BCC Minutes 10/27/2015 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
October 27, 2015
October 27, 2015
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 27, 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
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Troy Miller, Television Operations Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
`11.I it
r ia* -v.
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
October 27, 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 Develop. Chair
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Vice-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
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
Page 1
October 27, 2015
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. Reverend Beverly Duncan - Naples United Church of Christ
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.
B. September 22, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
C. October 6, 2015 - BCC/Median Landscape
Options/Sidewalks/Pathways/Complete Streets Presentation Workshop
Page 2
October 27, 2015
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating Collier County as a Purple Heart County and part
of the Purple Heart Trail. To be accepted by Dr. Debi Lux and Sean Lux.
B. Proclamation designating October 27, 2015, as the Nick Hale Day of
Remembrance in Collier County, in recognition of his devotion to our
community and country. To be accepted by Denise Hale, Homer Helter and
Bob Hoffman.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation to preview the Football University (FBU) event coming to
Collier County for the second year, December 19-22. This event is the
national championship games for 6th, 7th and 8th grade all-star football
players from all over the country. (Jack Wert, Collier County Tourism
Division Director).
B. Presentation of a check to the Board of County Commissioners for unused
fees distribution. Presented by Larry Ray, Collier County Tax Collector.
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
Item #8 and#9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to appoint the initial membership of the Growth
Management Oversight Committee.
Page 3
October 27, 2015
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to accept the School Board's direction to adopt the study
and the fee at 100%; and authorize the County Attorney to advertise for
future consideration an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, to provide for the incorporation by
reference of the impact fee study entitled the "Collier County School Impact
Fee Update Study," dated June 23, 2015, provide direction on the potential
phasing of the fee increases and amending Schedule Six of Appendix A
accordingly to reflect the revised rates, and providing for an effective date(s)
for the Education Facilities (School) Impact Fee Rates in accordance with
the notice period requirements of Section 163.31801(3)(d) Florida Statutes.
(Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Program Division Director)
B. Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to advertise for future
consideration an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance, to provide for the incorporation by reference of the
impact fee study entitled, "Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee
Update Study," dated September 25, 2015, amending Schedule Three of
Appendix A to reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact fee study and
providing for an effective date of November 16, 2015, for the Community
Parks Impact Fee rates and a delayed effective date of February 8, 2016, for
the Regional Parks Impact Fee rates in accordance with the notice period
requirements of Section 163.31801(3)(d) Florida Statutes. (Amy Patterson,
Impact Fee Program Division Director)
C. Recommendation to approve a Veterans Recognition Project through a
public private partnership with a nonprofit organization. (Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager)
D. Recommendation to accept a status report from the County Manager and
County Attorney as to the recent discussions with the North Collier Fire
Control and Rescue District concerning a new Interlocal Agreement and
consider contingency plans to maintain advanced life support (ALS) level of
service standards within that District. (Chief Walter Kopka, Emergency
Medical Services)
Page 4
October 27,2015
E. This item continued from the October 13, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to request that the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners, pursuant to the scope of services enumerated in the
Interlocal Agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the
Clerk of the Circuit Court, prepare and submit a payables report in the
format and content specified by the Board. (Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County
Manager)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the October 13, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation that the Board take no action to amend the Vehicle for
Hire Ordinance
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Current BCC Workshop Schedule.
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water facilities
for The Equestrian Center at Horse Creek,
PL2006050002/PL20110001996, and unconditional conveyance of a
portion of the water facilities and to authorize the County Manager, or
Page 5
October 27, 2015
his designee, release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and
Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of$31,464.86 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water facilities
for Esperanza at Tiburon, PL20140000327, and final conveyance of a
portion of the water facilities and to authorize the County Manager, or
his designee, release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and
Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of$14,701.10 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Brightling at Talis Park,
Application Number PL20110000242 with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained and authorizing the release
of the maintenance security.
4) Recommendation to grant final approval of the private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fairgrove at Talis Park,
Application Number PL20110002647 with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained and authorizing the release
of the maintenance security.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an Easement Use Agreement (Agreement) for Lot 52
according to the plat of Torino Replat as recorded at Plat Book 52,
Pages 76 through 77 of the Public Records of Collier County.
6) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to the Collier
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) FY 2015/16 Operating
Budget in the amount of$171,986.
7) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment Developer
Contribution Agreement with Ave Maria Development, LLLP, and a
First Amendment Interlocal Agreement with The Board of
Supervisors of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District, to
recognize the rescission of the Ave Maria DRI, to recognize the
Collier County Rural Land Stewardship program as a Statutory Rural
Page 6
October 27, 2015
Land Stewardship area pursuant to Florida Statute Section
163.3248(11), to recognize the revision to the Ave Maria SRA to add
600,000 square feet of light industrial/warehousing, to memorialize
the developer's prior commitment to relax the impact fee collection
use restriction, and to provide the ability to transfer or assign all or a
portion of the Road Impact Fee Credits to within Road District 5 or
adjacent Road Impact Fee Districts.
8) Recommendation to approve the release of a Code Enforcement Lien
with an accrued value of$231,800 for payment of$450, in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Kimberly M. Fry, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CESD20110003169, relating to property located at 6025 English Oaks
Lane, Collier County, Florida.
9) Recommendation to approve the short-list of professional engineering
consultants pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) #15-6418, CEI
Services for the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge Replacements Project and to
enter into negotiations between Collier County and AECOM
Technical Services, Inc. for "Construction Engineering and Inspection
(CEI) Services for Vanderbilt Drive Bridge Replacements Project."
(Project No. 66066).
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Collier County Landscape Maintenance Agreement (Agreement)
between Collier County and the Orchid Run Apartments, LLC,
developer of the Orchid Run Apartments, for landscape and irrigation
improvements within the Livingston Road Right-of-Way.
11) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Agreement between
Collier County and the Big Cypress National Preserve detailing the
terms of a combined effort to improve hydrologic conditions on the
wetlands and watersheds of a portion of the Big Cypress National
Preserve, in the vicinity of Birdon and Turner River Roads.
12) Recommendation to approve and execute a Florida Highway
Beautification Council Grant, Landscape Construction, and
Maintenance Agreement with the Florida Department of
Transportation in which Collier County will be reimbursed $100,000
for median irrigation and landscaping improvements on State Road
Page 7
October 27, 2015
951, to approve a Resolution in support, authorize the necessary
budget amendments.
13) Recommendation to approve an Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement
for the roadway segment of Immokalee Road from Logan Boulevard
North to Ibis Cove, with the volunteer group, First Congregational
Church of Naples, Inc.
14) Recommendation to grant a well easement and an access and
maintenance easement to the South Florida Water Management
District for the installation and maintenance of groundwater
monitoring wells on one of the stormwater retention and treatment
pond sites recently acquired as part of the four-laning of Golden Gate
Boulevard between Wilson Boulevard and 20th Street East. (Project
No. 60040). Fiscal Impact: None.
15) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Settlement and
Agreement with the Pelican Marsh Community Development District
(District) accepting the transfer of property to Collier County with the
assumption of maintenance responsibilities for the south wall and the
landscaping and irrigation system located thereon; and the final
disposition of code enforcement cases against the District.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve two CRA Resolutions relating to the
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board which would: 1)
revise its bylaws as established by CRA Resolution 2001-98; 2) retain
the members currently appointed to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency as members of the Advisory Board; and 3)
repeal Resolution No. 08-345 as obsolete. The effective date of the
Resolutions will coincide with the repeal of the Florida Enterprise
Zone Act on December 31, 2015. (This item is a companion to Item
#17D).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve a $402,000 work order to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., under Request for Quotation #14-6213-45 for
Underground Utility Contracting Services for the Wastewater Pump
Page 8
October 27,2015
Station 302.09 Improvement Project (Project Number 70046).
2) Recommendation to approve a $449,800 work order to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., under Request for Quotation #14-6213-43R,
for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant Lime Slaker
Replacement and Modifications (Project Number 71065).
3) Recommendation to approve Amendment 1 to Contract #11-5782
with CDM Smith, Inc., in the amount of$697,313, for Basin 101 of
the "Wastewater Basin Program" for professional engineering
services associated with the bidding phase and construction phase.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Release of Declaration of Restrictions
placed on a 2007 Community Development Block Grant project with
the Collier County Housing Authority for public improvements and
exterior rehabilitation to housing units at Farm Worker Village and
Horizon Village in Immokalee, Florida.
2) Recommendation to approve the placement of turtle sculpture(s) on
Collier County properties to support the "Turtles on the Town"
community arts project which will take place from November 2015 to
March 2016. These turtles will be provided by the United Arts
Council in collaboration with the Naples Community Foundation and
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Naples Community
Hospital, Inc. to grant easements for three parcels, 339BSE1,
339BSE2, and 339BSE3, for the purpose of providing Transit Bus
Stop Improvements and to accept the easements conveying 750 square
feet. Fiscal Impact: $100.
4) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid No. 15-6483 to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., for construction of the "East Naples
Community Park Soccer Field," in the amount of$573,641, approve
the necessary budget amendment, and authorize the Chairman to
execute contract.
5) Recommendation to approve seven sub-recipient agreements for
Page 9
October 27, 2015
projects previously approved in the FY 2015-16 Action Plan for the
Community Development Block Grant and Emergency Solutions
Grant Programs.
6) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the removal of
aged accounts receivable in the amount of$129,613.23, considered
uncollectible or should otherwise be removed from the financial
records of the Collier County Public Library in accordance with
Resolution No. 2006-252.
7) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact Amendment and
Attestation Statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc. for the Older Americans Act Program Title III programs
and budget amendments to ensure continuous funding for FY 2015
(Fiscal Impact $33,101.95).
8) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact contract, attestation
statement and budget amendment award for the Nutrition Services
Incentive Program from Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc. (Net Fiscal Impact $38,255.)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the termination and release of temporary
construction easements acquired for the water facilities construction in
the case entitled Collier County v. Chris A. Stoneburner and Joseph
D. Bonness III, as Trustees of the Willow Run Land Trust, et al.
2) Recommendation to approve an amendment to Contract #11-5673,
Disaster Debris Removal and Disposal Services, with all three
vendors: AshBritt, Inc., TAG Grinding Services, Inc., and Crowder-
Gulf Joint Venture, Inc., extending the term of the contract up to one
hundred and eighty (180) days or until a new contract is awarded.
3) Recommendation to approve Letters of Understanding authorizing the
placement of excess Products and Completed Operations Insurance
through the Phillips 66 Branded Dealers Excess Liability Insurance
Program at no cost to the County.
4) Recommendation to reject all vendors' bids for Invitation to Bid #15-
Page 10
October 27, 2015
6474 Medical Oversight of the County's Occupational Health
Program (Part A) and Employment Physicals & Drug Testing (Part
B).
5) Recommendation to approve Airbus Helicopters, Inc. as the sole
source provider of parts for the County's air ambulance helicopter for
a period of five (5) years ending September 30, 2020.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for non-
emergency inter-facility ambulance transports to Just Like Family
Concierge Medical Transport Services, LLC., for the purpose of
providing post-hospital and inter-facility medical ambulance transfer
services.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget.
2) 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.
3) Recommendation to award RFP #15-6419 Sports Facilities
Assessment to Hunden Strategic Partners, Inc. in the amount of
$70,000, authorize the Chairman to execute the County Attorney
approved agreement and make a finding that this expenditure
promotes tourism.
4) Recommendation to renew the Sublease Agreement with Economic
Incubators, Inc. of the Lease with Kraft Office Center LLC for
dedicated office space to house the County's Soft Landing Business
Accelerator program.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Page 11
October 27, 2015
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To provide to the Board of County Commissioners the Clerk of the
Circuit Court's Internal Audit Report 2015-8 Fee Payment Assistance
Program: Arthrex Manufacturing, Inc., Arthrex, Inc., and RES Collier
Holdings, LLC, issued on October 14, 2015.
2) Report to the Board regarding the investment of County funds as of
the quarter ended September 30, 2015.
3) Recommendation to authorize execution of the grant award for the
Collier County Sheriff's Office FY2015-2016 InVEST grant award in
the amount of$105,035 and appropriate a budget amendment.
4) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between October 1 and October 14, 2015 pursuant to Florida
Statute 136.06.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement in the
amount of$462,500 as total compensation for Parcels 136FEE1 and
136FEE2 in the case styled Collier County v. Grover C. Woody, et al.,
Case No. 15-CA-00199, which was condemned as part of the Golden
Gate Boulevard Road Widening Project, Project No. 60040. (Fiscal
Impact: $357,436).
2) Recommendation to approve a Corrective Statutory Deed from Collier
County to Citygate Development LLC, which would waive the
Page 12
October 27,2015
automatic phosphate, metals, minerals and petroleum reservation by
virtue of Sec. 270.11(1), F.S. for the 2.226 acre parcel deeded to
Citygate Development LLC in 2006 (Fiscal Impact: $0)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL20150001622, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public
interest in the two (2) drainage easements recorded in Official Record Book
4865, pages 2237-2240 of the public records of Collier County, Florida,
located along the east and west boundary of Carolina Commons, Plat Book
48, pages 78-79, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an amendment to
Ordinance Number 03-54, as amended, the Royal Palm International
Academy Planned Unit Development (PUD), by increasing the number of
dwelling units from 550 to 600; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41,
the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an
additional 15.35± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Royal
Palm International Academy PUD; by revising the development standards;
by amending the master plan; and adding deviations and revising developer
commitments. The property is located on Livingston Road in Section 13,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of
Page 13
October 27,2015
178± acres; and by providing an effective date [Petition: PUDR-
PL20140002683].
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget.
D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 95-22, as
amended, relating to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
(This item is a companion to Item #16B1)
18. ADJOURN
Inquiries concerning changes to the Board's Agenda should be made to the County
Manager's Office at 252-8383.
Page 14
October 27, 2015
October 27, 2015
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen, and welcome to the Board of County Commission meeting
of October 27th.
At this time, I would like to request that each of you turn your
electronic devices and phones to silent so we can have an orderly
meeting.
At this time I would ask each of you to rise for the invocation, to
be followed by the pledge. Today's invocation is going to be delivered
by Reverend Beverly Duncan of the Naples United Church of Christ.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY REVEREND BEVERLY DUNCAN FROM
NAPLES UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST — INVOCATION GIVEN
REVEREND DUNCAN: Good morning. Let us be in prayer
together.
God of our rest time and our work time, wake us now and move
us through this day, urging us to listen, to learn and to love, even when
we'd rather not. Shine on our Commissioners, lighting their way
forward along the path of service to the citizens of Collier County.
Breathe your justice and fairness into their process and their decisions.
With thanksgiving for any and all who serve our community and our
country we ask a blessing on them. So may we all go out each and
every day, Creator God, to be the guides and guardians of your
creation and your people in all we do. Amen, Salaam and Shalom.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Page 2
October 27, 2015
Mr. Ochs, would you lead us through today's agenda changes.
Item #2A
MOTION TO MOVE ITEM #16E6 TO ITEM #11F — APPROVED;
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting of October 27th, 2015.
The first proposed change is to continue Item 16.A.7 from your
consent agenda to the November 10th, 2015 BCC meeting. This is a
recommendation to approve an amendment to a developer contribution
agreement with the Ave Maria Development, LLLP. That request is
made by Commissioner Nance.
We have one agenda note this morning, Commissioners. That
relates to Item 10.A under Board of County Commissioners. And the
note is that Mr. Weisinger is also an eligible applicant in the rural lands
stewardship area category. There are four categories of eligible
applications on that item that you'll speak to in a few moments. He's
already listed as eligible in two of those, but we've learned that he also
meets the qualifications under the Rural Land Stewardship Area. So
that note is made by the staff as a clarification.
We have two time certain items, both in the morning. The first is
Item 12.A. That is the Vehicle for Hire Ordinance discussion. That
will be heard at 10:00 a.m. That's at Commissioner Henning's request.
And then Item 11.E, that is the item having to do with the
Page 3
October 27, 2015
interlocal agreement between the Board and the Clerk of the Circuit
Court. And that item will be heard at 11: 15 a.m. this morning. And
that request was made by Commissioner Hiller.
Couple of reminders: We have our court reporter breaks
normally scheduled for 10:30 and 2:50 in the afternoon. And public
comments on general topics not on the current or future agenda are
heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m. or at the conclusion of the agenda,
whichever occurs first.
Those are all the changes that I have this morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. At this time, we will go to
the Board for any additional changes to today's agenda, and for
ex-parte communication on today's consent and summary agenda.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Start with me, huh? Yes, just on
16.D.2, this is just a notice to the Board and to the community that I
am photographing the Turtles on the Town, all 50 of them. And I
photographed actually the original bronze. This is a pro-bono issue,
and I'm not collecting any money for it, but I just thought I needed to
put that out there.
And then on Item 16.E.6, which is the Just Like Family, I have
discussed -- I've had meetings and phone calls and a letter regarding
this. And there is no -- there are no more changes and no more
disclosures. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir. I have no corrections, no
additions on the entire agenda.
On the consent agenda, I have one declaration and that is on
16.A.6, and that is Just Like Family Concierge Medical Transport
Service. I've had meetings and correspondence and emails. And some
of the meetings and emails were from Steve Epright and Elisabeth
Page 4
October 27, 2015
Nassberg. Also a meeting with Burt Saunders. And I've spoken to
staff about it.
And that's the only thing I have to declare.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. I have had likewise
communication with Mr. Saunders regarding the Just Like Family
agenda item. I have no other changes and no other ex-parte for today's
consent or summary agenda.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda. And I,
like you all, have had communications on 16.E.6. I've had meetings,
correspondence and calls. And otherwise, no other disclosures.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ditto.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
I believe we have one public speaker on a consent agenda item,
Mr. Miller, is that true?
MR. MILLER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, that number has grown
to three speakers on Item 16.E.6.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Derrick Rooney. He'll be
followed by Michael Grant.
MR. ROONEY: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is
Derrick Rooney, law firm of GrayRobinson, representing Ambitrans
today on Item 16.E 6.
I'm here to request that you pull Item 16.E 6 from the consent
agenda. According to your Code Section 50-57, the decision on a
COPCN requires a public hearing, we believe, as a matter of
procedure. The language used in your code regarding ex-parte
communications, findings of fact and the swearing in of witnesses, we
believe that it requires at least a quasi judicial consideration or, the
alternative, an appointment of a hearing officer to hear the matter.
Page 5
October 27, 2015
At this time, in case you do not pull the item, let me please
summarize our concerns with regard to this application.
First, there's no established need. Ambitrans is your current
interfacility provider. Based on our data, 98.6 of all calls to Ambitrans
are answered. That means 64 out of 4,558 in 2058 (sic), were received
and responded to by Ambitrans. Those remaining items tend to have
less than 20 minutes' necessary call time. And based on the location of
ambulances and other availability, we were not able to respond to
those services and EMS had to fill in the gap.
We believe Just Like Family Concierge provides a valuable
service, we do. But they are engaged in non-medical transport, which
is a growing field. The addition of ALFs and other facilities is an
entirely different matter than what's necessary for ALS and BLS
interfacility transport.
We're concerned also that by their own admission that Concierge
Medical is a start-up; that they have provided the requirements for
Code, the bare minimum. They have met the application requirements.
They have indicated mostly anecdotal information with regard to need.
As we have expressed, we are addressing the need within Collier
County. And they have also raised issues with regards to their ability
to provide. And it's all aspirational: We will get training, we will
provide vehicles.
What they're only proposing at this time is that sometime
one-third of the way through the year they will provide one vehicle.
How is one vehicle going to support any gaps in the need?
We believe they are thinly capitalized, that their application lacks
sufficient detail, that they have no emergency or disaster plan or
facilities. We believe that they will impact negatively Ambitrans'
ability to serve Collier County.
Just as we speak, we are moving forward, expanding our
operations, looking to the addition of four additional ambulances in
Page 6
October 27, 2015
Collier County as the season approaches and growth continues.
How are we to determine our planning needs and infrastructure
requirements should we be forced to decide whether or not an available
-- I would ask for a few more minutes, please.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir, I'm sorry. Let's go forward, and let's
see what the Commissioners have to say.
First of all, Mr. Klatzkow, could you give us some guidance on
the necessity for a public hearing on this item, in your opinion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. At this point in time, since you've got
opposition to it, I'd recommend there be a public hearing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All right. Let's go to
Commissioners. Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If there's going to be a public
hearing, then I don't think there should be further discussion, and
everybody should be sworn in, you know, under the agenda item and
discussion should continue in that vein.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Isn't there a requirement, Mr. Klatzkow,
to advertise a public hearing? Shouldn't we not continue this to the
next meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the question should be posed to the
applicant. I don't know if the applicant is prepared to present at this
time. If the applicant's not prepared to present, then I would put it over.
If we have all parties here, then you can hear it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What law firm did you say you were
with, sir?
MR. MILLER: GrayRobinson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that the same one that Burt
Saunders works for?
MR. ROONEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is the applicant ready to be -- okay,
Page 7
October 27, 2015
they're ready. Then I think we should just move it to the regular --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What's the pleasure of the Board on this,
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's move it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If we have to move it, then we will.
But if we don't have to, then I don't think we should.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm just concerned that all parties have
an opportunity to be aware that there's going to be a hearing on this
issue, and I don't think that's clear at this point.
MR. KLATZKOW: You're saying two separate things, I think.
The purpose of consent is a routine matter, noncontroversial. You now
have a controversial matter, so this is appropriate for a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then let's move it. I'll make a
motion that we move it to the general agenda.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Mr. Ochs, we're going to move
this to the regular agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, you have two additional public
speakers. We'll simply defer them to the regular hearing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. If that's --
Page 8
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And swear them in.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, at that time.
MR. MILLER: Should I afford the first speaker time at the
regular hearing?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I think we should move those
requests to the public hearing, unless the Board feels otherwise. If
that's acceptable to everyone, we'll just do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that
this is going to be heard after 1 :00 p.m., or are we going to hear it this
morning? Because since everyone's here, I think as a courtesy hearing
it this morning would be the right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have no objection.
Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: That's fine with me, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's assign it a number and we'll move
right to that item, if everybody agrees to do that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's great.
MR. OCHS: That will become then Item 11.F under your County
Manager regular agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: Leo, do you have your staff here to handle
this?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, let's begin with 11.F.
MR. OCHS: You want to take that in order, Commissioner, or
are you -- we should do the ceremony.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm getting ahead of
myself. Let's just go ahead and call that 11.F, and we will move on to
the approval of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance, can I make
a suggestion that instead of having it as 11.F, if we are going to go in
Page 9
October 27, 2015
order, that 11.A be moved -- you know, that it become the first item
under the County Manager, so that after you go through presentations
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We'll just make it right after the
proclamations and presentations. We'll just move right to 11.F.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's my point. Thanks.
