however, it shall not apply to any property upon
which an application has been made or which a pre-application
conference has been held prior to the effective date providing that a
building permit is issuable within 180 days after the effective date.
That would at least try to address some of the Bert Harris problems.
Those are very real problems, by the way, in my opinion, and this
would help to address that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. PRITT: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But only in your case. But only in
your case.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. PRITT: Yes. In the case of those that may already be in the
pipeline, yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. I am starting off with
Commissioner Fiala, who has had her light on since the beginning, and
then we're going to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
It's interesting to listen to everybody. And we as County
Commissioners must sit here and think of everybody's property rights,
not only the people who want to build gas stations, but the people who
already live there and have the sanctity of their own neighborhood and
the peace and quiet of where they've lived and their life savings
invested in that property.
Page 136
June 23, 2015
We have to come up with a solution that everyone can live with
without saying no to one and yes to another, and that's a difficult
position to be in.
In some cases it has worked out. For instance, RaceTrac was up
here, and they've put in a couple gas stations that -- actually, we've
worked with them. Our hearing examiner has worked with them, and
they've put in some acutriments that would allow the people who live
right behind them to live with them. Like they backed up right against
a trailer park, a 55-and-older trailer park, but they did put -- it didn't
call for this, but the hearing examiner worked with them, and they
were able to put up a 9-foot wall and trees on both sides, and they
shielded the lights. And so the neighbors felt that they could live with
that.
However, they wanted to put a 24-fuel pump gas station right in
the backyard of many others. Now, why would you ever want to back
up to a whole neighborhood of people with 24 fuel pumps and this
neighborhood has -- you can't build a wall high enough to protect
them. I mean, when you've got people that -- they're all stilt houses,
those cute little Key West houses all on stilts. You'd have to build a
wall 25-foot high in order to protect them. That is -- I don't know.
The people who went and sought that property out really had a very
poor choice of property in mind.
They bought C4, yes. When our C4 codes were put in place, no
one in this county -- in fact, I would say farther out maybe in this state
-- ever would consider a gas station -- a major, monster gas station like
they put on interstates to be put in your cute, little neighborhood. Who
would ever think of that? We never thought of that.
So when they say they had to be -- they should have known what
they bought when they bought C4, nobody would ever think of a
monster gas station. Before last year, nobody ever heard of one in a
community.
Page 137
June 23, 2015
Okay. Then we had -- as I was going down -- and I'm sorry, I've
written notes. So I'll just stay right to the point each and every time.
One of the things that our staff reviewed said they contacted
environmental compliance officers -- and you have to listen to this --
from three area automobile service station companies to ask their
opinion. Gee, that kind of sounds like the fox -- asking the fox, do you
think those chickens are safe in that hen house? Yes, they're safe. I
mean, that's -- you know, you don't contact them and ask what they
would think. You know what the answer's going to be.
I also wanted to clarify where the measurement is on the line from
where you'd measure. Where is it on the property? I've been told --
and I just want to make sure that I understand -- it's the property line
from the residence as well as the property line from the gas station. It's
not from the gas pumps; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That -- see, to me --
MS. CILEK: Yes, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did know that, thank heavens. But,
anyway, I just wanted it on the record. Thank you very much. You
guys did a great job. I know that was a tough, tough job for you.
It's trying to -- it's very difficult to try and make sure both -- both
ends of this situation are served, and that's what we're trying to do.
We're trying to make sure people can live safely and happily and
peacefully in a neighborhood where they have gas stations.
Now, the Planning Commission did not vote on the discussion of
fuel vapors that -- so they have no comment on that one, and I just
wanted to put that on the record as well.
And then I wanted to say that Rich mentioned about property
rights and with the threat of the Bert Harris Act, but people also have a
right to their property rights where they've bought and paid for and are
living. I think both ends have property rights, not only just the guy that
Page 138
June 23, 2015
wants to buy the property.
And, I mean, Rich with his kids, he wouldn't want a gas station
moving right up to the back end of his house, and I don't think
anybody else would either. But at the same time, maybe if there are
provisions to lessen the amount -- say, for instance, in that particular
instance where you're backed right up to a neighborhood, maybe you
only put eight fuels pumps in. Now, that's still more than the people
ever bargained for, but that would have fit into the original C4 that was
planned when they put the C4s together in the first place, not 24
pumps.
Okay, fine. Secondly, about the canopy, I think that that should
be discussed as each one comes up. I can understand what this Mr.
Hardy said about canopies. It's just kind of like a logo if-- on a
McDonald's, I mean, you're not going to put a square sign on a
McDonald's, because that isn't their logo, so you have to consider that.
Although, I have to say, the ones -- now, they're only building
right now in East Naples, the RaceTracs. But I have to say that the last
two canopies look pretty decent. And I think, actually, they looked
nicer maybe than the one on Airport Road only because that looks
more commercial. But I think you have to consider the neighborhood,
and design something on your canopy that would fit into a
neighborhood.
Thirdly, each location has different characteristics, and I think
that's one of the things that the LDC would be triggering would be --
yes, it's a conditional use. That's not saying no to anybody. I've heard
a lot of people saying no. It's not saying no to anybody. It's just
saying, now we have a different condition here, and we need to see
what we can do to buffer it so that both property owners are protected.
I think that that's all we're really trying to say. We're not trying to
take away anybody's property rights. We just want to make sure that
both properties are protected, and so that way you can weigh in on that
Page 139
June 23, 2015
and have something to -- like, for instance, with the property over there
by Manatee Road where they were able to build a fence to separate
them. The people are completely out of the light ranges and the noise
range, and so they seem to be able to live with that.
And, as I said, it doesn't mean that we're trying to deny anybody
anything. Each property owner will then end up whole.
So these are my notes so far. I hope you don't have to hear from
me again. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
My understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, this is not --
this amendment is not because of one particular site, one particular
company. It's about a compatibility of a new type of service which is
bigger.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it -- okay. The conditional
use is not saying no. It's not taking anybody's rights away. It's just to
make sure that we take a look at it and make sure it is compatible with
the neighboring property; in this case it's residential.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Commissioner Fiala said it well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's not taking anybody's
rights away.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just -- it's just a different
process.
And, you know, we're getting arguments on both sides. It seems
like we hit the target with this one that we're not satisfying anybody, so
we should approve it. It's a happy medium.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Is that a motion?
Page 140
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, well done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has to still come back for the
adoption which will be --
MR. OCHS: July 7th at 5:05.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: July 7th?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, at 5:05.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: At 5:05 p.m.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I do agree that residential
neighborhoods absolutely have to be protected, because this is -- these
are large gas stations, but we clearly have a history of putting in large
gas stations.
I'm looking at the map in front of me. It does not show me the
number of stations that have eight-plus pumps, and I would bet there
are a lot of them that have eight or more fuel pumps that haven't been
identified.
Do you have a picture of that?
MS. CILEK: I'm going to look through my binder, and I will see
if I have one.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I hope you do, because I think
that's a very important map to look at. I'm very concerned about the
legal aspect of the conditional use. I agree with the requirements, and I
do think that they need to be addressed, but I do agree that we do need
requirements to protect these residential neighborhoods, and I think we
need to go through each requirement that's being proposed in this
particular amendment and determine whether or not that is the best
condition to impose to protect residential properties that abut.
Page 141
June 23, 2015
And I listened very carefully to what Mr. Anderson said and the
difference between adjacent and abutting, and I do agree that it's got to
be "abutting" property, not "adjacent," especially in light of the
definition, and that impact which would definitely be not what was
intended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I think we need to take each of
the conditions that's being proposed here and address it, and I think we
need to be very careful on considering the conditional-use provision as
a requirement, because I do believe that that could lead to a lot of
litigation both from existing gas station owners that might want to
redevelop as well as properties that are zoned that would allow for a
gas station that could accommodate eight or more fuel pumps.
So conditions to protect, absolutely. Whether or not we can
legally require that these petitioners come back and be heard under a
conditional-use standard -- you know, if I have Bob Pritt agreeing with
those other two lawyers, then I worry about litigation. And I do see
Bert Harris as a real potential issue for the county on this matter.
When is the moratorium over? What's the end date?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I was going to come back next
meeting and say you really need to end it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, I mean, I think we
need to make the decision next week. I think there needs to be an end
date. I mean, I don't think a moratorium is valid without an end date.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I was going to come back with an item
at the next meeting saying if you don't pass this LDC, you need to end
the moratorium.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, I think we can pass it
in part, but I don't think that we can legally pass it with that
conditional-use stipulation, and that would be my position. So I think
we need to work through it.
Page 142
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I kind of blood, sweat, and
tears over this. I always say -- people ask me what it was like to be
elected to the commission, and I said, well, it was baptism by fire
because my first meeting was the neighborhood meeting regarding a
gas station.
I tried every which way to get the planning staff to agree that this
new -- I'll use Commissioner Fiala's words -- monster gas station is an
entity unto itself, that the writers of the code in 1987 could never even
fathom that this was coming down the pike. But I was outvoted and
probably very wisely by people that know a little bit more about
planning than I do.
And so that what that does is put a gas station in C4 zoning and --
but it's a different animal. It's a gas station, but it's a different animal,
and I think that's why this ordinance is so very, very important.
And a conditional use is important. A conditional use is
important to both sides, because we've heard some testimony this
morning or this afternoon regarding a special condition. This is a little
bit different than the other, and we've got this going. All this can be
aired in a conditional use. So I don't see it as a burden. I certainly
don't see it as a Bert Harris action. I've --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Through the years (sic) I've been
sitting up here, it's usually -- it seems to be a common club, the Harris
settlement issues, meant to scare and intimidate, and I'm not sure it's
even valid now.
No one's taking anyone's rights away, but what we're saying is to
build a gas station, a monster gas station, next to residential in Collier
County, you're going to have to go a little bit further than you would
somewhere else.
As far as consistency, I've been in communities where you go into
Page 143
June 23, 2015
-- in Florida communities where you drive and you go right past a gas
station, and you're not even sure it is a gas station because of the
requirements of the zoning of that community, especially service
stations or commercial areas that are nestled against residential. This
is not uncommon. We're not inventing the wheel here. This is
something that -- whose time has come.
The residential adjacent to U.S. 41 north and south,
Commissioner Hiller's neighborhood, her district, certainly
Commissioner Fiala's and mine, have not -- the commercial is there,
but the residential has not had the benefit of recent zoning, and recent
zoning is PUD zoning.
In PUD zoning, residential is put next to commercial. Everything
is nicely scripted. It's beautiful. Everyone lives happily ever after.
But in the older parts of our community, that's not been the case, and
we really need to look at it, because we need to protect those
residential areas, the citizens who pay taxes and have sunk their life
savings into these homes and want the best for everyone.
So as we go forward, I would really like to examine -- and I've
mentioned this -- I understand it's called straight zoning. I may be
incorrect in that, but I really want to look at straight zoning and see
how it impacts our residents because, you know, look around. Naples
and Collier County is a residential community. It's about the people
who live here, the people who want to live here, the people who sink
their savings into homes to have a quality of life that we -- we laud,
and we want them to have it. And this is where it starts, especially
with this new breed of gas station.
So at that point -- I know we have a motion on the floor and a
second. And if it's all right, I'd like to call the question, please.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, first, we have a few more speakers,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, we do?
Page 144
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, like me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh. Well, I don't mean to
preclude you, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: My goodness, no.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm the Chair. I can get a word in
occasionally.
I believe that these larger gas stations are a little different animal
than, perhaps, traditional ones; however, I think before we condemn
them, we need to realize that if we decide not to -- basically, to be a
community that doesn't welcome large 24-pump gas stations, that for
each one of those that we don't have, we're going to have to have three
8-pump gas stations, which makes we wonder how many gas stations
we want to service the needs of our community. Do we want them all
over the place, or is it better and safer for us to, indeed, have them
more concentrated?
I think that an evaluation of any service should be that way, and I
think if you examine it, you'll see that more intense uses in fewer
locations is a much wiser planning element than the other way around.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder if they get them all into
one area, like 10 into one area.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, you know, you have to allow the
free market to decide where things are built if you want to be a
community that wants to have the free market function.
One of the problems we have is we have a distinct difference
between most of my district that has very little commercial and
actually very, very few automobile service stations that vend gas
compared to the urban coastal zone that has a lot of property that
within even my lifetime, within the next 20 years, is going to all be
developed to a higher and mostly more intensive use, and that is the
properties that are along U.S. 41.
Page 145
June 23, 2015
There are many, many properties that are C2, 3, 4, and 5. And if
you'll examine the list of things that are allowed in C2, 3, 4, and 5,
you'll find that many of those uses in those commercial uses are much
more intensive and much more intrusive than any gas station you could
construct or any convenience store you could construct. They're much
more aggressive. They're all currently allowed by right.
That redevelopment is going to take place. If we are so restrictive
in our community, I think what we're going to do is we're going to
restrict our community from receiving quality commercial investment,
particularly along U.S. 41, simply because people don't necessarily
want more site standards or enhanced standards. They simply don't
want it near them.
I haven't heard people say that they're willing to work with
standards. They say, I don't want that next to my house. Well, take a
look at what's allowed in C4 and C5, and tell me what it is you want
next to your house. They're going to tell you they don't want any of it.
So where are we going to go with the conditional-use process
when the citizens that own property abutting C3, 4, and 5 properties
simply don't want C3, 4, and 5 uses on those properties that are right
on U.S. 41, which is the main road going through our community?
How are we going to come to grips with that?
We have to have a land development code and a growth
management plan that has rules. We have rules. Everybody has
known what the rules are for a long, long time. Sometimes they don't
like to live by the rules that they themselves used because they don't
like change, and that's unfortunate.
So I really think that we're making a very, very serious mistake by
adopting a conditional-use provision for this, because I think that every
single time we come up with a use that is intrusive in these C3, 4, and
5 zonings, we're going to have the same issue come up. It's going to be
the same issue. It's going to be visited over and over and over.
Page 146
June 23, 2015
And I really don't believe there's a nexus here between health,
safety, and welfare. I think it's a situation where somebody doesn't
want a commercial use next to their home when they've never had one,
despite the fact that they built next to commercial property.
So I really can't support a stand-alone conditional-use provision,
but I would really like to see us adopt enhanced site standards that
allow these investors to come and make a commitment to make these
uses compatible, and I think that can be done. I think it's been
demonstrated time and time again that that can be done if the
community will work together with commercial folks that want to
come here.
So we really have to decide what we want. If we don't want
commercial people to come here, we can make it so difficult to come
that we discourage those quality people. And I think that some of the
applicants that have come and testified today are really building quality
products, and I would hate to see Collier County miss out on that.
Ride down and look at the gas stations that we currently have and
answer the question: Which one do you think is a quality facility?
Which one do you think has got the economic staying power to
monitor groundwater safety when we have fuel on the ground? Which
ones are going to operate the standards? Which ones are operating in a
clean manner? Which ones are operating safe facilities? Which ones
are making an investment in the community? It's not some of the
small gas stations that we have today. Some of them are horrendous.
Ride between this courthouse and County Road 951 and see how
many gas stations can compare to some of the installations we've seen
in the last five years. You won't see it at all.
Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think if you look at the map,
which is very hard to see from the overhead, there is a very large
volume of gas stations in the over-10 range.
Page 147
June 23, 2015
My concern is identical to yours, identical to yours,
Commissioner Nance. I certainly see the need for setting standards to
buffer residential neighborhoods, but I can't support the
conditional-use provision because I am -- I just don't believe it's legal.
And if it was legal, it would be something that, you know, maybe
could be contemplated, but I can't support it. But I certainly support --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's going to be abused, ma'am. I
don't think it's going to -- I don't think there's a good-faith effort to
engage in a systematic conditional use, but that's just me.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh. Just, Commissioner Nance,
who's going to abuse it? You said it's going to be abused.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, when you make every -- when --
we had several gentlemen here that were entrepreneurs that came in
and said what they need is certainty, and what they need is they need a
list of rules that they're required to follow.
When you have some of these conditional-use processes that are
left open ended so that there's a great many reasons why things can be
denied that have no rational nexus, that makes every decision on an
economic development a political one.
And there are many examples where we've had a situation where
an issue's been blown up because people just came and said, you know
what, I don't like that next to my house. Not liking it is not a reason
and is not a basis for development of land development code and
growth management rules. Not liking it is not a reason.
Being incompatible for some rational nexus is a reason, but you
have to have standards that are consistent and that follow between the
different sorts of commercial uses, C2, C3, C4, and C5, which
sequentially become more intense. And there's a reason why the uses
in those have been defined and placed in those buckets.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
Page 148
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And that has been thought out over
many, many years. When you go in and all of a sudden you say, wait a
minute, this gas station is not like any other gas station because it's a
little bigger, you know, I'm not sure that that's very well thought out.
So what I'm saying is perhaps you should restrict size to the upper
zoning, C4, C5 or something like that, you know, I don't know.
But we have to be very careful when we've gone on for years and
we start limiting people after we have allowed them to invest in our
community with these rules in place, they've made business decisions,
they've come to our community, they've invested in land based on the
rules in place, that we change them on the fly at their peril. That
makes our community very, very tough for people to come to, and I
don't want to get on that slippery slope.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But I don't think we are, sir. I
mean, who's doing anything on the fly? How long has this taken? This
has taken over a year, and we're struggling with it even now.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's no rational nexus, ma'am, for
doing this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For doing a conditional use?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Live behind one of these -- live
off of U.S. 41 --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, have you looked at the list that's
in C4 and C5?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Take a look at what it is. There are
multi-story buildings that could be right up against residential by right
today.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What are you going to do when that
happens?
Page 149
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're talking about gas stations,
specifically about gas stations. Gas stations that are usually 24 hours,
usually have music, usually have lots of traffic and sell things 24 hours
a night -- through the night.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I understand, ma'am. I understand the
issues, and I think that the -- I think that the Planning Commission has
gone through in a very systematic way --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and demonstrated ways in which those
things can be mitigated. And I think they're very good, and I think
they're thoughtful.
But to take every single one of these and throw it into conditional
use, I think, is without -- I just don't think it's called for. I think it's
without merit.
I don't think it's so intense that it dictates that compared to some
of these other things that are allowed by right. These lists are very big
with some very, very intrusive, aggressive commercial uses by right.
And I don't think this approaches many of those, which begs the
question, what do we do when we get to those? Or maybe we don't
want those in our community at all, and --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, the issue is not wanting
them in our community. The issue is the appropriateness of where
they are placed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What's the difference?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And as we grow, we become
denser. And as we become denser, we don't become denser with
factories; we're not becoming dense with retail. We're becoming more
dense with people. That's what Collier -- Collier's about.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, they need services, ma'am, and
you've got to put them somewhere.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, sir. No one is sending them
Page 150
June 23, 2015
to Lee County. But what we're saying is --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, yes, we -- yeah, we are. We actually
are.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- there are -- they're not going to
Lee County for gas for God's sakes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, the businesses are going to Lee
County.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, that's another subject. You
can't --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That is exactly the subject.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir. You can't broaden this
umbrella and put what is happening economically and X -- you know,
Naples-founded company is now moving somewhere else because they
can't have a ready building and there's nothing large enough here. You
can't -- you can't equate that to a gas station.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No. What I'm saying is we're not being
business friendly. We're being so onerous with some of these
conditions, and we're not doing it with a rational nexus. We're doing it
just because we don't like it or we think we don't like it. There's no
rational nexus. There's no reason why a lot of these things can't be
mitigated.
So this whole discussion about health of vapors is a red herring.
This is total nonsense.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's not one discussion about
that in what's before us; there's not. What is before us is what the
planning department has come and the Planning Commission has
worked out. It is -- it is a -- it is a document that can be used. It's a
live document, which means once we pass it, if we pass it, it's not
going to become obsolete.
It encompasses going forward, and it gives both sides an
opportunity to come together in -- before us to work out these
Page 151
June 23, 2015
conditions so that we are assured that everyone's rights are protected,
and the residents are protected. Both sides.