Page 10
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 27,2015
Continue Item 16A7 to the November 10,2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation to approve a First
Amendment Developer Contribution Agreement with Ave Maria Development,LLLP,and a First
Amendment Interlocal Agreement with The Board of Supervisors of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community
District,to recognize the rescission of the Ave Maria DRI,to recognize the Collier County Rural Land
Stewardship program as a Statutory Rural Land Stewardship area pursuant to Florida Statute Section
163.3248(11),to recognize the revision to the Ave Maria SRA to add 600,000 square feet of light
industrial/warehousing,to memorialize the developer's prior commitment to relax the impact fee collection
use restriction,and to provide the ability to transfer or assign all or a portion of the Road Impact Fee Credits
to within Road District 5 or adjacent Road Impact Fee Districts. (Commissioner Nance's request)
Note:
Item 10A: Mr.Max"Jaime"Weisinger is also an eligible applicant in the Rural Land Stewardship Area
category.
Time Certain Request:
Item 12A to be heard at 10:00 a.m. (Commissioner Henning's request)
Item 11E to be heard at 11:15 a.m. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
11/13/2015 8:55 AM
October 27, 2015
Item #2B & #2C
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2015
AND MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 6, 2015 BCC MEDIAN/
LANDSCAPE OPTIONS/SIDEWALKS/PATHWAYS/COMPLETE
STREETS PRESENTATION WORKSHOP — APPROVED BY
CONSENSUS
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If there are no objections from the
Board, the regular meeting minutes of September 22nd of the BCC and
the meeting minutes of the October BCC, Median, Landscape Options,
Sidewalks, Streets, presentation workshop could be approved by
unanimous consent, if there are no objections.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. We'll call those approved by
unanimous consent, and move to today's proclamations, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, just one area of
clarification on --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Approval of the agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He just did that.
Just for confirmation, the agenda --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Want to approve today's agenda and
consent and summary agendas as amended.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
Page 11
October 27, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Commissioner Henning, for
my --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, just a point of procedure, you have a
10:00 a.m. time certain item. If you take up this add-on item after your
proclamations and presentations, if it runs beyond 10:00, will you stop
and move into the next -- will you stop and have your --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Why don't we take that one immediately
after the 10:00 a.m. time certain.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT BOTH
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING COLLIER COUNTY AS A
PURPLE HEART COUNTY AND PART OF THE PURPLE HEART
TRAIL. ACCEPTED BY DR. DEBI LUX AND SEAN LUX —
ADOPTED
Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 4.A this morning. That's a
proclamation designating Collier County as a Purple Heart County,
and part of the Purple Heart Trail. To be accepted by Dr. Debi Lux
and Sean Lux.
If you'd please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
Page 12
October 27, 2015
MR. LUX: You know, this -- being part of the --
MR. OCHS: Identify yourself, sir.
MR. LUX: I'm sorry. I'm Sean Lux with Collier County Honor
Flight. And we brought Mr. Tim Timrud here to accept the
proclamation on behalf of all those in the County who have served and
all those who have earned a Purple Heart.
You see Mr. Timrud, who we just had up there, he served in
World War II, earned a Purple Heart, served in Korea, earned a Purple
Heart, and also served in Vietnam, where he was also wounded. So
he's my favorite Marine, and I couldn't think of a better person to
accept this proclamation. So thank you, Tim, thank you for your
service.
And this is just truly a step to really recognize the sacrifice of all
of our veterans in the County. So thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 27, 2015, AS THE
NICK HALE DAY OF REMEMBRANCE IN COLLIER COUNTY,
IN RECOGNITION OF HIS DEVOTION TO OUR COMMUNITY
AND COUNTRY. ACCEPTED BY DENISE HALE, HOMER
HELTER AND BOB HOFFMAN — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation designating October 27,
2015 as the Nick Hale Day of Remembrance in Collier County, in
recognition of his devotion to our community and our country. To be
accepted by Denise Hale, Homer Helter, and Bob Hoffman. If you'd
please step forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MR. HOFFMAN: I'm Bob Hoffman, and I'm the president of the
Page 13
October 27, 2015
Reserve Officers Association, a Marine -- congratulations, sir -- and a
veteran of Vietnam, company commander and so forth.
But anyway, on behalf of the family, Denise and children, and
Homer, who -- Colonel Hale hung out there so much, and it was his
favorite place daily to go to. Someplace where veterans, people of like
mind, people who were patriotic people, who stood for their country.
And that's certainly what he did.
Colonel Hale was an honored member of the Reserve Officers
Association, past president a couple of times, but always came. He
was, I would like to say, a friend. I would like to have been closer. He
was a quiet man, a distinguished man, a man who stood for principles.
And for you to honor him, I wish to thank you, as we should honor our
heroes. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Nick Hale was an amazing
man. In fact, he was the most principled man I knew.
About being quiet, I would have to respectfully disagree. He
never stopped talking to me, never stopped telling me how bad the
county was. Never stopped telling me how much it had to be fixed,
and never stopped telling me that I had to do it. And that was right
after I became best friends with his wife, and his wife told me, I'd like
to introduce you to my husband, but if he starts talking about the
county, feel free to ignore him.
So we went over -- for months she kept me away from him. And
then one day she brought me home, and he was there and we sat down,
and that was the beginning of a lifelong friendship. And I ran because
of him. He's going to be sorely missed.
And Denise and your whole family, I love you all.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could get a motion to approve
today's proclamations, please?
Page 14
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve today's
proclamations.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Second.
Motion and a second to approve the proclamations.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, by the way, he was wrong
about how bad the county was. It wasn't that bad.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION TO PREVIEW THE FOOTBALL UNIVERSITY
(FBU) EVENT COMING TO COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE
SECOND YEAR, DECEMBER 19-22. THIS EVENT IS THE
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES FOR 6TH, 7TH AND 8TH
GRADE ALL-STAR FOOTBALL PLAYERS FROM ALL OVER
THE COUNTRY — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we move on to Item 5.A this
morning. This is a presentation to preview the FBU football university
event coming to Collier County for the second year, on December 19th
through the 22nd. This event is the national championship games for
the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade all-star football players from all over the
country.
Page 15
October 27, 2015
Jack Wert, your Tourism Division Director, will begin the
presentation.
Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: Thank you, Mr. County Manager, and good
morning, Commissioners. For the record, Jack Wert, your Tourism
Director.
And on my ongoing quest to bring you continuing good news
about things happening in the community, as County Manager Ochs
indicated, this is year two of the Football University, FBU, as we call it
for short, national championships for the 6th, 7th, and 8th grade
all-stars from all over the country.
Very pleased that we're able to bring this event here again for the
second year. Frankly, we want to keep it for a number of years. So our
purpose today is really just to show a short video. I do have a couple
of very distinguished guests with me who might add a couple of
words.
First of all, Mr. Steve Quinn, who is no stranger to our
community, and Steve is with the FBU national organization; but also
the organizer of the local Gators youth football league that plays most
of their games at Fleischmann Park.
We also have Coach Kramer from our Naples High School. And,
Coach, great to see you. And in a tie to boot. Very nice, excellent.
And, finally, Randy Smith, with Naples Transportation. All three
of those gentleman are part of our local organizing committee. It takes
a big group to put this event on. And as you'll see, it's a pretty big deal.
So I'm going to play the video quick, and then a couple of words
from each of them.
(Video played.)
MR. WERT: Okay. Exciting event. Absolutely great for youth
football. Great for our community as well.
So we're not asking for anything today other than just excitement,
Page 16
October 27, 2015
as we are excited about bringing this event back to our community.
I would just like you to make note that you will be receiving an
invitation to attend a reception on Saturday, the 20th of December to
meet with some of the parents and the athletes that are coming here to
our community. Great opportunity I think to join that. It's going to be
part of a parade downtown, 5th Avenue, as well, and a BBQ to follow.
So it's going to be a great kickoff to a wonderful weekend of sports.
So without further adieu, I'd like to bring up Steve Quinn just for
a couple of quick remarks about the event and how it kind of ties in
with all of youth football and what's going on in our community.
MR. QUINN: Thanks, Jack. I appreciate you guys having me
here this morning. My name is Steve Quinn. I'm actually the VP of
All American Games and actually a Naples resident, so it's very
exciting for me to be standing here today and bring this great event to
Naples, Florida.
Just to give you some quick background, if you'd heard the Little
League World Series of baseball before, this is what the Little League
World Series of youth football is.
And so our vision as a company has always been to make a
destination spot very similar to Williamsport, Virginia, where the Little
League World Series of baseball is, and what a better city than Naples,
Florida to do that.
Last year, I'm not sure if Jack mentioned, but the economic
impact to the City was over $3.5 million in our first year. And so we're
in our last year of our agreement. The company, All American Games,
is in the last year of our agreement with Naples. So our goal, Jack and
my goal, is to make sure this stays here for a long, long time. So we
might be coming back with future things to talk to you guys about.
But also, I wanted to bring up Coach Kramer, who's had an
opportunity to be a part of this for the last couple of years. We also
run what's called the U.S. Army All-American Bowl. It's a high school
Page 17
October 27, 2015
all-American game that pits the top 100 players in the country in an
east versus west format. And last year, Naples had a 30-second
commercial on there, talking about the beautiful facilities that we have
here. Over two million people watched the game across the world,
45,000 people in the stands.
And this year actually Tyler Bird, who is one of Coach Kramer's
players, is going to be playing in the game and Coach Kramer is going
to be the head football coach in the U.S. Army all-American game,
again, seen by two million people.
So it's very exciting. We're excited to actually have this here and
have a big part of Naples, and we hope to have all you guys out there
to actually see this event and make sure that we keep this here for
many, many years to come.
But I wanted to bring up Coach Kramer just to talk briefly about
his experience with All-American Games.
Coach?
MR. KRAMER: Good morning, everybody. It's good to see you
all.
This is a cool thing. And I have to tell you, I was a skeptic. I do
nothing with youth football. And they wanted to use our facility. And
this is not quid pro quo, I knew I was going to be the head coach a long
time ago, this year, for this football game. I had been an assistant three
years ago at the Army All-American game, and that was remarkable.
And then the Army brought me back as a consultant the following
year, and that was remarkable.
And so here's what I can tell you, a couple of things. One, we
don't have to worry about traction. It's already on NBC Sports
Network. It's going. It was in San Antonio for years before it came
here. The question is, are we going to be enthusiastic enough about it
that they say, hey, we want to do this in Naples every year?
I was amazed to meet parents in the stands -- because it was at
Page 18
October 27, 2015
Naples High School they asked for our facility. And I am very
protective, so I was there as much as I could be while it was here. And
I'm talking to parents, and they weren't even from teams that were in
the games, but because they thought they were going to be in the
championship they were optimistic and made plans to come to Naples
and followed through on that. I thought that was awesome for our
economy and for our area. And once you come to -- come on, you
came to Collier County, where else are you going to go in December
or January?
So I want to tell you two things: One, they are attention-to-detail
folks. I am too. And when they say they're going to do something,
they do it, and they do it first-class. And that is invaluable to me.
And two: Again, we don't have to worry about traction. This is
going to happen somewhere, and I felt like if it's going to happen
somewhere, why not have it happen here? There's no better place to do
anything, especially during our winter months. So I wholeheartedly
now support it. Although I was a skeptic, I am no longer that. And I
encourage you to do the same. Come on out and see it, check it out for
yourself, and I think you'll agree with me. Thanks.
MR. SMITH: Good morning. Randy Smith. I'm here on behalf
of the Collier County Lodging and Tourism Alliance, of which I'm
their president. We represent about every hotel in Collier County and
about 50 local tourism-related businesses and thousands of employees.
And just want to let you know how much we support this event.
It comes at a slow period in Naples, in December, when the hotels
need the business, the restaurants, the retailers, the attractions. So we
hope you will continue to support this wonderful event. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Wert.
One moment, I'm going to go to Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jack, thank you. And gentlemen,
Page 19
October 27, 2015
thank you.
As you know, I'm passionate about sports, and you know I love
football. Anything that promotes sports, anything that promotes sports
and youth, anything that promotes this community is a good thing. So
whatever we can do, I believe, and I'm sure the rest of the Board feels
the same way, that anything we can do to help to ensure that this
program stays in Collier County is something that is a worthwhile
initiative to support.
So please reach out to us. You know, if there's anything I can do,
let me know. And thank you very much to Naples High for providing
the facility.
And I will say, Go Cougars, just as an aside, for what it's worth.
And Noles, and Patriots, et cetera, et cetera. But we won't go there,
because I get a little emotional and a little passionate when it comes to
football. But thank you very much, and you're doing a fabulous job.
Do we have a marketing representative, a sports marketing
representative yet?
MR. WERT: Well, we have one on staff now. We're recruiting
the second one right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think that's really
important. We need to get it done. That's a budgeted item, right, Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we need to aggressively
pursue the best person we can and keep promoting all the sports events
that we can in Collier County, because we're all about that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Ditto to everything you just said. That was perfect.
And, Jack, I want to congratulate you and your whole team for
Page 20
October 27, 2015
really putting the spotlight on sports. Now we're going to have this
great event, which sounds absolutely wonderful. And we have to keep
them here. And then we're going to have the National Pickleball
Tournament in April, and so that's another thing. First time ever.
So, you know, you're doing good work there, you and your team.
Give them a pat on the back from me, please. All of us.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a little announcement here.
We have a major crosstown rivalry coming up on Friday night.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're going to crush you. I just
want you to know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm in a very uncomfortable position
right here, so I'm going to back up and let this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're smart.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Coach, have you got anything to
say about that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're on the record, I would be
very careful.
MR. KRAMER: I can guarantee that in the event that Barron
Collier wins -- and for the record, we love Barron Collier and Naples
High School, I have to say that. I've loved them for 17 consecutive
years.
So in the event that Barron Collier wins, they will definitely not
crush Naples High.
MR. OCHS: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Wert, gentlemen.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I was going to say, any bets on the
table? But I'm not going to go there.
Page 21
October 27, 2015
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF A CHECK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR UNUSED FEES DISTRIBUTION.
PRESENTED BY LARRY RAY, COLLIER COUNTY TAX
COLLECTOR — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that moves us to Item 5.B this
morning. This is a presentation of a check to the Board of County
Commissioners for unused fees distribution. It's presented this morning
by our outstanding Collier County Tax Collector, Mr. Larry Ray.
And anyone that comes bringing us a check is among our favorite
participants in any meeting.
MR. RAY: Leo took all my thunder here.
Thanks for having me over, and I won't take but a second. But
we've closed the books on the 2014 tax roll, and I can report from the
staff from Naples to Marco Island to Everglades City to Immokalee
and all the points in between, it was a banner year. It was a record --
near record traffic in all locations and records in many cases.
This year, in addition to the traditional missions that we do in
motor vehicle and driver's licenses and hunting and fishing and vessel
registration and tourist tax and business tax, we also are -- we also do
birth certificates and beach stickers. And I did that for no fee. And I
don't know why I did that, because we spent a lot of time on that. But
it's from me to you, Leo, that we do that.
Next year we're going to add concealed weapons processing, and
a driver's license -- a driver license renewal function here at the
courthouse, which we've never had. You have to go up the road to get
your driver's license renewed. So that will be exciting.
So we just try to continue to live up to our motto, which is
"Service is our only product."
Page 22
October 27, 2015
The reason I came today -- and I'll get to it and we'll be done -- as
a result of the resourcefulness and the hard work of all the people in
the Tax Collector's Office at all those locations I mentioned, I have a
check here for $6,364,299.74 that I'd like to present to you that
represents the fees that we collected that we did not use to support our
operations.
(Applause.)
MR. RAY: I leave here and go back, because we're in the process
of folding, licking, sticking, stuffing 240,000 tax notices that will go
out this weekend, and we will start the cycle over again.
Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Larry, you need to give more stuff
away for free, it's obvious.
MR. RAY: Obviously.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ray, one moment, sir. I would also
like to thank Mr. Ray and his cooperative effort, together with the
Board of County Commissioners. Many of you might not know it, but
Mr. Ray has generously allowed the Board of County Commission to
have a small office for District 5 in one of his satellite offices in
Golden Gate Estates.
And I just want to thank you, sir, for your courtesy and your
cooperative attitude towards working with us, and thank you for
everything that you do. I think it's very generous on your part.
MR. RAY: I appreciate that.
And since you mentioned it, I also run the library at Everglades
City.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: See, there you go.
MR. RAY: Since you brought it up.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ray multitasks on a daily basis.
MR. RAY: Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
Page 23
October 27, 2015
MR. RAY: You all have a great meeting.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I know we have several people in
the audience this morning that are interested in Item 11.A, the School
Board -- school district impact fee. I believe we can get that in before
10:00, if the Board's so inclined.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir, let's give that an iron try.
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE SCHOOL BOARD'S
DIRECTION TO ADOPT THE STUDY AND THE FEE AT 100%;
AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE
FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 74 OF COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES WHICH IS COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, PROVIDE FOR INCORPORATION
BY REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED
"COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY"
DATED JUNE 23, 2015, PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE
POTENTIAL PHASING OF THE FEE INCREASES AND AMEND
SCHEDULE SIX OF APPENDIX "A" ACCORDINGLY TO
REFLECT THE REVISED RATES, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE(S) FOR EDUCATION FACILITIES (SCHOOL)
IMPACT FEE RATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTICE
PERIOD REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 163.31801(3)(D)
FLORIDA STATUTES — MOTION TO ACCEPT THE STUDY AS
PREPARED AND DSAC RECOMMENDATIONS W/PHASING —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: All right, so that takes us to Item 11.A. It's a
Page 24
October 27, 2015
recommendation to accept the School Board's direction to adopt the
study and the fee at 100 percent and authorize the County Attorney to
advertise for future consideration an ordinance amending your
impact-fee ordinance to adopt the Collier County School Impact Fee
Update Study and related impact fee rates.
Mr. Amy Patterson will make the presentation this morning.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson for Capital
Project Planning, for the record. I'm here with our consultants from
Tindale-Oliver, Mr. Steve Tindale and Ms. Negan Camp.
We do have a brief presentation. Or if you'd like to go straight to
your questions, we can move forward at your pleasure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What's the pleasure of the Board? Like
to move forward with public speakers?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't need a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Move forward, please.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear the public speakers, Mr.
Miller.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have seven registered public
speakers on this item. The first speaker is Patrick Neale. He'll be
followed by Dave Dunnavant.
MR. NEALE: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
hearing us early; we appreciate that.
As you know, for the record, I'm Patrick Neale. I'm the
governmental affairs consultant for the Collier Building Industries
Association, and I'm appearing today on this item in that capacity.
CBIA represents over 380 businesses and over 4,000 workers in
Collier County. Construction, as you know, is one of the major pillars
of our economy.
There are a number of reasons why the CBIA is opposed to the
proposed increase in the school impact fee rate from 5,378 to $11,164,
Page 25
October 27, 2015
over doubling the rate for a single-family home.
It's our contention, my client's contention, that this increase will
damage our economy in a number of ways. Our economy, as you
know, is in recovery mode, but that recovery is a little bit fragile, as we
all know, especially in the moderately-priced home market which is
most affected by impact fee increases.
This board is in the process of seeking solutions to workforce
housing. We're working on it on a regular basis in our community.
And an increase in impact fee of this magnitude would not only
exacerbate the problem of creating workforce housing, but make it
more difficult to move ahead.
Inventory levels for moderately priced housing are at historic
lows. This is causing those prices to increase. There's also a slowing
of construction activity in the moderate-priced sector.
The slowing of activity will continue to constrain inventory, put
upward pressure on prices, all of which hurts the teachers, first
responders and other workers who make our community function.
The new proposed fee is even higher than the impact fee was in
2009 when you lowered impact fees in response to market conditions,
as we all know at that time. The impact fee at that time was $1 0,755
for a single-family home.
It's not the time now to go back to the higher levels when housing
in Collier County is every day becoming less and less affordable for
the working people.
In its review of the proposed increase, the Development Services
Advisory Committee reviewed the Tindale-Oliver study and used the
construction cost of$198 per square foot for new schools. The
statewide average is between 151 and $181 per square foot, below the
figure used in the study. Average land values used to calculate the
impact fee was $85,000 an acre. Any new schools that will be built in
the future are going to be built out in eastern Collier County where
Page 26
October 27, 2015
land prices are still more affordable.
Based on the DSAC analysis, a more reasonable figure would be
approximately $50,000 per acre.
The School Board's been very proactive in banking land for new
schools, and there's no new school construction planned for the next
five years. When the effective impact fees on the local economy is
taken into account, combined with the DSAC modifications and
methodology used to calculate the proposed fee, a more realistic
calculation results in an impact fee of$8,517 for a single-family home.
This figure is in line with that proposed and recommended by DSAC.
We support a school impact fee level of the $8,517, as proposed
by DSAC, and request that it be phased in over three years in equal
annual increments, with the potential, if economic conditions change,
as we know they can, to go back and revisit those increases, should the
economy turn the wrong way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. NEALE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dave Dunnavant. He'll be
followed by Terry Kelly.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
One moment, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Neale, can you come back to
the podium?
You made a statement that there was -- that the school system
was not going to be adding additional schools.
MR. NEALE: For the next five years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what is the purpose of the
impact fee?
MR. NEALE: Your staff has recommended that an impact fee be
increased because of lower -- I believe it's because of lower collections
in the past. Certainly, I mean --
Page 27
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But there has to be a nexus
between the proposed expenditure and the cost. We just don't raise
impact fees for no reason. I mean, the impact fee is to fund
infrastructure that is needed.
So I'm not sure I understand why the fee is going up if there is no
need for schools. I mean, is there -- what's the financial plan that is
necessitating this impact fee increase?
MR. NEALE: That's not within my purview, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I need someone to answer
that.
MR. NEALE: I would defer to the proposers of the increase.
MS. PATTERSON: Debt repayment is the primary purpose of
the impact -- it's what's they're directing the impact fees towards now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they want to diffuse debt?
MS. PATTERSON: They're using it to pay capital debt, similar
to our debt repayment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is no requirement for them
to accelerate the debt repayment.
MS. PATTERSON: No. And the impact fees are only one
funding strategy they're using towards the repayment of that debt.
They have a pretty significant level of debt that they are repaying,
which is due to their major capital campaign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's basically for the historical
costs that they're still paying?
MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh. Not different than some of our
impact fees that we're continuing to pay debt and using impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The impact fees are not pledged
against that debt?
MS. PATTERSON: No, they're not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And they don't have to be used to
repay that debt?
Page 28
October 27, 2015
MS. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In fact, they shouldn't be used to
repay that debt. They should be used for capital construction.
I mean, we went through the same thing in Collier County where
there was the mistaken perception that impact fees were pledged
against debt and that we had to levy those fees in order to make our
debt payments. And that, in fact, was not the case.
So, I mean, I want to be sure that we understand what impact fees
are for.
MR. TINDALE: I'll try to answer that. We're working for School
Boards all over the state and -- I'm Steve Tindale with Tindale-Oliver.
Our high schools run anywhere from 25 to $40 million to build,
and most of our School Boards use debt to do that. And what you're
doing is building new construction for somebody to move into it. And
it's new construction, it's not -- they don't use debt -- they're not using a
lot of debt to reconstruct it and it's for new construction.
So what the School Board does is because impact fees are not
really good to use for backing, they use taxes to back what they need
for operations. But they pledge the taxes. They use impact fees to pay
the debt. And if you don't use the impact fees to pay the debt, then
they don't do the reconstruction, they don't change out air-conditioning,
do those types of things.
So the bottom line is the School Board can either use impact fees
to retire their debt or they can use the money needed to do their repair
and reconstruction, an operation to repair the debt --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can't use impact fees for repair
and reconstruction.
MR. TINDALE: Correct, but you can use impact fees to retire
debt, which is new capital construction for new growth. So it's a very
common practice --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But not pledged.
Page 29
October 27, 2015
MR. TINDALE: No, you don't want to. If you pledge it, you're
going to get a bad rating. I mean, it's just not going to happen. So
nobody uses impact fees to retire debt. But almost all of our School
Boards are having to use them to build the school and then use it to
retire it. And if they don't, it's real simple --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And free up the ad valorem for
repairs and maintenance.
MR. TINDALE: Yes. And people say impact fees cannot pay
for operation and maintenance. They absolutely play a major role in
operation and maintenance, because if you don't use impact fees for
construction, you will bleed into your operations and maintenance.
So, I mean, you can't go out and take impact fees and reconstruct
a school, but you can take debt or an impact fee and build one, and
then make sure you protect your operating funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. The thing that I don't
understand is why they would want to reduce their debt. Like if they
want to, for example -- I mean, I just don't -- the interest rates are so
low now. You know, we're struggling with that issue ourselves here in
the County as to how far you want to pay debt down while the interest
rates are as low as they are. I'm sure they have debt at very low rates.
MR. TINDALE: The School Board's not here, I can't talk for
them. I can talk for all the ones I'm working for, and that is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you represent the School Board
in this instance?
MR. TINDALE: I do the calculations, and I do planning and
work for other School Boards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But are you not doing it for this
School Board?
MR. TINDALE: I'm not doing their planning. No, I'm not doing
their --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not involved in this
Page 30
October 27, 2015
calculation?
MR. TINDALE: No, I'm just trying to answer your question of
why School Boards find it critical and why they voted for this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we don't have anyone
representing the School Board here?
MS. PATTERSON: This is a county impact fee --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's the School Board that
recommends. And typically we defer to them.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But in this instance, you know,
based on what the CBIA is raising, I think there are some potential
issues here. I mean, I think I need concrete information on this.
MS. PATTERSON: Well, the School Board did review this and
has forwarded a recommendation to return the fee to the full fee.
And understand, too, that the magnitude of this increase is due in
part to this fee being at a 50 percent level for the last five years. It was
artificially lowered in 2010, during the recession, and has remained at
that artificially low level since that point in time. So it's magnifying
this increase. It's not -- part of why there's such a large increase
presented is because of the return of the fee to its regular level.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, does anybody know how long
it's been since they've built a school? And have they been using -- oh,
do you know how long it's been?
MS. CAMP: Negan Camp, for the record.
They are currently constructing Immokalee Middle School
addition, so that's ongoing right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In addition to the Immokalee
school?
MS. CAMP: Immokalee Middle School.
Page 31
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And when was the last time they
built a whole school? Does anybody know that?
MS. CAMP: I think it's been around 2008 time frame.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 2008?
MS. CAMP: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just wondering if they
had been saving up their money or have they been spending it or what?
This is such a -- it's over double what it was before. Over double.
MR. TINDALE: I'll give you a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a big hit.
MR. TINDALE: I'll give you an opinion. We work with the
School Board staff, and they had these questions asked by the School
Board for many hours, and then they finally made a decision. And it
seems like to me, if you're going to get into this, what we need to do is
have what they just went through, which is the debt and where they're
going to spend the money and those type of questions presented by
staff. Because we spent several hours going through this with staff, and
then they spent many hours answering these same questions through
the School Board, and then the School Board finally made the decision
of what level they're proposing to you. And I think for us to try and
recreate that for you would probably be inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's very unusual that no
one's here representing the School Board.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My understanding, the fee or
any fee needs to be reasonable and just. Is that a correct statement?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, it's got to be proportional or you'll end up
in court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And that fee needs to
have a benefit to the person paying the fee, correct?
Page 32
October 27, 2015
MR. TINDALE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is the capacity, the school
capacity, larger than what is being used up right now?
MR. TINDALE: The school -- again, this is almost a planning
issue. Schools notoriously have to use -- have to use portables because
you can't take -- you can't take 2,000 students and build a school and
just fill it up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if this --
MR. TINDALE: So when you deal with the capacity of the
school system, on the average they're at 90, 95 percent, 100 percent, on
a total county-wide basis. And then they will have an area, because
that's the average for the whole county, where they're totally
overloaded with one school that they need to build.
So the total number of students -- the total number of stations,
when you get at 100 percent means you've probably got a third of the
county that's busing kids all over the place.
So School Boards have a very tough time building these very
large facilities, trying to move students around, build them, make these
lumpy investments they use debt for, and the impact fee will only
generate enough money that when a student moves in they have
enough money to try to pay for what they've had to build. Our
calculation does not allow them to collect more money than what that
student that's moving in generates in terms of cost, and that's the
proportionality.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the impact fee cannot be
collected to pay previous debt unless there is a capacity. So if you
build a wastewater facility, let's say, you're not going to build it to the
present needs, you're going to build it to the future needs.
MR. TINDALE: And the people who pull a permit pay to
consume that construction, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you have a reservation of that
Page 33
October 27, 2015
future homeowner. Mr. Neale builds a house and he needs to hook up
to the sewer system. There's a direct benefit to that because there's a
capacity there. And what I'm hearing is they have a past debt that
they're trying to pay --
MR. TINDALE: Built capacity. It's a built capacity only.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not talking about
maintenance of that. What I'm talking about is, where's the capacity?
Are we recognizing the capacity?
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're recognizing the
future capacity that will -- that new student comes in. That portion of
it can be paid by impact fees. That's my understanding.
Is that how it was calculated?
MR. TINDALE: That's exactly what this is. This charges for the
value of a student that's going to consume a student station when the
student moves in, whether -- and again, if the station is not there, the
student can't move into it. It's an interesting thing.
And schools are really complicated in that you build a 1,900,
2,000-student school, and do you build it after you're 2,000 short, and
you fill it up immediately, or do you build it when you're at 300
students and then you wait around 'til 1,300 more show up?
I mean, I just -- I can't explain to you how complicated schools
are compared to almost all the other facilities in terms of having to
build, having to build it in location and having the capacity available to
be consumed. This fee only charges for the value a home consumes
when a home gets built and a student moves in and consumes a station.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it said, it was stated several
times, it's there to retire debt.
MR. TINDALE: Yeah, that debt built the station that the
student's going to occupy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If there's capacity there,
Page 34
October 27, 2015
then I understand it. If it's not capacity and it's already being utilized,
then to me it wasn't calculated correctly. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just a brief perspective from
where I've watched what's happened in the schools. And having a lot
of kids in the schools, I've paid attention.
In the mid 2000's we had so much growth, the schools had to be
built, and they were built one after another. It was always under
construction. And then the recession came.
We didn't lose as much population as I thought we did, by reading
this material in front of us, but clearly the schools were built, they were
built quickly to meet the growing demands that our land use allowed to
be built here. And now they're coming and saying they need to get
back to normal.
Now I'm not suggesting this isn't a large amount, but I know that
right in front of us there's a plan to do it, to stagger it over three years,
which I think is probably a fair way to go. But when you think about
what the School Board did in -- from 2000 onward to accommodate
the growth in this community, I don't think this is unreasonable at all.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a couple of comments
and then I'm going to go to Commissioner Hiller.
The School Board artificially reduced impact fees in October,
2010 to 50 percent of what they were at the time. I think that was a
very thoughtful and aggressive action. It was one, frankly, that the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County would not
undertake. We did not respond that way in reducing impact fees when
we could have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We reduced it by 50 percent.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, we did it, but we did it by
Page 35
October 27, 2015
calculation. I don't think we artificially lowered it to the degree that
the School Board did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think they did it artificially.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, ma'am, let me speak, please,
and then I will let you talk.
I don't know that a good deed should go unpunished. As the
Board of County Commissioners has started to come to grips with our
shortfall and capital infrastructure, I think it would be improper, under
the request and based on the study of Tindale-Oliver, to reduce the
capacity of the School Board to get their house in order and look
forward in having impact fees necessary to go forward as they see fit.
So I would be supportive of that. I don't think that the Board of
County Commissioners should make a decision in that way that we
don't make for ourselves. I mean, you know, we took action in June to
reinstate the Impact Fee Deferral Program for affordable housing. It's
not going to really negatively impact affordable housing. So I'm in
favor of moving forward and letting the School Board manage their
own affairs.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There has to be matching --
Commissioner Henning is absolutely correct, we need the evidence to
show that this is for the unused capacity.
And what you said does seem to support there is unused capacity,
because if proposed construction isn't going to begin again until five
years from now, that suggests that there is unused capacity that will be
filled over that period of time; notwithstanding we don't have any
evidence to support that.
And I think we need the evidence to ensure that what we are
doing is legally correct, because we can't just arbitrarily say, okay,
well, you know, it was reduced, now let's increase it. I mean, there has
to be the nexus. We have to have the evidence that it is justified,
Page 36
October 27, 2015
otherwise we will be in court and that would really be unfortunate.
So I feel strongly that, you know, based on what Commissioner
Henning has said, we need to see the evidence that supports it. It's
implied, but it's not proven.
MS. CAMP: Actually, their current occupancy is 87 percent.
When you do it county-wide the stations are occupied -- 87 percent of
the stations are occupied. So there's about 13 percent --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you have to establish the nexus
between that 13 percent vacancy and the increase in the impact fee
that's being proposed. The fact that there is a vacancy isn't sufficient.
You have to establish matching between the value of that and the value
in the increase of the fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, we still have six
speakers to go.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let me ask one more question of Mr.
Tindale.
Mr. Tindale, doesn't your study support the conclusion of the
request of the School Board?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, it does. And I'll very briefly say that they
built that capacity, it's being consumed by new growth, and now they
need to pay for it with the impact fee. I mean --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the required study supports the
conclusion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How would you know?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I read it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but I mean, it's like -- that
doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's continue with the public speakers,
please, Mr. Miller.
Page 37
October 27, 2015
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dave Dunnavant. He'll be
followed by Terry Kelly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to move this forward, I'm
going to make a motion that we accept Development Services
Advisory Board's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. DUNNAVANT: Good morning, Commissioners.
Chairman Nance, Commissioners Taylor, Fiala, Hiller, Mr. Henning,
County Manager Ochs, and Mr. Casalanguida.
We are here -- I'm representing CBIA. I'm from Peninsula
Engineering. I also am a long-time member of the Development
Services Advisory Committee, which our chairman, Bill Varian, will
present the findings that were discussed at DSAC and
recommendations.
We're here -- we appreciate the Commission's concern and the
discussion on the subject. Construction costs and the construction
revenues generate a lot for this county, and we need to be careful, as
we know the Commission always does, to take care and not impugn on
people's ability to get housing.
Our only question is, the Tindale-Oliver study is supported,
obviously. There are a couple of things that DSAC will mention that
are in question, which is: Most of the new schools, even though they
aren't on the five-year agenda right now, are anticipated probably to be
in eastern Collier County. Right now they're using a blended land rate
for those schools, western and eastern. That's almost a $35,000 an acre
difference. So that's one thing.
The other thing is, we know that the State statute indicates that
you have to use current local data, which this study is doing. Can't
necessarily -- our local data in this community, I think we need to
assess the finishes and the features that we put in our programs. As
Page 38
October 27, 2015
much as we want to be proud of our buildings, we are pretty high in
the statewide look and cost.
But for those reasons -- and our concern is the people that get
impacted, you're right, the population didn't go down as much as we
thought, but it's not people coming with school-age children, because
the school population is not increasing. So here we are trying to tag
people for a need that's not coming up.
It is a debt service issue, but the fact is, the people that we're
going to hurt worse -- we have already got naturally increasing
construction costs because of loss of labor. I mean, people have left
with the schools.
And the people who are going to be most impacted are our
workforce housing, our public and service-sector workers, our
teachers, our first responders and others like that. The cost is
significant to them.
We ask that you consider -- and in looking at the land costs and
other issues, what CBIA and I think DSAC is recommending is a
lesser increase and graduating it over a three-year period and analyzing
annually, and understand that it's necessary.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Terry Kelly. He'll be
followed by Bill Varian.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Ochs, just a question, if I
may, Mr. Chair, just before the speaker comes up.
Mr. Ochs, did we not -- there's a word for it. We waived impact
fees for affordable/workforce housing?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So it's --
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't waive, we defer.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: And eventually, we pay.
Page 39
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the criteria for that deferral
to take place? I mean, is it just on HUD-approved?
MR. OCHS: Ms. Patterson?
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning.
The Impact Fee Deferral Program is available to first-time
homebuyers up to 120 percent of AMI. So that's very low, low and
moderate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So just anybody who's building at
120 percent can qualify?
MS. PATTERSON: They need to come in and go through an
application process with the Housing Department. They do have to be
a first-time homebuyer. There is also a provision that allows a
developer to hold up to 50 deferrals in their name. For example,
Habitat for Humanity, as they're placing qualified homebuyers into the
homes, they can -- the developer can qualify for a number of deferrals
and then transfer them over to qualified applicants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And are there just a certain number
of deferrals allowed each year?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, ma'am. There's three percent of prior
year collections is the limitation on impact fee deferrals. So as our
impact fee collections grow, the number of deferrals that are available
will grow with that, or as it shrinks it will shrink.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Kelly.
MR. KELLY: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners, Nick,
Leo. Good to see you all this morning.
Obviously I had a speech all lined up, and now that Mr.
Dunnavant and Mr. Neale have talked, you've got all the facts, you
know all the numbers.
As the president of CBIA and the president of Surety
Construction Company, I am concerned with any kind of impact fee
Page 40
October 27, 2015
increases because it affects how we move forward in our industry.
Certainly, Commissioner Hiller, I applaud yours and Mr.
Henning's position in the fact that impact fees have a place. Impact
fees have a place to be spent. And I think with the fact that we haven't
had a school built in almost seven years, they're not planning any
schools for the next five years, there's a 12-year accumulation of the
current impact fees that should go toward new schools.
I don't understand the increase currently to project for new
schools that are five years out. When in the past we were inundated, as
everybody knows, and as Commissioner Taylor said, there was a
bunch of schools built all at one time. And there was money there,
presumably, that took care of those schools to have them built.
The debt is there. The county has a debt, the School Board has a
debt, we've all got a debt, but there's a right way to pay that debt off,
and it's not by artificially inflating impact fees to take care of
something they're not intended to do.
So having said all that, you have all the numbers, you have all the
figures. I support, if it must move forward, that we do the reduction in
the fees and that we do it over the next three years. I assume from
what I hear that everybody's going to look further into where's the
money going and is it legal and are we allowed to do this. And I
applaud that decision.
And on behalf of the Collier building industry and myself, thank
you very much for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bill Varian. He'll be
followed by Amy Ferrera.
MR. VARIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
the time this morning. For the record, my name is Bill Varian. I'm
president of William J. Varian Construction Company and your 2015
chairman of DSAC.
I want to explain about the recommendation of DSAC on the
Page 41
October 27, 2015
school impact fee increase that you're discussing this morning.
DSAC did have a subcommittee. They met multiple times over
the summer. And the full committee actually took this issue twice, in
our July meeting and our September meeting, which the vote is in front
of you from our recommendation.
The subcommittee, as well as the committee as a whole, spent
time on a few items that really stuck out at us. One: When looking at
the cost of land, it was not clear to the committee the current land
holdings of the school department. We know that they've got a bank of
land, but it was never brought to our attention what they've got.
Secondly, and as Mr. Dunnavant just mentioned, any new
purchases will probably be on the eastern part of the county, where
traditionally land has been less in value than close to the ocean here.
The impact fee study based a proposed cost of construction at
$198 a square foot, which is considerably higher than the weighted
average of the entire study.
And the third item, which kind of got overlooked but I know you
guys have talked about it this morning, is the student population over --
their projection over the next, I can't remember, five or whatever years
they are. It's almost flat. There's no major increase in student
population. Yet we all know that houses are being built. So I think
that goes into the capacity that we've all looked at.
Those are the three main items that the subcommittee and the full
committee really was looking at.
We actually did have two votes. The first one actually failed.
The second one came forward, and we realized it was important that
you guys did hear from us as the industry.
So the actual recommendation, if you are to accept and move
forward with any kind of an increase, is to utilize the land value at
$50,000 per acre and construction costs at $151 a square foot, as you
determine the actual fee, and then phase it in over three years. So that
Page 42
October 27, 2015
would mean at the end of three years the rate would be at $8,517 as it's
fully implemented.
So that would be our recommendation from DSAC. If there's any
questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Thank you this morning.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Amy Ferrera. She'll be
followed by James Ratz.
MS. FERRERA: Good morning, Commissioners and everybody
here.
Most of the things I have here to say it's been said already, but I'm
just going to go and read it. It say, when this issue arose I thought it
was interesting to look back at the amount of school impact fees over
the years. Current new construction permit activities on par with
activity in the 1990's and early 2000's. And you already said that.
When the school impact fee was $1,778, it jumped to a height of
$10,755 by 2009. And we all know what was happening by then.
Today's proposed fees of 11,164 is even higher, yet the County's rate
of new home permits is drastically lower.
Commissioners, this creates an unstainable scenario that will have
far-reaching, unintended consequences on the county's economy. The
current rate of school impact fees is already a sizeable number,
considering it is only one of the many different fees assessed to buyers
of new construction homes. Our teachers, first responders, hospitality
staff and public services workers already are struggling to keep up, and
such a significant increase will put home prices further out of reach.
Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider this request
and its impact on all of our -- and the impact of all of Collier County
workers and families. I encourage you to support the recommendation
of the Development Service Advisory Committee for a reasonable
increase with a three-year phase-in.
And that's what everybody is saying, like if it's needed let's do it
over the three years so we don't affect drastically the buyers when they
Page 43
October 27, 2015
want to purchase the homes. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is James Ratz. He'll be
followed by Tina Matte.
MR. RATZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
In the words of Tom Henning, "Ditto what everybody else has
said." But my name is James Ratz, I am the director of land
development with D.R. Horton. We are the nation's largest home
builder and one of the largest here in Collier County, and we are very
concerned about the impact fee increase that has been proposed.
The home building industry has been through an incredible tough
period the past six to eight years, and we are recovering, but it's been
slow growing. And some analysts are saying that it is actually going to
go the other way, and we are seeing that decline in some of our areas.
Collier County has already seen a limited supply of new homes,
which are forcing prices upward at an even faster rate. Each increase
eliminates hundreds of potential buyers from the Collier County
market, especially when you consider that 80 percent of all new homes
are over the 400,000 price point, which is the workforce housing.
The vast majority of our customers simply cannot afford that
$5,800 increase in impact fees. As you consider this, I ask that you
also consider the bigger economic picture. This isn't just about the
home building industry, it's about the overall recovery of the economy.
The economy is fragile, and each impact of your consti-- it will impact
the constituents in very tangible ways.
If you determine that you do want to increase the impact fees, we
ask that you follow the Development Services Advisory Committee
and do it over a three-year phase plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your final registered speaker for
Item 11.A is Tina Matte.
MS. MATTE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Page 44
October 27, 2015
Commissioners. I believe Commissioner Hiller had a question about
the last speaker's comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did. I don't know how you read
my mind.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, can you make your
comments, please, ma'am, and then we'll go to Commissioner Hiller.
MS. MATTE: I'm sorry. She was just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are so good. You're psychic.
That's great.
MS. MATTE: My name is Tina Matte and I'm here this morning
to also support the DSAC recommendation on school impact fees.
Before I make my comments I'd like to recognize there are many
people in this audience who have taken time out of their schedules
today, who are representing the building industry, and I'd like to ask
them to stand and thank them for taking time to be here today. These
are a lot of workers from Collier County, and we appreciate the show
of support.
I've been working with more than a dozen business and
community leaders over the last several months to look at this issue
when we first heard that this was coming around again. We're all
grateful to have survived the downturn, but it didn't come without
extreme sacrifice. Most of us are still struggling with issues like: Do
we hire new people? How do we pay our current people? Is the
economy going to continue to grow in this limited way that it's been
going, or are we going to have another downturn, as the experts
predict?
We have a deep concern about the consequences to our
businesses, our customers and the local economy if the proposed
increase is implemented as requested. We generally understand the
role that impact fees have to play, but we're not certain why an
increase like this is needed when there are no plans for new school
Page 45
October 27, 2015
construction and very little growth in student population.
That said, DSAC has reviewed this, and if you decide to impose
an impact fee we would support the recommended amount of 8,517
and the phase-in over three years and would request that you consider
that if you decide to raise the fees.
Thank you very much for your time this morning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a decision that has to be
based on evidence. And it also has to be based on the underlying
principle of matching. We know that they're -- according to the
evidence that was presented this morning, that there is 13 percent of
unfilled capacity. We know there is outstanding debt related to that.
And as far as I can see, the impact fee can't -- that impact fee increase
can't be more than for that amount.
And while I appreciate DSAC saying that it should be reduced to
X dollars and phased in over three years, and I appreciate the CBIA
supporting that, my concern is, is that may still be too much.
And so again, you're looking at all the other builders out there
who are not represented by the CBIA who may be adversely impacted
just because CBIA thinks that might be acceptable. This is not what
anybody thinks is acceptable. This has to be based on evidence. It's
that simple.
We need the real numbers. And I will support the decision today
contingent upon this being brought back, and I want to know what 13
percent of the outstanding debt related to that 13 percent is equal to
and what the impact fee can be based on that, if in fact 13 percent is
the right number. But I don't see it right now. I don't -- my gut -- and I
understand a study has been done, but I am concerned that we do not
have the matching.
And I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Tindale, I appreciate your study,
Page 46
October 27, 2015
but you don't represent the School Board. And you've gone through,
you know, discussions with them. I want the evidence. I will support
based on what has been discussed here today, but --
MR. TINDALE: I'd just like to clarify --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- but I really have a concern that
the impact fee I think after the evidence has been properly reviewed in
light of the discussion we've had will not be justified at the level that
we're approving it at, and that it will still be too high.