What is the problem here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I chime in?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Nance, thank you
for the conversation. I think it's worthy. You recognize in our Land
Development Code, in the different zoning districts there is a
conditional use already --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in C4, right?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you recognize that we're just
asking to add this particular size of the conditional -- or size of the use
into the conditional-use category?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you don't like that?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, I recognize that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But you don't like it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I just don't know why.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, my perspective is
you have a use that has changed in some aspects.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's getting huge, okay. It's
not doing anything with the smaller ones. And, in fact, if you take a
look at the conditional uses, automotive service dealers, you don't see
small ones. You see big ones.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there are gas stations --
gasoline service stations within that conditional use, boat dealers,
Page 152
June 23, 2015
bottle clubs. You know, some of the things that you may want to
consider putting on conditions if it's next to a residential. That's all it
is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Commissioner Henning, you're
right, and I understand that. But here's my point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: My point is that we're considering the
size of the commercial. Our community's getting bigger --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and the commercial in some of the
installations are getting bigger, and the uses are more intense, and
that's true. But where in Collier County can you be on or near a major
road that you're not near a residence?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There are several. You're just
looking at U.S. 41 where you --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. I'm using that as an example. But
look at the corridor on U.S. 41 that we have that's eligible for
redevelopment, and that's where many, many of these entrepreneurs
are looking. They're wanting to put in restaurants and commercial of
various kinds and so on and so forth.
There is some residential basically everywhere. So in my view,
you have to look at, okay, if you're abutting residential, how much
residential are you abutting? Are you abutting a whole neighborhood?
Are you abutting one single home?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So what I'm saying is, your point is well
taken and I agree, but I think it ought to be considered both ways. If
it's near residential, how much residential is it going to impact? Is it
going to impact one person that's been there, living there since 1950,
and that's a reason for us not to do it, or is it brand new community
that's a high density community where, you know, you have many,
Page 153
June 23, 2015
many people that are exposed to, you know, a tough transition between
commercial and residential use. So I think you have to look in both
directions on this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the time, on a
conditional use, that you take and examine that of the facts and make a
determination.
Now, I agree with you, most of U.S. 41 is platted strip zoning,
platted single-family homes behind it; however, there are some PUDs.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a few.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, along U.S. 41 that I don't
know if they do or do not provide gas stations. Those are still going to
continue whether it's a Wawa, 7-Eleven, or a RaceTrac.
The issue is you have an opportunity to take a look at, is it a real
concern or is it not?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm in favor of moving it
forward. If you're not in favor, then we have to decide something
different. So let's vote on it and see where we go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just add one last thing,
although that was a beautiful speech. And I'll just -- you had said you
just don't understand why it can't be mitigated, and that's exactly what
we're trying to do here is give it a conditional use so it can be
mitigated. Not to stop it but to mitigate it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. We can't stop it. This is
an allowed use.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe he just didn't understand that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can stop it with a conditional
use. That's the problem. I think setting the residential standards -- and,
really, I don't know if we shouldn't be looking at residential standards
for all gas stations, not just, you know, eight-plus.
I mean, I think maybe what we need to do -- because, I mean,
Page 154
June 23, 2015
obviously the issue is gas station to residential. The site-specific
standards, I think, need to be, you know, whether there's eight station,
20 -- I'm sorry, eight pumps or five pumps or 15 or 20 pumps.
So I have to agree with Commissioner Nance that the conditional
use does create, I think, a property-rights problem, but I think setting
standards to fully protect -- and I think what communities need to
know is these are the standards.
So if someone doesn't feel they're -- there's adequate protection,
they don't move there. And what we should do is try to set standards
that are so protective that neighborhoods that could face the potential
of a gas station, regardless of the number of pumps, know that they'll
be shielded. I mean, I think these neighborhoods should be shielded
regardless of the size, and I think we should do it by site-specific
standards so both the communities know as well as the commercial
enterprises.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I hear two votes against it, which
means this fails. So what happens then? When this fails, what
happens? How do we protect the citizens?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, because what we need to do
is set the standards. What we've got in here --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we just tried to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, we didn't. The only
standard that we are disagreeing with is the conditional-use provision.
Setting the site-specific requirements, like, for example, the number of
feet away from the pump, the fact that, you know, it relates to what
abuts, the nature of the canopy, the size of the buffer, the -- those kind
of conditions we can set now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which would protect the
neighborhood, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Completely, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's what we would do with a
Page 155
June 23, 2015
conditional use, which is what we're here for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, but -- yeah, but I don't think
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're here to protect our citizens.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand, and we need --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They can't protect themselves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what we need to do is set that
by law now in the code. Instead of doing it on an ad-hoc basis, say
these are the standards, and so there's no ambiguity.
Because, like -- let me give you an example. Let's turn this board
around. Let's pretend we have a board that really doesn't care about
protecting residential neighborhoods, and you create this
conditional-use standard, and they don't put conditions in there, and
they can. They can say, okay, well, then we're not going to put
conditions in and we're going to just let them go. And we could
actually have residential neighborhoods that are not protected or
inadequately protected.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't think you're right at all,
to be honest with you. If you say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We need standards.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Taylor, and then we'll come back around again. Let's
keep talking here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to say if you set
certain standards, then that's standards that you've drawn a line in the
sand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- whereas, if you've got a
conditional-use application and say, for instance this is a gas station
that can build up to 20, right, but they want a different canopy, it still
goes into conditional use, but okay, fine. So you can work that out.
Page 156
June 23, 2015
Each standard doesn't apply to every station nor to every
neighborhood.
I think there's so much room here for us to be able to say yes to
everyone as long as we can come up with an agreement. And I think
everybody's ready to walk to the negotiation table, either side. They
just don't want you to say no, and we don't want to say no. We've been
encouraging new business to come to the area. It's just that we want to
make sure that we also don't shoot ourselves in the foot by saying yes
to everybody before we consider the neighbors that are living there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think -- I think if this motion
fails, then we come back and we look at the standards, and we draw a
hard line in the sand and say, if you want to build close to a residential
area, these are the standards.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Taylor for
some comments, and then I'd like to say a few more things. Go ahead,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I wonder if staff could explain
again what would trigger a conditional-use process.
MS. CILEK: Absolutely. If you look at the amendment on Page
6 at the very top of the page, it's Letter C, and it says location
standards. And I'm going to put it on the -- great, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know where Page 6 is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right here.
MS. CILEK: The very top. That is the provision that would
require a conditional use when a facility has eight or more pumps and
is within 250 feet of residential property. Now, the eight fuel pumps --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's Section C, right, ma'am?
MS. CILEK: Correct, Section C, 5.05.05.C.
The eight fuel pumps are just the baseline. That's what the
moratorium is based on, and that's what we felt comfortable bringing
forward to you today; however, that could also be adjusted. That could
Page 157
June 23, 2015
be 16; it could be 20. So just as an option.
And it is a stand-alone provision. Without it, the amendment
could also move forward with the site standards and no changes, or
very small changes could be made, and the amendment is also
complete at that point. It's not connected with anything else.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That means that any facility -- the only
facilities that would not be in a conditional use would be a facility with
seven pumps or less --
MS. CILEK: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- located outside 250 feet from
residential.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which means they'll all become --
because very few people, if any -- or very few businesses, if any, are
building less than eight pumps, which means every fuel pump station
will be a conditional-use hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. They must be within 250 feet of
residentially zoned property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, that's within 250 of the
residential area.
MS. CILEK: To relate what Commissioner Nance was speaking
about, it would be seven or fewer fuel pumps, and then it could be
within 250 feet of residential property. Those people, those gas
stations would not have to go through a conditional use; however, if
they were adjacent, they would have the additional supplemental
standards to follow, which are to help address compatibility.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So how many --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a problem with seven or
less.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: How many facilities have been built with
seven pumps in the last five years?
MS. CILEK: I can look that up. It's actually in the back of my
Page 158
June 23, 2015
binder. Not very many.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Not very many.
MS. CILEK: I'll just say that, though. I can get you the
straight-up number if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think -- you know, I really like the
enhanced site standards. I think we should adopt them as written,
because I think they're very, very carefully crafted, and I think they're
going to provide a tremendous amount of protection --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think -- can I --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- but I cannot support Section C as it's
written --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- because I think it's just going to throw
every -- virtually every significant convenience store that wants to
vend fuel is going to be forced into a conditional use regardless of
where it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we call the question on the
motion that's on the table so that we can see whether or not we're going
to move on --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to the next issue.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to approve.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So it fails 3-2.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about these site standards?
Page 159
June 23, 2015
What are you talking about?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Section D --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: David?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Section D, David, and Section E, which
were the supplemental standards for facilities with fuel pumps adjacent
to residential property, or we could change that to abutting if you care
to do that.
MS. CILEK: If I may?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: These are all enhanced -- you know,
these are enhanced standards designed to address --
MS. CILEK: They are.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- incompatibilities with residential.
MS. CILEK: There are some additional changes that we can
walk through that are in the remaining sections that would also help to
update and address compatibility issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we go through each
site-specific standard that we're addressing? And then I think what we
also need to do is decide if this is only going to apply for eight or more
or if this should apply to all gas stations. Because, you know, I think a
residential community abutting seven stations should be equally
protected. I'm not sure that we should narrow the protection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that how you feel,
Commissioner Nance?
MS. CILEK: The supplemental would apply to everyone.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that how you feel,
Commissioner Nance?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again.
MS. CILEK: Supplemental Standards E on Page 7 would apply
to all facilities that are currently adjacent. It could be abutting.
Page 160
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think we need to go
through -- because I think -- I think it was Mr. Anderson that did
indicate that there is a problem with the word "adjacent," and it should
be "abut" --
MS. CILEK: Sure, we can discuss that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because, I mean, that -- the
unintended consequences, literally --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of being, you know, like, across
a highway because it's adjacent makes no sense.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think that's a good catch.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the other thing is the
issue about the canopies. I'm not sure I understand, you know, why
having a roof of one type or another has any impact. If-- you know, if
the gas station is properly buffered, I don't think we want every gas
station to have, like, a flat roof or a pitched roof. I mean, basically that
just -- I can't even imagine. Every gas station would look the same,
identical.
MS. CILEK: You know, the concept behind the canopy
standards is to add some visual relief to the streetscape if you're
adjacent to residential or if you're not. And what we did is we looked
at gas stations in Collier County, and we looked at those that were
developing outside of Collier County as well.
And I have some images all of canopies that have been built over
the period of, you know, now back to probably 15 years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you going to allow a selection
of canopies, or are you going to say, like, you could only do this single
-- I'm not quite sure I understand the canopy issue.
MS. CILEK: Sure, that's a good question. The way that is
currently structured is that they would have the option of doing a
pitched roof. That's on Page 6. And it's identified as a slope ratio, and
Page 161
June 23, 2015
also some roof edge or parapet line changes. And I can give you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're only giving them one
choice?
MS. CILEK: And then the other option would be C, little two,
and that could be a flat roof but with some recess and projections to it,
the E fascia. And the inspiration behind the second one was actually
the RaceTrac that has recently been constructed that went through the
City of Naples Architectural Review Board near where I work on
Airport, and that has some projections and recesses as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're not going to allow any
roofs except those two roofs?
MS. CILEK: Those would be the two options that they could
choose from.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They're canopy standards, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, the canopy over the pumps?
MS. CILEK: Uh-huh, yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And those are the only two that we
would allow?
MS. CILEK: Well, there is design flexibility as well through an
architectural deviation process, which RaceTrac identify that they are
approving of because it allows for some flexibility to the actual face of
the canopy. Currently they are not -- currently they are prohibited
from putting any accent banding on it. That is what you see on the
Airport one, and this would allow for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The deviation?
MS. CILEK: Correct. Currently they're not allowed to go
through that process, and this would.
We pulled these standards, these two options from our existing
architectural and site design standard. We didn't want to reinvent the
wheel. We wanted to, you know, utilize standards that are familiar
within our county and also are illustrated by recent development and
Page 162
June 23, 2015
gas stations in the county currently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As far as the measurement from
either the property line or the gas pump, I mean, what we want to do is
protect residential communities from being close to the gas pumps. So
I think it should be measured from the gas pump, not from the property
line because the property --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no. It's the opposite.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that?
MS. CILEK: It's something to discuss; however, we have
identified it from property line to property line because we're
addressing compatibility in this proposed LDC amendment.
Previously we were looking at fuel vapor mitigation, and that's
why we had identified it from the fuel pump to the residential property
line. Here we're presenting property line to property line to address
compatibility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How does that address
compatibility? Because, I mean, we already know it's zoned for a gas
station, so how does that address compatibility?
MS. CILEK: Well, it's zoned for a multitude of uses with
whatever that zoning district allows, but it's -- we're seeing it not as just
the pump but rather as both the convenience and the pump and just the
use itself. But it is a discussion point. It's open to your --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So could you explain to me how a
measurement from the gas pump protects less than from the property
line?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to
make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? Because this discussion
should be over a beer in your office, somewhere else besides here.
Page 163
June 23, 2015
Because we could be here for days and days with this type of
questioning.
So I'm going to make a motion to direct staff to bring back in the
adoption the supplemental standards written by staff adjacent, abutting
-- you want "abutting," right?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to ask the County
Attorney on that issue. That's our legal attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that guy.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- his advice. Abutting versus
adjacent.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I don't remember. How do you
like that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Abutting means to same property
line. Adjacent means close by.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, staff showed the
graphics of what it means in this particular type of use. I think it was
very appropriate, but, you know, I can count to four.
MS. CILEK: Yeah. Let me share with you the difference, more
or less --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, thank you.
MS. CILEK: -- which is that adjacent will include the
neighboring easement if-- so if there's a 20-foot or a 3-foot FP&L
easement, it will include that, okay, within the gas station.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you showed, if it had a
buffer, like in the PUD, it didn't include that. That wasn't adjacent.
MS. CILEK: Abutting will be like the two -- like the easement is
abutting the gas station versus adjacent would be the gas station would
Page 164
June 23, 2015
encompass the easement, and then it would be adjacent to the
residential at that point. So it encompasses easements like
right-of-ways, which could be large or they could be small.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A buffer was -- go back and
show the Board what it meant. Now, if you're abutting, if you have an
abutting gas station to residential and that residential had a 200-foot
buffer, 200-foot -- not easement, but, you know, the landscaping
preserve, thank you, that you still have to, you know, go through those
standards, those supplemental standards.
And if you would adopt the reasonableness, as Carolina (sic) has
showed, I think it would hit the target a lot better. Can you show us?
MS. CILEK: So on the screen -- is this the slide that you're
looking for?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There's examples. Is it in
our backup materials?
MS. CILEK: There are three examples, yep.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's the one that sets it apart so that it's
not a conditional use. What I'm concerned with, Commissioner
Henning, is the proposed site changes, which I think are all well
considered, and those include the following: Enhanced site standards
apply to all gas stations, which means the definitions are amended.
There are architectural standards; there are canopy roof standards;
there are lighting standards, and some of those are very close to dark
skies; there are safety standards; and then when it's adjacent to
residential property, you have another whole series where setbacks are
increased, there are increased landscape buffers, increased wall
heights, reduced lighting fixture height, increased illumination
standards, and increased noise standards.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Go back.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So what it's going to do is it's going to
raise the standards for all gas stations to begin with, and then when
Page 165
June 23, 2015
they're adjacent to residential, it's going to take it even to another level.
I think this is a great place to start rather than just jumping to a
conditional use, and that's what I support.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, hang on. Go back
to the previous slide from this slide where it shows the preserve. Now,
you have the gas station shown there. Now, if we go to abutting, does
that apply to this?
MS. CILEK: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going through your LDC definitions
now, which are not the model of clarity. They're just not.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What a shock.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your definition of abut is to share a
common property line or boundary at any one point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, Carolina just said,
and it doesn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: Adjacent is to share -- adjacent means
abutment or separated by a public right-of-way, easement, or water
body.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I like what you like
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we changed --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Commissioner Nance.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think abutting is -- it just takes the -- it
takes some of the questions out of it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Abutting is easy because it shares a common
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Border to border.
MR. KLATZKOW: Border to border.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. I think we need that clarity.
Page 166
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think it's critical that, as it's
already properly stated, that it applies to all gas stations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did I make a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, you did.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What did you make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It includes the abutting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did somebody second it?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nobody did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody seconded it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't think we understood that we had a
complete motion on -- I thought you started on it, but I'm not sure you
finished it. Do you want to start again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Direct staff to remove the
objections to the size of the fuel station, gas station, since the motion
failed, remove all that stuff that the motion failed.
You said provide supplemental --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you make the motion,
please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He's making a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Provide the supplemental
standards, enhanced supplemental standards across the board --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and provide --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Additional ones for residential, abutting
residential.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- abutting residential --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
Page 167
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and change from adjacent to
abutting. Is there anything else?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it -- right. And this applies
across the board.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No matter the size -- no matter the
number of pumps.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. All those
in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm done.
MR. KLATZKOW: I would just remind the commission that if
we do not have an ordinance, your moratorium will need to be undone,
and none of this will come to pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're moving on. I mean,
let's go to the next item.
MR. OCHS: Well, I think maybe a court reporter break is in
order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Ten minutes, sir, 15?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fifteen minutes. We'll come back at
Page 168
June 23, 2015
3:30.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I'm going to make one more
motion here because I -- where we are right now is the Board of
County Commissioners has taken absolutely no action. We didn't do
anything, and what that means is, if we leave here today without
having taken some action, that we're going to go back to the rules and
regulations and standards that we had before we started this whole
discussion, and the moratorium's going to go away, and we're going to
be right back where we started.
So I'm going to make one final attempt at a motion to see if we
can reach consensus to go forward.
Short of a stand-alone conditional-use provision, I would like to
make a motion that we have staff look at -- build a -- look at the site
standards that apply to all gas stations up to and including 16 pumps
and the enhanced supplemental standards as listed apply to up to and
including 16 pumps and ask staff to come back with even more
stringent standards including all of the elements that are displayed here
for those above 16 pumps, and that we adopt those standards for all
stations going forward in Collier County from this time forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That we adopt those --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bring back to us, you mean?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They're going to bring back -- they're
going to bring back standards for above 16 pumps that are -- that are
even more stringent than what's called for in here. So this would --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The problem you've got with doing
that is that then you'll have no standards for over 16 pumps. So why
not just adopt what you've got in here 100 percent now so we've got
Page 169
June 23, 2015
something in place, because the moratorium is expiring --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- which means it will go back.
And then direct staff, additionally, to come back with enhanced
standards over 16 pumps, which will be the next set of approvals. But
at least we'll have a minimum in place and then build on that, because
we need something in place.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will modify my motion to cover that,
because I don't want us to come away with nothing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that, because it is
different than my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And eliminate the "abut," or add
the "abut." Take the "adjacent" out. That's the only thing.
MS. CILEK: Just to relay, currently there are two sets of
standards. There are those that apply to all gas stations --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right.
MS. CILEK: -- in all zoning districts, and those that, moving
forward, will apply to those that abut residential.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And you've outlined those to residential.
MS. CILEK: And they are not the same. Those that abut are
more intensive. So we're proposing to keep the amendment as-is,
changing it to "abut" now. And then come back over the -- and we'll
work on it over the summer with additional standards --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For over 16 --
MS. CILEK: For over 16.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- abutting residential.
MS. CILEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. We leave it open, because
right now the over 16 goes back to the LDC; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No. Right now this covers all.
Page 170
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This covers everything.
MS. CILEK: Right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But in the future we're going to stiffen it
up.
MS. CILEK: So there would be standards that would apply to all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And then you have those
that apply to the residential, and then we will ask you to come back
and provide additional enhanced site standards for over 16 that abut
residential.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'll change my motion to reflect that.
Does the second?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: If what you want to do is enact this LDC
ordinance before your break --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- okay, the way to do that is either
Commissioner Taylor or Commissioner Fiala must make a motion to
reconsider Commissioner Henning's motion and then revote
Commissioner Henning's motion. That's the way you're going to have
to do it; otherwise, what are we coming back with?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what he's saying is adopt
the supplemental standards, and then giving staff direction to enhance
these supplemental standards for 16 pumps and over. So it is different
than my motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's what I meant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's different than my motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's completely different.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but it includes what's already
written and advertised in there; we just changed it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Does it meet advertising
Page 171
June 23, 2015
standards?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's my question, okay. Can we get more
specificity as what we're asking for?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's being very specific. He's
making a motion to adopt the site-specific standards --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All of D and all of E and all of F;
everything in here short of C, including A and B, I think.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Whatever doesn't include
the conditional use.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, whichever doesn't include the
conditional use requirement.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we're doing it for 16?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, we're doing it for
everything.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're doing it for everything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For everything and then come
back for additional standards for 16 and above.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sixteen and above.
MS. CILEK: If I may?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just do it as two separate motions.
First motion to approve the site-specific standards both across all gas
stations as well as those abutting residential, then do a separate motion
to direct staff to come back with enhanced standards for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion that failed, so
you have to include it all in one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I'd like to make another
motion because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is there a motion on the floor?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's taken care of it.
Page 172
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is there a motion on the floor?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm just looking for a second.