And what I want to make also very clear is that what we have
heard today in testimony is that there is no shortage of school
infrastructure at this time and that projected growth will only occur
again in five years. So that no one thinks that this Board is making a
decision that in any way will hurt the children of this community,
because we are being told that there is no child who is being hurt or
disadvantaged by the fact that we are not going to raise the impact fees
to the level the School Board has supported.
MR. TINDALE: I'd like to answer just the questions about the
fee calculations and let the School Board answer all the other
questions, but I'd like to make sure we get the calculations that are in
there I guess documented.
Only 80 percent of the schools out there are paid for. 20 percent
of the stations are not paid for. So when I said 87 percent --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Make it 20 percent then. Give me
20 percent of the --
MR. TINDALE: Well, they're seven percent above their paid
capacity. They're over capacity of what they've paid for. That's
documented. We've got the debt in there, which is about 20 percent of
the value of the whole system, and they're at 87 percent capacity. They
only paid for 80 percent of it.
So what's happened is in '02, '03, '04 they went out there, they
built, it was consumed. They've only -- they've got 20 percent of it to
Page 47
October 27, 2015
pay for yet, and it's been 87 percent consumed.
So as far as -- and we're not charging the development
community for what the debt is. That's been taken out of the value.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they're behind on their
payments?
MR. TINDALE: No, I'm just telling you, you're talking about
need. When we do an impact fee, and again I don't want to get into the
100 percent or the rate of growth and what you're trying to do with
your economy or even the School Board's strategy. But technically
what we've got in here is a fee that's only charging for 80 percent of the
stations that are out there to the development community. Because
that's all that's been paid for. And that's all we're charging. And 87
percent of them have been consumed.
So technically this fee is well below the stations that have been
consumed. Technically. Again, I'm not going to get into the School
Board's need and whether they need to build a school five years from
now or whatever, but I'm telling you, as far as I'm concerned this
calculation is very defensible from a calculations basis.
Now from a needs basis or an economic basis or what you want to
do with, you know, phasing it in, that's fine. But the data in here
shows that the fee is not charging for the debt, which is 20 percent of
that capacity, it's only charging what they paid for. They're at 87
percent in terms of the stations' utilization, and this fee is reasonable
and it's based on the need that's occurred.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're saying seven percent has
not been paid for to date?
MR. TINDALE: No. If you took the total asset of the school
system right now, the new development community is not paying for
20 percent of what's been built, because it still owed debt on it.
They don't have -- that capacity was built for growth, and when
they discounted this fee, they didn't pay for it. When development
Page 48
October 27, 2015
permits got pulled they couldn't stay up with it and they haven't paid
for it. So they're at 87 percent, they've only got 80 percent paid for,
and that's all we're charging for is the part that's paid for.
Now, it's a large number, and they may be able to use taxes or
move students around or whatever you want to do, but the fee is based
on a calculation that ensures you that the development community is
not being overcharged --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But Commission Henning made a
very clear point and that is it has to be for new growth. And that is the
law. It's not for what -- can it be used for what was built?
MR. TINDALE: What we're charging for, they can only build
new stations with that cash.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So that is what is the
unfilled capacity.
MR. TINDALE: Or pay for the debt that built those stations. I
just want to be sure you know the numbers are in here, and maybe
they're not real clear --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not.
MR. TINDALE: -- because we're not talking about the other
things, but the amount of debt that's in here is documented, and it's
about 20 percent of their total assets. They're at 87 percent occupied.
They've only got 80 percent of what they paid for. This fee is
conservative and it's only charging for that. And they have --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And are you saying that they can
legally levy based on the 20 percent as opposed to the 13 percent of
that 20 that hasn't been filled?
MR. TINDALE: We're charging the development community
only for the part of the stations that are paid for, which is 80 percent of
them. And that's all they can charge for, to do whatever they want to,
to either build a new station or pay for what occurred with their debt.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about 80; I'm
Page 49
October 27, 2015
talking about 13.
MR. TINDALE: Well, the 13 is the number of stations that aren't
occupied. But those stations aren't paid for.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's what they're raising the
impact fee for, to pay for that.
MR. TINDALE: Only the 80 percent. Only the part that's been
paid. Only the part -- now, if they wanted to take those impact fees
and not use it to retire debt --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they were --
MR. TINDALE: -- we could crank the fee up. But we bring the
fee down 20 percent because they're going to pay for debt.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 80 percent was supposed to be
paid by the historical fees.
MR. TINDALE: They weren't, because you only charged half
price.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, we already have a
motion on the floor.
MR. TINDALE: Excuse me, I didn't want to get into justifying
what the School Board wants to do. I just want to tell you that this fee
is very defensible in terms of the need and the calculation, and it's all
the footnotes and the values are in here.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to go to Commissioner Fiala,
and then I'm going to give a few comments, and then we're going to
vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, my comment was that the
motion is on the floor and I seconded it to accept the DSAC
recommendation, spreading it over three years. 8,517 is the total, but
as I said, spread out over three years. I totally agree with that. And it
sounds like a couple of other ones of us do too. I don't know for sure,
but I'd like to take the motion and find out.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm probably going to be in the minority
Page 50
October 27, 2015
on this. And I have historically been critical of excessively high
impact fees, but I'm going by what I saw during the boom in my
district. And District 5 has, you know, 20 percent of the residents but
30 percent of the children. And my wife, as a teacher and a
professional in this county for most of her adult life, I watched during
the boom as new schools were built in the eastern part of the county
and portables were moved in right at the time they were completed.
So a substantial number of the children, many of which are
economically disadvantaged, were functioning in portables when a
great deal of the rest of the county was not. And if you've ever had a
child in a portable, I don't think you've been happy with it. Because
portables are -- to me and in my wife's opinion were substandard
facilities compared to others. They're exposed to the weather, people
are always concerned about hurricanes.
So I'm not going to support it. I think these have been reduced for
a long time. But I'm going to say if there are no other questions, we'll
call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Ms. Patterson asked to get
one clarification on the record with this vote.
MS. PATTERSON: With respect the DSAC recommendation,
we're asking that the study be adopted as prepared but that the fees be
reduced in accordance with the DSAC recommendation for the
three-year -- the reduced fee and the three-year phase in.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is that the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- do we have to do
that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why?
MS. PATTERSON: Because if we change -- if you go with the
DSAC recommendation and ask that the study be re-prepared in
accordance with their direction, you're going to have an issue with the
Page 51
October 27, 2015
recent localized data requirements of the Florida statutes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'll put that in my
motion then.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, the motion and the second have
been amended.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not saying opposed, I support
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I'm opposed, so it passes 4-1 with
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no. 3-2.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3-2.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 3-2 with --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I opposed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- Commissioner Taylor and
Commissioner Nance in dissent.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just for the record, in the
City of Naples, near the ocean, kids go to school in portables.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm aware, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The increase in impact fees being
proposed by the School Board are not intended to get rid of portables.
In fact, they're not intended to do anything other than --
MR. OCHS: Can we take a break?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to take a break for the court
reporter.
Page 52
October 27, 2015
MR. OCHS: 10 minutes, sir?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 10 minutes. We'll be back at 10:41.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, Mr. Ochs, at this time, I guess we're
going to take our 10:00 time certain, which is?
MR. OCHS: Item 12.A, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Item 12.A?
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD TAKE NO ACTION TO
AMEND THE VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE — MOTION
FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RESCIND THE VEHICLE
FOR HIRE ORDINANCE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's an item -- that is a recommendation
that the Board take no action to amend your current Vehicle for Hire
ordinance.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: As -- I spoke with staff extensively on this
one, and it's my understanding that we've never had a single complaint
about Uber. This is not a public issue, this is more of an industry issue.
It really gets down to the purpose of the ordinance. If the purpose of
the ordinance is to protect the public, then at this point in time I
suggest we make no change.
If the purpose of the ordinance is really a local industry one, then
at this point in time the Board might want to consider a change.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Commissioners, seeing no
opening comments, let's go to the public speakers and get the public
Page 53
October 27, 2015
speakers' perspective and then we'll see what we should do.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have 11 registered public
speakers on this item.
I'm going to ask the speakers to please use both podiums, and
when the second speaker is called, be ready to speak after the first
speaker.
In the first instance, Randy Smith has been ceded additional time
from Mosha Aboujzk -- I'm never going to be able to pronounce the
last name -- Tony Marino and Tito Troneu. So he will be speaking for
a total of 12 minutes.
And he will be followed by Richard Ripp.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I thought I was going to hear
from Tony. Okay, like this is like not starting off right.
Tony, how could you do this to me? I mean, really? How could
you do this to me?
MR. MARINO: Randy speaks better than I do.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Proceed, please, sir.
MR. SMITH: Thank you. Good morning.
First, thank you for continuing this from your meeting two weeks
ago. I'm Randy Smith, owner of Naples Transportation Tours. Our
family has been operating our business for 31 years in Collier County.
I'm also president of the Southwest Chapter of the Florida
Limousine Association which encompasses many companies in the
area, many of whom are here today. In fact, why don't we do a little
show of hands or stand up of the local companies here in town? Thank
you for showing up here today, guys.
And also hundreds of properly licensed and insured drivers and
vehicles.
I'm also on the board of directors for Florida Limousine
Association, so I'm well-versed with transportation, Uber, and TNCs,
transportation network companies, of which Uber is; Lift, Sidecar, and
Page 54
October 27, 2015
others. So I'll be very happy to answer any questions you might have.
Let me first start by saying that competition is great. We embrace
competition. This county always has. There's never been medallions
like other counties have done. We've never not let anybody operate in
Collier County, as long as they operated by the rules that were set forth
by the county for public safety. And that's the reason that these rules
have been in decades is for public safety; the one and only reason.
And that encompasses commercial insurance for proper coverage of
passengers, vehicle inspections for safety, hack licenses for drivers, all
for public safety.
I also want to say that I do love the technology. You've got to
give it to them, it's fabulous technology. Came out six years ago. It's
revolutionizing our industry. And you're going to find out that, like all
technology, others are latching on to it, even in our industry.
TNCs are here to stay, so we need to rewrite the Vehicle for Hire
ordinance and add them to the list that already includes limousines and
taxis so we all operate on the same playing field.
Deregulating the industry, which has been talked about, should
not be an option either, unless you want to put public safety at risk.
The Vehicle for Hire ordinance has protected the public safety for
decades, and to do away with it now because of TNC would be gross
neglect, putting public safety at risk, and also open up the county for
liability when incidents occur in the future.
I'm not here to bash Uber or other TNCs, but would like to
educate you on this new form of transportation.
Before our company and all other transportation companies made
our first pickup, we had to go to the county and get proper permitting,
show them our insurance, get our drivers hack licenses, all the steps
that needed to be done for public safety. The rules and regulations are
somewhat of a pain for us operators, but they're there for a reason, and
that's public safety.
Page 55
October 27, 2015
When Uber launches a new region, they typically commence
operations with complete disregard for local laws. When they
launched late last year in Collier County, did they come and get
permits? No. Did they get their drivers properly hacked licensed?
No. They just said, hey, let's get operating and forget about all the
rules. They simply hired drivers, most that operate illegally, in terms
of insurance and licensing, and avoid local for-hire livery rules. It's
done strategically. They do this everywhere, all over the world, in an
effort to challenge or dare cities to expand valuable limited resources
to stop them.
They're a $51 billion transportation company. They feel like they
can do what they want and laugh about it. I don't think the way they
do business is funny. To put public safety at risk and thumb their nose
at local rules and regulations makes them the most unethical company
I've ever witnessed. When they talk about creating jobs, they're simply
taking jobs from people that are operating legally to people who are
operating illegally. So I don't see a job growth thing as an argument
that they're doing so great.
Briefly, examples of cities who stood up to Uber: New York
City, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the TLC, forced them,
Uber, to play by the rules, and they did. They conceded in New York.
Why they can't do this everywhere else, we don't know. Drivers have
to get a TLC license. Like our hack license, they have to register the
vehicles, provide commercial insurance and do fingerprint background
checks. So they do that in New York City. Still, between April 29th
and June 15th of this year, the New York City authorities seized 496
cars from Uber drivers taking illegal street hails, which is a violation of
their TLC laws.
Other cities have stood up to Uber's blatant disregard for the law
and mandated that Uber needed to comply with city or county
insurance requirements, fingerprint background checks, vehicle
Page 56
October 27, 2015
inspections and random drug testing in many instances. San Antonio,
Texas did this, and Uber left. Uber came back, and now they're trying
to work a deal where they will do that.
So when these cities have stood up, Uber's left. But then a lot of
times they'll come back and actually sit at the table. If you don't stand
up to them, they're just going to keep breaking the law. If you do stand
up to them, there's a good chance they will work with you. And that's
all we're asking, is that they comply with the same rules and
regulations that we do.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, city officials are now arresting Uber
drivers who do not comply to the city laws.
Birmingham, Alabama, city officials invited them in, gave them
the rules, and they said, you know what, we're not going to do it. So
they're not operating there.
There's city after city that are trying to work with Uber, and
sometimes they work with them and sometimes they don't.
And there's many countries around the world that have actually
banned Uber because they wouldn't work with them: Spain, France,
China, Japan, Brazil, India. There's about eight so far that are not
allowing Uber to operate at all.
I'm not here to say let's ban Uber from Collier County; I'm just
saying let's regulate them, these new TNCs, the same we do for all
limo and taxi companies for the sake of public safety. It's that simple.
All right, let's talk about technology of this app real quick. Uber
will actually try to tell you that they're not a transportation company,
that they're actually a software company. This is the furthest from the
truth, and it's done to avoid complying with local transportation rules
and regulations. All this app has done is change the communication
process between customers looking to hire a vehicle for transportation
service. Instead of calling on a phone, you're basically on an app on
your phone. That's the only difference.
Page 57
October 27, 2015
Uber still mandates to its drivers requirements to work for them,
including vehicle age, number of doors on the vehicles, vehicle driver's
-- valid license, et cetera. Uber has complete control of their drivers,
and can even fire them if they don't follow their rules. It's a
transportation company, plain and simple. They've developed a
multibillion-dollar idea to connect their customers to getting rides and
needs, and they need to be regulated like all other transportation
companies in Collier County.
Here's something else that's coming very soon: Existing
transportation and taxi companies are developing their own apps, and
soon will be operating exclusively that way, just like Uber has. So are
these companies going to be TNCs now or are they taxi companies? If
you don't regulate Uber and other TNCs, then these companies are
going to operate without regulations too.
My company and many others locally are going to be on new
apps called "My Ride," and "iCars." So now am I a TNC or am I a
transportation company?
It's 100 percent clear that TNCs need to be added to our Vehicle
for Hire ordinance now. Please do not wait and see what's going to
happen at the state level either. Uber tried to pass legislation in 2015
that would have deregulated the whole industry. They put themselves
with us, with transportation and taxi companies, and tried to get the
state lawmakers to deregulate the industry statewide, and they said no.
So what are they doing for 2016? They're taking themselves out of
that category that they put themselves into in 2015, and now they want
to be deregulated in their own industry, their own category, but not
taxis and limousines, even though we're all doing the same thing.
This company is unbelievable what they're trying to do. Like
they are any different is incredulous for them to think that way, and to
think that public safety shouldn't pertain to their business model but
only to limos and taxis is mind-blowing. This is a brash company, has
Page 58
October 27, 2015
no regard for public safety.
Regardless, I don't see our lawmakers passing this bill, and I'm
sure that the following year Uber is going to try to pass another plan
somehow to deregulate the industry.
So this is a problem that's going to continue on and on and on.
Which is why you need to take action now in Collier County. Take
action on the local level and not do a
wait-and-see-what-happens-in-Tallahassee thing.
And the last argument, that there have been no reported incidents
yet in Collier County is not a valid argument. Here's a long list, about
eight pages, of incidents that have happened worldwide with Uber and
TNCs that include deaths, assaults, sexual assaults, kidnappings and
other criminal offenses by Uber or other TNCs.
Let's not add Naples to the list by burying your heads in the sand
and doing nothing about them blatantly breaking the laws every day in
Collier County. Let's be proactive by rewriting the Vehicle for Hire
ordinance to include TNCs with limos and taxis. Let's come up with
penalties for breaking the laws that are more than monetary alone.
I believe Code Enforcement has fined Uber for this past year over
$150,000 to Uber drivers. And Uber, the company, has paid every
penny of it. So that's great for Collier County, but has this penalty
system worked to discourage their drivers from breaking the law?
Obviously not. It does nothing. Monetary penalty does nothing to
their drivers, nothing to Uber. They've got the money to pay for it.
Let's come up with similar penalties that other cities have
instituted for law breakers, including impounding cars and arresting
drivers that blatantly break the law.
Uber drivers are transportation contractors, as they are providing
a service for hire in Collier County.
What does Code Enforcement do when they come across a
building contractor that's operating illegally without permits and
Page 59
October 27, 2015
licenses? I believe they have the right to arrest them and have them go
before a judge. We need to do that, or else this problem is not going to
change.
Let's continue to protect public safety, as lawmakers here in
Collier County have for decades, by rewriting the Vehicle for Hire
ordinance to add TNCs to limos and taxis and add stiff penalties to any
driver who breaks the law. It's that simple.
Thank you. Any questions?
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Richard --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me. I have Commissioner Hiller,
then Commissioner Henning. Do you wish to speak at this time?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let Commissioner Henning go
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean, there's a reason
for my question. And I apologize.
What would it cost to be transported from Mercado to the
Vineyards?
MR. SMITH: Mercado to Vineyards? What kind of vehicle?
Taxi, private car, Uber?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know what Uber is. I
want to know what the industry charges.
MR. SMITH: A taxi, I couldn't tell you, I'm not in the taxi
business. A private car is probably going to cost you, you know, $40,
give or take. It's going to be more expensive. You know, it's the old
adage, "You get what you pay for." And that's very evident in what's
going on right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, comments at this
time?
Page 60
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a very interesting question,
Commissioner Henning. And the reason it's an interesting question is
because the price that's paid has to be clearly dictated by the market.
And when we pass a law, the law isn't supposed to influence market
pricing but rather to promote public safety.
If I understand your statements correctly, you are not in any way
looking to block Uber from being in the transportation business.
MR. SMITH: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And all you're looking for is parity;
that you want -- because you believe they are the same as you?
MR. SMITH: Well, I don't know if "parity" is the right word. I'm
looking for them to follow the same rules and regulations that we do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because they're doing the same
business that you're doing.
MR. SMITH: They're doing the exact same business that we are
and the taxis are doing, and these rules have been around for decades,
and it's protect of the public safety. And I don't think there's been any
issues over the last 31 years that I've been operating in the area where
there's been major transportation issues. When the County Attorney
addressed that there's been no complaints about Uber, how many
complaints are we getting in 31 years over the other transportation
companies?
But the bottom line is, they need to be regulated. They're doing
the same exact thing as we are.
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't regulate --
MR. SMITH: So they need to be regulated like we are.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain what you just
said?
MR. KLATZKOW: We don't regulate him. If you go to your
ordinance, packet page 281 --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I read it.
Page 61
October 27, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: And, you know, years ago we substantially
deregulated our ordinance. We require a driver to hold a valid driver's
license, they have to have no felonies, and staff is responsible for
getting the criminal history.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we only do that once, correct?
When we get a criminal history we do it only on application, we don't
do it annually?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we update it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we update it? How often do we
update it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe it's a -- Mr. French can answer that,
but I believe --
(Speaking in the audience.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need the staff to answer, not the
audience. But thank you all for helping me. It's nice to know you
know more than I do.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please continue, Mr. Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we require that there be adequate
insurance on the vehicle. Uber is regulated under this ordinance, just
the same as the local taxi companies.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what are you asking for? If
they're regulated under this ordinance --
MR. SMITH: They're not regulated. Their drivers, first of all,
aren't carrying hack licenses, most of them, unless they're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's a hack license?
MR. SMITH: A hack license is -- I don't know, what's the
acronym, Jamie?
MR. FRENCH: You know, to this day I still don't know what the
slang term for hack means.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm glad there's someone here who
Page 62
October 27, 2015
doesn't know what --
MR. FRENCH: We call it a driver ID, but the industry has
always, so long as I know --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen --
MR. FRENCH: -- has referred to it as a hack license.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please, one
moment. For the benefit of the court reporter who must record this
activity, we need to have one person speaking at a time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And no one from the audience.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would ask you to please let me
recognize you, and you will have your chance to speak. The audience
can speak under public comment, but please, no outbursts. We need to
have an orderly meeting.
Thank you.
MR. SMITH: So an Uber driver is not required to have a hack
license by Uber. So that's the first violation of the Collier County
ordinance. An Uber driver does not have to get a vehicle inspection
through Uber, which is another violation of the Collier County
ordinance, which we are when we get our permits annually.
An Uber driver does not have to have commercial insurance,
which we are, by the Collier County rules and regulations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the County Attorney is
disagreeing with you.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm disagreeing. Jamie, are we not fining
these drivers who don't comply with the ordinance?
MR. FRENCH: So if-- again, Jamie French, for the record.
If I could, I'll back up a little.
What Randy has said is that the Uber drivers that have been cited,
they are improperly operating as contractors providing vehicle-for-hire
services. The company itself, because there is no classification for a
transportation network company within our ordinance, we have no way
Page 63
October 27, 2015
-- they could come in and get registered, but we have not taken any
action against Uber because the definition of a TNC, for instance, does
not exist.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The definition of a TNC does not
exist?
MR. FRENCH: Transportation network company does not exist
within our ordinance, so we have not taken any action at all against
Uber as a company. However --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're taking action against the
drivers.
MR. FRENCH: The drivers themselves, because they're
independent contractors, much like every contractor or employee of a
transportation company, taxi, limo, black car, whatever they call
themselves, or however they're defined within the ordinance, has a
vehicle for hire, they are all registered with a background check and a
proper license. So we have taken action against every Uber driver that
we have caught operating as a vehicle for hire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't understand the difference
between Uber as a company and Randy's company.
Are your employers independent contractors? Do they work for
you under 1099s or --
MR. SMITH: No. Well, transportation companies, it varies.
Ours are employees, other transportation companies are independent
contractors. So it's both.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have companies that in
effect are operating the same way Uber does?
MR. SMITH: Well, yes. But regardless, if they're -- my
employees could be on -- we could have an app, and even though
they're my employees driving our vehicles, we could be operating
exactly the same way as Uber.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think the app is the issue.
Page 64
October 27, 2015
MR. SMITH: Well, that's what they hide behind to not be
classified as a transportation company. That's the crux of the matter
globally is that they are saying they're not a transportation company,
they're a software company, so they do not need to fall under our
regulations, like Jamie was talking about.
MR. KLATZKOW: But they do, because we regulate the drivers
in the cars. That's what we regulate. And when Code Enforcement
finds a driver with a car and there's something amiss about that, we do
a citation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we do the same thing, for
example, with a driver who works for Randy's company?