Commissioner Henning, did you second that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe I did.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He seconded it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, Jeff, does that meet
advertising?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can I hear it? I'm being very careful
because I have a bunch of people here in suits, you know, who may not
like this LDC amendment, all right. So I'm being very careful on this
one. If you can give clarity on it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Give us some guidance.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Reconsider it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the reconsideration is the better route,
and then just go with Commissioner Henning's prior motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then add to it?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I make a motion to
reconsider the last motion that we had regarding this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
Page 173
June 23, 2015
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. The reconsideration passes. So
we're back to Commissioner Henning's motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But just one minute. The
reason my light is on is while I was out just now, I talked with
somebody from the Planning Commission who said the reason the
Planning Commission selected adjacent rather than abutting is there's
some little things that can be changed -- and you know what they are,
right -- that all of a sudden can change how you measure this. And
they said be very careful. That's why we deliberated and chose
adjacent instead of abutting. And I didn't realize that -- you know, to
us it seems so simple, but attorneys, they know what they're talking
about, and -- go ahead.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think your clarification, ma'am, is if
there was a 1-foot property line cut between the gas station and a
residential, then it wouldn't qualify as abutting anymore --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- the supplemental standards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If someone was to cut a 1-foot
property line between the site being developed and then the residential
property, they wouldn't be --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It wouldn't be abutting.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't be abutting anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then nothing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How could that happen?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No regulations would apply.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could do a lot line split and then
submit it on an SDP for a different piece of property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I think to clarify that, it might be
Page 174
June 23, 2015
-- you just might want to put it adjacent within 50 feet or 100 feet, and
that would clarify it and stop someone from doing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't that interesting?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that would be a different motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's up to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Carolina, the way she's
laid it out in the examples, I think, has really hit it what adjacent
means.
So I'm going to make a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why not just redefine adjacent for
purposes of this LDC?
MS. CILEK: We can do that, just as Nick relayed; he's 100
percent accurate. They can dedicate over a 3-foot FP&L easement,
and we can do adjacent within 50 feet or within, you know, whatever
number. And we can come back with that number if you'd like as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll make a motion that we
adopt the supplemental standards in D, is that correct, C --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Everything but C.
MS. CILEK: If I may -- everything but C would work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- everything but C, and bring
back some standards of what adjacent means, and also work on
enhanced standards for service stations for pumps 16 -- for 16 pumps
and above.
MS. CILEK: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Adjacent to residential.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Adjacent to residential.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Taylor? I'll second
that.
Commissioner Taylor? Oh, we've already got a second, don't we,
though? We're reconsidering it. Do we need another second?
Page 175
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. We reconsidered and we
seconded. Now there's new motion on the floor, and you can second it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second it for discussion.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'd like to call the vote.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Like to call the vote.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. That passes 5-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did a good job.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's a much better --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're going to end the
moratorium.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'll bring an executive summary to you
at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MS. CILEK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. I think we -- I think we
made a little progress --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Beat this horse to death.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and we -- well, we beat a horse, but I
think we are off on a good track.
Page 176
June 23, 2015
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'd like to compliment our
Planning Department. I think the presentation was very clear, and you
stayed with us, and that was not easy to do. And, you know,
compliments to you.
MS. CILEK: My pleasure. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
Item #11B
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #15-6459 TO DEANGELIS
DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,545,626
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF (EMS) EMERGENCY MEDICAL
STATION NO. 76, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE ATTACHED CONTRACT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 11B on your
agenda. That is a recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No.
15-6459 to DeAngelis Diamond Construction in the amount of
$1,545,626 for construction of Emergency Medical Station No. 76.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion -- second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
Page 177
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11C
RESOLUTION 2015-133: ESTABLISHING THE AVE MARIA
INNOVATION ZONE TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN QUALIFIED
TARGETED INDUSTRY BUSINESSES IN THE DEFINED
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY —
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 11C. This item was
continued from your June 9th meeting. This is a recommendation to
adopt a resolution establishing the Ave Maria Innovation Zone to
attract and retain qualified target business -- excuse me -- industry
businesses in the defined unincorporated area of Collier County.
Mr. Register, your director of the office of business --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve by
Commissioner Hiller and a second by Commissioner Taylor.
Any discussion? Public speakers.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman?
Thank you, sir.
I have one registered speaker, Rich Yovanovich, who is waving.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He's waiving and he's waving.
So all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
Page 178
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, that passes unanimously.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11D
ADOPTING AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING
POPULATION BASED INDEX MODEL METHODOLOGY,
REINSTATE THE SUSPENDED IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
PROGRAM FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND RETAIN
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DENSITY BONUS UNITS IN
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, AND DIRECT STAFF TO
BRING BACK PARAMETERS ON GAP HOUSING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 11D, which is a
recommendation to adopt the affordable/workforce housing population
based index model methodology, reinstate the suspended impact fee
deferral program for single-family residences, and retain previously
approved density bonus units in planned unit developments, and to
direct staff to bring back parameters on gap housing.
Ms. Grant, your Community and Human Services director, will
present.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
Page 179
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion to approve and a
second. We're going to hear from Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I have a lot of questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Many of the questions -- you
only reference very low income, low income, and medium income, but
you didn't mention the gap housing, although you said we have to
come up with some kind of standards.
But I don't think we did enough as far as telling us, like, what
percentage of housing do we really need in this county? We never
tackle the gap housing -- you've heard me say this before. It's not
anything new -- which is something that we need in order to attract
higher income businesses, more economically sound businesses to this
area, but they have no place to house their people.
We keep focusing on all the low income. And so we -- I think
you've missed the target here. I hate to approve this without you
including that figure or a percentage. You know, what percentage of
housing do we need? How -- meaning, how many very, very low
income, how many very low, how many low, and how many medium
income percentage-wise do we need versus gap?
And I don't know if anybody knows that, but I think we ought to
know what we're trying to build. How many already approved houses
do we have? We know it's about 4,000. If we have those 4,000, are
they all approved for very low or are they all approved for gap? I
mean, we need to know what our inventory is out there right now
before we can vote on what all we have to build, because we don't
even know what we have or what we've already approved.
Let's see.
I think we need to know what -- I think you need to maybe speak
to our Chamber of Commerce, maybe speak to NABOR to find out
Page 180
June 23, 2015
what kind of housing is being requested, what kind of housing is -- are
the businesses looking for so that you can give us a more rounded
figure rather than just focusing on one type because, as Commissioner
Nance will tell you, we're kind of moving up the ladder a little bit, and
we need more types of housing than what we've got.
Let's see. Do I have anything else on this? I had so much, but I
think that that about states everything in a nutshell.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Before I go to Commissioner
Henning, I'm going to remind commissioners that there are multi
recommendations in this agenda item, and I think we need to
understand each one of them is important. And I actually think staff
did a wonderful job on this recommendation, because it includes
adopting the affordable workforce housing population based index
model methodology, which we talked about at the workshop; it
recommends that we reinstate the suspended impact fee deferral
program for single-family affordable housing; it recommends further
that we not -- that the Board retain the affordable/workforce housing
units in PUDs; and it recommends and it directs staff to work with the
Affordable Housing Authority Committee, growth management staff,
and any and all interested parties to bring forth options to further
encourage or require gap housing.
And I want to take this time to thank Commissioner Henning for
being a champion and getting this discussion started on gap housing. I
think this four elements of this are excellent.
Furthermore, I'm concerned that we go ahead and address not
only the gap housing that is, I think, considered, and workforce
housing, which goes up to 120 percent on the income, but we need to
go ahead and adopt the balance up to 150 percent so we start catching
that whole workforce housing.
Commissioner Henning, isn't that what you have guided us on?
So I think this is an excellent agenda item, and an excellent start,
Page 181
June 23, 2015
and I'm going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There's a motion on the floor --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and second, yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's already a mo -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Hiller made the
motion, and I seconded.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller made the motion,
and you second it. Okay. Well, I'm giving my wholehearted support
on all four of those, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you call the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I don't object to it. I'm just
saying that I would like to see us know what we need.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, they're going to come
back on the gap.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Taylor. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we have public speakers.
Kim, thank you. I mean, this is really good stuff on this executive
summary and the backup.
Are you saying we're going to reinstate the deferral of impact
fees; is that correct?
MS. GRANT: Correct, for single-family units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that's part of the
incentives to get people out there to build this type of housing?
MS. GRANT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we get any on gap housing also?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. They're coming back.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. They're going to come back with a
Page 182
June 23, 2015
program. This is No. 4.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're going to direct that. If you
look on the overhead --
MS. GRANT: There are actually --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it didn't say about the impact fee
deferral, so I'm just wanting to know if it's included.
MS. GRANT: The impact fee deferral program, as it stands now
-- and we're recommending just a reinstatement with no changes.
Future changes could be considered. But the program, as it stands
now, goes up to 120 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So that would include at least
the basic gap housing as well?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'd like to see it come back up to the full
150 within the definition.
MS. GRANT: We can add that to our list to come back.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then --
Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Hiller, then we're going to
go to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. Just again, very good. Well
done.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think we've got a great start. I
think it's thoroughly researched, and compliments to you. Thank you
for this.
MS. GRANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think one of the things to
consider is to what extent we're going to take state and federal funds
for this type of programming. And I think when you look further --
Page 183
June 23, 2015
you know, Commissioner Henning said, you know, maybe we
shouldn't be taking state or federal funds, which is something which
had been suggested before, and look to incentivize in different ways.
Like, for example, impact fee deferral. Now, that may not be the
solution or that may be -- that may be a solution or it may not be a
solution, you know. So when you're developing that program, you
may want to think that -- think -- you know, think that question
through in terms of, I mean, to what extent do we want to take state
and/or federal funding and review the system in place to make sure
that the system can handle whatever amount of funding we take.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you talking about the impact fee
deferrals for economic recovery and so forth, using that as a tool?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I want to -- yeah, that would,
for example, be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, exactly. That could be a type
of tool, exactly. But -- and what I'm saying is, you know, we may
want to limit how much state or federal funding we take if we have
other programs. I think you have to just look at it all in totality and
consider, you know, what the objective is and then consider what we
should or shouldn't accept based on that and what our capacity to
handle it is.
MS. GRANT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Mr. Miller, how many public
speakers do we have?
MR. MILLER: I just have one, sir, Nick Koulorheras.
MR. KOULORHERAS: Good afternoon. Nick Koulorheras, and
I'm the executive vice president of Habitat for Humanity. And I just
wanted very briefly to say thank you, Kim, and commend the Board. I
think these are all positive steps in the right direction that we need to
be taking to address all of the housing needs in Collier County.
Page 184
June 23, 2015
Certainly not just what Habitat does, but all of the housing needs. So I
just wanted to say thank you for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Do you want to call the
question?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. There's a motion and a second
on the floor.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It passes unanimously, 5-0.
Item #1 l E
AWARD INVITATION TO BID #15-6379 COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT (CAT) FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AT THE COLLIER
AREA TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS
FACILITY, TO DEC CONTRACTING GROUP, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,454,508.67 AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ATTACHED CONTRACT —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 11E is a recommendation to
Page 185
June 23, 2015
award Invitation to Bid 15-6379, the Collier Area Transit facility
improvements Phase 2, to the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a
second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
Item #11F
AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #14-6307, ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR SERVICES TO
THE FOLLOWING FIVE FIRMS: BRADANNA, INC., SURETY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PBS CONTRACTORS, WRIGHT
CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., AND COMPASS
CONSTRUCTION, INC. — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 11F is a recommendation to
award Request For Proposal 14-6307, the annual contract for general
Page 186
June 23, 2015
contractor services to the five firms listed in your agenda index.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we approving a certain
amount of funds?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, these are projects that you approve
in our maintenance budgets primarily for parks and recreation and for
facilities. These are our air-conditioning repairs, building repairs,
things of that nature.
Most of what we do with these contracts is budgeted and
scheduled; however, sometimes situations come up that are not
scheduled, and so that particular project might bump another project
off.
It can be things as small as moving a door or a wall to change the
configuration of an office or something larger such as what occurred
with your offices where we had that flood and we had to make some
major repairs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is there a dollar amount on
this?
MS. PRICE: There is not, sir. The dollar amount is based on
what each department has budgeted for repairs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So -- all right, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what's the total dollar amount
based on the budget of each department?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And see, we would have solved
a whole bunch of stuff. You wouldn't have had to bring back -- if it
was over (sic) $50,000, you wouldn't have had to bring it back. If it
was under $50,000, you wouldn't have to bring it back if we had a
dollar amount. So anyways, that was my question. I understand.
MS. PRICE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Ms. Price, isn't this just a pool of
contractors that are used to perform different activities during the year
for the county?
Page 187
June 23, 2015
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So these are approved vendor -- this is an
approved vendor pool like we do with other consultants and beach
consultants and other professionals?
MS. PRICE: Engineers, electrician, plumbers, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then why isn't it on the consent?
MR. OCHS: Pardon me, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why isn't it on the consent?
MR. OCHS: Because the annual estimated spend is in excess of a
million dollars, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not tying any money to it.
MS. PRICE: I can't give you an exact dollar amount, but I did
know that the annual expected expenditures generally are over a
million dollars. We've got, you know, a lot of projects that take place
during the year; therefore, I put it on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So each of the projects, if it's
over $50,000, is going to come to us.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's going to be bid; isn't that right?
MS. PRICE: Projects over $50,000 we're going to get at least
three quotes from amongst this group. Projects under 50,000 we're
going to send an email out to all five of the contractors and ask them if
they're interested. If they are, bring them in to give us quotes for those
jobs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So these will probably be
questionable about getting paid then on -- about the item between the
Clerk and the Board of Commissioners?
MS. PRICE: I don't know why they should be, because I'm here
in front of you getting that approval from you right now, because in a
few weeks we're going to bring you a budget that shows you, you
know, basically how much we're going to spend on those projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, that's not true. When we
Page 188
June 23, 2015
approve the budget, we're approving a macro part of the budget. You
have the ability to take funds from -- let's say you have a travel fund in
there. You could take that and put it into buying books, or you have a
maintenance to replace things. You can change that and put it into
travel or, you know, whatever.
We approve a macro, not a micro. And if we had a line item in
our budget book where it said this is how much we're going to spend
on travel, this is how much we're going to spend on capital
maintenance -- we do have one. This is how much we're going to
spend on capital improvements --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- but we don't have that macro,
and that would cut down a lot of dispute.
MR. OCHS: Sir, I'll bring you a line item -- I'll give you a
detailed budget to approve at the end of the workshop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That would solve some
of these issues why things are not getting paid, and then you can't
move them around because the Board has approved that line item.
MR. OCHS: Well, no. You can still move them around between
personnel services, operating, and minor capital if you have a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then it's not going to solve
anything.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Correct me if I'm wrong, but all we're
doing today is we are preapproving these --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize for getting off
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- general contractors as being eligible to
perform work for the county. That's all we're doing today; is that not
right?
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't know where we are ladies.
You're going to have to help me.
Page 189
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think Commissioner Fiala was,
perhaps, next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just -- simple question. We
started this back in September 2014, and then we received all the 10
firms by October 27th, 2014, but then it -- there were some things that
dropped by the wayside, so now we're reconvening on April 1, 2015.
How come it took so long to get there? Just wondering.
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, I can't answer that question, but I
can see if I can find somebody behind me who can.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Director of
Procurement Services.
Commissioners, with these contracts, we also had to negotiate the
final contracts with each of the contracts. So there was a little bit more
work with these.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. My questions have been
answered. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, ma'am.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Those individual contracts provide
for a cap on the amount for each of those vendors?
MS. PRICE: Not a cap for each vendor, a cap for each project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The caps for each project are
included in the individual contracts?
MS. PRICE: The -- yes. Yes, $250,000 is the maximum for any
of these projects. Anything greater than that and we would bid it out
separately and bring that back to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the total for each vendor is not
Page 190
June 23, 2015
to exceed 250,000 in the year?
MS. PRICE: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Per project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're going to issue work orders
MS. PRICE: That's per project. That's per work order, that's
right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Per project?
MS. PRICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two hundred fifty thousand per
project?
MS. PRICE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to the 50,000
threshold?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's my understanding on a
$250,000-or-less project, that it would be bid out between these five
firms.
MS. PRICE: Between those five firms, that's right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you've got a $250,000 project; so
these five firms have been prequalified; they're going to bid it out. If
it's above $250,000, then you're going to go to a general bid,
everybody in the universe?
MS. PRICE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If it's below $50,000, under the
purchasing policy, it could be let to one of these firms.
MS. PRICE: And the intention is to offer it to all five of the firms
even on the under 50-, but it would be a more formal process to ensure
that we get competitive quotes on the 50- to $250,000.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So 50- to 250- is going to be bid
between these five firms?
Page 191
June 23, 2015
MS. PRICE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what are -- what's the average
size of these projects?
MS. PRICE: Average size of these projects is about $100,000,
although we've got a lot of real small ones that -- $1,000. I can tell you
that the use of the last contract, which was a little over four years, there
were 35 projects over 50,000, there were 169 between 3,000 and
50,000, and 41 projects under 30 -- under 3,000. So the majority of
projects are actually in that 3- to 50,000.
A hundred and thirty-five thousand, I'm sorry, was the average of
the projects over $50,000.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- and under 50,000, the County
Manager's not allowed to approve them anymore?
MS. PRICE: Well, the --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, same purchasing policy.
MS. PRICE: -- fact that we've come to you here, I think, should
take care of that, and we'll take the best of the quotes that we get on
those projects and move forward.
And if I might, just to give you folks an idea, in order for us to
issue a work order with just one quote, it takes about 10 days; in order
to issue a work order where we quote it out for three quotes is going to
take about 15 days, but if we need to bring it back to the Board, then
that goes up to a month to six weeks before we can get the project
started, because not only do we have to go through all of that process,
but then we've got to go through the process to get it before the Board.
It's about three weeks before you actually hear it that we put it into the
system.
Some of these projects are important to people. And they may be
a small project, but, you know, there's an office that isn't working. It
can be -- you know, it can be something that's more important like a
water leak, and we need to make repairs.
Page 192
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the purpose -- the reason
you're here today is to get approval on the over 50-, because the under
50- is subject to approval prior to payment by us anyway, so that's how
it works. All right. Sounds good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's already there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion to approve and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MS. PRICE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It passes unanimously. Thank
you.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
That takes us to Item 11G -- oh, I'm sorry. It is 4 o'clock. We had
a time-certain hearing, Commissioners, forgive me.
That was Item 9C, which was previously 16A16 --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 16A16.
Item #9C
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF LEGACY ESTATES,
Page 193
June 23, 2015
(APPLICATION NUMBER 20140001803) APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY. (COMPANION TO FORMER
ITEM #16D5, MOVED TO ITEM #11H) - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE JULY 7, 2015 BCC MEETING AT A TIME
CERTAIN 1 :30 P.M. — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: -- on your agenda. This item does require that ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members, and participants
are required to be sworn in. This is the recommendation to approve
the recording of the final plat of Legacy Estates and approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have public speakers on
this?
MR. MILLER: I don't, but I see some slips coming, I think.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, we do.
MR. MITCHELL: We don't have any at the moment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Looks like we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got to swear them in and
ex parte communication.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are these gentlemen here for -- are
you-all here for this item?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I think we've all given --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you-all here for this item?
MR. URBANCIC: We're the petitioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you're the petitioners, okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's open the public hearing.
Let's swear in everyone that's going to testify with the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
Page 194
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I believe that all commissioners have
given their ex parte. Are there any commissioners who have not given
ex parte on this item?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have no ex parte.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I spoke to staff.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Anyone else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already declared.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. I did, too. Thank you. All right.
Let's proceed.
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean. I'm the Manager of the
Development Review Division. This particular executive summary
was prepared by my team with John Houldsworth. We're here to
answer any questions that you may have related to --
MR. KLATZKOW: You need the applicant to present.
Commissioners, this is just like a rezone type of a hearing. The
applicant has to come forward and show, you know, that he's entitled
to this relief, and then you go to staff afterwards.
MR. McLEAN: The applicant's here.
MR. OCHS: Have a seat till the petitioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Petitioner.
MR. URBANCIC: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Greg Urbancic. I'm with the law firm of Coleman, Yovanovich, &
Koester, and I represent the petitioners asking for the final plat
approval.
With me today is Terry Cole, the Engineer for the project from
Hole Montes. He will also probably make some statements with
respect to the plat. Also we have our development team, Mr. Drescher,
who is the owner of the property, JD Development I, LLC; and his
project manager, Brian Adamcheck (phonetic).