MR. SMITH: Yes. Here's the difference --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on a second, let the County
Attorney answer, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. A violation is a violation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But do we cite the individual
driver, as opposed to Randy's company?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would defer to Jamie.
MR. FRENCH: That's correct, we would cite the driver if they're
not listed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we treat Randy's company and
Uber the same way as it relates to this ordinance?
MR. FRENCH: The drivers, that's correct. The companies --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're treating the companies the
same way.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're treating Randy's company
the same way that we're treating Uber.
MR. FRENCH: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't cite Randy's company,
we don't site Uber. We do cite the drivers, regardless of whether
Page 65
October 27, 2015
they're independent contractors for Uber or direct employees of Randy.
MR. SMITH: Can I answer that?
MR. FRENCH: Go ahead.
MR. SMITH: At one time, and I'm not sure if it's still the same, if
one of my drivers got cited, they received a citation. My company
received the same citation. So I don't know if that's still the same,
what's been deregulated or what has been changed. And maybe you
know, Mr. --
MR. FRENCH: So a driver has to be tethered to a company. If
the company is not registered, the driver is cited for operating
independently. There are Uber drivers out there that have stood up
their own companies. And we have caught them before operating
under the Uber app, but they are an independent contractor registered
as a company and as a driver. You need two different licenses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not answering my question.
If a driver who works for Randy's company is cited, is Randy's
company --
MR. FRENCH: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- cited as well?
MR. FRENCH: No, just the driver.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Randy's company is treated the
same way as Uber is, that only the driver -- a driver who is operating
under Uber or a driver that is operating under Randy's company will be
cited the same way for any violation of our ordinance?
MR. FRENCH: The driver, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In both instances neither company,
neither Randy's company nor Uber will be cited under our ordinance.
MR. FRENCH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what you have just said is what
supports what Jeff says, which is Uber and Uber drivers, Randy and
his drivers are treated exactly the same way under this ordinance.
Page 66
October 27, 2015
MR. FRENCH: The drivers, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The companies, too. You just
finished saying that Uber is not cited and that Randy is not cited.
MR. FRENCH: As I earlier stated, the company is also required
to register with the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The company is required to
register with the county, but you are not citing the company.
MR. FRENCH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Uber has not registered with
Collier County. And if they registered with Collier County, that
eliminates this whole discussion?
MR. FRENCH: If Uber were to register with Collier County and
they had the proper insurance and the drivers got their ID's, absolutely
it would eliminate that.
MR. KLATZKOW: And what's the point of registering, Jamie?
MR. FRENCH: We do a criminal background search also on the
owners of the companies, but we also look to make sure that their
vehicles are properly inspected by the private sector and also that they
have the proper insurance on every one of those cars and they're
properly registered with the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're doing that with the Uber
drivers now, regardless.
MR. FRENCH: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not because Uber is not
registered with the county?
MR. FRENCH: We do not -- the driver has no responsibility to
turn in any vehicle information. The driver is only the independent
operator. So we do a criminal background search on the operator of
the vehicle and to make sure that they're properly licensed.
But the company actually has insurance requirements as well as
vehicle inspection requirements that they bring forward to us to show
Page 67
October 27, 2015
that the vehicle is safe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not part of our ordinance.
MR. FRENCH: It is part of our ordinance, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That the company has to provide
proof of the safety of the vehicle and their insurance?
MR. FRENCH: That's correct. Randy does that every year.
Tony Marino did that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so Uber, the company Uber, is
not doing that?
MR. FRENCH: The company does not do that, that's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Jamie, where in the ordinance does it say
that? Is that part of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't see that. I mean, you've got
to help me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did the attorney just say?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He wants to know where it is in the
ordinance, what he just said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I couldn't hear him. You were
talking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He said -- what Jeff said was
where is that in the ordinance, and so he asked Jamie to produce that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: "Criminal history records checks
shall be performed on all persons with an interest in the application,"
which would include the company.
MR. FRENCH: So it is located within the actual administrative
policy manual that is referenced within the ordinance, and it was
updated on June 14th, 2011, Version 1.2.
MR. KLATZKOW: Was that approved by the Board?
MR. FRENCH: Yes, it was. And it was Section 4 under the
Vehicle for Hire license.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, can you review that and give
Page 68
October 27, 2015
us your opinion and verify that it was approved by the Board?
MR. KLATZKOW: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Where do we go from
here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Next speaker.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have more public speakers, Mr.
Miller?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, your next speaker is Richard
Ripp.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, do you want to
speak now or in the future?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it was cleared. It's my
understanding that, just to be very clear, that because Uber calls itself
another name, it's not covered by our ordinance. So if we just put that
whatever it calls itself in 2015 into our ordinance, then it's parity, life is
good, correct?
MR. SMITH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Simple.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Richard Ripp. He'll be
followed by Jason Hartgrave.
MR. RIPP: My name is Richard Ripp. My wife and I own
Ambassador Transportation. Good morning, Commissioner --
Chairman Nance, and fellow Commissioners.
We welcome competition, but we want them to follow the same
two L's we do: To be legal and be licensed. Instead, Uber spends their
money on lobbyists and lawyers. We don't.
Lee County enacted an ordinance that addressed this issue in
August. Since then they are now requiring Uber drivers to come in
and get a hack license, which is a background check, and they have to
prove they have insurance, commercial insurance for hire, otherwise
they're not covered. Not one Uber driver has been able to qualify yet.
Page 69
October 27, 2015
Uber offers the exact same service as we do, and the only thing
that's unique about Uber is they expect exemptions from the legal
licensing and the regulations that others of us in the same industry have
to meet. And in fact they require subsidies from the county and their
competition by not having to pay the fees. But more importantly, in
our business insurance is about 85 percent of our costs. And what the
licensing does is ensure that they have commercial insurance. That's
the most important thing for public safety.
Uber's profits go out of this area. We're all local. Ours stay here.
Their vehicles -- it's already been said, their vehicles are not inspected,
they don't have hack licenses.
All we're asking for is a level playing field, and either make Uber
meet our requirements or, conversely, if you want to be fair, exempt us
from the requirements we have. There's only one of two ways to be fair
about it.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jason Hartgrave. He'll be
followed by Jared Grifoni.
MR. HARTGRAVE: Hi. I'm a local entrepreneur here in Naples.
I was a part of the Game program this year and member of the Young
Professionals, also the Tech Entrepreneurs of Southwest Florida.
What we're talking about with Uber is the large outcry seems to
be public safety. And the issue is, is where's all the crime? It's not. In
fact, Uber is the safest way that you can travel between destinations
because each ride is recorded by time, location, route, car, with the
name of both the driver and the passenger.
In fact, before you ever get picked up with Uber, you get to look
at your driver and notice the car, the make and watch in GPS realtime
as that car arrives to you. There is no safer way to travel. The
incidence of public safety, this is a non-issue.
Page 70
October 27, 2015
And the other thing about it is this is really creating jobs. About
75 percent of the revenue goes directly to the driver involved. So this
eliminates a lot of things.
Also, it may not be a shock to anyone that there are massive
qualifications to qualify as an Uber driver. All of you are welcome to
try to sign up as an Uber driver yourself.
You have to have a driver's license. You have to have a car. Not
only do you have to have a car, you have to have a car of a certain age
and reliability.
You're also rated. That's an amazing thing, because if I give
somebody a bad rating, they're not going to pick anybody else up. So
it's the most transparent way to travel.
And here in Collier County, I can't think of something that would
be a better boost for our economy than a place where you can go to
travel to all of our tourist destinations a lot better.
The necessary amount of regulation is why are we doing it? You
know, why are we spending this money?
This is a transportation -- or this now has -- the industry itself has
innovated to the point where it can regulate itself. We're all free to
decide whether we use Uber.
And here's the other thing: This is not going to go away. These
apps are coming by the dozens, by the hundreds. We're going to have
Lift, we're going to have Uber, we're going to have Car Hue, which
was $250 million invented, because people recognize, other
entrepreneurs recognize this is time.
This industry is ripe for disruption. And this is one of many
industries that are going to be disrupted in exactly the same way. We
have to think about Air B-to-B, Uber Boat, Uber Plane.
So is this really what we're going to do is try to stifle innovation
in Collier County? It makes us all look very bad if we were to
somehow regulate Uber in a way that it's just not necessary anymore.
Page 71
October 27, 2015
That's all the comments that I have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you don't think it matters that
they aren't required to have commercial insurance?
MR. HARTGRAVE: Actually that is complete fear mongering.
As Jared Grifoni will tell you, they have the most comprehensive
policy that covers you. As long as you're using the app, you're covered
by $1 million in coverage. So this is a complete fabrication.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But is it the commercial liability
insurance?
MR. HARTGRAVE: It's liability. I'm not an Uber
representative, so I do not want to comment on the intricacies of their
insurance policy. Perhaps another person can do that. But it is all
publicly accessible information on their website. In fact, you can look
at all the requirements and the safety that goes into it.
I believe I sent a personal email to you, Mrs. Hiller, about Uber
and all its various benefits. And this is all very public information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I use Uber, but that's not the issue.
The issue is, I would like to know exactly what the insurance is that is
being provided. And the fact that a company says, you know, you
work for me and therefore you have to have insurance, or that we will
provide insurance, doesn't mean that at any point in time that
arrangement can change. And if there is no law providing that level of
protection to the public, then quite frankly you could be driving with
someone who isn't insured. But maybe Jared can explain that.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, again, sir?
MR. HARTGRAVE: Jason. Jason Hartgrave.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grifoni is your next and final
speaker, as he's been ceded additional time from Elsa Martinez -- can I
have you indicate you're here, please? Keith Flaugh.
Page 72
October 27, 2015
MR. GRAFONI: He left, but I have another one here.
MR. MILLER: Paul Harper, Dawn Orellus(sic), and Jared Jones,
for a total of 15 minutes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, Mr. Grifoni.
MR. GRAFONI: All right, thank you. Good morning,
Commissioners.
First, let me state for the record what I have here in my hand, I'm
going to be handing it over after I'm done here, copies of 720
signatures gathered from an online petition that's been set up and
spread via word of mouth here in Collier County online, via email,
as well as Collierlp.com/petition. These individual citizens, tourists,
visitors, friends, neighbors, coworkers and voters are all strongly in
favor of Uber.
The petition was addressed to the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners and States: "Please support the continued
utilization of Uber ride-sharing service in Collier County without
government regulation, which is an endorsement of free markets and
individual freedoms in Collier County."
I also want to thank the prior speakers, because in the meantime
since when I printed this out, we got like another seven signatures in
support of Uber, so there's now 727, at least, online.
I also have 11 pages of comments from these 720 folks. Just
very, very quickly, randomly: "I'm signing this petition because I like
Uber. I use very often with my kids when they're in town. It's very
useful. Free market economics. I travel often and use Uber in many
different towns. I have used Uber and I love it. Leave it as it is. I'm
signing because I believe it is a right. I support Uber and the great
service they provide," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, we're here today to discuss this item, because back in July
there was a public petition heard by the BCC. Mr. Peternal Francois
from a traditional taxi company, Naples-based Turbo Cab, requested
Page 73
October 27, 2015
that the BCC regulate Uber because Uber drivers do not operate the
same way that his business does. And apparently that's seen as unfair.
And this alleged unfairness, which otherwise is called "business
competition" because it clearly impacts his business, in his view,
apparently arose to the level of asking Collier County to throw drivers,
Uber drivers, in jail for up to a year and fine them $2,200 per incident.
This anti-Uber effort is about established companies using
government force to take away a low-cost travel option from
nonviolent people. The absurdity of requesting that his fellow citizens
be thrown in jail, perhaps friends, neighbors or even coworkers,
because many taxi drivers also drive for Uber -- be jailed should really
have been the end of the discussion, but the BCC deserves a bit more,
and we're going to continue that.
So I'm going to respond to the rest of his claims from the petition.
He stated, quote: Uber drivers are using their existing personal auto
insurance policy, meaning the passenger is not covered in the event of
an accident.
That's not true. I have here the million-dollar auto --
million-dollar liability umbrella. Uber also has a million dollars in
uninsured motorist coverage, comprehensive and collision, per
incident, and more. They have uninsured -- excuse me, no-fault
personal injury protection coverage in states like Florida, similar levels
as limos and taxis in the cities. And this is all in place from the
moment a ride commences from point A to point B.
Mr. Francois then cites the Vehicle for Hire ordinance we're
discussing here today, implying Uber didn't meet the requirements;
mainly that the $125,000 for bodily injury, $300,000 for bodily injury
to more than one person in the same accident, and 100,000 for property
damage wasn't being met. However, the level of coverage through
Uber that I cited a moment ago is higher than what's required from the
ordinance. So we're talking about a million-dollar umbrella policy
Page 74
October 27, 2015
here.
Drivers' liability to third parties is covered from the moment a
driver accepts a trip to its conclusion. Now, most personal auto
insurance coverage will also cover the driver as well. Now, the driver
is backed by an additional policy that Uber has, and I have right here,
I'll hand it over to you as well, a $50,000 individual accident coverage,
$100,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage. This is all
publicly accessible information right on Uber's website. And this is
Florida specific right here, these forms.
A similar incorrect argument was made by anti-Uber forces in
Lee County earlier this year. It's almost as if it was copied exactly.
The Uber million-dollar liability policy that's in place greatly exceeds
what the County requires for taxicabs. Collier County should not
make the same mistake that Lee County did. While Lee County
committed a blunder, in contrast Sarasota, the Sarasota City
Commission voted unanimously in September to deregulate the entire
industry, all for-hire vehicles, including taxis. This is the example
Collier County should follow, less government, not more.
Mr. Francois then included some additional City of Naples
requirements, which are inapplicable here, since we're talking about
county regulations.
Uber has more checks and balances to help consumers than many
in the traditional model. All drivers must have cars newer than the year
2000 model; they must pass inspection; they must be fully insured,
including comprehensive; they cannot have been modified outside of
factory specifications; the drivers must pass a county, federal, and
multistate criminal background check and have a clean driving record.
So what does that mean? No DUIs or drug-related offenses, no
incidents of driving without insurance or license, no fatal accidents, no
history of reckless driving, no criminal history. They must be 21 years
or older, over three years of driving experience, and they must have
Page 75
October 27, 2015
in-state car insurance in their name. They must have an in-state car
registration. They must have an in-state driver's license and they must
have a Social Security number for a background check.
Most importantly, and most effectively, I believe, drivers are
subject to a far more strict form of regulation: Market regulation. This
is a continuous regulation by customers on each and every single ride.
Before you even get in an Uber, as was mentioned earlier, an
Uber ride, you'll see the driver's name, license plate, photo and rating
before your ride -- or when your ride is confirmed, so you will know
who is picking you up well in advance. You get the route and the GPS
estimated time of arrival through your GPS on your phone so you
know where you're going efficiently and safely. If consumers didn't
feel safe they would not be using Uber.
Driver feedback also counts too. If you have a bad passenger,
drivers can rate passengers. If you violate Uber's terms of service, you
can be removed from access to the system.
So if you irrationally dislike Uber and just for some reason are in
favor of cabs, you never ever have to step foot in an Uber driver car if
you don't want to. So this is about respecting individual choices.
Now, I hope you understand why treating Uber like a traditional
cab company would be impossible, and would be imposing archaic
government regulations on a new and exciting industry, and that you
shouldn't be picking winners and losers in the marketplace.
If you're unfamiliar with how Uber works, I encourage you, take
an Uber ride. I did a few months ago over on the East Coast, and I
couldn't have been happier with the level of service I received for the
price I paid which, by the way, was free for my first ride. I was
offered free bottled water, I had charging stations for my phone, I
could change the radio through my phone. I was picked up in either a
brand new or what looked like brand new Prius, great for the
environment, by the way. The A/C was running and it was cold. It
Page 76
October 27, 2015
was spotlessly clean. On my ride back I was picked up in a brand new
Mercedes and given the same amenities.
So don't forget as well that Uber drivers, many of them, are
part-time individuals who decide to make a little bit more money in
their free time. And this is all taxable income. These are 1099
contractors. They're part-time drivers and they're just like us. You
know, how can a part-time driver be required to -- you know, who
maybe makes one or two rides a week, afford to pay the fees placed on
the government-regulated taxi industry? This is why the current
ordinance is archaic and unworkable.
Uber is not a traditional taxi company. It owns no cars. It
employs no employees, no drivers. They're contractors. This is why
drivers and passengers are covered under the liability umbrella. Your
part-time driver should not be expected to pay for a commercial
insurance policy when they're already covered and the passengers are
already covered as well.
Don't take jobs away from these people by letting part-time
workers be bullied by industry big wigs looking to keep competition
out of the market.
Now, this should not be about asking government to regulate
fairness. Having competition in the marketplace is a good thing, not a
bad thing. It's good for consumers because you get better service,
more options, lower prices. It's better for businesses as well in the
market generally because it spurs innovation, growth and proper
allocation of resources.
Now, we're hearing a lot about unfairness lately in the media.
Even Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are talking about the levels of
unfairness in our country. And it should be noted that Hillary Clinton
wants to "crack down" on companies like Uber, and Bernie Sanders
has, "serious problems" with Uber. I think Collier County's voters
would disagree.
Page 77
October 27, 2015
Now, speaking of Collier citizens, the executive summary for this
item prepared by County Attorney Klatzkow, which has already been
mentioned, states that: "Staff has advised me at no point in time have
we had a single complaint from the public about Uber."
This is a tremendous point that should not be overlooked or
brushed aside. If the citizens of Collier County are happy with the
service that Uber is providing, the BCC should support them by
eliminating the Vehicle for Hire ordinance or exempting Uber and
companies like it from it.
Someone mentioned crimes by Uber drivers. I mean, that's
probably speculation, but how many crimes all over the world have
been committed by taxi drivers? I mean, that's not a reasonable
standard.
In July -- there was some comment about France. You know, I
don't want to follow in the footsteps of France. I trust the people of
Collier County and I trust them to know what's best for themselves and
the community. Someone earlier mentioned Spain, France, China and
Brazil, obviously models that we want to follow in economics and
individual rights.
On October 12th, NBC-2 ran a story that Code Enforcement has
been posing as Uber passengers and ticketing drivers without valid
county paperwork with tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Why are
we allowing Code Enforcement to set up sting operations for Uber
drivers under an outdated ordinance?
Collier entrepreneurs shouldn't be subjected to this kind of
treatment. Private companies like Uber already have self-imposed
market regulations. The Vehicle for Hire ordinance is outdated. This
is an unnecessary waste of county government resources. This is our
tax dollars at work.
Temple University just had a study on mortality rates and
alcohol-induced road deaths. 5.6 percent reduction in California cities
Page 78
October 27, 2015
where Uber operates. Collier County Uber drivers should not be
worried about Code Enforcement tying them up when they could
potentially be saving a life.
Mother's Against Drunk Driving has partnered with Uber.
300,000 people drive drunk every single day in this nation, and the
study they conducted found that when empowered with more
transportation options like Uber, people are making better choices that
save lives. More locally, in Miami, Uber usage peaks at the same hour
that historically has been the worst for drunk driving.
Professor Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist, he used to be
President Obama's chief economic adviser, did a survey of 600 of the
company's drivers, and in 20 of the markets surveyed the average
driver wage was higher than taxi and limousine driver wage estimates
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's a government agency.
Uber has added about 40,000 drivers, just in the month of
December. 80 percent of the drivers surveyed were happy with their
relationship with the company.
Now, I think we can all agree, even those who are opposed to
Uber, or at least the process, that it's a net positive for the community.
These are some of the same concerns that traditional brick-and-mortar
outlets will articulate: We need Internet sales taxes. But, no, those
efforts have languished because people understand that Internet
businesses have made our lives easier, safer and cheaper, and reduced
taxpayer expense so we can use the money elsewhere.
The BCC should at the very least exempt Uber and similar
services from the antiquated, anti-competition Vehicle for Hire
ordinance.
But this is a perfect example of the square peg in the round hole
problem. Traditional taxi companies are now chained down and frozen
and at risk of going extinct due to the ordinance that they had
originally supported and now champion, to keep out competition and
Page 79
October 27, 2015
artificially inflate fares and rates by reducing supply. Some might
suggest that this would serve these companies right to choke on the
bureaucracy that they once cheered, but I'm not here today to suggest
that, and I don't think anyone who supports Uber would suggest that
either. We need to rise above that level of discourse.
What we need to realize is that the free market is for the benefit of
everybody: Uber drivers, taxicab drivers, taxicab companies,
technology companies and consumers. The BCC should eliminate the
outdated Vehicle for Hire ordinance. This will end Code Enforcement
targeting Uber drivers and will help local taxi companies so that they
can better compete with companies like Uber and others that are
apparently coming, and there's no way we can stop it. If we level the
playing field, we should do so by getting government out of the way
rather than by regulating Uber down to the level of government.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that was our last speaker. But
while Mr. Grifoni was speaking, I did have an additional slip handed to
me. I don't know what -- your disposition on that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to go to Commissioner
Henning and then Commissioner Hiller.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if you get a -- let's say Code
Enforcement gets a share-ride person, cites them for not having the
proper registration. They can't -- they don't have arrest powers. They
can't lien the vehicle. It has nothing to do with real property. So they
can't -- even if they own a home or real property in Collier County,
they can't lien it. So how do you collect it? You don't. You can't
regulate the Internet.
Good example is Netflix. Netflix came in, Blockbusters went out.
It's the way of the times. You know, it's -- I mean, you hear Hertz is
going to start a share-ride program. Amazon is going to start a
Page 80
October 27, 2015
share-ride program. It's coming.
You know, the Vehicle for Hire ordinance is there to protect
consumers; it's not there to protect the industry. And I remember back
in the '90s, that there was outrage because some of the taxi drivers
were, according to a consumer, gouging people. And it got tighter.
Then it got less strict.
You know, Mercado to the Vineyards, I was told this morning by
one of our employees were charged $18, or $12.50, I think it was.
Okay. The industry will take care of itself. I looked at Uber's website
and the requirements. Like the County Attorney, Jeff Klatzkow, told
me yesterday, they have tighter or more regulatory restrictions on their
users, or their Uber drivers, than we do in our ordinance.
Let's get out of the business, okay? It's time to let the free market
take place. And I'm going to make a motion that we direct the County
Attorney to rescind the Vehicle for Hire ordinance and make it fair for
everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Very interesting.
This is a very, very interesting debate. I have to say, I'm so
impressed by both sets of speakers. I mean, a lot of you have spoken,
but Jared and Randy, you both spoke so eloquently. It's really nice to
see this level of quality in presentations to the Board. It makes our
decision-making that much easier.