Before you today is the plat which intends to replat the subject
Page 195
June 23, 2015
property into 13 units along with some water management areas and
roadways. This is not the first time this plat has come before the
commission. In 2005 an almost identical plat came before this
commission. It was approved at that time and was challenged by some
neighboring property owners, and the county litigated that for almost
three years and eventually prevailed. Some of the challenges centered
upon the approval and what was approved with respect to the subject
roadway off of Lakeland Avenue.
Based upon the plat, which Mr. Cole will have an opportunity to
present and show you the particulars, the plat itself-- the issue
centered upon the existing roadway. The public roadway of Lakeland
Avenue ends just south of this property, and to get into this property,
there's a continuation of the roadway, which allows for a right-in and
left-out of the subject property.
We have self-contained that all on the subject property in order
not to interfere with the adjacent neighbors. We may or may not have
legal access rights, but we decided to self-contain it with the intent that
there's no reason for us to go ahead and try to litigate any use rights on
the adjacent side of the property; whereas, we believe they probably
exist, but we weren't going to spend the time and money to try to
litigate that.
We've offered -- our staff has met with the various residents and
-- with an olive branch to say, hey, what can we do to help you support
our project, whether that be putting a final repaving of their road,
which is in a pretty poor condition, as well as offering some
landscaping on the side.
We haven't been -- that offer has not been accepted, although we
still remain amenable to having those discussions to help improve the
overall neighborhood.
With that, I'm going to ask Mr. Cole to come up and present the
particulars of the plat and the alignment of the roadway with respect to
Page 196
June 23, 2015
this.
Mr. Cole, can you introduce yourself and also describe the
particulars of the plat.
MR. COLE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Terry Cole.
I'm a professional Engineer with Hole Montes, Incorporated, here in
Naples.
This is the plat document, plat map, and it shows 13 lots. And as
Mr. Urbancic was mentioning over on the -- thank you. Over on the
left side of the drawing we have the Lakeland Avenue Tract R1
right-of-way that is proposed, and to the west of that are four other
properties that, as Mr. Urbancic mentioned, that are not included in our
property, and all of our roadway improvements are included within
that 30 feet.
I'm going to show another map here that shows the alignment of
the roadway. There is a taper of one lane that is 10 feet wide going to
the east in order to contain the 10-foot northbound lane all within the
30 foot that is controlled by our project, and then also, as you exit the
project, there would be a 10-foot lane coming south.
Now, if you look at the very top of the drawing, there's a
driveway. It's about 15 feet wide. And then as you come south, that
lane is 10 feet wide. It widens out to 18 feet wide, and then 20, and
then back to 12.
Ideally, we would like this lane to be 10 feet wide and either
stripe the lane such that we could indicate that or to remove that
pavement in order for it to be 10 feet wide. And the developer has
been trying to work with the adjacent property owners to try to work
out this situation.
And I'll show you --
MR. URBANCIC: Mr. Cole, did -- can I ask if the staff had
approved a deviation allowing for that jog?
MR. COLE: The staff approved a deviation to allow for this plan
Page 197
June 23, 2015
as it is shown here.
What we would desire to do is have a road easement of
approximately 12 feet granted by the adjacent property owner such that
the road could remain straight as shown in this plan. And the lanes on
both sides of the road would be 10 feet going north or south.
We have an alternative plan as well. That would have the road
still tapering over to the east. And if we were able to obtain easements
from the two southern properties on the west side of the road, then we
could stripe the lane going south to better delineate the 10-foot lane.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I know that the neighbors
have objected, but I haven't -- are you -- the neighbors that are
objecting, have you signed up to speak? Have all of you signed up to
speak?
Well, let me just make something clear that you understand this
process, because these gentlemen are attorneys and you're not. Do you
have an attorney here with you?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. You need to, when you
speak -- if you don't speak, it's not on the record, and we don't consider
it. And when you speak, you have to present rebuttal evidence to what
they're presenting. It's not that "I don't like it" or anything like that. It
has to be, like, what they're presenting.
If you have objections, they have to be clearly stated on the
record, because we have to rule based on what's on the record. If it's
not on the record, we're not ruling on it. We're only ruling on, so far,
what they've presented.
So if you -- you need --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Does it have to be true?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of course it has to be true.
Everything in this room has to be true. Excuse me. You have to wait
Page 198
June 23, 2015
till you stand -- till you come to the podium. But everything has to be
true, and if you believe something is said that isn't true, then when
you're called to speak, you state why you feel that what's being
presented isn't true and we shouldn't rely on it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Let's continue with the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure, because I
see all these people nodding, and I see that they haven't signed up, so
it's clear they don't understand the process.
MR. URBANCIC: Thanks, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please continue.
MR. URBANCIC: The only thing I wanted to represent is, as
your staff report indicated, they've, recommended approval as us being
consistent with the requirements of Chapter 177 in your code. So we
would ask for your approval of this particular item as presented today.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Do we have any comments from
commissioners, or would you like to go to public speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have a problem.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to public speakers, Mr. Miller.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Beth Nelson, and she'll be
followed by Karen Jarnuitowski. I hope I'm saying that close.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers, Troy?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: How many speakers do we have, sir?
MR. MILLER: I've just been handed a third slip, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We have three.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir. Make that four, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, four.
MR. MITCHELL: Do I hear five?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, we're not going to continue to add
speakers now. That's it. Go ahead.
DR. NELSON: Hi, good afternoon. My name is Beth Nelson.
And we've been given so little information. We've requested
Page 199
June 23, 2015
information. What we have received was not received in a timely
fashion. It's hard for us to react in a meaningful way.
I don't know how to counteract the statement that we have been
contacted and they were trying to work with us. We have never been
contacted.
I have a letter from -- that Jack McKenna sent, and I made copies
if you'd like to see. The last sentence says he approved this, but he
would like to see a more traditional road alignment opportunity if
available, that they continue to try and pursue this. They never even
started to try and pursue this.
We were never contacted by the developers to work out anything.
I don't know how I can prove that, but that's the way it is.
And my question is, we've been told that the Board actually can't
deny this plat today even if it's so desired, that this was a done deal.
That was what we were told; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Nothing is a done deal.
DR. NELSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who told you that?
DR. NELSON: We've gotten that information from discussions
with people in the street that are working across the street. This
gentleman, I believe, had that comment with one of the neighbors.
That's -- anyway. So he writes -- that was his letter that they continue
to pursue a more traditional road alignment. My response is they never
started. I don't know where that continue comes from.
And I'm wondering if anyone has been back there to see the area
we're talking about. Our road was in decent shape until they put the
cul-de-sac in the first time this started, this development started.
What we have where the county maintained road ends is a
driveway that we put in 30-some years ago, because it was dirt prior to
that. So that's our driveway.
And, you know, our personal rights have been trampled in order
Page 200
June 23, 2015
to allow a developer who got creative, was the word that Mr. McKenna
used, skirting the intent of the Land Development Code that I had
included in my letter that I sent to you, destroying the character of our
neighborhood and trampling our rights, and that's basically what I
wanted to say.
And the comment that somebody met with us to offer an olive
branch, I don't know where I was, but I wasn't there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you be specific as to how your
property rights are being trampled? I mean, you have to be specific.
DR. NELSON: Land Development Code calls for every
subdivision shall have legal and adequate access. This is hardly legal
-- it's neither legal nor adequate access, and what they're doing is
taking public right-of-way from existing lots to creatively connect with
a publicly dedicated roadway.
And if you could come down and see what we're talking about -- I
mean, through the years, as we've worked with the county and this
issue has come up, the response has always been, oh, they can't do that.
We've had neighbors that have applied for a subdivision zoned
RSF3, which is what the court upheld, I believe, in '08. It is -- yes, it is
zoned RSF3, but they don't have the legal access to subdivide. This
happens out in the Estates quite often, from what I've heard. But it's
just a unique spot, our little neighborhood.
And Land Development Code Section 6.0.1 (sic) states that half
or partial streets shall not be permitted. Wherever the property borders
on an existing or partial street, the other part of the street shall be
required to be dedicated and constructed within such property. We
were never contacted. No olive branch was ever offered. I don't know
who you met with, but it wasn't any of us.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am. I have a couple questions.
I'm in receipt of your letter, which you're saying -- you're Ms. Nelson,
right, Dr. Nelson?
Page 201
June 23, 2015
DR. NELSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. You indicated that the Lakeland
Avenue extension is not a publicly dedicated roadway.
DR. NELSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are you interested in having the
easement in front of your property be part of an improved roadway or
not? I think that was the question.
My understanding is that the people that have privately
maintained the roadway -- and half of that privately owned roadway is
on your property and it's an easement across your property, which is
private, and that the petitioner is trying to access their property, and
because there's no interest in having them use part of what is now a
private roadway, that they're constructing their own road on their own
property in order to gain access to their property, and that's where
we're at today. That's my understanding of this issue.
Now, if you're interested in participating with them to improve
the alignment of Lakeland Avenue, it's been my -- communicated to
me that the petitioner is interested in doing that if you're interested and
the property owners that have this private right-of-way are interested,
that the road will be improved within that existing easement.
DR. NELSON: I would --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are you interested in that or no?
DR. NELSON: You know, this is the first time we have heard
this. As I stated, we have been behind. Things have changed at the
last minute. I was not aware -- again, Jack McKenna emailed me
yesterday that this item was not -- could not be pulled from the agenda
the way he -- Thursday he said -- the assistant county attorney was
there. They said, you email me, put it in writing, we'll have it pulled.
He didn't contact me Thursday afternoon; he didn't contact me Friday.
Monday afternoon he contacts me and says, oh, by the way, that was
wrong, sorry. I had to go through other means to have it pulled from
Page 202
June 23, 2015
the consent agenda. That illustrates the problem we've had getting
timely information.
I can't speak right this second for my neighbors without talking
with them.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I'm just asking a question. I'd like
you to answer me. Are you interested in having your easement as an
improved roadway that would provide access to the petitioner or not?
DR. NELSON: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're not, okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need to continue this
item and ask these parties to go back and try to work out this issue. I
mean, it's very clear that they have no idea, and whatever
communications have gone on have been with the petitioner, and these
residents just haven't been informed.
So I think, given the history of litigation, it might make more
sense just to continue this and let them try to come to some agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that if you make it a
time-certain at our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At, like, the July 7th meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: July 7th meeting at 1 :00.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree. Let's do it -- I totally agree
with you, Commissioner Henning. Let's do a time -- do we have the
ability to get it done July 7th?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Move this to July 7th.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from the petitioner for a
moment.
MR. URBANCIC: Can I just talk to him for just a quick second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. And I think -- while they're
talking, let me also say I think it's extremely important that in light of
the deadline, which I agree with, that Commissioner Henning is
Page 203
June 23, 2015
proposing, that staff be available to speak to both parties and make all
documents available to both sides as quickly as possible so we can
have a resolution based on both parties being informed, since we are
dealing with private property that's being impacted.
MR. URBANCIC: Thank you. We appreciate your
accommodation to allow us to be on the next meeting. I know you
weren't going to have land-use petitions, I believe, but we appreciate
the accommodation. We're willing to continue those discussions. I
know she had just mentioned -- Ms. Nelson had just mentioned that
she didn't want the road there, but we're happy to continue those
discussions, and maybe we can reach some common ground as to how
this would be done.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I would like to hear the rest the
public speakers before we vote on this item since these people have
come to speak, and I would like -- I would like to make sure that the
petitioner and the public gets all these items out in the open so that
when we go for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion? I mean,
it may not make sense because they're -- if they don't have the
information to draw -- I mean, they're going to come up and say we
object but we haven't been given the information. I mean, if they're all
going to come up and say the same thing, what's the point? Let's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I want to hear what the objections
are. Everybody's says there's no communication. I want to make sure
that everybody understands what the objections are now so we can
resolve them. If we continue this, I don't want to go -- come back and
say, well, wait a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. I see your point. That's
fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's have everything addressed, and let's
continue with the public speakers. Is that right?
Page 204
June 23, 2015
DR. NELSON: Yes, thank you. And thank you. There are other
points to be made that I have not --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear everything -- let's get
everything on the table right now, because it's going to come back in a
couple weeks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. MILLER: Your next public speaker is Karen Jarnuitowski,
and she'll be followed by Steve, is it Roiter (sic)?
MR. STRESSENREITER: That's close enough.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: Good afternoon. My main concern on
that --
MR. MILLER: Ma'am, can you state your name for the record,
please.
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: Oh, Karen Jarnuitowski.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: My main concern there is there is a
school bus stop on Willowick and Lakeland. My main concern is if
that road opens, the children will not be safe when waiting for their bus
to come.
The second is they don't stop at that stop sign as it is. We have a
problem with some of the drivers.
My second concern would be our neighborhood, our neighbors
and all that, will be losing precious property that they have built for 20
to 25 years. Taking that away from them, I feel, is not appropriate to
anyone.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What property are we speaking of,
ma'am?
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: The one -- the people on Lakeland. I
have friends that live on Lakeland. They've owned that property.
They've been there for years and years. And taking that away --
Page 205
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What are we --
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: -- and adding more road for our children
to have to stand at that bus stop is going to be a very dangerous
situation for the children. I mean, that is my main concern.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Does -- let me ask you one question,
ma'am, if you don't mind. Does the bus continue to the end of
Lakeland now? Because it's a private road, it probably doesn't
continue down on a privately maintained road, does it? Do they?
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: It comes down Willowick, it stops and
picks up our children on Willowick and Lakeland, and then it
continues.
But we have many children at that bus stop, and that is our main
concern right now for me and for the community.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, the bus stop is going to have to be
made safe. If there's an improvement in the road, the bus --
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: But a three-lane road is not going to
help it. These children have to walk across the road.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right. Well, the question is if people are
willing to participate with the petitioner to --
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: I disagree with the road. I disagree --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you, personally, are not willing to
participate with the easement?
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MS. JARNUITOWSKI: I'm not going to -- I am not going to
agree with anything widening that road at all, period.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: She doesn't live on the street.
MR. MITCHELL: Your next speaker is Steve Roiter. He'll be
followed by John McLain.
MR. STRESSENREITER: Good afternoon, Steve Stressenreiter,
Page 206
June 23, 2015
for the record.
I just -- a couple points I wanted to touch on when the attorney
was speaking about what he was referring to when he was referring to
making the road access in -- ingress and egress on their property.
That's not a true statement.
The ingress will be in the right-of-way of the house south of their
property. So in any given neighborhood, everybody knows the corner
lot, the 30 feet on both sides is not yours. It's the county's. But not
very often do you see somebody use that 30-foot right-of-way to create
its own lane.
So basically, their end is going in somebody's right-of-way,
creating a road, and then that accesses their property. I agree with that.
It's a gray area. Is that allowed?
But I don't -- I don't see a -- I've been in this town 35 years, and I
don't see another road across the right-of-way -- which is technically
the county's, but explain it to the neighbor that you're taking his 10 to
12 feet of his property to create access for them to develop their
property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, can I just ask a question?
We still need a right-of-way. Are we giving right-of-ways away for
the benefit of private roads?
MR. STRESSENREITER: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then now we're losing the
right-of-way --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's no county right-of-way.
MR. STRESSENREITER: Do you have to make that
right-of-way now 30 feet from the edge of the new road? So does that
property owner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That means -- so, yeah. Well, then,
if we have a -- then if we're looking for a right-of-way to compensate
for the right-of-way we're giving up, then we're basically taking
Page 207
June 23, 2015
someone's property --
MR. STRESSENREITER: Exactly.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know if that's true or not true. You
may want to ask your staff
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't want to get into the
debate, but these are issues that need to be evaluated --
MR. STRESSENREITER: That's the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- by staff because, I mean, we're
basically giving up right-of-way, a county right-of-way for free to
these people and we're taking --
MR. STRESSENREITER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- right-of-way from other people.
If that's the truth, that has to be addressed in the hearing that comes
back. I mean, I don't know if it's true or not. We don't have to debate
those facts, but --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Can staff tell me which of this land, if
any, is owned by the county?
MR. STRESSENREITER: The ingress, the road in is owned by
the property -- by the county.
And then the other part -- when he put up -- when Terry put up
the drawing, he shows the road. The 18 feet and the 20 feet that he
spoke about includes my property. It's not going to be an 18-foot-wide
lane as their version that they're going to submit for plat. The 18 feet
encroaches on my 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from staff.
MR. STRESSENREITER: Okay.
MR. McLEAN: Matt McLean, again, for the record.
Right now the right-of-way that is the county's is this particular
line that ends at this point, juts across Lakeland Avenue, across the
edge of this lot here, so the right-of-way is, in effect, that entire area.
Once you get north of the pen line, that's where you run back into
Page 208
June 23, 2015
the private property moving farther to the north.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So everything north of the pen line, then,
is privately maintained road, privately owned easements and privately
maintained. What's constructed there now has been privately
maintained and privately constructed?
MR. McLEAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And everything south of the pen line is
the county easement that has to be justified here, use of the county
easement?
MR. McLEAN: Yes. South of the pen is the county
right-of-way, and north of it is the private section, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That doesn't make any sense.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. STRESSENREITER: Can you ask him to address the
139-foot lane transition that's going on the right-of-way on the
property south?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let me -- is this road -- is this
road -- this road is not built, right?
MR. STRESSENREITER: Yeah. All them roads are built.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Part of its built.
MR. STRESSENREITER: The road that they want to put in is
not built. But I just -- just ask them, the 139-foot transition lane, is that
there now, or will that be in the right-of-way of the person that owns
that land. If he can answer that, then we're all golden; we're good.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's the county right-of-way?
MR. McLEAN: It is the county right-of-way, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's owned by the county, sir.
MR. STRESSENREITER: I respect that, but I'm just saying, that
is not the norm, and then does the right-of-way have to be extended
into this guy's property? Is the right-of-way 30 feet from the edge of
the new county road? And this becomes a public road, not a private --
Page 209
June 23, 2015
not a county maintained road anymore.
Once he goes into that right-of-way and uses that to access his
property and ingress/egress out of his property, whose road does that
become? Is the county going to be responsible for that road, or is the
homeowners association going to be responsible for that road?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, that's something that needs to be --
that needs to be --
MR. STRESSENREITER: And then I want them to address the
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- established by the petitioner and staff.
MR. McLEAN: Yes. As has been presented, again, below the
pen line will be the county's responsibility for ownership and
maintenance, and above the pen line, the location that's along here
where the two lanes will be created for the ingress and egress will be a
private -- or it will be county access, but it will be privately maintained
by this HOA, the Legacy Estates HOA.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. STRESSENREITER: That's all.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So that's an issue that to has be
come to grips with.
MR. STRESSENREITER: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. STRESSENREITER: All right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker on this item is
John McLain.
MR. McLAIN: Hi. For the record, my name's John McLain. I
am the property owner of 185 Willowick and also 193, which is on one
of those corner lots.
I'm concerned about losing some of my property, i.e., easement.
It's at the point -- at this point in time it's a vacant lot. Is that going to
Page 210
June 23, 2015
make my setbacks 30 feet from the edge of the road, which is going to
devalue my property as far as for being able to sell it to build a house
on it? So I'm concerned about that.
I just don't think it's right that we can take somebody else's
property. And, you know, if they own the property, they can build a
home on it, but why do you have to take somebody else's property, i.e.,
easement, from them in order to accommodate somebody else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't.
MR. McLAIN: Well, according to that map we are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't.
MR. McLAIN: We're cutting over into 201 Willowick, into their
property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that down there by the levy?
MR. McLEAN: Again, Matt McLean. There is no additional
taking of land. The existing right-of-way exists today, already, again.
Hold on. Let me put my pen back up there.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, the issue is what's getting paved.
MR. McLEAN: Yes, correct. The area that's getting paved --
MR. KLATZKOW: So they're increasing the pavement on
county right-of-way, but it's his property. That's what we're talking
about, right?
MR. McLAIN: This right here. We're infringing from the
existing roadway over into its right-of-way, but it's property that's now
owned by the homeowners.
MR. McLEAN: No, but that's county right-of-way. The county
owns it.
MR. McLAIN: Right. You're taking right-of-way from our yards
to pave it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then you have to -- aren't you
going to add right-of-way?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who is the owner of the real estate?
Page 211
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're going to allow them to
build a road in the right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Don't you need
right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You need right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who is the owner of the real estate, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a levy down there?
MR. McLEAN: Which piece of real estate are we referring to?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The part that is below the pen line with --
in which there is pavement and proposed enlargement of pavement; is
that the county-owned right-of-way?
MR. McLEAN: Yes, that's correct. This is county-owned
right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the county owns that?
MR. McLEAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Not the property owner?
MR. McLAIN: It's easement. Originally they said they were
going to contain everything on their piece of property. They're not
doing that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're allowing them to develop a
private -- we're allowing -- we would be allowing them to develop a
private road on county property, and we're not charging them for the
right to use that county property to expand their private road. And then
on top of that, the issue is now all of a sudden we have no right-of-way
there because we've allowed a road to be built on it.
So then the question becomes, do we have to create a new
right-of-way adjacent to what is the new edge of this road? And the
other question is how it affects all of these people's development
rights, because if they can only -- if the setback is, you know, so many
feet from the edge of the road -- I don't know how they're defining the
setbacks -- then, in effect, there is a takings because we've allowed this
Page 212
June 23, 2015
road to encroach closer to the --
MR. McLAIN: In a sense, devaluing the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would we need --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is devaluing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- more right-of-way? Why do
you need more right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the levy?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Okay. We've heard the speakers. There's a motion and a second
to continue this. I think staff, the petitioner, and the citizens all
understand what the issues are, that we will come back on the 7th of
July, and hopefully we will have everyone happy with the outcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the other important issue is is
to make sure that, for the people who are not here today, that they
understand they have an opportunity to work with the developer and to
work with our staff and, you know, there aren't going to be any excuses
because it's been clear.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: How do we arrange that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, have -- Leo, can you assign a
staff person as the liaison between these parties?
MR. OCHS: Yes, we'll do that before these people leave, and
we'll give a contact name and number.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would hope that what the neighborhood
receives out of this is a very nicely paved and improved road at no cost
to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They don't want it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But, I mean, that was what I would hope
for you. Now, if you don't want that, certainly you don't have to
negotiate for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it can't be at the expense of
Page 213
June 23, 2015
their property rights. That's the issue.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, but they have a road. If they can get
a better road, maybe that would be nice. If they don't want a better
road, I'm certainly not to make that decision for you, but you have the
opportunity.
Any additional comments?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. Before we vote,
Commissioner Hiller asked a question that wasn't answered about
right-of-way, giving up right-of-way. If we give up -- if we make our
right-of-way a road that benefits a private development, do we need to
take more right-of-way?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. You don't need additional
right-of-way. It's a county right-of-way. It's like getting a
right-of-way permit to work within county right-of-way. When we
come back, we'll have the plat map shown there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, it's one thing to work in
a right-of-way, but it's very different to allow the right-of-way to be
used for private purposes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, they use the right-of-way for
private purposes. These property owners here use it as well, too.
That's how they access their property.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Over that right-of-way?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Over that right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's how they get into --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to make it very clear. That
map that Matt put up there, where the county line or county
right-of-way ended, they use that to get to their property. That road
that's there that's paved right now is access for these people, too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then we have the issue of the
Page 214
June 23, 2015
private property that goes beyond that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Beyond that road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're creating a plat that lets a
private property owner take --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's not taking our right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He's using his own property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's using his -- once it crosses --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. He's using their property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, you can testify. She's asking
me a question.
Once they cross over that county right-of-way, they're moving
strictly to the east of that right-of-way that's on that property line onto
their own property to make the road work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what, you guys all need
to work together, figure it all out, bring back the truth.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. There is a motion and a second to
continue. Any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It's continued until the Board of
County Commission meeting on July 7.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we set a time-certain now so
everybody knows that they have to come back at that time?
Page 215
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 9:30?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What time would you like?
MR. OCHS: Pleasure of the Board. We can do it 1 :30, we can
do it --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It will be a public hearing again?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We'll hear it under Item 9 starting at
1 :30, not before.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So shall we do time-certain 1:30?
Okay. Time-certain 1:30, July 7th. And we'll assign a staff person and
make all information available to all parties in the same amount of
time.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're done.
Item #11G
A STANDARD DONATION AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS JD
DEVELOPMENT 1 LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, TO DONATE A 1 .14 ACRE PARCEL ALONG WITH
A MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $4,440.30 TO THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
UNDER THE OFFSITE VEGETATION RETENTION PROVISION
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC SEC
3.05.07H.1.F.III. (B), AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DONATION
AGREEMENT AND STAFF TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY
ACTIONS TO CLOSE. (COMPANION TO FORMER ITEM
#16A16, MOVED TO ITEM #9C) - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
Page 216
June 23, 2015
THE JULY 7, 2015 BCC MEETING AT THE TIME CERTAIN 1 :30
P.M. — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to the companion
item, 11H. I presume the Board would like to make a motion to
continue this.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second. There's a motion and a second
to continue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the same terms as 11G.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: On the same terms, and to be
re-presented as a companion item when it returns on the 7th of July.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11G
A TEMPORARY SIGNAGE PROGRAM DURING THE 2015
SUMMER BREAK TO PLACE TEMPORARY YMCA/CAT
SIGNS ON SELECT CAT BUS STOP POLES - MOTION TO
DENY — APPROVED; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO COME
BACK WITH IDEAS IN REGARDS TO EXCEPTIONS FOR
Page 217
June 23, 2015
SIGNS THAT ARE ERECTED TO PROMOTE PROGRAMS OR
EVENTS IN THE COMMUNITY — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes us now to Item 11G, which was
previously Item 16D15 on your agenda. It's a recommendation to
approve a temporary signage program during the 2015 summer break
to place temporary YMCA/CAT signs on select CAT bus stop poles,
and this item was brought forward by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Yeah, it's always
been a long-standing -- Commissioner Fiala, you might remember. In
fact, I'm going to quote you on the bus stops, the benches, we don't
want to look like Lee County --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because of the character of our
community.
The second thing is, if you allow one person -- and this particular
item is a group, a not-for-profit group, to use the public's property,
you've got to allow the business owner that's selling jewelry, that's
selling tile, and everything else to use our property.
The issue of the Constitution is the right of the people. It's not the
right of government, okay. And you have to be equal. And you can't
be selective on who you like or who you dislike.
So what do you want to do? You want to let all, or do you want
to keep the character of the community?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make a motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just present what the idea was? The idea
wasn't to be selective. We are working with the Y, and because -- for
the Summer Hall Pass program that you-all adopted. The intent of
Page 218
June 23, 2015
these signs were to be way-finding signs.
They've got a summer program that they're highly participating in
with, and a couple of our stops have over 40 kids at that particular
location at this particular point of the summer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The executive summary
was clear.
MS. ARNOLD: And what we were trying to do is just make it
easier for folks to identify what bus stops, because the buses --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not make it easier for the
guy cleaning the jewelry that's holding a sign up in the right-of-way of,
you know, telling the kids' mom and dad that they clean jewelry? Why
isn't that fair?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion?
MS. ARNOLD: I don't have an answer.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't think so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we allowing businesses to buy
advertising on the bus? Didn't we agree that they could buy space?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why not -- you know, I'm not
sure how you switch the advertising out on buses depending on routes,
but if you have, you know, buses dedicated to that particular route why
not have the Y buy advertising in the bus so that everybody sees when
they use that bus along that corridor, the parents who use the bus will
see that those are the stops that the Y will pick up at and let YMCA
buy advertising, and they promote themselves as well as the fact that --
MS. ARNOLD: And they can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it's accessible. So why not --
then everybody can do that.
MS. ARNOLD: The thing with the buses, our buses don't stay on
the same route every time, so it's not -- the bus stop is what we were
Page 219
June 23, 2015
trying to identify at that particular location. So the Y, like anybody
else, will have an opportunity to purchase advertising on the bus. And
the intent of this wasn't for advertising purposes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. The intent is for
information so these kids, or the parents of these kids, know what stops
to take --
MS. ARNOLD: And, you know, if the majority of the Board is
not in favor of it, that's fine. The intent wasn't an advertising thing. It
was just to identify a particular stop that was going to be where parents
could clearly know that this is a -- this is the actual place that they
would leave their kids to pick up the bus.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When the new Y was built, I
worked with Paul to develop this route. You know, they expressed an
interest in developing a route that would allow these children to come
directly to the Y, and we also worked on changing the access at the Y,
you know, changing the road configuration to make it safer and easier
to get in and out of, you know, including lighting, for example.
So I think -- and we've done a great deal, and we do have to be
fair and, of course, you know, we change routes because we want to
gear our routes to ridership. But I have to say there's -- I think there is
a slippery slope that if we're doing it for one nonprofit, you know, why
not do it for the others on other routes. We want to promote and help
as much as we can, and our goal is to provide, you know, ridership or
support for our ridership, but I don't think that we can do this.
I think if, you know, there's some way you could maybe dedicate
a few buses along that route and, you know, if-- or I don't know how
you manage your individual buses, but if they could advertise, that
would be great, or if there's some other informational mechanism that
could work, that would be great, but I think that doing this does create
a problem. It has to be fair.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. The advertising is allowed on the bus,
Page 220
June 23, 2015
and the Y would have opportunity to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, then present that to them and
make sure they're aware of that.
MS. ARNOLD: We have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to support the motion, and I'm
going to call for a vote on it, but then I'm going to make another
motion to see if there's any traction for that.
So there's a motion and a second to deny.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It's denied 5-0.
I'm going to -- I'm going to remind the board members that when
we approved our sign ordinance for temporary signs we had a program
where we could identify recurring events that we had identified as
having community value, that we wanted to allow a different standard
of advertising to get people to participate in that.
I'm going to say that if we want to encourage transit, particularly
in the summer, that we should direct staff to come back with some
events that the Board deems as having community value that we're
going to have during a specified period of time and allow for some sort
of designation at our bus stops where people know what the program is
during a defined period of time; in other words, not something that's
just at random, but something that can identify a swimming program or
some program like this, a summer Y program that the county might or
Page 221
June 23, 2015
might not be participating in or parks and rec might take advantage of
something like that, but just to examine that and come back with some
recommendations or some ideas how we might tastefully be able to
inform the public of what the program is and how they can use transit
to get there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think that would be of value.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that, and that should be
done as a countywide standard because there might be, you know,
special events around the county that we would want to highlight in
that fashion so that the community that uses buses would be able to get
the best --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do we -- Commissioner Henning, and
then I think we have public speakers. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, first of all, we need to
vote on the motion. The second thing, I'm not going to participate
choosing winners and losers, because that's what you're going to do;
you're going to choose who can and who can't.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, Commissioner Henning,
respectfully, sir, we already went out and we said we have events in
the community that we want to -- that we want to promote, like Swamp
Buggy, different activities during the year, and we have different sign
regulations that allows those events that have been so designated by
the Board to advertise in a way that's increased over normal temporary
signs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what it was, to give you a
little history, it was a way to inform the motoring public on how to get
there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And now it's turned into
advertising in the right-of-way instead of directional, okay.
Page 222
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Our current regulation has?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you just -- yeah, what is
being done and just what you directed staff to do. If it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He told them to come back and
bring information. He didn't direct them to do anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: More advertising, right? Is that
what you heard?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, not advertising, sir. Events that the
county wants to promote --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Promote.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- as having value to the public --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is promote? Is to
get people to attract there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Encourage participation in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's advertising. It's not a
directional in the public right-of-way on how to get there. But,
anyways, you got a motion, you got a second on the floor --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on this item, and it would be
appropriate to vote on this before you stick another motion out there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We already voted on the first one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, we denied it 5-0. You made a
motion to deny, and we voted.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's thinking about the levy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My mistake.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You won that one, you did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Do we have a public speaker, Mr.
Miller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you down at the levy?
Page 223
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's about the levy.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, my apologies. I should have
spoke up sooner, but I don't believe Mr. Thein from the YMCA is still
here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. MILLER: So, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he's not.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Well, that's -- I mean, that's
my best motion, and there's a second. Is there any further discussion on
that idea?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm opposed. I've gone down this
slippery slope before. It's treacherous.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think we're only asking for
information. I mean, if it comes back and whatever's being proposed
doesn't make sense and does prove to be a slippery slope, we're not
going to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, we're just -- we didn't approve
anything. We just asked staff to come back with some ideas.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And, I mean, if the ideas are
no good, we'll reject it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
Page 224
June 23, 2015
Item #11I
AWARD RFQ #15-6433, PRODUCTION OF THE TOURISM
GUIDE, TO MILES MEDIA GROUP, LLLP AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED CONTRACT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
ACTION PROMOTES TOURISM - MOTION THAT ANY
CONTRACT RENEWALS BEYOND THE INITIAL 1-YEAR
TIME PERIOD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE TDC AND BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That takes us to Item 111. It was
previously 16F6. This is a recommendation to award a contract for
production of the tourism guide to Miles Media Group and authorize
the Chairman to execute the County Attorney approved contract, make
a finding that this action promotes tourism, and this was moved at
Commissioner Taylor's request.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And the reason I asked it moved,
if you look at the agreement or the contract under 1, commencement,
there is a provision in there that the county may -- and I'm reading this
-- at its discretion and with the consent of the vendor, renew the
agreement under all the terms for three additional years -- three
additional periods, one-year periods, and all I'm asking is that any
renewal comes before the TDC and also this board. That's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll make a motion to
incorporate that into the approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Page 225
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we have some discussion? I'd
like to hear --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to hear more from staff
about this agreement and why it was presented this way.
County Manager, can you explain it?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Wert is available to explain, ma'am.
MR. WERT: For the record, Jack Wert, your tourism director.
The contract, as you see it, is a standard County Attorney
approved contract that we use for all of our service agreements.
We normally have an initial term and then some one-year
renewals beyond that, again, at the discretion of the county. We look
at it each time at the end of that first year and make a determination,
has this vendor performed as agreed to and, if so and if they're in
agreement, same terms and conditions as the original contract, we then
renew it for one additional year.
This is the way all of our service agreements operate, and it
enables us to not be going out for formal bids every single year which,
in this case, this is a very important part of our marketing plan. It -- we
feel that it's important to work with a vendor over a couple of years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the amount?
MR. WERT: The first year it looks as though, based on the doing
125,000 copies, the net cost to the county would be $46,500.
This amount, Commissioner, depending on cost of paper, how
many pages we have, how many changes to the photographs and
editorial, has ranged between 25,000 and 42,000 over the past few
years.
It's -- it varies with costs and how much we change the guide each
year to up it and make it better.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then the extensions would be
for how much?
Page 226
June 23, 2015
MR. WERT: Each year we would get a new bid, four, and we
would budget accordingly in that fiscal year for that contract. We don't
anticipate it would ever go over 50,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So you basically -- County
Manager, can you go to the purchasing ordinance see how -- what
section applies and how?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. This would be under your renewal
provisions. Ms. Markiewicz, do you happen to have that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because essentially what
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Taylor are saying is that
you need to come back every year for approval, and I'm sure -- what's
the reasoning that you've got for saying that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've got my reason, I'll tell you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, no, you're reading more
into it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Taylor --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, no. The issue is that
Miles Media Group was the sole response to -- or let's say, they sent
out over 600, I believe -- well, let me just review this here. They were
the sole responder. Okay. They sent out -- excuse me, I'm so sorry --
679 firms, 55 firms requested full solicitation packages, and only one
bid was received by the due date.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I don't know, but I can tell
you that I think they offer a very -- they offer a turnkey service; that's
how it was explained. And maybe there's no competition but, frankly,
I want to see next year if there's more competition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what I'd like to understand is
why only one company would respond to what should be a more
general solicitation. I can't understand why no one else bid on this.
Page 227
June 23, 2015
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Procurement Director.
We surveyed a number of companies, and some of them said that
they didn't do the combination of advertising and printing, some of
them indicated that their amount of work that they have right now
exceeds what they could take on in terms of this particular bid. There
were a variety of reasons. Again, it varied for a number.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the concern I have, just from
a bidding standpoint, is, you know, was the solicitation described in a
way that would invite competitors because, as you know, if you tailor a
solicitation too narrowly, it might deter others, or if you describe it,
you know, as one way or another, it -- you know, people might say,
you know, we won't take the job at 50, but we'll take -- we'll bid if it's
100, for example.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: This is a combination of advertising and
printing. It's a niche market, but there are five or six companies who
could easily perform the scope of work --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've been with Miles Media for a
very long time now. How long has Miles Media been --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Miles Media had the former contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: And when we bid that out the last time, we
had one other company who submitted a proposal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And when we bid it out last
time and we selected Miles Media, how was that approval given by the
Board? Did we approve it, you know, for the first year with three
extensions?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: It was identical to this one, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly like this? Okay.
And, Commissioner Henning, what's your reason?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Florida Statutes is clear. In
fact, there's an AGO that -- AGO on Collier County that the Board of
Page 228
June 23, 2015
Commissioners needs to find that it promotes tourism.
And this is a one-year contract for $57,000. And what we're
saying is, staff can make that determination that it promotes tourism
even though the law says the Board of Commissioners needs to do
that. Even though there is an AGO for Collier County saying, yes, you
can as long as the Board finds it promotes tourism, it needs to come
back to the Board at a minimum to say that it promotes tourism.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So -- go ahead.
MR. WERT: If I might, Jack Wert, again. Each year, if we
renewed that contract, it would be coming back to the Board in two
ways. First of all, it would be part of our budget that you approve. It
would also be a line item within our marketing plan that you also
approve.
So it would be for the amount of money that we have a solid bid
from Miles Media, or whoever the supplier might be for that visitor
guide. It will be in our marketing plan, which you approve, and also
part of our budget that you approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the budget, again, is not a
macro -- it's a macro budget, not a micro.
MR. WERT: I don't disagree, but the marketing plan is specific.
It has absolute line items for a visitor guide. It certainly does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can get around that. But,
you know, what's wrong with bringing it back?
MR. WERT: Well, we certainly can, and we'll bring it to the
TDC and to the County Commission if we're going to renew the
contract. Just -- so -- fine, that's what I understand.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, do you have
any additional comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you believe I've already
Page 229
June 23, 2015
forgotten what I was going to ask.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I believe you.
Okay. If we don't have any further comments, there's a motion
and a second to approve it under the stipulation that it's coming back
annually for re-approval; is that correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For purposes of the TDC
recognizing -- and for the Board of recognizing that it supports
tourism.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that the reason?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Promotes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That it promotes tourism?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's where you're at, Commissioner
Henning, your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- I'm the second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're the second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Taylor is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Yeah, that's fine. There's
a -- I have another thing I need to add to this discussion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Go ahead, ma'am, and then we're going
to go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. The way this contract has
been written and the way that Mr. Wert has done business does not -- it
certainly follows business, but it doesn't follow government practices.
And I'm going to kind of stumble through this, but I think I'm going to
refer this to Ms. Kinzel who's sitting next to me to explain what her
concerns are, and that's another reason to allow this to go for a year
until these issues can be worked out so that next year it's done maybe a
little differently.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner.
For the record, Crystal Kinzel.
Page 230
June 23, 2015
The primary concern that we had with the way the item was
solicited and bid, it's a netting item. The total cost to the Board isn't
the 46,5-. The total cost to the Board is 171,5-. There are the specific
costs of 146,5-, and then they are entitled to 20 percent of the revenues
that are solicited. So if you add the 20 percent revenue to the 146,5-,
that equals actually 171,5-.
The netting shortfalls your revenue recording as well as your
expenditure recording, and we need more specificity.
Now, we brought this up at the tourism meeting yesterday. Mr.
Wert has agreed to provide some additional information. We'll work
towards that, but I did want to put on the record that the netting
concept is problematic in general for government. We have some
concerns, but I'm willing to work with Jack a little further.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, can I ask you a question
on that?
MS. KINZEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you saying the cost to print is
the 146-, and the revenue that's projected is 125-, and then the cost to
the county is 46-?
So -- but they're going to charge us 46- regardless of the projected
revenue. Are they going to charge us .37 regardless?
MR. WERT: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Per guide?
MR. WERT: What we will -- it's based on -- the cost of the
guide, we're projecting right now, at 146,5-. That should stay the same
for 125,000 copies. We're projecting ad revenue of$125,000 based on
the last few years, what the demand has been for ads in that. And the
credit, then, that they are giving us is 80 percent of that ad revenue. So
the cost to the county is $46,500. You're not going to be writing a
check for any more than that, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not necessarily --
Page 231
June 23, 2015
MR. WERT: -- in fact, it could be less if we only print 100,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think -- I understand based
on what we're looking at here, what Crystal's concern is. You've got
the projected advertising revenue as an unknown.
MR. WERT: True.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you've got the cost to produce
also as an unknown because it's a variable cost. They know what their
unit cost is, but if we print more or less, that number is going to
change.
MR. WERT: Yes. If-- it would go down, if anything, because of
printing less than 125,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the net cost to the county would
MR. WERT: Drop.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- drop also?
MR. WERT: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Proportionally.
So the reality -- why are we doing it this way? Why don't -- why
don't we just have -- why don't we know what the cost per guide is?