This is a very complicated issue, in part, and it seems to be simple
in part. The deregulation of the companies, whether it's Randy's
company or the other transportation companies, or conversely the
regulation of the company known as "Uber," I think is easily
addressed. I think whether we look at it as making Uber the same as
Randy or deregulating Randy's company, the effect is the same. So I
think deregulating taxi companies themselves is definitely an option.
Page 81
October 27, 2015
The concern I have remains with the drivers. Because even if the
companies aren't regulated, if we have certain standards, again, there's
nothing to say that the private company can't cancel the insurance
policies. It doesn't matter what anyone has on a website. Anyone can
say anything. You know, I can say that I'm six feet tall and blonde,
that I assure you may not be the case, but it could be. We're not going
to debate that point.
The point being is that if Uber does require all of these things of
its drivers, there's no reason that that not be required of the drivers as a
matter of law.
If we're going to deregulate the companies, let's ensure that at
least the drivers are required to pass criminal background checks,
because we do need to ensure that that is the case, in the interest of
public safety. Let's make sure that they do have adequate insurance.
You know, let's make sure that their vehicles are inspected. And if
these companies out there like Uber -- and there are many other
companies like Uber out there -- if they're already requiring those as a
condition of being able to use the app, then these drivers are not going
to have any problem complying, because they're already doing it as
part of their contract with whichever company they're with.
In China Uber is having problems penetrating that market. There
is an existing company in China right now, and I forget the name of
that company. And what that company has does is it has worked with
existing taxi companies out there and has adopted the same standards
and actually is, like, recruiting their drivers to come over to them.
I think Uber as a service is outstanding. I think the app is
wonderful. To go to the gentleman that spoke about the value of the
app, the app is great. And I think that conventional taxi companies are
going to start using similar type of apps. I mean, I don't see the
difference between an app and a phone. I mean, calling and asking a
taxi to be delivered to your house so you can get somewhere is no
Page 82
October 27, 2015
different than in-putting it on your smart phone and calling the cab to
come to your home. It's just a question of what umbrella you're
operating under.
And I think, Randy, one day you're going to have the same app.
I'm sure you may end up licensing Uber's app and using that with your
taxi drivers.
The bottom line is, what is the State doing now with respect to the
licensing requirements of drivers and, you know, the insurance
requirements and, you know, the other operational requirements for the
drivers themselves?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is largely a local issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it? And has the State -- what's
the State doing? I thought they were going to be considering it in the
next session.
MR. KLATZKOW: They had a bill in both the regular and the
special session go nowhere.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do we do for other
commercial drivers? Like what do we do for, you know, a company
that doesn't transport passengers? Do we require commercial licenses
for a truck haul?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's a State issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's State? That's interesting. So
the State has regulated --
MR. KLATZKOW: The State has given you, under your general
powers as the Board of County Commissioners, the ability to regulate
the taxicab business.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: From an insurance standpoint also?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just from an overall standpoint.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is no State Law with
respect to insurance of commercial drivers?
MR. KLATZKOW: When it comes to taxi drivers, that's you.
Page 83
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to insurance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no State law on insurance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you've got your general, as a
passenger, minimum insurance, whatever that is, $5,000 coverage,
whatever that is. But what you're talking about is a local issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's interesting. That's very
interesting that the State has given us so much power.
The issue of the drivers is one that's I think the question that we
have to look at more closely. But deregulating the actual companies, I
think what will happen is the market will force the companies to
require of their drivers what, you know, the public wants. But as far as
the drivers, I think there has to be some sort of requirement to ensure
that they don't -- you know, that they're not driving with a suspended
license, that they don't have a history of DUIs, that they are insured.
And I don't think we can delegate that responsibility to the company.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Hiller --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's interesting, we have an
item that was on the consent agenda now going on the regular agenda
to issue a COPCN and there's not a requirement to do a background
check on any of those drivers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're not issuing the COPCN.
What we're doing is we're allowing the applicant to go to the State.
The State then makes a determination as to what the applicant --
whether or not the applicant qualifies and what the applicant's
requirements are. That is very different than this. It's not even
comparable. And we don't issue --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to finish what I was
saying, because you had an hour-and-a-half of talking.
Page 84
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's allowing companies to do
business in Collier County to transport, in this case, people that need
transport between inter-facilities or on an ALF to the hospital or a
hospital back home, or whatever.
So, you know, I'm going to stand by my motion, and I'm ready to
vote on the motion to see where it goes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, before I go to
Commissioner Taylor, I'm going to support your motion because I
don't believe it's within our ability to regulate everyone, so I therefore
do not think we should regulate anyone. Because we just can't do
something -- you know, I think we have to be fair and allow the local
transportation companies to compete. If they want to present their
services as a higher level of service or with more security, then perhaps
it's worth more money and they should be given that opportunity.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just wanted to point out I
thought Commissioner Hiller made a very good point, that just because
it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I would like to believe that's
the case.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I mean, it's amazing to
quote the internet to say it's on the internet, therefore it means it's true
is naive at best.
I think -- you know, I don't see any problem with our Vehicle for
Hire ordinance. I have a problem that we have Vehicle for Hires that
are not being covered and that company is called Uber. So I'm not sure
I'm in the majority up here. I wish we would just include them under
this ordinance. Frankly, I would rather have Mr. French telling me that
Page 85
October 27, 2015
this driver is okay than the Internet.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please. Please, ladies and gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And just as an aside, if Uber
wasn't so cheap we wouldn't be here. And so beware of the wolf in
sheep's clothing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, we have a motion and a
second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know what to say.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you have to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't abstain. I have never -- this
is such a difficult issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll give you a quarter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know what I'd like to do is I
think that the State --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Did you not vote, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I don't know what to vote on.
I want to wait. I've got to think about it.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you can't.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, you can't. You have to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who says I have to do it right
now? I can do it before the end of the day.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right now we're 3-1 and we're going to
go --
Page 86
October 27, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to vote right now.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to go on to the next item.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want an ethics complaint?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sue me. I mean, what can I say?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Vote with the majority, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, I will vote with the
majority.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It is 4-1, with Commissioner Taylor in
dissent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want my quarter back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why would you -- give me that
quarter back.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I might need it to call a taxi.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It reminds me of Bat--
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It reminds me of Batman, the
two-face, you know.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to go ahead.
Mr. Ochs?
Item #1 1 C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VETERAN'S
RECOGNITION PROJECT THROUGH A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP WITH A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION —
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THAT INCLUDE
ESTABLISHING A LINK TO THE VETERAN'S WEBSITE ON
COLLIERGOV.NET, THAT STAFF BE PAID BY THE COUNTY
Page 87
October 27, 2015
WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE ORGANIZATION AND WITH NO
ADVERTISING ON BANNERS OTHER THAN RECOGNIZING
THE VETERAN'S SPONSOR — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Might I suggest to the Board we take Item 11.C? I
know we had some folks that wanted to speak to that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's try to take 11.0 before lunchtime.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And that is a recommendation to approve
a veteran's recognition project through a public-private partnership
with a nonprofit organization.
Mr. Casalanguida will make the presentation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir. Good morning,
Commissioners, Nick Casalanguida, for the record.
This is in response to your Item 6.A at the last meeting for a
public petition where you directed staff to consider some options and
bring them back at the next meeting, or alternately, another meeting.
I watched the video several times, and I've also met with Dr. Lux
and put this item together for you.
Really, it's pretty self-explanatory, and I think time would be
better served with the speaker on this item to petition the Board or talk
to the Board than me presenting more.
That's your discretion, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OCHS: You have several speakers, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can't you just like -- I mean, we've
read the summary, but I mean, I think just summarize it and then we'll
make a motion. I don't think we need a bunch of speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dr. Lux, if you could help me,
I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion to approve
staffs recommendation, subject to if there is a reference on our website
Page 88
October 27, 2015
for -- that is an actual link to your website; is that correct? Come up
here, please.
MS. LUX: I'm Debi Lux, but I'm going to let my husband, Sean
Lux, speak.
MR. LUX: As far as the website, the only reason we wanted our
website on there is so we could maintain the website. We aren't
looking to gain anything. This is all about our veterans. Our
organization is only to honor our veterans.
However, our website being on there was considered an issue.
What we thought -- what we could do is either yes, the government
website or link on there and just a link to our website, or we could also
create a completely neutral website that would be only about the
banners. And we could have that on there. For example --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whatever you want to do. I
mean, my statement is true on that one issue, correct?
MS. LUX: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if it's a link to whatever,
that's your responsibility. We'll work with you to make that happen.
MR. LUX: Perfect, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second thing is, our
employees, we support United Way for the not-for-profits in the
county. That is our way -- instead of using tax dollars to support
not-for-profits, we support the United Way. And in fact employees are
paid to try to raise money for United Way, or make the awareness for
United Way.
So part of my motion is going to be that staff will be paid by the
county, not by the organization, to install these brackets. Okay?
Is there anything else I'm missing?
MR. LUX: First of all, if that is a sticking point we are willing to
figure out how to get it paid for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't think it's going to
Page 89
October 27, 2015
bea --
MR. LUX: We don't want to get turned away because of that.
Now, as far as a sponsor name, there is an issue about a sponsor
name on the banner. This isn't intended to be an advertising issue.
Instead of "sponsored by," we're looking at a veteran's picture, and at
the bottom, "honored by." For example, we could have a picture of
Colonel Nick Hale, honored by Ms. Georgia Hiller. So very tasteful.
Or it could be a Marine honored by Ace Hardware. That's not
advertising. No one's going to do any marketing by putting their
names on the banners. Very tasteful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to make a motion
to approve and ask the County Manager to direct staff to place the
brackets at no charge to the organization; that we have a link -- to work
with the organization to provide a link to whatever website they want;
and there will be no advertising. There could be a recognition of
individual or company on the banner to --
MR. LUX: Right. And this is something we do at the Freedom
Memorial now on the bricks. So this is nothing new, but it will be very
tasteful, honored by someone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
MR. LUX: By you, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, and I second your motion, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Public speakers, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, six, beginning with Patrick Neale.
MS. LUX: He had to leave.
MR. MILLER: Homer Helter?
MS. LUX: He had to leave.
MR. MILLER: Debi Lux, you're still here. You have three
minutes. Would you like to speak?
MS. LUX: I agree. It's just, like I said, this is a wonderful
Page 90
October 27, 2015
hometown feeling. This is a community support. This is the reason
we're doing it, is just to recognize there are people overseas. It's not
just our World War II veterans, it's veterans of yesterday and today.
So we're just honoring them.
And it's really neat, as a resident and a business owner, that I can
say thank you so much for doing what you do.
And, Georgia, I know you loved Nick. I loved him too. And this
is a great way that we can say our local heros are here and we just want
to thank them so much for their services.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much is a banner?
MS. LUX: We're looking at $300 for an individual banner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll get one for him.
MS. LUX: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: The other speaker is Sean Lux.
Mr. Lux, do you wish to say any more?
MR. LUX: No more comments. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Tim Timrud.
MS. LUX: He had to leave.
MR. MILLER: And Kimberly Anderson.
MS. LUX: She's fine.
MR. MILLER: And she'll waive. So that concludes your
speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. We have a motion and a
second. Any further comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 91
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, it passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I like the comment,
this is a hometown feeling. And that's going to help improve our
community.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Mr. Ochs, I don't think we
have any other short items, do we, sir?
MR. OCHS: Well, sir, unle,ss the Board thinks they can make
the appointments to the Growth Management Oversight Committee in
15 minutes. You may be able to do --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will try to do that, with the Board's
indulgence. I will start -- you want to go to Item 10.A?
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2015-224: APPOINTING INITIAL MEMBERSHIP
OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
— ADOPTED: MOTION APPOINTING MAX "JAMIE"
WEISINGER (WAIVING REQUIREMENTS) FOR THE RFMUD —
BUSINESS INTEREST; JEFFREY S. CURL FOR THE GGAMP —
RESIDENT; ROSS W. MCINTOSH FOR THE RLSA — BUSINESS
INTEREST AND EVERETT LOUKONEN FOR THE IAMP —
RESIDENT — APPROVED; MOTION APPOINTING DAVID E.
TORRES AT LARGE — FAILED; MOTION APPOINTING
MICHAEL D. LYSTER AT LARGE — FAILED; MOTION
APPOINTING JOHN W. VAUGH JR. AT LARGE — APPROVED;
MOTION APPOINTING NICHOLAS G. PENNIMAN IV AT
Page 92
October 27, 2015
LARGE — APPROVED; MOTION APPOINTING DEBORAH
CHESNA AT LARGE — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That is a recommendation to appoint the
initial membership of the Growth Management Oversight Committee.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Board members, I'm going to open this
up. I'm going to try to move this forward.
As you might imagine, because these items are primarily in my
district, I have thought about this a great deal. I will say I think we
have an extraordinarily good group of applicants.
What I would like to do is I would like to move forward and
propose nominations for the consideration of the Board on the four
planning areas and then allow Board members to discuss the At Large
seats. And I will tell you the ones that I would like to nominate and
why.
I would like to jump ahead to the -- kind of take them out of order
a little bit. On the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, I would like to
nominate Jeffrey S. Curl as a resident member of the committee.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I second it, or do we second?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, you can second it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I second it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think he has served on many important
capacities as a resident. He is -- you know, I will tell you, overall I'm
trying to make my recommendations based on the fact that these
people have lived in the county and have been active in the county in
some capacity for a very long time. All of the people I'm going to talk
about and recommend today have been here for more than 15 years.
And all the people -- I think I have two that I'm going to
recommend from the business community and two that are residents.
And I've also made my recommendations based on the fact that I think
these people have been very apolitical. They haven't been involved in
Page 93
October 27, 2015
any political things, they haven't had any baggage. And I believe that
they're all stable people that are higher order thinkers and that will
really bring a very mature oversight to this process which I feel is so
important.
So I would like to nominate Jeffrey S. Curl for the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan. He's served on the Board of the Naples Zoo, he's
served as president of the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee,
and he's also worked together with Southwest Florida Water
Management District, together with the Water Symposium of Florida.
You heard him testify at one of our workshops just recently.
In the Rural Land Stewardship Area, you saw by the corrections
to the agenda that Jamie Weisinger also qualifies for that.
I'm going to drop back to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,
and I'm going to nominate Jamie Weisinger for that position. And the
Board members need to be aware that in order to accept Mr. Weisinger
we're going to have to waive his residency and elector requirements.
Let me tell you why I think he is a very, very interesting applicant and
very, very good one for Collier County.
Mr. Weisinger is a family member of the Litman family. And the
Litman family has got business interests in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use
District, in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, and in the Town of
Immokalee. In these areas, the Litman Company has been an absolute
gold standard for community involvement and social responsibility.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Doesn't that make it a conflict of
interest for him to be in that seat?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I don't think it does, Commissioner
Hiller, because they have -- they have a right, as a stakeholder, to do
that. But what I'm suggesting to you is that for the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District there's only a few people that really have perspective to
provide oversight at the 30,000-foot level. And I believe that is what
this Committee is being tasked to do.
Page 94
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I don't think that he can vote
on any matter that relates to his properties.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, he may have to recuse himself.
Actually --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's true for anyone that's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's going to be the case here and
something that we're going to struggle with. But in the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District itself, there are very few people that are actively
engaged in it, other than a business capacity, because it's so greatly
undeveloped. There are a few residents.
I just think that Mr. Weisinger's involvement in multiple areas of
our growth management review uniquely qualifies him, and so I'm
going to nominate him for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You'd better speed it up, you got
nine minutes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: On the Rural Land Stewardship Area,
I'm going to nominate Mr. Ross McIntosh. Mr. Ross McIntosh is a
real estate professional of longstanding.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He's been a director of the Naples Zoo,
and NABOR and CBIA. I think he's going to bring a real estate
professional's aspect to it.
In Immokalee, I'm going to nominate Dr. Everett Loukonen. Dr.
Loukonen has served as an agribusiness professional for almost his
entire adult life in Collier County. He's remained active as a citizen,
following his retirement. He's been involved in the Immokalee Water
and Sewer District, and I think in a very difficult area the Immokalee
Master Plan. He has no baggage and has not been involved with that
in a political way. So I'm going to nominate those four people as my
choices for those areas that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the -- At Large again?
Page 95
October 27, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The At Large?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Those we haven't done yet.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The At Large -- I'm going to conclude
my remarks with those four study area nominees and allow other
commissioners to discuss --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we go to the At Large?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, yes, let's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what he's trying to say.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's what I'm going to do. Let's go to
Commissioner Fiala.
And then you wish to speak, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First, Commissioner Taylor has got
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm first, but --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Taylor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very good.
First of all, just quickly, I want to tell you that Jamie Weisinger, I
have no idea who he is, but I've heard so many good things about this
guy that I feel he would be an important component in this group of
seven. Jeffrey Curl is outstanding and well-respected throughout the
whole county, so I think he's great. Same with Ross McIntosh. Man,
oh, man, when you want to get the business and commercial
businesses involved, he's got great oversight. I don't know Dr. Everett
Loukonen, but from what you've said he sounds like the perfect person
for Immokalee.
So when we get down to the others, I would like to nominate Joe
Schmitt. And although I do not know Deborah Chesna, I've heard
some great things about her. So I don't know if I have a chance to
Page 96
October 27, 2015
nominate more than one, but Joe would be my first choice, and then
Deborah Chesna I would throw in as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many At Large do we get to
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, there she is, okay.
I would like to second your motion on Ross McIntosh and Jeff
Curl. Mr. Weisinger, I'm convinced -- I was troubled by the fact he's
not a resident, but you made it very clear by what you said, Chairman,
that he has deep connections to the area.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Can I just comment on that one moment?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, it's rare when you find a
corporation that has an active family member involved with it. And
that's why I think he not only fits as a good representative but, you
know, that commitment is unusual now with large corporations. So I
think that he's got a very wide -- and I think he's very much respected,
particularly in the Immokalee community. So I think he's got multiple
purposes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then Dr. Loukonen, yes.
And I'm very pleased that he has this background in the agribusiness,
which of course we want to preserve in Collier County.
When we go to the At Large, I would like to nominate Nicholas
Penniman, and I would like to nominate Bonnie Michaels. I believe
we're allowed two in the At Large.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Three?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Three.
Page 97
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just named two because I
figured I'd give other people room too.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Hiller. Let's get it all on the table.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, so you have a second on
your motion, Commissioner Nance, that's what I understand.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The only one that I see that has
any environmental background is Michael Ramsey from Golden Gate
Estates. You know, a former employee, I'm not sure I could support
that one.
I don't want to be territorial. I'm not looking for somebody from
District 3 to serve on this committee. I want good, qualified people.
That's my input.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Which one did you say you had a
problem with, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a problem with a former
employee, Joe Schmitt, being on this committee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the At Large. We're not
voting on that yet. This is for the first four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, I'm going to state, I have
a problem with Joe Schmitt being on this committee.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Commissioner Hiller? And
let's see if we can get some --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support the four you've
nominated, Commissioner Nance, and I just want to make sure that
just as a general rule, you know, all the conflict requirements have to
be addressed for everybody, regardless of who it is. So if anyone has
an interest in any property being voted on in any way, they do need to
recuse themselves.
So I will support -- and what I would like to do is I think we need
Page 98
October 27, 2015
two motions. The first is on what you recommended, which is the first
four, and then the second is on the At Large.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion to approve the
four that you recommended, and we'll deal with the At Large
separately.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, there's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion on the four positions on the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not talking about the At
Large.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Just the four positions for the study
areas, which include --
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, it's Jeffrey Curl for the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ross McIntosh for the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Everett Loukonen for the Immokalee Area
Master Plan. And Jamie Weisinger for the Rural Land Stewardship
Area.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Being aware if the motion approves
waiving the residency and elector requirements for Mr. Weisinger?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: That's not what I heard earlier. I heard Mr.
McIntosh for the RLSA and Mr. Weisinger for the RFMUD.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, that's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's why I'm clarifying, because there was
Page 99
October 27, 2015
a misstatement.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is it?
MR. OCHS: I don't know. That's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's Mr. Weisinger for the RFMUD, Mr.
Curl for Golden Gate Master Plan, Mr. Ross McIntosh for RLSA, and
Dr. Everett Loukonen for Immokalee Master Plan.
MR. OCHS: Got it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And the motion would have to include
waiving the residency and electorate requirements for Mr. Weisinger.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is that acceptable to the second as well?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got two minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So with respect to the At Large, I
would agree with Commissioner Henning. I would recommend Mike
Lyster. I would recommend John Vaughn. And we have to pick
three?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Pick three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ramsey.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he's not part of this. He's not
Page 100
October 27, 2015
part of the At Large.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, he can be. Anyone on this list can
be an At Large.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, well, then I would recommend
David Torres as an At Large.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So how are we going to proceed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you've got a motion and a
second, so we have to vote. So we've got --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care for some of-- I don't
care for everything you said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we can do one by one. Let's
start with David Torres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to confirm
Mr. David Torres --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As an At Large.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- as an At Large member.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, I cannot vote for that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's okay, you just vote no. But,
you know, he's a major interest. He's Hacienda Lakes, which is the
largest DRI in the county. He has a better understanding of land issues
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He may have the largest DRI in the
county, but that's neither here nor there. It's just a difference of
opinion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, of course. Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: He qualifies under our RFMUD.
All right, there's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
Page 101
October 27, 2015
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Mr. Torres does not qualify.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And John Vaughn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's a realtor, isn't he?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
Mr. Vaughn, there's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, did you vote in
favor of Mr. Vaughn?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So Mr. Vaughn is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next one is --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- 4-1.
Page 102
October 27, 2015
Who would like to make --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next one is --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who would like to make --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Mike Lyster.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Somebody else should make --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, those are my three, so I'm
doing -- I'm finishing my three, and then you can do whatever you
want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a second, can I finish my last
one? Which was Michael Lyster.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second for
Michael Lyster.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, Mr. Lyster fails 3-2.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, Ms. Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I've heard from the industry.
I do not know Deborah Chesna, but I do know Joe Schmitt. I've heard
a couple of people not wanting to vote for Joe Schmitt. Is that the case?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I cannot support Mr. Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, so then I won't even mention
him. I'd rather ask you that and -- I don't know Deborah Chesna. I just
hear that she's highly respected --
Page 103
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know who she is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in all avenues. And that would be
the only other one I would choose.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: She's a retired attorney; is that not
correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know that. I've just gotten a
few calls on her. So those would be the ones --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you put her application up for
to us review?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I looked through it and it
looked impressive when I was looking through it. I've got it right here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't remember it. I mean, I could
look it up on my iPad, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But other than that, now we've
already chosen John Vaughn, right?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. We have two more to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then maybe --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You want to nominate Ms. Chesna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I would.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we don't know --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's get her resume'. I'm not that
familiar.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Take a look at her resume', it's very,
very good.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me -- I'm sorry I
missed this -- you're voting on individuals, and I did not -- I neglected
to mention, we do have a registered speaker. Normally you --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear the registered speaker.