And how much has that fluctuated over the years? Is this -- you know,
what has the cost per guide been over the past few years?
MR. WERT: The guide, in the last few years, our net cost has run
between 25,000 and $42,500.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, what's the unit cost? Because
that's what matters.
MR. WERT: I don't have that, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the net unit cost? Because,
I mean, if the net unit cost has been within a certain range -- but I
understand Crystal's point. And, you know, given that you've got these
unknowns, I mean, the contract could be for more or less. It's not
46,5-.
Page 232
June 23, 2015
MR. WERT: What we're asking for is up to $50,000. It will not
go over that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So costs not to exceed 50,000.
MR. WERT: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who collects the revenue, Mr. Wert?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For how many units?
MR. WERT: For -- well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would --
MR. WERT: -- this bid was based on printing 125,000 books. In
the past, we have printed 100,000, 110,000, depending on what we
thought the demand would be. And so my guess right now is we're
probably going to print 100,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need to go back. I think
we need to look at what the average per-unit cost is, and I think -- I
understand not exceed 50-, but we still have to look at, you know, what
the reasonableness of the unit cost is --
MR. WERT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because otherwise the unit cost
could be substantially higher. I mean, you know, I don't understand
how they're generating sales revenue. I mean, if they don't -- whatever
-- the revenues you're talking about.
MR. WERT: The revenues are actually their salesperson --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need to continue this.
MR. WERT: -- calling on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. WERT: Let me see if I can show you what they do. The
sales effort that they do on our behalf, they settle the ad -- this is a
turnkey project. That's exactly how it's bid, and this is how you bid a
project like this. I don't have a sales force, and I certainly don't have
staff time to do this kind of-- this is what it takes to sell those ads; over
80 different meetings.
Page 233
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They sell the ads. So they sell the
ads --
MR. WERT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and they capture the revenue
from those ads?
MR. WERT: And they credit us back 80 percent of that revenue.
And we have full disclosure of exactly what that is. Every week I get,
Commissioner, a sales report, so I know exactly who he's calling on.
We have a rate card that is established every year, so there are the rates
of what the ads are sold for. So we have full disclosure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What would you prefer to see,
Crystal?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do the rest of us get to talk, too?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry. I just -- I want to just
understand. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's do that, and then we're going to go
to Commissioner Fiala. So please ask.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, exactly the way you're
heading. The expenditures should be bid as to the expenditures of the
total cost per unit. Just on the basis of the 110,000 or the 125,000
copies, whether you do 56 plus four pages or 48 plus four pages, which
were the options in the solicitation, the per-unit cost can fluctuate from
$1.31 to $1.51 per unit cost.
The other thing is ensuring and capturing that revenue. Because
when he says they generate the advertising revenue -- but they're also
retaining 20 percent of that towards the cost. So it's the 146,5- plus 20
percent in the revenue is your real cost of these units, and it's offset by
the revenue that they collect. But to capture it, you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of course, I know Commissioner
Fiala wants to speak to this, and I apologize, but I really --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We wait and wait and wait.
Page 234
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to go --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just think this is a very important
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's get Commissioner Fiala's input.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I have to say is, who collects
this revenue?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They do.
MR. WERT: The revenue is collected by the publisher of the
magazine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Who collects the tourist tax
dollars that pay it?
MR. WERT: We do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You pay it. And who votes on how
they want it to be spent, the money that they collect?
MR. WERT: It's recommended by the Tourist Development
Council, and you approve it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And do they also take that
same money and save the taxpayers of Collier County hundreds, in
fact, millions of dollars on our beach renourishment, on our parks, et
cetera? And we're trying to picayune the cost of publishing something
when it's what they want published, it's the money they collect, and it's
the money they've approved, and we're going to tell them how to do it.
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to Commissioner
Fiala? It's more the accounting of the procurement, and we want to
make sure that we're properly reflecting what the cost is versus what
this net of cost is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they want to spend it. It's their
money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I understand.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: She's just talking about the accounting,
Page 235
June 23, 2015
ma'am. I think it's just the accounting of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to do with the procedure for
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Accounting for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- accounting for the revenue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to get nasty
with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's okay. And your point is
well made. I mean, from a public-service standpoint, I understand
where you're coming from. This has really nothing to do with that. It
wouldn't matter if this was --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's fully justified. There's no question of
it. The program is a good program. It just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. No one's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- the accounting needs to be a little
cleaner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No one's objecting to that. The
issue here is the accounting. The reporting of the value of the contract
is what's at issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're making it so difficult for
everybody.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I know --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- but this should -- you know,
County -- can I make a suggestion? Can I make a --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Taylor first,
and then let's see if we can come back with somebody that can help us
straighten this out.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think we have a motion on
the floor, but --
Page 236
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and a second.
So the issue is -- and just to add to this. Mr. Wert has indicated
that he's more than happy to work with the Clerk just to solve these
accounting issues.
So this is not about the program. The program's wonderful. The
guide is beautiful. It's well done, and it's well received. So it's really
just to -- and the reason it's here is I would just like the opportunity to
be able to vote on it on a yearly basis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's the motion that we have.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So, first of all, we have to dispatch that
motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion? I mean, I
can't support the motion because I feel that we should let staff go back
and re-evaluate how they are reporting this information for purposes of
the contract. And let's make sure that we all understand, you know,
even for year one, let alone two or three, what we're dealing with
because I -- with this netting, I can see some issues.
And it may not be, and it may be fully explainable, but I think it
really ought to be revisited. And so I can't support it, but what I would
suggest is a continuance as an alternative motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to -- we're going to vote on
the item in a moment.
Mr. Wert, are you pledging to work with the Clerk to straighten
out the accounting and the presentation to the Board and come back to
us with something that makes a little more sense?
MR. WERT: I am, Mr. Chairman. We have already discussed,
and I have agreed, and Miles Media has also agreed, full disclosure of
all of the costs. So you're going to see the cost to produce the guide,
Page 237
June 23, 2015
how much the photographs cost, how much the printing were. They'll
share the printing bids. We can bid the printing ourselves if we like to
also make sure that it's competitive.
So the total cost, and all of the revenue from the ads, we will see
that on a weekly basis what the salesman is selling ads for. That's the
total amount. We get 80 percent back of that ad revenue against the
hard costs of printing the guide. They have agreed to that. We will
provide that.
If I might, just one final thing, Mr. Chairman. Another delay will
-- I will not be able to get a book in time to start the new fiscal -- the
new year. I need this time now to begin to produce the new book.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, you're going to
find -- you're going to have the last word, then we're going to vote on
the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What I understand is it's
going to come back each year. It's not going to exceed 47,2-.
MR. WERT: Not going to exceed 50,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not going to exceed 50,000.
Are we on F9?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: F12.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Not going to exceed
50,000.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 16F6, which is now 11I, yes.
MS. KINZEL: Just for the record, Commissioner, it is exceeding
it. It's $117,000. The net cost isn't the total cost to the production.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a part of the motion.
MR. WERT: That is the total cost to the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I find this completely unacceptable
that we are getting this information now. I don't -- you know, let me
just say something, Mr. Wert. If you have such deadlines, then you
should get your approvals before this board in a more timely fashion.
Page 238
June 23, 2015
But to sit here and tell this board that you need an approval now or
you're not going to get a catalog on time is your problem.
MR. WERT: I understand that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's unacceptable. And to sit
here and to get this information from Crystal and -- that shows all this
netting is also unacceptable. Because that's not how I understood it.
I mean, if Crystal hadn't made that clear, I would have had a
different impression. So thank you for bringing that out.
And I really don't think it's -- and I don't think we should be
voting on this to approve year one, year two, year three. I think this
should be continued. I think staff needs to sit down, and we need to
figure out exactly what this contract really is about and what the terms
really should be, because we're not approving 46-.
MR. WERT: I beg to differ with that. I'm sorry. That is exactly
what you are approving.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not based on what Crystal's telling
me, and that's why I need time to --
MR. WERT: That's math that I don't understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- review it. This is my first -- and
you may be right, but I have to deal with what she's saying. And so, on
the record, I mean, I'm -- I have, like, very limited time to come to a
conclusion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Wert has pledged to come back.
Okay. We have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm actually going to vote for it and
Page 239
June 23, 2015
ask for a reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you do that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I don't think this is
acceptable. I don't think it's acceptable that we -- that -- I just -- I don't
agree with this at all.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I need more information, and
I need to sit down and be able to better educate myself as to what this
is really about so that I can better understand how this should be
structured, and I can't come to that conclusion at this time. But I want
this to come back, and I think we're making a mistake.
Item #1 1 J
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN ECONOMIC INCUBATORS, INC. AND THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Mr. Ochs, let's go to 11J. I
believe that's where we are, sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That was previously Item 16F12 on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the second amendment to
the agreement with Economic Incubators, Incorporated, and the Board
of County Commissioners. This item was brought forward by
Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I just have one question.
This is a second amendment to a grant.
Did you get a letter -- has the state reviewed this request, and do
we have a letter indicating that they are really okay with it?
Page 240
June 23, 2015
MR. REGISTER: Yes, Commissioner. I have that in writing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry. I must have missed
that letter.
MR. REGISTER: I have that -- no, it's an email that -- internal
email that we received, and that it clearly states that the DOE has
evaluated the second amendment, and they have put it in terms that is
required by their agreement, I believe it's Section 2N, that provides for
their options to review all amendments and vendor contracts that we
have, and they fulfilled that and provided that to me in writing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They've reviewed this, and it's
fine?
MR. REGISTER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. That's it.
MR. OCHS: We can send that to you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
Okay. On that note, I move approval.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second?
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Did you vote in the affirmative, ma'am,
or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It passes 3-1 with Commissioner
Henning in dissent.
Page 241
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 4-1. Oh, Commissioner Fiala isn't
here, sorry.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I believe that takes us now to Item
15, staff and general communications.
Commissioners, just a couple of items real quickly. This is your
workshop agenda for the fall, October and November. There was
some discussion among the commissioners, and I'm looking for some
concurrence from the Board on adding discussion on sidewalks and
pathways to the November 3rd workshop agenda that is currently
devoted to median landscape options.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you and perhaps a couple other board
members had expressed an interest in being able to have a workshop
discussion about sidewalks and pathways.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. Mr. Ochs, I would like, in view of
what -- the discussions we've had regarding sidewalks and also some
other issues that have come up repeatedly, to my notice anyway, I
would like staff to also be able to speak to the maintained landscaping
we have in the Collier County road right-of-way; in other words, not
just the medians in the center of the roadways but also the plantings
along the edges in the county-owned right-of-way, because I think
there's some significant things that perhaps we need to understand
about those, and I think those impact sidewalks, they impact the signs
that are regulated by our sign ordinance for businesses and how they
interface required landscaping.
My concern is that we have landscaping that's required for a
commercial development or a PUD, and then we have county-installed
Page 242
June 23, 2015
landscaping in the right-of-way directly in front of that. And I want to
understand how we're decision-making on that and perhaps understand
what the cost of that is to continue to do and maintain. I think it's
significant.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Along with sidewalks and
pathways, I think it would be prudent for the information for the Board
of Commissioners, since we're getting, you know, deviations from
these PUDs, for one thing, and more people wanting, petitioning the
Board for sidewalks and pathways; however, I would like to know --
because we have a lot of PUDs out there going back from the '60s, I
would like to know how many of them have amended their site plan to
add sidewalks in their community so I can understand, is there a true
need for sidewalks or want for sidewalks in the community? Does that
make sense?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is the Planning Commission -- one
moment, Commissioner Hiller.
Is the Planning Commission not scheduling a workshop on
sidewalks or pathways or something?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've asked for one, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They have asked for one, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. You know, I sit on that
statewide advisory board to DOT for pathways, and I had the
opportunity to speak to Billy Hattaway, who is our District 1 Secretary
for DOT. And Billy is developing the complete streets concept for
DOT. And I had the opportunity to speak to him, and he indicated to
me that he was going to try to speak to the individual board members
and that he would be willing to come back and speak to the Board at a
Page 243
June 23, 2015
future time in any capacity, whether it's in front of the Board as the
Board of County Commissioners or in front of the Board in a
workshop setting.
Complete streets, there is a real -- and I think Commissioner
Henning raises a really good point. There's a real misunderstanding of
what complete streets is. And the decision is not a one-size-fits-all. It
is not intended, contrary to what the Pathways Coalition represented to
us when we had that one project come forward, that complete streets
are two sidewalks on each street.
In fact, Billy made it very clear that their standard setting is that
the determination will be ad hoc and will be based on, you know, the
volume of traffic and the pedestrian -- the volume of pedestrian traffic.
So, for example, you know, he was describing a community that
he lives in in Orlando, which is similar to Pine Ridge where I live, and
where you have very low traffic volume and very low pedestrian
volume; to require a community like that to have two sidewalks is
completely unnecessary and unreasonable to compel.
We talked about the project that came forward that was a loop
where the Board was pressing two sidewalks, and he said clearly in
that kind of situation you would not want two sidewalks. That's
exactly the example where you don't need that in that type of a loop.
On the other hand, like, if you go to downtown City of Naples,
that kind of environment you want sidewalks on both sides of the
street, or if you take Immokalee Road, you want a sidewalk on each
side because it's very hard, you know, to just walk on one side and
cross that kind of road.
So he said that he would be willing to present what is envisioned
as a complete street and how you apply the complete street model.
And I know we have a whole bunch of projects that are coming up, in
part, where those projects want to change their sidewalk configuration
or, in part, where they're just new projects with proposals for
Page 244
June 23, 2015
pathways, sidewalks, bike lanes, and so forth.
And I think it would be worth the Board's time to maybe when we
-- if it's early enough at the November meeting, or we could switch it
around and do the median landscape option at the October meeting and
add, you know, a presentation from DOT on complete streets so that as
we go into the new year, when we have projects come before us, that
we can make decisions on an informed basis and not try to guess, you
know, what the standard is or what the best standard would be for a
particular project.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let me make an inquiry.
Commissioner Henning, are you asking for a discrete body of
information, sir? Are you asking for a workshop on sidewalks?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no. He said -- didn't you
say to add sidewalks and pathways to -- did I misunderstand?
MR. OCHS: No, sir. I was inquiring whether the majority of the
Board had an interest in adding an item onto the November workshop
that included a presentation and discussion on sidewalks and pathways.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm okay with that. I just
wanted additional information; you answered a question.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Would you like to add that, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he said yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I think we should move it to
October, like switch the water resources and the median landscape and
pathways to October.
MR. OCHS: And then do complete streets in November?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason being?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Do complete streets with
median landscaping in October and move water resources to
November.
MR. OCHS: Whatever the Board wants.
Page 245
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean -- because, I mean, the
whole landscape, complete streets, that's all part of, you know, how
we're designing our streets, whether it's a --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, depending on how aggressive
you're asking for information, they might need the extra time to add a
pretty good volume of information. They might need that extra month.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Casalanguida --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're ready now. They're ready
to -- DOT is ready to come and present to us now. They just needed a
date. They don't need --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Well, why don't you inquire with
FDOT and fit the Chair -- fit the schedule to their ability.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Chairman, I think the switch will
be fine, because I think we're going to talk water resources, and
November might be better because we'll talk about stormwater utility
and projects that we have coming back anyways.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is the Board okay with that? Everybody's
nodding that's okay? Okay. Let us do that.
Okay. What else, Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: So in October we'll do median landscape and
sidewalks and pathways and complete streets, and then in November
we'll do water resources. Very good.
The only other thing I had, Commissioners, was this follow-on to
the earlier discussion on the improvements to 92A in Goodland. This
was the letter that I had referenced earlier in the day that I had drafted
for your review and approval before I send it out to the City Manager.
It attempts to capture the agreement that we -- that we arrived at when
we met a few weeks ago on this item.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Ochs, so you're going to
establish a joint funding agreement?
Page 246
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: That is the intent, Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: To complete the road? For the
road to be completed.
MR. OCHS: Yes. There's a section of the road that's owned by
the City of Marco --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Correct, correct.
MR. OCHS: -- and a section by us. We would propose, as Nick
said earlier, to have a single contract do the whole job at one time with
one general contractor. And we would have an agreement for that
project with the city.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So when do you expect to draw
up that joint funding agreement? After the design?
MR. OCHS: Well, as the letter says here, we need the design
complete before we can finalize the agreement, obviously, and that's
going to take, you know, 12 months from the execution of the design
contract, which is anticipated to be sometime before the end of this
year. So it will be, you know, a year from December before the full
design is completed for that road.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'm --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a year from this coming
December before it's completed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The design, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Design. So then we're -- next year's
million dollars is coming up, and then the following year's million
dollars is coming up before that time. Those are the only two left. And
I wonder who -- where's the money going to come from to complete
the design and into the construction phase if we're -- how come it's
going to take a year and a half to do a design?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, as you were at the meeting, I
told the City Manager and their City Engineer I thought the design
would take probably more than 12 months, but they told us as soon as
Page 247
June 23, 2015
the budget was available October 1st that they would solicit and begin
the design and be done in about a year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And yet when you said you could do
design and build and get the whole job done within three years, they
said, we could get it done way before then, didn't they?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's what they said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And now it's going to take
them a year and a half just to do the design. And then will the -- what
will the design state? Will it be what this road is needed for people to
get in and out of Goodland, and will it be a road that is compatible with
our future needs as well, or is it going to be something that they can
fund out of the remainder of the funds so it doesn't need to have much
of anything?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Leo's asked me to work with our
transportation folks to make sure we review the scope of services that
will be put out for that design. And if it's not satisfactory, I'm sure
we'll be having a discussion with this board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- but we have to discuss then
what we're going to do with our next payment, right?
Now, you've said that the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- one payment -- we've just
approved one payment. That's a half a payment. The other half a
payment is going to come when?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After the --
MR. OCHS: The second installment of the current fiscal year's
payment would come after the county -- or the city council in Marco
adds this item to their budget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So, then, when is their next
million dollars due?
MR. OCHS: What's their draw under the contract, Nick? May?
Page 248
June 23, 2015
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They send us a bill almost
immediately after.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: March?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In March, okay, fine. But then are
we going to -- because they count on that million dollars, I understand
that, but we count on them to do the road as well.
And we understand they've had a lot of uses for the money, and
we've given them their bless -- our blessing, but we have to make sure
that this road gets done as well.
So we should be discussing how the next two payments are going
to come just to make sure that they understand and we understand
what's expected of both government entities, don't you think, and what
we expent the outcome to be -- expect the outcome to be.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All righty.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Thank you, sir.
MR. OCHS: Do I have endorsement to send this letter?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh, that's just one.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do we have nods to send that letter as
written? I'm not seeing anybody shaking their head "no" Mr. Ochs, so
I'm saying that's a soft "yes."
MR. OCHS: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Bruce Anderson
approached me. I guess he had an item of Comp Plan and rezone on
the -- it was supposed to be on this agenda, but because of staffs error
in advertising, it's not going to be until July.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He asked that to be a morning
Page 249
June 23, 2015
hearing just in case there's any --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good with me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you know, glitch, he has time
to fix it and bring it back in the afternoon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Nods?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's direction.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We'll make that a morning time-certain
for that item, and we'll confirm that. I think he's said he's going to
make that request to me also, so we'll make sure to forward it to you,
Mr. Ochs and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing I want to tell
you why I voted no on the consent -- well, and particularly F12, this
amendment to the incubator agreement.
I counted; it was 111-page backup. How in the heck can you go
through 111 pages to find, in my opinion, you know, an amendment to
an agreement? I'm not going to waste my time to go over that.
The second reason I voted no, on the summary agenda we had a
request to -- for a public right-of-way to be vacated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is in Immokalee. This has
been going on since October 14 on Oakes -- Alfie Oakes production
out there. He employs 600 people. And you've seen the
correspondence on, you know, some heated exchanges from attorneys
and so on and so forth. I didn't pull it because I didn't want to delay it
anymore.
Now, Growth Management says, you know, we're going to give it
a, you know, 30-, 60-, 90-day review or whatever, you know, and get it
done quick on these permits. What happened? You got eight months.
And you know why? They wanted to see if FDOT needed the
Page 250
June 23, 2015
right-of-way. They never needed it. They didn't want it, okay.
And the Board passed a resolution in 2016 (sic) on the policies
and procedures for a vacation of right-of-way, and it's outlined. I want
to just tell you that the petitioner needs to go out and get letters of no
objection from people who use the right-of-way, like utility companies
are an authorized use. And they give you examples; electric company,
telephone company, Cablevision, Collier County Sheriffs,
homeowners association, fire and rescue, and adjacent property
owners. That's what they need to do. It has nothing to do with FDOT.