MR. MILLER: Bruce Anderson. Oh, he's waiving. So I just -- I
had a feeling you might want to get that out of the way while we --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Anderson is just waiting for lunch.
Page 104
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, Deborah Chesna also,
she has worked for the Health Department, but her background is
pathways, bikes, sidewalks and that. She's all into biking and so forth.
So --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does that have to do with
land use? No, it does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've got it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they'll probably be building
sidewalks and pathways out in the rural lands.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, and she does have a
background in urban and regional analysis and planning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With an environmental
concentration.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Concentration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Packet Page 85. Thank you. Or
Page 85, I should say. Yeah, Packet Page 85.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was a little troubled -- I think
that's why I didn't -- by the time she was here. I too like longtime
residents. I don't think Collier County is an easy read and -- but I am
impressed with her background.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. I misspoke. The retired attorney is
Gaylene Vasaturo, who I'm not personally familiar with either.
So how would the Board like to proceed? Would you like to vote
on Ms. Chesna or would you like to discuss others?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait, I want to see her --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And does she work for our Health
Department, or does she work for the State? Is she an employee of
ours?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Florida Department of Health in
Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She spoke at one of the pathway
Page 105
October 27, 2015
meetings.
Where is she?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A healthy community advocate.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Questions, comments? Mr. Vaughn is
from District 4.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions or comments?
Lunch.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Lunch? We've got two more to go, sir.
Let's vote on Ms. Chesna. Is there a second for her nomination?
If not, let's talk about somebody else on the list. We've got a couple
more.
Commissioner Henning, do you share your same anxiety about
Mr. Chrzanowski that you do about Mr. Schmitt being a past
employee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, Mr. Penniman. He lives
in the City of Naples. I think it's important on this committee, because
even though the area that we're talking about --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is he related to Linda?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't support that. That would be
a problem.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think it's important that the
City is represented in this group, because frankly the City is affected
by the growth in the whole county.
His background is he is an environmentalist, he's been very active
in volunteering for many committees, and he's been a resident for 10 to
15 years, so he has a good idea of what --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would second that nomination.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would third it.
Page 106
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, good. Let's vote.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor of Mr.
Penniman, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to take that as a unanimous.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to nominate Chesna.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're going to nominate Ms. Chesna?
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Deborah Chesna.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Deborah Chesna for the final seat.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. Wait, wait.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's on the overhead, right in front
of you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning? This is the
person we've been taking a look at her resume'.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She has a good background.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, the one who works for the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Bachelor of Science, urban and
regional analysis.
Page 107
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She works for the State?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I met with her and
she wanted to get on our committee to help write rules so that we can
have what she's being paid to do. So --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, really?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's the one that I think
everybody met, and I told her to go petition the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never met her.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To do what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go petition the Board. She
wanted to help write the laws to make sure what she's hired for by the
State is implemented.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can't do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That doesn't make sense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For clarification, Commissioners, she
works for the Board of Health, and as one of the other employees had
done in the past, they talked about participating in the walkable
community study, participating in the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm talking about the same
person, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's wrong with that? There's
nothing wrong with that. That's what all these people are doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your opinion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know, like -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Walkable communities, I like that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The walkable communities, you
know, the sports, the health, the pathways. I mean, I think it's good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the way the world's going.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is a commitment. This is a
Page 108
October 27, 2015
five-year commitment. So whoever we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We also can, if we don't like how
someone is performing, we can remove them too. It's at the will of the
Board. So if someone is on there for six months and we don't like
what they're doing, and if they're not working the way we like them,
we can just say we're going to replace that person.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think -- I don't know if the
rules of the committee have been created, but I do think there has to be
some stars for people who show up for the meetings. And so that's got
to be one of the criteria.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And they have to be participatory.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, absolutely.
So whoever we pick, this last person -- and I agree that I don't
think it should be a Collier County employee, or before, or anything
like that -- they have to have a history of involvement. And I think
we've done that pretty well. It's just this last person.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This lady has been very involved
on many levels and clearly cares. And I think it's good. I mean, she's
got the academic background. She's been involved in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what she's being paid to
do. That's why she's involved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ross McIntosh is paid to be
involved in real estate, you know. I mean, all these people are involved
in some way and are being paid to be involved in some way, you
know, or are benefiting in some way from this real estate. I mean,
that's not the point.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, we seem to be on the fence here.
Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Fiala, do you have an
alternate?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, why?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm going to stay with Chesna.
Page 109
October 27, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're going to stay with Chesna?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm going to second it, or first
it, or whichever you want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You first it, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, she seems like a
reasonable choice.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All right, now, realizing we're
going to have three At Large people, and they're all going to be from
District 4, is everybody comfortable with that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I know you like that,
Commissioner Taylor, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care about that. I think that's
fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, I'm not trying to make it political,
but I just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're not representing the
district. They happen to live there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think Chesna is representing
District 4.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, well, let's take a vote then.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, Commissioner Henning is in
Page 110
October 27, 2015
dissent, but she's confirmed as the third and final. So that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We did it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have Mr. John Vaughn in an At
Large seat, Nicholas Penniman, IV in an At Large seat, and Ms.
Deborah Chesna in an At Large seat.
And I think that concludes us, Mr. County Manager, is that --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- acceptable?
MR. OCHS: Then when you come back after lunch we'll do
public comments on general topics, and then you can either decide if
you want to take your final impact fee item to move our consultants
back to Tampa or take the COPCN hearing after your public comment.
Whatever the pleasure of the Chair.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. In the meantime, we will
stand in lunch recess until 1 : 10.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are you disappointed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm confused because -- I'm just
confused.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Mr. Ochs, I guess it is time for
citizen comment for items not on the current or future agenda.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's Item 7 on today's agenda.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have no registered speakers
for that item.
Page 111
October 27, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That is our best agenda item of the day
so far, Mr. Miller.
MR. OCHS: I don't know how we're going to top that.
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH IS THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE INCORPORATION BY
REFERENCE OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED,
"COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE
UPDATE STUDY," DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2015, AMENDING
SCHEDULE THREE OF APPENDIX A TO REFLECT THE
REVISED RATES SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER
16, 2015, FOR COMMUNITY PARKS IMPACT FEE RATES AND
A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF FEBRUARY 8, 2016, FOR
REGIONAL PARKS IMPACT FEE RATES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE NOTICE PERIOD REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
163.31801(3)(D) FLORIDA STATUTES — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, let's try to take 11.B, since we
have our impact fee consultant local, and perhaps the Board can reach
a decision on that one --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- in a timely fashion.
MR. OCHS: That would be very helpful. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve. Is there a
Page 112
October 27, 2015
second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we approving?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Item 11.B.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Some of them are going up, some
of them are going down on the parks impact --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Why don't you introduce the agenda
item, Mr. Ochs, and let's be -- let's do our job.
MR. OCHS: This is a recommendation to accept an update to the
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study and to adopt the rates that are
recommended as a result of that study. And I'll ask Ms. Patterson to
give a very brief overview for the Board.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon. Amy Patterson again, for
the record.
This is a required update of our community and regional parks
impact fees. As has been indicated, it's mixed with some of the fees
going up and some of the fees going down, which actually makes the
overall effect on most homes in Collier County fairly neutral or a small
increase.
We do have a recommendation from the Development Services
Advisory Committee to accept the study. And they did make some
additional recommendations about some things they'd like to see done
relative to the AUIR in an update of the Master Plan prior to the next
impact fee update.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that have to be in the motion?
MS. PATTERSON: That is up to the Board's discretion. On the
Master Plan, if you wanted to formalize that in your recommendation,
that may be a good thing.
MR. OCHS: There's no recommended difference in the rates that
DSAC came up with. It was just to incorporate some other elements of
the Master Plan into our capital improvement planning in the park
Page 113
October 27, 2015
system going forward in the AUIR.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah. There was some shifting, and the
regional impact fees went up some and the community park fees went
down some which is I think basically considered pretty much a wash in
terms of overall impact.
MS. PATTERSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Did I understand there was a
motion to approve and a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, that is approved unanimously
5-0.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NON-
EMERGENCY INTER-FACILITY AMBULANCE TRANSPORTS
TO JUST LIKE FAMILY CONCIERGE MEDICAL TRANSPORT
SERVICES, LLC., FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING POST-
Page 114
October 27, 2015
HOSPITAL AND INTER-FACILITY MEDICAL AMBULANCE
TRANSFER SERVICES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that would take us now to Item 11.F,
which was previously Item 16.E.6. This is an item that requires that
ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members, and all
participants are required to be sworn in.
This is a recommendation to approve a certificate of public
convenience and necessity for nonemergency interfacility ambulance
transports to Just Like Family Concierge Medical Transport Services,
LLC, for the purpose of providing post-hospital and interfacility
medical ambulance transfer services.
Commissioners, I know that the County Attorney, prior to your
lunch break, gave you a brief outline of the procedures that should be
followed in this hearing, so --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, I'm going to follow those
procedures. We're going to begin with having the court reporter
administer the oath to all those wishing to speak on this item.
Please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter, if you wish to
testify.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That includes any public speakers.
Everybody who's going to speak has to stand up and be sworn in.
Otherwise you can't speak.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, at this time I'm going to ask
individual Commissioners to give their ex-parte disclosures. I'm going
to remind them they should include letters, emails, phone calls and
meetings, including any personal investigations such as a site visit, and
identifying the person, groups, or entities with whom the
communication took place.
Page 115
October 27, 2015
Commissioner Taylor can begin.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I had a conversation with Burt
Saunders regarding his supporting of Ambitrans. I certainly read the
material, including a letter from Mr. Myers. And I believe that's -- I've
had conversations with staff, I've had conversations with my executive
coordinator.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much.
I stated this before, but for those that weren't here, I had meetings
and emails with Steve Epright and Elisabeth Nassberg and
correspondence and meetings with Burt Saunders. And I also spoke
with staff.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I have likewise spoken with staff
and had a phone call with Mr. Saunders, who represents Ambitrans.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had a meeting with Ron Myers, I
had a phone call with Burt Saunders, and I had a phone call with
Elisabeth Nassberg.
Do we have to disclose the content of those calls as well?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, only if you're asked.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And let's see what else.
Email. And I believe -- I think we received some written
correspondence as well. And I did not talk to staff about this matter.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had -- my communications was
with Mike Grant from Ambitrans and the petitioners. I did see one of
those -- one of their vehicles go down the street, if that's a site visit. I
sighted it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, brother.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All right, at this time any parties
Page 116
October 27, 2015
that wish to question the Board members regarding their ex-parte are
asked to do so at this time. If they choose not to do so, then any
further questioning regarding ex-parte will be considered waived.
Is there anybody that would like to ask any questions regarding
ex-parte?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would recommend you all ask all
of us what we talked about with whom. That's what I would
recommend.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Hearing none, we will move on.
I will outline to you the procedure that I would like us to follow,
as recommended by the County Attorney. Basically we're going to
have an opportunity for three presentations. The first presentation will
be by the applicant. It should not exceed 30 minutes. At the
conclusion of the presentation the opposing party will be given a
10-minute window to ask questions of the applicant.
Secondly there will be a presentation given by the opposition to
the application, which would not exceed 30 minutes, and the applicant
will likewise have a 10-minute opportunity thereafter to ask questions
of the opposing side.
Finally there will be an opportunity for a presentation by staff
Board members can ask questions at any time during the process.
Following the presentation by staff we will hear public speakers,
if any. And then finally, after the conclusion of the public speakers,
the applicant and the opposing party will have 10 minutes each, if they
choose, to give a summary presentation.
At that time we will close the public hearing and the Board
members will commence their discussion and deliberation on the item.
So let us start with presentation by the applicant.
MS. NASSBURG: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
Okay, so this is a picture of the ambulance. It's actually very
realistic. We did just get the ambulance. The wrap was finished
Page 117
October 27, 2015
yesterday, so this is a very good image of what it actually looks like.
MR. OCHS: Could you please State your name?
MS. NASSBURG: I'm sorry, a little bit nervous.
My name is Elisabeth Nassberg. I am the owner of Just Like
Family Services. That includes Just Like Family Home Care, which
has been in business here in Naples since 2006, and also Concierge
Transport Services, and now Concierge Medical Transport. I
neglected to tell you that.
This is a proposal for our COPCN. Our mission statement is that
Concierge Medical Transport will provide our community with
superior client-focused transportation services. From hospital
discharges, interfacility transfers, skilled nursing facility appointments
and others, Concierge Medical Transport will serve and meet the needs
of a diverse range of Collier County's residents and visitors.
I wanted to give you a little company history about our company.
I have been a resident of Naples for 10 years. Just Like Family Home
Care is a private-duty home care company, we've been servicing
Collier and Lee Counties since 2006. We employ more than 20
full-time employees. We referred over 400 independent contracting
caregivers and nurses last year.
Concierge Transport Services, which is a nonemergency and
luxury vehicle service, started in late 2013. Our fleet now has seven
vehicles and we employ more than 10 full-time employees.
Our company has received many awards and recognition over the
last 10 years. We are very active in the community. I'm not going to
list them all for you guys, but I just wanted you to see that I'm very
proud of our company.
I'm also extremely proud of the community involvement. We
started from nothing in a little 10-by-10 square foot office. We did
start giving back to the community as soon as we were able to. We're
very involved in many philanthropic organizations in the community.
Page 118
October 27, 2015
We also are involved in many health-related organizations and very
involved with all the hospitals and facilities due to the private-duty
home care company.
That is one of the reasons why we were able to identify the great
need for the nonemergency transportation and now in addition the ALS
need for transportation in our area.
Collier County can expect an increase of almost 30 percent in the
next five years in the population. There are currently 15 new assisted
living facilities under construction, with 1,000 beds. Landmark
Hospital just opened with 50 beds. The current private service
provider has realized 50 percent growth in three years. EMS is still
handling some of the interfacility transports when they could instead
be handling true 9-1-1 emergencies.
NCH Healthcare System plans to open -- and I believe it is just
about opening -- their new ER facility and will house 10 new physician
offices.
I have some important quotes from the people who did write
letters of recommendation for my application. From Dr. Allen Weiss,
the President and CEO of NCH Health Care Systems: Having choice is
always advantageous for consumers. Having multiple transportation
options for nonemergency patients will benefit all concerned.
From Dexter Patton, the RN also from NCH: We have seen a
steady increase in patient volumes over the past year and this seasonal
increase has been the largest on record. As a result, we have seen a
heavy demand for BLS transports and expect this growing trend to
continue.
Jimmy Dascani, the CEO of Landmark Hospital, which has just
recently opened, says: The medical demands of our community are
increasing in Collier County due to population growth and the
increased medical complexity of patients and visitors, thus adding to
the complexity of transportation, logistics, increasing the need for
Page 119
October 27, 2015
healthcare providers and families to have additional options to prevent
unnecessary and costly delays in nonemergency transport.
Finally, Chris Hanson at Lee Memorial Health Systems, who we
do a lot of transports back and forth, nonemergency, between Lee and
Collier with our nonemergency business: Your proven business model
and plan diversification will help meet the needs of our region. Many
of the hospitals and facilities enjoy the fact that we can do all different
types of transportations, from sedan to nonemergency, and now are
really enjoying that we would then be able to have that adversity (sic)
to do BLS or ALS transport.
The difference in our services: We hope that being a local
provider we can decrease the wait time for discharges and transfers,
especially during season peak time. We hope to decrease the
unlicensed transport of patients with BLS needs that are using
nonemergency transport companies, which is the main reason that I'm
here today.
The companies that are my main competitors, nonemergency
transport companies, are unaccounted for and are transporting patients
with oxygen that should not be. I want to help reduce extended
off-load times for 9-1-1 service providers, increase overall patient
satisfaction with transport services, and I am definitely willing to assist
the county as needed in times of emergency.
There is only one private interfacility service provider for BLS
and ALS in Collier County. There has been a growth of 10 percent
over the last five years of annual residents. So that's not even taking
season into consideration.
There is approximately a 50 percent increase in BLS and ALS
transports in the last three years. There is definitely a need for another
provider.
There is an unaccounted number of patients inappropriately
transported by nonemergency transport service companies. I believe
Page 120
October 27, 2015
that is why I got the PSA vote of 3-1.
Concierge Transport Services turns down at least 12 or more
oxygen transports or BLS transports per week. Our company is the
only company that says no to those transports when the hospitals and
the facilities call.
Now it's been a month since we had to submit this to Dan so a lot
has happened in the last month. This says that we will hire
experienced EMTs and paramedics from Collier and Lee County, full
and part-time for eight or 12-hour shifts. We have a very flexible
hiring schedule because we would like to use people from our local
area for part-time shifts. We actually have already hired quite a few,
so there's an update there. So we already have a staff ready to go.
Same with the training. We've already started with some
agreements with local hospitals, and we've already gotten some online
training programs in order. So as soon as we are hopefully licensed we
can get that started. And we already have our in-house continuing
education program through Steve Upright, our medical training
director.
The training will be overseen by Dr. Tober, our medical director,
and will be driven by quality assurance reviews with continuous
evaluation.
For our revenue, based on the businesses I already have and
personally, I will be able to carry the financial responsibility of getting
this business started. In addition, we currently have contracts with
many facilities in Collier County to provide nonemergency transport,
and these facilities have additional needs. We've already spoken to
them.
We currently provide nonemergency transport for local hospitals
that have shown interest in an additional private provider to reduce
wait time.
Our plan is to secure new contracts with some of the new
Page 121
October 27, 2015
facilities being built in Collier County, the 1,000 beds I addressed
earlier.
So in summary, with the COPCN approval we will continue to
support Collier County with quality services and will provide facilities,
hospitals and patients a choice for interfacility transportation.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, is there -- are there any
questions from the opposing party?
MR. ROONEY: Yes, just one question, Ms. Nassberg. Derrick
Rooney, for the record, and I have been sworn.
The 30 percent number and population growth that you got for the
next five years, where did you get that number?
MS. NASSBERG: The public records that show the
transportation that are available, I just took the total amount of rides
that Ambitrans reports each year, and I just did the math.
MR. ROONEY: So the growth is in the --
MS. NASSBERG: Ambitrans reports.
MR. ROONEY: And not in the population. Okay, thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, questions from Board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If there are none at this time, we'll go to
the parties in opposition to the application.
MR. ROONEY: Thank you again. And thank you for pulling
this item. We will not take too much time. I know you had a long day.
I feel like I know you all very well at this point. Thank you,
Commissioners.
Ambitrans' primary concern here is the lack of sufficiency in the
application package. Back in 2012 you saw a similar proposal from
TransCare. That was well thought out. They were an existing
Page 122
October 27, 2015
provider with 20 years of experience, capable of meeting the needs of
Collier County. The concern then and the thorough review by your
staff finally came down to the conclusion that what your code requires,
there was no demonstrable need.
We are concerned about their readiness and ability to perform.
We are obviously concerned how that will affect our business as well.
Based on what we have in the written record, Ms. Nassberg's
presentation, I would point out that we do not feel that the
requirements of Section 7 of your ordinance 14-12 have been met in
four areas. And that is the extent to which the proposed service is
needed to improve overall emergency medical services and capabilities
in the County, particularly by the inclusion of one vehicle to start with.
Second, the effect the proposed service will be have on existing
services with respect to quality of service and cost of service. This
impacts us as your current provider.
That the applicant has sufficient knowledge and experience to
properly operate the proposed service. I will let our CEO address that
issue in further rebuttal.
And finally, that if applicable there is an adequate revenue base
for the proposed service, and we will address that as well.
Based on our data there is no need for the potential that this
application represents to fragment your service. We show that less
than 1.6 percent of calls that we receive go unanswered by Ambitrans.
And generally the reason for those calls is because we cannot be there
in 20 minutes or less. In all other areas we are able to meet. And it's
doubtful, I believe, that unless there is a single ambulance sitting right
there at the right hospital when it's needed, that additional providers
will be able to meet that need. I think that the complication in
fragmentation will make this difficult.
Let me explain a little bit more about why fragmentation is an
issue.
Page 123
October 27, 2015
I understand there's some concerns about monopolies. And we
hear today a great deal about why we should have an open system. At
the same time transportation providers are treated in a more
monopolistic manner, like hospitals, like other public utilities, because
the margins are very thin and they're providing also for those who
cannot pay.
Ambitrans picks up any transport, regardless of ability to pay.
That means that in this market we are facing a significant issue with
respect to reimbursement. A significant percentage of Ambitran's
business is unreimbursed, and we have a business that has gone
unreimbursed since 2011, since we began service for the county.
Now you have a start-up coming in. They don't have the facilities
yet. They're very excited, they want to move forward, but they don't
have them in place yet. How is a business model in which one vehicle
in which maybe as much as one-fifth of all their transports are going to
be unreimbursed going to operate? Well, their business plan will
require that they operate going after those transports which are the high
ROI, which is not Collier County EMS calls, not every call. It's going
to be those that are going to guarantee reimbursement.
What ends up happening ultimately is that Ambitrans, who will
be called to make those other calls, becomes the safety net, the
financial safety net for Collier County and the public to allow this
venture to move forward.
Now, we'll have -- our C.O. will come up and address a few more
of the technical issues with regards to need. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I just have one question, sir. Do you
serve areas other than Collier County?
MR. ROONEY: And I will let Alan answer that as well, but he
can give you a --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, sir, I would appreciate it.
MR. SKAVRONECK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
Page 124
October 27, 2015
record, Alan Skavroneck, Chief Operating Officer.
Commissioner Nance, yes, we operate from Sarasota County all
the way down through Collier.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: In the other counties in which you
operate are you also the sole provider?
MR. SKAVRONECK: In Sarasota County there is one other
provider. In Charlotte we are the sole provider. In Lee we are the sole
provider. And obviously you're aware that the sole provider down here
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, my question was, if the issue is on
transportation for those that cannot afford to pay for the service, how is
that handled by your industry in areas where more than one firm
operates?
MR. SKAVRONECK: Usually the way that we receive calls are
through facilities, and we don't necessarily control which service that
facility reaches out to.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, but I mean, how does your industry
for nonemergency transport handle this -- the element of the
population that can't afford to pay for the transport, how does your
industry share that burden in areas where there are multiple service
providers? I'm just asking you to tell me how this normally works in
areas where there's not a sole provider.
MR. SKAVRONECK: Understood, Commissioner. So let me
use Sarasota as a model, it may be easier to walk you through where
there are providers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. SKAVRONECK: So if Facility A requires service for an
individual, they'll reach out to the provider of their choice. As a
licensed Medicare and Medicaid provider we're able to bill third-party
insurances. If somebody is an indigent, through contractual
relationships there may be some type of financial rate that may have
Page 125
October 27, 2015
been established, depending upon the circumstances. We discuss that
further with case management. They're sensitive to our needs as well.
But unfortunately there's give and take with what we do.