It doesn't say anything; however, I understand, they've got a project
there. They should approach and see if FDOT needs that 15th Street
right-of-way.
But what they brought back on the agenda is staff making policy
and the County Attorney agreeing with it of exaction of property that's
not within the easement request to vacate. They put together a deal on
a piece of property Alfie Oakes owns that doesn't even connect to that
right-of-way.
You can't do that. The Constitution is clear. You can't make
policy, period, okay. You need to follow the Board's resolution, all
right?
So that's my comment on that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Anything else, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'd like to respond to that, and I'd like to
make an additional comment.
Could you please put that picture up there, Mr. Ochs.
This is a picture of the easement that was -- can you make that a
little smaller. There we go.
The building on the left is Mr. Oakes' building. The building on
the right where the truck is loading is J&J Produce. The place that the
truck is parked --
Page 251
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- is the right-of-way that we're talking
about getting vacated. It is used as a loading dock on the left and on
the right and has been for about 40 years. All of the right-of-way
behind that has been vacated.
This whole discussion was a --just a creation of a nightmare for
these people.
And the agribusiness community out there is suffering greatly
from the market-driven losses this year, and Mr. Casalanguida and Mr.
Ochs have both assured me that they're going to allow me to have a
meeting with staff and talk about trying to do better with agribusiness
out here, because Mr. Oakes is among the few that are trying to expand
their presence in Collier County and investing money when many,
many people are actually going to go out of business.
And many large companies that you -- you might know who they
are, are really cutting back their investment in agribusiness.
Agribusiness between market-driven losses and citrus greening disease
is in very great and desperate times in Collier County, and we need to
go out of our way to find reasons to help them and say yes and not find
reasons to say no.
So thank you, Commissioner Henning, for bringing that up.
This settlement that was approved today by the Board, I will tell
you, honestly, is not what the petitioner wanted, but the petitioner did
not want to belabor it any further. The petitioner is actually trying to
add additional properties discretely to his holdings in this area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's trying to expand his
business.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He's trying to expand his business, and
he doesn't want to talk about it, but he can't do what he needs to do to
go forward without talking about it, and it's costing him money and
making -- we're making it a nightmare for this man.
Page 252
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He wants to employ more
people.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If he does what he wants to do, he's
going to come back, and he's going to have to go into this agreement
again and change it, because it's going to cause him a headache. I'll
just tell you that right now. You can expect it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it takes a supermajority,
but, however, we have the ability today, right now to reconsider it,
vote, and take that agreement out because that is really a separate
agreement with FDOT. It has --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I know, sir, but I really don't want to do
that today because he asked me not to. He just -- I talked to him
personally. He said, please, can we end it. You know, I've got to get
the arrows out of my back. So just -- he wanted it. It's passed, I -- it's
too bad, but I just wanted to make that comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you understand the dilemma?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I understand it completely. We just must
have to do better for these people. It's in our best interest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to follow policy.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. I'm coming, sorry.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Ochs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thanks.
I want to go back to adding some concerns I have about H.O.M.E.
and, Commissioner Henning, you know, thank you for bringing up the
discussion in light of the letter that we received from HUD.
The first concern I have, and I raised it this morning, is the statute
of limitations. And I'm sure, County Attorney, you're going to look at
the H.O.M.E. contract and look at when the statute of limitations
expires on it.
It seems to me that from reading that subrecipient agreement, that
Page 253
June 23, 2015
there was a three-year term for the production of documents, which
obviously has long expired. And it would seem to me there's a
five-year statute of limitations on the contract, which has also expired.
So I think that we need to look at -- while I understand it was the
Board's direction that you consider taking whatever legal action is
appropriate in light of HUD response, to carefully evaluate if we have
any ability to sue if there were grounds to sue, which clearly does not
exist at this point. I mean, at this point the county does not have an
obligation and, as a result, we -- there's nothing that we can seek from
H.O.M.E.
In addition, we have to consider the fact that we have those
mortgage assignments and what the value of those are, because if
there's value to that, then when those properties sell, we are going to be
recovering those HUD monies, and we will have to go to HUD, tell
them that we've recovered those monies and ask them whether they
want that money back or whether they will allow us to use those
monies towards another affordable housing project.
And so I was -- these were just thoughts I had that I wanted to
share with you but also thoughts I wanted to share with you in front of
the Board so the Board, you know, considers these factors as well as
we're making future decisions.
On the HUD side, I think we have to raise the same question
about the statute of limitations, whether, you know, HUD has not taken
any legal action, and we have a contract with them. And so the
question on HUD's side is whether or not they have the ability to go
forward with a demand for repayment from us. And let me restate that.
I don't like to use the word "demand" because anyone can demand
anything. That doesn't create an obligation.
But if they do convert that demand into an order, whether they
actually can do so, because it's possible that the statute of limitations
has expired on HUD's side as well, and I think that needs to be looked
Page 254
June 23, 2015
at.
And I think those threshold questions about the statute of
limitations both with respect to HUD -- and I don't know if there's
something in our agreement with them that extends it beyond five
years or if there's a CFR that applies. But I think the threshold
questions with respect to the statute of limitations, especially with
HUD as the first step, is the most important, because if they can't do
anything, I mean, it's all over, and you don't even have to address the
issue with H.O.M.E.; it's pretty much dead in the water.
One of the concerns I had was, you know, I had seen very briefly
that the Naples Daily News had reported that the Clerk asked our
external auditors to audit H.O.M.E., and -- oh, I see. See ya.
(Commissioner Henning left the boardroom for the remainder of
the meeting.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that had asked our external
auditors to audit H.O.M.E., and that really isn't true. What happened
was in 2011 the Clerk started auditing -- and he may have started
earlier than that -- started auditing H.O.M.E., and he -- his staff issued,
I believe it was, like, a management alert basically like almost like a
primary audit finding.
And then in 2011, he continued and actually conducted a full
audit and issued an audit report which he brought back to the Board.
And in that report he claimed that he didn't have the documents
necessary and that H.O.M.E. had not given him the documents.
And one of the concerns I have there is that, you know, he failed
to take any action on that deficiency. He just basically said, I can't
come to a conclusion, and he did nothing to, in his role as auditor, to
go after H.O.M.E. civilly to recover those documents.
And then in 2014, I believe, he engaged our external auditors to,
in effect, do his internal audit work, which is a big problem because
there's a clear conflict of interest for the external auditor to do internal
Page 255
June 23, 2015
audit work and then to engage in the external audit of us, being the
county, his -- you know, the external auditor's client.
And the conclusions in their audit letter or review letter, or
however you want to label that letter, was, again, based on not having
all the information, so clearly could not be conclusive. And it raises a
lot of questions.
Crystal, you remember when you and I reviewed the H.O.M.E.
audit? Do you remember when we went over all the documents?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Anyway, Crystal and I reviewed
the documents subsequent to the release of that and came to different
conclusions. But I just -- I raise these because I think that when you as
the County Attorney and you as the County Manager are working with
HUD, I think you need to really look at the totality of this because -- I
know we gave you direction this morning, but I think, you know,
unless there's -- there are facts that I don't know about based on the
documents I've looked at, it's very possible that this isn't going
anywhere either on HUD's side or on -- you know, from a litigation
standpoint or on the H.O.M.E. side, but I don't know. I mean, I'm not
quite sure about HUD, but H.O.M.E., pretty crystal clear.
And if we do have to -- if there is a clawback from HUD, you
know, maybe -- I don't know what we can do about those mortgages. I
don't know if we can assign those mortgages to HUD since they clearly
have value. It's just a thought. If it were to come to that and we could
not defend against an order and we can't recover from H.O.M.E., you
know, we still are holding those loans, you know, those receivables,
which are clearly assets. So it's not a cash -- it wouldn't be a cash
outlay.
Yeah, and then the only other question I'll ask is on Cirrus Point.
I know that HUD clawed back those monies, but did they do it within
the statutory time frame, and was it done pursuant to a DOJ order? If
Page 256
June 23, 2015
you could find that out for me, because I just am curious how they did
that.
MR. OCHS: I'll get that information for the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
So I just raise those points for your consideration, for what it's
worth.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm thinking. This was a very long,
hard meeting, and I think you managed it beautifully, and I think the
Board worked really well together on resolving very difficult issues,
and I think it was very positive.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think everybody worked well together.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I really think that was -- it
could have been a double-day session easily in light of the
complexities of the issues we faced.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're soldiering on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, for sure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was going to also give you a
hand at saying it was a long and stressful meeting.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's why I don't have hair, ma'am.
You notice it grows good -- it grows good going south, not so good
going north.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I tell you at times my stomach
was tied in knots.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Here, have a mint.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think it's time for a rum and
Coke instead.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, wow.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two.
Page 257
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a second. They call those
Cuba libres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, not mine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's a multicultural rum and Coke.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, anyway, the only
reason I say that with, you know, the liberation of Cuba on the horizon,
I mean, I think you're in vogue with your drink, is the point I was
going to make, you know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And also, because of all the
military connection, you remember the military song, drinking rum
and Coca-Cola, you know, working for the Yankee dollar.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Commissioner Taylor, you're
going to have the second to the last word, and Commissioner Fiala is
already serving drinks.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are you done?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This meeting, as far as I'm
concerned, we've --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's been tough.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- talked on and on too much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Beat it to death.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. It's been a tough meeting,
but thank you very much and, you know, I think it's clear that we tried
to work these difficult, difficult discussions and changes out together,
and that's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They are actually growing pains, I've
come to that conclusion. They are.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, let me throw another
growing pain at you.
Page 258
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My rum and Coke is awaiting.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I wondered if there were --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Before you go, I need to get a nod from
several --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm not going. I was just
talking.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Alright. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I wonder if we could look at
the zoning uses in C4, not C5, C4, and see if we -- and have staff do
this with --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean update them?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think -- I think it's coming all through
this redevelopment struggle, ma'am. I think we need to examine some
of these things, because it's coming. I can feel it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. So that's what I'd like,
because that's -- that's the straight zoning, and that's the zoning that is
affecting our residents so much. And I would like to see if we can
explore it, and you know, I'd hear from staff whether they think we
should look at, you know, all the, you know -- for C4, C3, C5. C5 is
probably the most intensive, I'm not sure, but I would bow to staff on
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me just ask -- throw in,
Commissioner Taylor, that I'd ask staff-- when this RaceTrac issue
came up last year yet, I asked staff, especially Nick, to start looking at
C4, I said -- because our C4 zoning is so outdated, it is not up to date
with what's now being built in C4.
And I don't know how far they are on that, but I'm glad that you're
joining in on that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. I'm right with it.
Page 259
June 23, 2015
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we're embarking here at the staff
level on a -- we've identified a need to convert our old SIC codes into
NAICS codes, and I think that the discussion that Commissioner
Taylor just raised, combined with that, would --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Lead right into it.
MR. OCHS: -- be a collaborative effort to lead us right into that
review.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sooner than later, right?
MR. OCHS: We're working on it as we speak.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good. And then, you
know, a warm and fuzzy item. Actually, I think we're getting ready to
put the former commissioners' photographs back up, and I wanted to
run this concept through you, by you, about it.
It's very simple. We've divided these commissioners into periods
based on the years that they served based on events, and those events --
maybe up to 10 would be listed beside these commissioners so that the
public would understand who served but also would understand the
event.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like a chronology?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. Rather than do historic
photographs, because we've got them on almost every floor, let's tell
the public what these folks have done. And if that's your -- if that's
okay with you --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- then --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're going to group -- we're not
going to put it back up like in a -- like it used to be, like, you know, the
morgue, you know? It's not going to be just like picture, picture,
picture. You're going to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're going to feature -- how many are
you going to feature, ma'am?
Page 260
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you're going to put all of
them up, but you're just going to group them?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, group them on the wall, so
the first --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not in the same frames?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I know you were concerned
about that, and if you don't want the same frames, we won't do the
same frames.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're horrible.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But, you know, my thought was
to make sure that they're -- the name and the dates they served are
there and group them. For instance, there's a whole legion -- and I'm
not sure, Lee will know how many, my executive coordinator -- that
they served at large. There were no districts. Those folks are in a
group. And the most fascinating things happened when they served.
You know, that's the beginning of Collier County; that's the Tamiami
Trail. I mean, that's everything that we take for granted today. It's
very, very interesting when you get into it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't we, like, for example, if
you, say, had six in a period, like you could put, like, six over here, six
over here, and like, you know, maybe pictures of what Collier looked
like at that period of time with little -- like, a little history.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But also to put the events that
happened with the dates.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, if you make them come alive with
events, you're going to get people interested. Before we just had a list.
It was like, you know, going into the post office and seeing people up
on the wall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was like the FBI's most wanted.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And, I mean, maybe some of them were
Page 261
June 23, 2015
on the wall in the post office, I don't know. You can use your
discretion as to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. But, I mean, that
concept, are we okay with it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm fine with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When peacocks were roasted and
mullet were fried.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know, all through that
book, she has all these pages of history. I'm reading it now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you try one and, like, let
us take a look at one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You mean, reframing it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, one reframed set, you know,
like one reframed --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On this wall?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like one reframed period, and let's
look at it and see before we, like -- because there are so many of them.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm happy to defer to your skills and
judgment, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too, because this wall looks
barren now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well -- and then what I thought as
commissioners -- because we'll bring it up to date with who's sitting
here. And then, depending on how much room we have left, we may
add, but then we could actually come inside our reception room with
more current ones that have retired. So if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fine by me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. You've got the artistic talent.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Good. Here we go.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What else? Anything?
Page 262
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, but I just want you to know
that, you know, I'm on the Blue Zone Committee, and they have
determined -- they brought in a planner, who was very articulate, I
guess has worked with Mr. Hattaway before. They all seem to know
each other. And they basically said Collier County has been built on
sprawl, and it looks like that's the way it's going to go. So I will get
you that report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Collier County's been built on
sprawl.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Sprawl.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we haven't sprawled.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't think they know what sprawl is,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They don't know what sprawl is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, they -- but I'll get you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ride straight across the state and stop
when you get to the Atlantic and look around like this, and you'll see
sprawl.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So the concern is that it --
basically is we -- that if that patterns continues, basically they're, I
think, challenging the concept of maybe looking and changing a little
bit the way we develop. So I thought it was kind of interesting, and I'll
make sure everybody has that report.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're pretty lucky --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
I'm going to say one thing, because it needs to be done before
everybody leaves me to my own devices.
It's my understanding at our final meeting, our July 7th meeting,
staff is going to bring forth a list of LDC amendments to consider
working on for various and sundry reasons. So this is a list. And what
Page 263
June 23, 2015
I would like to do is I would like to get the nods of my fellow
commissioners to add one different LDC amendment to put on the list
for consideration in the fall, and that is the effort to remove the
conditional use for agri-tourism within the ag district.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: For some peculiar reason, agri-tourism is
a conditional use within the ag district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who did that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Why would they do that?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, ma'am, I don't know. I'm just
telling you that's the way it is, and I've actually got several people in
the agribusiness that would like to get into agri-tourism because they
feel like it's going to promote their business and promote --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's agri-tourism?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Agri-tourism is just letting people see
what it is that happens on farms and how food is produced and
promoting fresh food, and I think it feeds right into the Blue Zone
effort and everything else.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So I would like the nods of
commissioners to have staff add that particular LDC amendment on
the list for consideration in the fall, if it's fine by you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got four.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Other than that, I just want to thank you
for soldiering on and, you know, keep --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just say one last thing?
Page 264
June 23, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- keeping a good attitude throughout the
day. It was a tough day, but I think we did good work today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lift up your glasses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You look like a pirate.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I look like a pirate?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, Commissioner Fiala does with
that mug. I just wanted to quickly say I'm also involved with the Blue
Zone, and we've formed a food council which is made up of public and
private members, but it is a private group.
And one of the things that I committed to do is to work on food
policies that relate to Collier County Government, not standards that
would apply to outside of government, like, for example, looking at the
type of food that we sell at our food outlets to make sure we're selling,
you know, the right kind of foods, not unhealthy foods.
This is not about directing the private sector to eat or not eat fast
food or anything like that, but looking at the standards of what we sell
in our snack bars.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The county?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, our county. It's all
government -- it's like campus related.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So what are we going to do when
Commissioner Fiala wants her sea salt and hot sauce Doritos down
there and she can't get them anymore; what happens then?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We send her to some other
campus, but not ours. So we're going to develop a Blue Zone food
campus so that when people visit our government property, that the
choice of food that they're presented with will be healthy choices.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to put them out of business,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Quality, tasteful choices.
Page 265
June 23, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We should also let them serve things
that people want.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, believe it or not, I think
-- I mean, we do want to serve what people want, and what I have
found, very interestingly, is that people really do want to eat healthy.
It's amazing to me when you go through Collier County, like, the vast
majority of people really care about quality food.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I can tell you, it depends on if it's the
beginning or the end of the meeting. We're adjourned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
**** Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Taylor
and carried 4/1 (Commissioner Henning opposed) that the following
Items under the Consent and Summary Agendas (Except Item #17E)
be approved and/or adopted; Separate Motion for Item #17E made by
Commissioner Hiller and seconded by Commissioner Fiala —
Adopted 3/2 (Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Taylor
opposed) ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CORDOBA AT LELY RESORT,
PL20110001984 AND TO 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 - ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES STAFF PERFORMED A FINAL INSPECTION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 TO UNCOVER DEFECTS AND FOUND
THAT THE FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE
Page 266
June 23, 2015
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR LANTANA (FKA VITA TUSCANA),
PL20130000108 AND TO 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 - ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC
UTILITIES STAFF PERFORMED A FINAL INSPECTION APRIL
13, 2015 TO UNCOVER DEFECTS AND FOUND THAT THE
FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TURNBURY PRESERVE, PL20130002084,
AND TO 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 -
ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC UTILITIES STAFF PERFORMED
A FINAL INSPECTION MARCH 10, 2015 TO UNCOVER
DEFECTS AND FOUND THAT THE FACILITIES WERE
ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR AQUA PELICAN ISLE YACHT CLUB,
Page 267
June 23, 2015
PL20110002089, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $50,207.15 TO THE
PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT - ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC UTILITIES STAFF
PERFORMED A FINAL INSPECTION JULY 30, 2014 TO
UNCOVER DEFECTS AND FOUND THAT THE FACILITIES
WERE ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A5
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE LAMORADA AT NAPLES MASTER ASSOCIATION,
INC. FOR A LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE
WOODCREST DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY — INSURING THAT
THE MASTER ASSOCIATION WILL MAINTAIN THE SOD
AND IRRIGATION
Item #16A6
A COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT (AGREEMENT) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE BENT CREEK PRESERVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. FOR A LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
WITHIN THE WOODCREST DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY —
INSURING THAT THE HOA WILL MAINTAIN THE SOD AND
IRRIGATION
Item #16A7
Page 268
June 23, 2015
AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (DA)
BETWEEN CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 850 NWN LLC,
AND CG II, LLC (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY
(COUNTY) TO DESIGN, PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT A
PORTION OF CITY GATE BOULEVARD NORTH TO
PRESERVE THE FUTURE WILSON/BENFIELD
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR — PROVIDING ACCESS TO
THE RESOURCE RECOVERY PARK
Item #16A8
A PROPOSAL FROM CB&I COASTAL PLANNING &
ENGINEERING DATED JUNE 9, 2015 FOR COLLIER COUNTY
2015 HARDBOTTOM BIOLOGICAL MONITORING, APPROVE
A WORK ORDER UNDER CONTRACT NO. 15-6382 FOR A NOT
TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $163,112.20, AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE
WORK ORDER, NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT AND
MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM
(PROJECT NO. 90033) — TO DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS RESULTING FROM 2013/2014 BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT
Item #16A9
RELEASE OF (3) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A
COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $17,718.57 FOR PAYMENT
OF $4,768.57, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V.
SIDNEY JOHN HUBSCHMAN, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Page 269
June 23, 2015
CASE NO. CEPM20130019061 AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NOS. CENA20130019057 AND
CENA20140016288, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
2600 COACH HOUSE LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE CENA20130019057 WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
ON MARCH 26, 2014, CASE CEPM20130019061 WAS
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON MAY 13, 2014 AND CASE
CENA20140016288 WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
FEBRUARY 17, 2015
Item #16A10
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $347,269.89 FOR PAYMENT OF $2,500,
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. FABIAN AND MARIA
LUZARDO, CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
CASE NO. 2005010315, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1195 47TH AVENUE NE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
VIOLATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ON THE
PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMITS AND
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON FEBRUARY 27, 2015
Item #16A1 1
CATEGORY "A" TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL GRANT
APPLICATIONS FROM THE CITY OF NAPLES, THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FY-2015-2016
IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,145,522; AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN GRANT AGREEMENTS FOLLOWING
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL; APPROVE THE 10-YEAR
Page 270
June 23, 2015
CAPITAL PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR FUND 195-BEACH
RENOURISHMENT AND PASS MAINTENANCE; AND MAKE
A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES WILL PROMOTE
TOURISM — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Al2
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE 2015 TIGER VII
DISCRETIONARY GRANT APPLICATION, SPONSORED BY
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
FOR THE COLLIER BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,400,000
— IMPROVEMENTS FROM GREEN BOULEVARD TO I-75
Item #16A13
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE 2015 TIGER VII
DISCRETIONARY GRANT APPLICATION, SPONSORED BY
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
FOR THE COLLIER COMMUNITY STREETS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT ALONG VANDERBILT DRIVE,
$16,145,000 — FROM BONITA BEACH ROAD TO VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD
Item #16A14
MAINTENANCE OF FIVE PUBLICLY DEDICATED
ALLEYWAYS LOCATED WITHIN THE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE. ESTIMATED COST $1,000 — FOR THE DAVIS
ALLEY, KIRKWOOD ALLEY, COMMERCIAL ALLEY,
Page 271
June 23, 2015
LINWOOD ALLEY NORTH AND LINDWOOD ALLEY SOUTH
WITHIN THE NAPLES COMMERCIAL CENTER
Item #16A15
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PHASE 3 REPLAT, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150000534
Item #16A16 — Moved to Item #9C (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A17
THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING
ORGANIZATION'S (MPO) OPERATING BUDGET FOR FY15/16
TO RECOGNIZE THE GRANT REVENUE OF $499,791 — FOR
NEW FEDERAL FUNDING TO CONDUCT TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Item #16A18
FY15/16 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGE PLANNING
GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,941 TO THE
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
FROM THE COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT — FOR SPECIFIC PLANNING TASK WITH
FUNDING BEGINING JULY 1, 2015
Item #16A19
Page 272
June 23, 2015
WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVE
"CARTEGRAPH" FOR THE WORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SOFTWARE LICENSES AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE FOR
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT —
CONTINUING THE USE OF THE EXISTING MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
Item #16A20
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
FY 15/16 WORK ORDER WHEREBY FDOT PROVIDES
COMPENSATION TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR PROVIDING
MAINTENANCE OF FDOT OWNED ROADWAY LIGHTING
SYSTEMS UNDER THE STATE HIGHWAY LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE, AND COMPENSATION AGREEMENT —
FDOT PROVIDES 90% COMPENSATION FOR MAINTAINING
1,280 LIGHTS AT A PER LIGHT COMPENSATION RATE OF
$258.86 PER LIGHT, TOTALING $298,206.72
Item #16A21 — Language Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REVIEW OF THE APRIL 2015 BEACH SURVEY RESULTS AND
ENDORSE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO NOT
RENOURISH THE VANDERBILT, PELICAN BAY, PARK
SHORE OR NAPLES BEACHES IN THE FALL (NOVEMBER)
OF 2015
Item #16A22
RESOLUTION 2015-124: SUPPORTING THE COUNTY'S
APPLICATIONS TO FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
Page 273
June 23, 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR LONG RANGE
BUDGET PLAN REQUESTS FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT
PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016/2017. THIS ACTION
MAINTAINS THE COUNTY'S ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE COST
SHARE FUNDING FOR FUTURE RENOURISHMENT
PROJECTS
Item #16A23
RESOLUTION 2015-125: THE CONDEMNATION OF THOSE
PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE ON WHITE BOULEVARD OVER THE
CYPRESS CANAL. (TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 66066.)
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $570,000 — EFFECTING
PARCEL NOS. 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 AND 122
Item #16A24
(1) APPROVE THE REMOVAL OF A PATHWAY
COMMITMENT AND (2) ACCEPT A PAYMENT IN LIEU FOR
CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION COMMITMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE ARROWHEAD PRESERVE PUD
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-40, AS AMENDED — DUE TO THE
DEVELOPMENT BEING SOLD TO MULTIPLE PURCHASERS
AT A FORECLOSURE AUCTION
Item #16A25 — Correction to Agreement (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 274
June 23, 2015
AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) STAFF SERVICES
AGREEMENT — APPROVED BY THE MPO AT ITS JUNE 12,
2015 MEETING
Item #16C1
ADVERTISING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 2005-54, WHICH RE-ESTABLISHED TWO MUNICIPAL
BENEFIT UNITS, KNOWN AS SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1 AND
SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING AND REGULATING SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION, DISPOSAL AND ADMINISTRATION, TO
PROVIDE ALIGNMENT WITH THE FRANCHISE
AGREEMENTS AS AMENDED, NEW PROCEDURES,
CLARIFICATIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C2
AWARD BID #15-6461 TO PANTROPIC POWER, INC., IN THE
AMOUNT OF $357,569 TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL A
REBUILT DIESEL GENERATOR ENGINE AT THE NORTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT — A
REPLACEMENT IS NEEDED AFTER A LIGHTNING EVENT
CAUSED THE GENERATOR'S #2 ENGINE TO OVERHEAT
AND MALFUNCTION
Item #16D1
Page 275
June 23, 2015
THE THIRD SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE NSP 1
ACTION PLAN TO ADD THE RESALE PROVISION AND
FUNDING DISTRIBUTION LANGUAGE AND THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO THE NSP 3 ACTION PLAN REMOVING THE
RECAPTURE PROVISION AND ADDING RESALE
REQUIREMENTS — REVISIONS ARE NECESSARY AS
CLOSEOUT OF THE GRANTS APPROACH
Item #16D2
A WORK ORDER TO AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
USING THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES FOR ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS CONTRACT
#13-6164, FOR THE CLAM PASS PARK CONCESSION
ELECTRICAL SERVICE UPGRADE, APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMENT AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM — UPGRADES NEEDED
FOR SAFETY PURPOSES
Item #16D3
TIME EXTENSION TO CONTRACT NUMBER AQQ85, JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION UNDER THE STATE
TRANSIT SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE
FUNDING TO MAKE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS TO BUS
STOPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT — EXTENDED UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2016
Item #16D4
Page 276
June 23, 2015
THE FY 2016-2025 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEN-YEAR MAJOR UPDATE — AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D5 — Moved to Item #11H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D6
A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FY2014-2015 ANNUAL
ACTION PLAN AND APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 WITH
THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO
REDUCE AGREEMENT ALLOCATION AND BENEFICIARIES
AND UPDATE LANGUAGE
Item #16D7
AN EXTENSION TO EXPENDITURE DEADLINE ON FISCAL
YEAR 2011/2012 SHIP FUNDING GRANTED FROM THE
FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP)
PROGRAM — EXTENSION GRANTED UNTIL JUNE 30, 2015
Item #16D8
RECOGNIZING INTEREST EARNINGS ON ADVANCED
LIBRARY FUNDING RECEIVED FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT LIBRARY
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE USE OF COLLIER
COUNTY RESIDENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $629.54 AND
Page 277
June 23, 2015
APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS —
FUNDS WILL SUPPORT LIBRARY OPERATIONS AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16D9
REQUIRING THE ROCK ROAD MUNICIPAL SERVICE
TAXING UNIT (MSTU) TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A ONE
MILE SEGMENT OF ROCK ROAD AFTER BEING PAVED AND
CONTINUING THROUGH AND UNTIL THE COUNTY
FINANCED LOAN OF $285,000 IS SATISFIED BY THE MSTU
Item #16D10
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FOR THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE MENTAL HEALTH SUBSTANCE ABUSE
GRANT, AMENDMENTS TO THE TWO CORRESPONDING
SUBAGREEMENTS WITH THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER
AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ACCEPT
THE TERMINATION OF THE ASSOCIATED NAMI OF
COLLIER COUNTY AGREEMENT; AND APPROVE THE
AMENDED GRANT BUDGET AND APPLICATION — GRANT
AGREEMENT #LHZ46
Item #16D11
RESOLUTION 2015-126: SUPERCEDING RESOLUTION NO.
2014-141, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT (CAT) ADVERTISING POLICY, STANDARDS AND
RATE SCHEDULE AND APPROVE AN ADVERTISING
Page 278
June 23, 2015
AGREEMENT, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PACKAGE
RATES — TO UTILIZE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE FOR CAT
Item #16D12
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION AND THE
OPERATIONS AND VETERAN'S SERVICES DIVISION TO
ESTABLISH A PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF THE "WARRIOR
HEALTH AND FITNESS CHALLENGE." — PROVIDING
HEALTH AND FITNESS SERVICES FOR DISABLED POST-9/11
VETERANS LIVING IN COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D13
CONSERVATION COLLIER 2014 ANNUAL REPORT —
UPDATING CURRENT AND PAST ACTIVITIES
Item #16D14
FIVE-YEAR UPDATE OF THE FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER ALLIGATOR FLAG
PRESERVE — LOCATED AT 7875 IMOKALEE ROAD, TWO
MILES EAST OF I-75
Item #16D15 — Moved to Item #11G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D16
RESOLUTION 2015-127: THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND
OTHER INCENTIVE ACTIVITIES AND INCENTIVE PRIZES
ASSOCIATED WITH STAFF AND AUTHORIZING THE
Page 279
June 23, 2015
WAIVER OF ENTRANCE FEE TO SUN-N -FUN TO ALL
PARTICIPANTS OF THE 2015 UNITED WAY WALK — COST
NOT TO EXCEED $2,000
Item #16E1
THE ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM THE ORIGINAL
PARTY VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC., TO VISION
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A VISION INTERNET
PROVIDERS AS IT RELATES TO CONTRACT #14-6249
"COLLIER COUNTY WEBSITE AND E-PROCUREMENT
BIDDING SYSTEM HOSTING AND MAINTENANCE." — THE
COUNTY WAS NOTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 OF VISION
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC AQUIRING VISION
INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC.
Item #16E2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #15-6375R - AMBULANCE
PHARMACEUTICAL REFRIGERATORS TO MERMAID
MANUFACTURING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC —
PROVIDING TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED STORAGE FOR
MEDICATIONS
Item #16E3
REVENUE FOR SPECIAL SERVICES TO THE FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION COST CENTER AND APPROVE
ANY NECESSARY FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 BUDGET
AMENDMENTS — PROVIDING SERVICES FOR BUILDING
MAINTENANCE BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS
Page 280
June 23, 2015
Item #16E4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE REVENUE FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO
$8,200 FOR REPAIRS TO RESCUE BOAT 80 — FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF WATER RESCUE IN THE ISLES OF
CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT
Item #16E5 — Language Added (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
WAIVING COMPETITION FOR WESCO TURF AS A SOLE
SOURCE VENDOR TO EXCEED $50,000 SPENDING LIMIT
FOR FLEET MANAGEMENT PARTS/SERVICE -
MAINTAINING COMMERCIAL AND SPECIALIZED TORO
BRAND EQUIPMENT USED FOR GROUNDS KEEPING AND
LANDSCAPING WORK
Item #16E6
A THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE ROBERTS CENTER FOR THE
SENIORS NUTRITION PROGRAM — LOCATED AT 907
ROBERTS AVENUE IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16E7
STATE-FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT #1 6-BG-83-09-21-
01-011 ACCEPTING A GRANT AWARD TOTALING $105,806
FROM THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
Page 281
June 23, 2015
MANAGEMENT FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT AND APPROVE THE
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT — $75,806 IS
ALLOCATED FOR GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES
INCLUDING THE PURCHASE OF OFFICE SUPPLIES,
CONDUCTING DISASTER EXECERISES AND DAY TO DAY
OPERATIONS AND $30,000 IS ALLOCATED FOR
COMMUNICATION AND DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT,
SHELTER SUPPLIES AND MINOR OFFICE EQUIPMENT
Item #16E8
A FEDERALLY FUNDED SUBGRANT AGREEMENT TO
ACCEPT THE ANNUAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE GRANT (EMPG), IN THE AMOUNT OF
$103,468 FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING,
RESPONSE, AND MITIGATION EFFORTS AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT —
ACCEPTANCE OF THESE FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRE A
DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR NON-FEDERAL FUNDING MATCH
Item #16E9
A LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH DEANGELIS DIAMOND,
LLC, TO ALLOW THE USE OF COUNTY-OWNED REAL
PROPERTY ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLE PARKING — DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MEDICAL FACILITY WITHIN THE HERITAGE BAY PUD
Item #16F1
Page 282
June 23, 2015
THE APPOINTMENT OF MR. DAVID WILKISON TO THE
POSITION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEAD — EMPLOYMENT BEGINNING ON JULY 6, 2015
Item #16F2
A TRI-PARTY DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
WITH PARKLANDS ASSOCIATES I, LLLP, AND THE
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY TO
ALLOW PARKLANDS ASSOCIATES I, LLLP TO CONVEY A
15-ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE PARKLANDS RPUD FOR USE
AS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE IN EXCHANGE FOR
EDUCATIONAL IMPACT FEE CREDITS IN THE SUM OF
$2,050,000, WHICH EXCHANGE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS SET FORTH IN THE RPUD
DOCUMENT, AND WHICH SUM REPRESENTS THE
APPRAISED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PARCEL —
LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND SOUTH OF
BONITA BEACH ROAD ON THE PROPOSED LOGAN
BOULEVARD EXTENSION
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2015-128: THE SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT ON
THE "IMPACT FEE PROGRAM FOR EXISTING COMMERCIAL
REDEVELOPMENT" AND A RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE
PROGRAM TO JULY 1, 2016, BASED ON THE CONTINUING
INTEREST IN THE PROGRAM
Item #16F4
Page 283
June 23, 2015
AWARD RFP #15-6397 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL &
BIOLOGICAL STUDIES TO TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES,
INC., EARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, KEVIN ERWIN
CONSULTING ECOLOGIST, INC., PASSARELLA &
ASSOCIATES, INC., AND CB&I ENVIRONMENTAL &
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED
CONTRACTS — FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
WITHIN THE CLAM BAY NATURAL RESOURCE
PROTECTION AREA
Item #16F5
AWARD RFQ #15-6434 WEB BASED DESTINATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR A DATABASE SOFTWARE
SYSTEM TO INTERNET DESTINATION SALES SYSTEM
GLOBAL, LLC (IDSS) AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED CONTRACT
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ACTION PROMOTES
TOURISM — MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION COST IS $500 OR
$6,000 PER YEAR
Item #16F6 — Moved to Item #11I with added documentation
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F7
A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING
RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT UP TO
AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY —
BUDGET AMENDMENT #15-441 TO HIRE AN ELECTRICAL
Page 284
June 23, 2015
ENGINEER TO REVIEW THE CIP PLANS TO REPLACE
STREET LIGHTS
Item #16F8
RESOLUTION 2015-129: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F9
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING TO
SUPPORT UPCOMING FY 15 SPORTS EVENTS UP TO $47,200
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURES
PROMOTE TOURISM — FOR THE FOLLOWING UPCOMING
EVENTS: AAU ATHLETICS REGIONAL QUALIFIER (6/25-6/28)
AT GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL, THE SERIES BASEBALL
TOURNAMENT (JULY AND AUGUST) AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK, LITTLE MO REGIONAL TENNIS
TOURNAMENT (7/22-7/26) AT NAPLES GRANDE BEACH
RESORT, BLUE CHIP SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT (7/22-7/26)
AT NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL PARK, NAPLES CUP
SOCCER TOURNAMENT (9/18-9/20) AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK AND EWGA SOUTHERN CUP QUALIFIER
(9/19-9/20) AT TIBURON GOLF CLUB
Item #16F10
TOURISM DIVISION'S ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT
REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS FROM VISIT FLORIDA FOR
Page 285
June 23, 2015
MEDICAL MEETINGS MARKETING IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $28,476 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM
PROMOTES TOURISM
Item #16F11
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR
THE COUNTY'S SOFT LANDING BUSINESS ACCELERATOR
PROJECT TO EXTEND THE DUE DATES OF THE REMAINING
DELIVERABLES FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR — THE
AMENDMENT IS CONTINGENT UPON A PROPOSED
EXTENSION OF THE GRANT APPROPRIATION BY THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE APPROPRIATION'S APPROVAL BY
THE GOVERNOR
Item #16F12 — Moved to Item #11J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2015-130: RE-APPOINTING MAURICE
GUTIERREZ (MSTU REPRESENTATIVE) AND MICHAEL
SHERMAN (AT LARGE MEMBER) WITH TERMS EXPIRING
ON MAY 22, 2018 TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE
LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2015-131 : APPOINTING JEREMY STERK WITH
TERM EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 14, 2016 TO THE
Page 286
June 23, 2015
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16J1
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
FY 2016-2019 COPS HIRING PROGRAM GRANT — TO HIRE
ENTRY-LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR REHIRE
DEPUTIES LAID OFF AS A RESULT OF BUDGET CUTS
Item #16J2
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
FY 2016 COPS ANTI-GANG INITIATIVE (CAGI) PROGRAM
GRANT — FOR OVER-TIME AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE
MEMBERS OF THE ANTI-GANG UNIT
Item #16J3
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE
PERIOD OF JUNE 4 THROUGH JUNE 10, 2015
Item #16J4
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE
PERIOD OF JUNE 11 THROUGH JUNE 17, 2015
Item #16K1
Page 287
June 23, 2015
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$15,000 IN FULL SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS FOR
COMPENSATION, DAMAGES, ATTORNEY FEES AND
EXPERT WITNESS COSTS FOR THE TAKING OF PARCEL
250DAME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SANDY LANE
SEGMENT OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP), PROJECT NO. 51101 .
FISCAL IMPACT: $9,414 — LOCATED OFF OF POLLY AVENUE
Item #16K2
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED WITH THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS, IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $684,815 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 101 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. NAPLES ESTATES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., CASE NO. 06-CA-1213 AND
APPROVE THE HIRING OF HOLE MONTES, INC. TO SEEK
APPROVAL OF A POST TAKE CURE PLAN. (COUNTY BARN
ROAD PROJECT NO. 60101.) ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$403,515 — FOLIO #00426920007
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2015-35: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
Page 288
June 23, 2015
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT (A), AND A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN ST OVERLAY
(A-ST), TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 61 DWELLING
UNITS FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE LIDO ISLES
RPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD AT 9130 AND 9198 COLLIER
BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF
24.32+ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
[PUDZ-PL201400003 93]
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2015-36: ADOPTING THE FLORIDA BUILDING
CODE FIFTH EDITION (2014) TO BECOME EFFECTIVE ON
JUNE 30, 2015, AND INCORPORATE EXISTING LOCAL
AMENDMENTS, EXEMPTIONS AND THE CURRENT COUNTY
WIND MAPS, AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
ORDINANCE NO. 2012-14 IN ITS ENTIRETY
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2015-132: PETITION VAC-PL20140001887 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF 15TH STREET AS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF EASTOVER, PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE
97, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
Page 289
June 23, 2015
RANGE 29 EAST, IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17D
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JULY 7, 2015
BCC MEETING. RECOMMENDATION TO EXECUTE THE
PROPOSED MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
INTEGRATION AGREEMENT, WHICH INTEGRATES THE
ORANGE TREE UTILITY COMPANY WATER AND
WASTEWATER SYSTEMS INTO THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, TO PROVIDE WATER AND
WASTEWATER UTILITIES TO ORANGE TREE UTILITY
CUSTOMERS PURSUANT TO THE MAY 28, 1991
AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED, BETWEEN ORANGE TREE
UTILITY COMPANY, ORANGETREE ASSOCIATES AND THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY; ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORT DATED JUNE 23,
2015 PURSUANT TO SECTION 124.3401, FLORIDA STATUTES;
APPROVE EXISTING ORANGE TREE UTILITY CONTRACTS
AND AGREEMENTS WITH VENDORS AND SUPPLIERS AS
THOSE OF COLLIER COUNTY; APPROVE 9 FULL TIME
EQUIVALENT POSITIONS; APPROVE A RESOLUTION
CHANGING THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; AND APPROVE
INCLUSION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET IN THE FY16
COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT BUDGET
Item #17E — Moved to Item #9D (Per Agenda Change Sheet);
Remained on the Summary Agenda and voted on
separately
Page 290
June 23, 2015
ORDINANCE 2015-37: AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY PURCHASING ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NUMBER
2013-69) - ADOPTED
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
eAkce..-
TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
Attest as to Chairman's
signature only
These minutes approvd by the Board on q l /1s---
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT
REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC.
Page 291