So there is a bulk of our business, a segment which does go
uncollected through the years. And those will be referred to an outside
collection agency for further follow-up.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But is this truly a burden for the industry
or something that is shared? I'm seeking a statement from you on how
this is reconciled in areas where you have multiple service providers.
I mean, obviously if you go to a big city that's got 5 million people,
you don't have just one provider.
So how is this burden shared in this -- you know, how is it
handled?
MR. SKAVRONECK: It's really the way that I explained to you
previously. You know, unfortunately, it goes uncollected where we're
not compensated for that transport. Hopefully we're not getting too
many of those types of transports than we are those that have some
type of payment associated with it. We don't receive any type of
funding mechanism other than those user fees that we generate ourself.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, right now as the sole provider, are
you not taking the entire loss? You're taking the entire loss guaranteed
as a sole provider, right?
MR. ROONEY: Alan's going --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So how -- I'm trying to get at how is
another provider going to make things worse than you taking all of it?
MR. ROONEY: Right now those costs are absorbed. So the net
is cast wide. Ambitrans absorbs all the costs for the losses.
Now, in a situation where we're concerned about is we have a
new provider coming in, potentially on a very small scale, because
that's what their business model calls for. They're thinly capitalized,
but they have a plan for growth.
Page 126
October 27, 2015
That growth will be determined on how much they're able to
collect. If they decide that they want to not take on calls that they
think is a high probability that they're not going to recover funds on,
but Ambitrans who is the larger provider, who has the larger network
and is going to be available ultimately, will end up catching those calls.
So that's why we believe it will impact the system.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Who was first here, ladies?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Hiller. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do you have contracts with
facilities?
MR. SKAVRONECK: Yes, ma'am. We have -- in this particular
County, ma'am, or across the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that how you do business?
MR. SKAVRONECK: Yes, under contract.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So what does the contract say, we
call you first, or if you're the only service in town you get the call? Is
that how that --
MR. SKAVRONECK: Correct. Because of the way it's framed
right now with us being the only provider, yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And so would -- and I
guess I'm -- this is going to be kind of an odd question, but -- so do two
providers have the same -- a contract with the same facility? Meaning,
are you like --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exclusive is the word you're
looking for.
MR. SKAVRONECK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have exclusives.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. There we are, thank you.
MR. SKAVRONECK: Understood.
Page 127
October 27, 2015
That is a possibility. I'm really not sure what our competitor does
up in Sarasota.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, what do you do?
MR. SKAVRONECK: What do we do?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are you exclusive?
MR. SKAVRONECK: No. You cannot have an exclusive
agreement. Medicare frowns upon that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. SKAVRONECK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. The argument you have
about -- it's interesting, it's the same argument about having taken care
of the indigent and the fact that, you know, it does cut into the profits,
which I understand, which is the same argument that NCH puts out,
and they just built another hospital, so --
MR. ROONEY: If I may, I just want to give you one more
example how that will work -- Derrick Rooney, I'm sorry.
In the application that's before you there is no discussion other
than the potential, the aspiration to go after some billing through
Medicaid and Medicare. In a situation where an ambulance is called,
and if there are multiple providers with multiple contracts with the
same facility and it ends up that Concierge Medical arrives and that
person is a Medicare or Medicaid recipient but they do not have a
Medicare or Medicaid provider number, ultimately that person who
has a need will have to contract independently with Concierge to get
transports. And even though they're entitled to these benefits, they
may not be -- they may have to pay it themselves under this system.
And this is the concern that we have is that if you were to add
another provider, this provider is not ripe yet. They're not ready to
perform at the level that would be required.
In 2011, when your prior interfacility transport company moved
out, Ambitrans came to the market with, right at the start, I think three
Page 128
October 27, 2015
ambulances, with no understanding of what the need was, what are we
up to now and what are we proposing for the season.
MR. SKAVRONECK: Today we have four vehicles that are
placed immediately within the service area, and because we operate
three counties to the north, we have the ability to shift our resources.
It's no different than a 9-1-1 system would do. When they get busy in
one area they move their assets around to compensate.
MR. ROONEY: How many vehicles and employees do we have
currently?
MR. SKAVRONECK: Currently we employ 200 employees
throughout our service area. We have 26 licensed ambulances with the
State of Florida, and we have four additional ambulances on order.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's three countywide, right, or
four --
MR. SKAVRONECK: Four, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think your argument about,
you know, you being burdened with a larger share of the indigent is
compelling in any way. Obviously you're carrying 100 percent of the
burden now, and now the burden will be shared with another entity, so
I don't believe that they're only going to cherry-pick trips that provide a
higher return to them and leave you with the dregs of, you know, the
business, if you will, if you want to look at it from the standpoint of
who doesn't pay. I don't believe there's any merit to that argument
whatsoever.
What are your expansion plans for this local market?
MR. SKAVRONECK: We've already added what we call unit
hours since we've been down here. We modify. We do things
according to demand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what do you view as the
prospective demand? I mean, you anticipated growth this morning
Page 129
October 27, 2015
when you presented -- you stated that you were going to add four more
ambulances.
MR. SKAVRONECK: There will be more ambulances that will
be placed down in this region in anticipation of season, both in Lee
County and Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not interested in Lee County,
because you're before the Board of Collier County Commissioners. So
limiting it to Collier County, you're anticipating to add ambulances to
increase the level of service because you anticipate higher demand?
MR. SKAVRONECK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's a very important fact.
That's a fact that supports this petitioner's application that there is
demand forthcoming in the market, as they represented. And it would
be, I believe, against the law -- I don't see any argument that you have
made -- I don't see any evidence that you have presented that gives us
the ability to deny this applicant.
MR. ROONEY: I understand your concerns, Commissioner
Hiller, and I see them. If I was looking at this from a dormant
commerce clause issue where we're saying how are we giving a
monopoly to this provider? Well, unlike what -- and sort of a little bit
rebutting what was discussed at the Uber discussion, the State has
given you local authority to determine need. There is no demonstrated
need currently in the system.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've admitted to me there is a
need. You've admitted to me that there is future demand. In fact, we
know as a matter of fact that there is anticipated population growth,
and we know that growth is going to be very substantial. And we have
the need for more than what is being provided currently, there's no
question about it.
MR. ROONEY: You're right, there is no --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And our staff-- let me continue.
Page 130
October 27, 2015
Our staff, where you went on to say that their application was
inadequate and you made criticism and you felt that they didn't meet
the ordinance, our staff disagreed. Our staff believes -- and we have to
rely on staffs determination, and that application is part of this record
-- and staff made the determination and our County Attorney made the
determination that this company has prepared a conforming application
and that there is no evidence that is lacking that would support a
denial.
There is no question there is going to be growth. There is no
question that you're preparing for growth, and you've admitted it.
Therefore, there is sufficient market for another company to be brought
in. And we would be doing a disservice and there would be an
anti-competition, a very valid anti-competition argument, if we were to
deny based on the facts that are before us, to protect your profit
margin. We cannot turn around and deny this application to protect
your bottom line. And that's what you have done, is you have merely
asked that your bottom line be protected. That's just not an option. We
can't do that.
MR. ROONEY: Let me -- and I don't like to get argumentative,
but looking at the 2012 TransCare application that staff reviewed,
staffs executive summary went point by point through your ordinance
and gave what I would consider competent evidence on each of those
points. In this review they listed the criteria but did not give a
point-by-point analysis.
My concern with the findings of fact that you require under your
code is that no one has gone through and made a point-by-point
analysis. It's your code, it's quasi-judicial. I'm only pointing out that
there may be the evidence. The applicant, and we haven't heard from
staff yet, have not presented that evidence.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nor have you.
MR. ROONEY: It's not my burden to do that.
Page 131
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is your burden, and you haven't
done it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, let's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's your -- let me just
continue. This is a quasi judicial hearing and it's very important.
It is your legal burden -- and you're an attorney. Are you
registered as a lobbyist, by the way?
MR. KLATZKOW: He doesn't need to be.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does he not need -- okay, that's
good. I want to make sure of that.
You do have the burden, and you have to prepare your rebuttal
based on factual evidence. And you have to present testimony in this
hearing at the level required by the law to rebut. And if you don't
present that evidence, and you haven't presented it, then you
necessarily fail in your rebuttal.
MR. ROONEY: Ms. Hiller, I have been the Marco City attorney,
Charlotte County land use attorney, the city attorney for the Town of
Fort Myers Beach, the village attorney for the Village of Estero. I
represented multiple local governments throughout the State, multiple
counties. I'm board certified --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then you should know this.
MR. ROONEY: I do. And what my point is, is that right now
more than 98 percent of the need is being met. We talked about the 30
percent growth over five years. My question to Ms. Nassberg was
based on BEBR's projection showed that for the same period Collier
County will grow by less than 10,000 in population.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You've given me evidence that
you're going to add four vehicles.
MR. ROONEY: We are, to make sure --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That tells me there's a need. So
why can't they add the four instead of you?
Page 132
October 27, 2015
MR. ROONEY: Let me -- I just want to point out, if I may, that
in addition to having the vehicles, it's not just based on the increase in
population, it's also based on the increased time and traffic. And when
I say that we are able to meet the need, we're your current provider -- I
can have Alan speak to Lee County in which there are significantly
more beds and we meet that need as well.
Yes, another provider could meet that need, but it makes it
difficult for us to determine where we are to invest and where we are to
place assets for the future when we don't know if we're going to get
those calls or someone else is going to get those calls.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's true for every business in
America. That's how business works.
MR. ROONEY: Except that in certain areas and certain
regulations, whether it's garbage pickup or hospitals there are
need-based processes. Your code lays out a need-based process.
What I would say is the application is complete, but the
application does not necessarily match up with all the criteria in your
code to determine whether or not the COPCN should be approved.
Sarasota County, they have a very clear need-based metrics
approach. Unfortunately we don't have that here. We're relying only
on the information that's been provided in the applicant's testimony and
the staff report. We don't feel that it meets those requirements. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir, are you done with your --
MR. ROONEY: I am done with our main presentation. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At this time I'm going to ask the
applicant if they have any questions to address what's been said by the
party in opposition.
MS. NASSBERG: I don't have any questions. I think I can just
touch on a couple of quick things.
Page 133
October 27, 2015
And again, you were not at the PSA Meeting and you're dealing
with very brief information from my presentation. I know the
Commissioners have a lot more information. But I did state I am
financially secure with a very successful business that's been here for
10 years, and I'm also personally financially secure. You've mentioned
that several times. That's not an issue for me.
I have one ambulance that's ready before I even have a COPCN.
That was a huge financial risk. You guys know how much those cost.
I purchased that ahead of time to show how serious I was about doing
this for the community.
I have a meeting on the 6th of November and I'm going to
purchase two more ambulances, which means I'm going to have three
ambulances before season, because I want to be prepared for this
company. I just wanted to wait until I got my state license.
I'm very serious about what I'm doing. You just don't know my
plans. I didn't need to do all of that on my application, okay.
As far as, you know, what you're talking about, about not getting
reimbursed for certain things, I've been doing that with my home care
company for 10 years. I can't even tell you how many things we give
away for free. We love to do that. There's no reason why I wouldn't
want to share that with any other company in this town. That's a part
of what I do.
You guys see all the organizations that we participate with in this
town. In fact, I already got one of those banners for the vets while I sat
here this morning during the meeting, okay.
So again, we're here to help with the off-load times, to help with
the community. That's what we're here for.
You're making a lot of assumptions about my business, about the
facility that you said I don't have. How would you know about my
facility? That wasn't part of my proposal. So you're making a lot of
guesses about my business that aren't necessarily part of my proposal
Page 134
October 27, 2015
today, that aren't necessarily part of the application process. So I just
want you to be aware of that. That's all.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for staff. Is
that Mr. Summers?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good afternoon, sir.
MR. SUMMERS: For the record -- good afternoon, Dan
Summers, Director of Emergency Services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Were you at the PSA Meeting?
MR. SUMMERS: I was at the PSA Meeting, yes, when this item
was heard, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did Ambitrans have anybody
representing them?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, they did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They did?
MR. SUMMERS: They were present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, this gentleman said
he wasn't there. Who was there?
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Saunders I believe was their
representative at that particular meeting, and I believe Alan was in
attendance also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe there's probably
confusion because of that, that there wasn't very good correspondence
between the two attorneys.
Let me ask you, do you see a need -- obviously you made a
recommendation to approve.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you see a need for this
service expanding?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. Let me comment just a little bit.
Page 135
October 27, 2015
And this is an environment where some of the metrics and the counts
are difficult.
Requests for nonemergency transports do not come through the
9-1-1 center. They're directly from the patient or the facility to the
provider, in this case, Ambitrans.
The calls that we measure are the rare calls where Collier County
EMS is actually the second provider of nonemergency transport, and
those are primarily medically fragile cases or nonemergency but still
time sensitive.
Now, what that has done obviously is allowed more Collier
County EMS assets for your 9-1-1 lights and siren pre-hospital care
core mission, which we've all agreed upon.
So in terms of count or other metrics, we're very candid with you,
it is a difficult number from which to measure, because we're not
receiving the data. Ambitrans was very forthcoming in sharing with us
periodically their call volumes. We know that continues to increase, as
we've mentioned.
The only other metric that I can share with you, which is what
Ms. Nassberg put on the visualizer here, is the bed growth. The bed
growth. And we want nonemergency ambulance service to be as best
we can -- and I'm scared to use the word concurrent -- with growth, but
you want that to be there. If not, it's going to fall back on Collier
County EMS.
Now, in my opinion Collier County has no risk associated with a
second provider. All the financial risk is in that particular marketplace.
And again I do want to mention that Ambitrans has just been
outstanding in the community. There's been no complaints.
But what we are challenged here is obviously seasonal demand.
And that's just something the marketplace I think is going to have to
work out.
As we mentioned in either permit -- two things I just wanted to
Page 136
October 27, 2015
mention. If you go to Florida First health site, you look at the number
of beds in Collier County, whether it's a nursing home, rest home,
assisted living, skilled care. And again, I'm lumping all these together
because that is where the potential marketplace is. The State of Florida
is reporting 3,981 beds active in Collier County.
When I pulled permit information in Collier County facilities
pending, depending on the number of-- how that -- I don't know the
schedule of the permitting. I don't know scheduling of certificate of
occupancy, but there's almost another 1,000 beds in various stages of
permit.
So what I think is important here is that, number one, that we
have some way of letting the capacity be there so it does not impede
Collier County EMS.
The other component that we've come to realize is wait times in
emergency rooms. Bed availability in these hospitals in our season is
almost a minute-by-minute bed availability. So we're thinking about
this as a funnel. You've got patients coming in through the ER, you've
got patients that need to be discharged, and literally those hospital bed
turnover times need to be done very quickly, because it backs up,
slows down, so to speak, in the ER. And that's not just Collier County,
that's pretty much everywhere in Florida.
So I think the component here is we feel that the resource
capability is here. The additional market resource that might be
available here is worthwhile. We have a very solid provider with
Ambitrans. In neither case does your ordinance require anything about
indigent care. So that indigent care is really just part of the normal
practice of doing business anywhere. We have no requirements on
indigent care for either COPCN letting.
And I have a few more comments, Commissioner, but I just want
to see if that got us in the ballpark.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did. The Board needs to
Page 137
October 27, 2015
have a finding, if it's going to improve this, five different criteria.
Now, you've answered number one and number three.
MR. SUMMERS: Would you restate that one, please, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number one is the need.
MR. SUMMERS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number three is the effects on
the proposed service on EMS. You've already stated that.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number four, the effects of the
proposed services on the existing hospital or other healthcare facilities,
you've already stated that.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir. It can only help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The effects on proposed services
on the existing services with the aspect of quality of service and cost.
Now, in the backup material their charges are the same as
Ambitrans. So is that in effect?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, sir, we don't regulate it. So they are
posted and share that. I think we require a posting, I believe is what
we require in that ordinance. But we don't regulate, nor do we require
their assignment or in the same vein anything that may take with
indigent care.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it's a requirement
under our findings.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, sir, we have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The effect on proposed services
on personnel of existing services and the availability of significant
quality personnel in the local area to adequately staff the existing
service.
And I think the applicant has stated what she has done and what
she's going to do in the future.
MR. SUMMERS: That's correct. And I think it's noteworthy to
Page 138
October 27, 2015
recognize Steve Epright within their organization who is a 30-year
paramedic with Collier County. So his skill set certainly is nationally
recognized. And without a doubt I feel like under Mr. Epright's
guidance and Dr. Tober's guidance, I think that program can operate
appropriately.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Summers -- Commissioner Henning,
do you have any further questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Summers, do you have an additional
formal presentation for the Board at this time?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, I do not. Most of my speaking points
were covered by both the applicant and the Ambitrans. And I have a
few other comments if you'd like, but I'll think best to take your
questions at this point.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I can speak, but I guess we
have five speakers too. Do you want to hear them before me or --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Would the Board like to hear the public
speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, most of the registered speakers
are members of the petitioner or the opposition have spoken.
Elisabeth Nassberg -- I don't know if you want to have them
speak again.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If they wish to speak --
MR. MILLER: Do you wish to speak more, Ms. Nassberg?
MS. NASSBERG: No.
MR. MILLER: Denise Porter?
MS. PORTER: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Denise Porter,
Page 139
October 27, 2015
and I'm a patient care administrator for VITAS Hospice Care here in
Collier County. And there is an additional need for interfacility
transportation service provider. Most of my hospice patients need BLS
or ALS transportation home from the hospital to begin their terminal
illness care, which we call crisis care. Hospice patients being
discharged from the hospital have had a longtime wait, and sometimes
even hours to get home when they're dealing with their terminal
illness.
VITAS has been working with Just Like Family for five years and
is very -- they're very good and they're very experienced in our staffing
of nurses and caregivers and their nonemergency transportation.
In addition, it is our intention to contract with Concierge Medical
Transportation as soon as they receive their license to transport our
VITAS hospice patients. I highly recommend to you all their approval
for the CON. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Derrick Rooney has
registered.
Did you need to speak more?
MR. ROONEY: No.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Skavroneck?
And Michael Grant.
MR. GRANT: Thank you. For the record, Michael Grant. I am
the owner and president of Ambitrans Medical Transportation.
I remember coming down here about three, four years ago and
applying for a COPCN basically to help Collier County out and the
patients here to pick up the pieces basically of a system that had failed
because the current provider back then wasn't able to perform. And it
was a financial issue, basically, as well as an issue of providing
service. We came down and filled that void.
I'm not expecting to be rewarded for that. We came down here
voluntarily. We've continued to invest in Collier County and will
Page 140
October 27, 2015
continue to do that, no matter how your vote goes today.
But what I want to suggest to you is a little bit more complicated.
You've been dealing with a lot of complicated issues today from Uber
and taxis and all sorts of other issues. This issue is much more
complicated in terms of giving a COPCN to a new provider in a
community like this than maybe you realize. There's all sorts of
implications, not only for the current provider but also for Collier
County EMS.
Commissioner Hiller, I would just comment on something that
you had mentioned about the growing demand in Collier County for
ambulance service, based on the demand and number of beds and
everything.
Based on your logic, if I came in and applied for an application
for COPCN to do emergency work because the volume was increasing,
would you feel similarly about your profit or how efficient Collier
County EMS was in terms of providing service? Because basically
you're saying as long as you're in the private sector you get to be
competitive, but the COPCN process will protect publicly-operated
ambulance services, even though the need is growing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not --
MR. GRANT: Well, let me finish, please, and then you can --
please, you can comment or ask questions, if you will.
My only comment to you today is I would suggest respectfully
that maybe you take a -- make a recommendation and pass a --
recommend that you have a hearing officer come in and hear the facts
on this case, because I think it's a little more complicated than you
perhaps realize. And if you did that, depending on whatever the
hearing officer said, I would automatically -- I wouldn't challenge that
in the least.
But I think that there's issues here of need. There's issues that
haven't been demonstrated other than verbally. I think that there's
Page 141
October 27, 2015
issues of reimbursement and staffing that haven't been gone into, as
well as experience in the field of providing ambulance services.
Which having provided ambulance service in Massachusetts -- and I
came to Florida and started off as a wheelchair service and made the
transition, I can tell you is not an easy thing to do.
So having said that, I'm open to your questions.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, I believe you were
first, then Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I think that we've seen -- I
know all over our county right now there's a lot of new facilities being
built: assisted living facilities, continuum of care, even independent
living. But all of them require some service at some point in time.
And so I'm thinking that, you know, it would be nice to have another
service provider, just to take up all of that -- all those extra people.
And I mention these because we've got Grey Oaks. My
goodness, they added so many over there on Airport Road. And
Discovery Village, they built their assisted living, next they're building
their independent living right there on 951. And then we have
something called Beach something or another, but it's just about to
open up on Airport Road. And then we have The Arlington going up.
And that's just a few things. And that's right now. And there are more
that we've permitted that are still rolling around out there probably
getting ready to build. I know there's one on U.S. 41 that's going to be
built.
So I think that we need a second service. I like the fact that you're
in town. I like the fact that you're residents here. So I think that helps
too. So I just wanted to make those points. Thank you.
MR. GRANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't have any specific questions,
and thank you for your comments.
Page 142
October 27, 2015
I do have some comments. I echo what Commissioner Fiala has
said. We've got an increasing population, we have a substantially
increasing bed count by at least 25 percent, at least. There is clearly a
need for additional ambulances.
The indigent care is not an issue. Staff has done their analysis
and has concluded, based on what Commissioner Henning just
reviewed with Dan Summers, that the requirements of the ordinance --
that the five prongs have been reviewed, that the facts do support
awarding the COPCN.
And so I'm going to make a motion -- do we have to close the
hearing first? I think you have -- do we have to close the hearing first?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have an opportunity for the applicant
and the opposing party to have a summary statement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So why don't we do that. I'd like to make
a couple of comments when you're finished, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then when the hearing closes
I'd like to make a motion, if I may.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was going to do. I'm
glad to hear you're going to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have just a couple of really statements,
not necessarily question.
You know, the Board of County Commissioners is grappling in
many ways with advanced life support. A lot of our discussion has
been revolving around emergency transport, and today nonemergency
transport.
Now, every counsel that I've received from almost every quarter
has been unanimous in one thing and that is transport is going to be
one of the biggest challenges that we're going to have, whether it be
emergency or nonemergency. And that is because the medical system
in the United States and in the State of Florida, like most other places,
Page 143
October 27, 2015
is developmental. And I think that the relationship with nonemergency
transport may in fact be much more evolutionary than anybody thinks.
And because of that, because of the need that is obvious in our
community, which is a community that's got a disproportional
demographic of aged people, people traveling to our community for
advanced and perhaps even end-of-life care, I think we're going to
have for the foreseeable future a very dynamic business in
nonemergency transport.
Everything that I have read says that Ambitrans has comported
themselves wonderfully. I just really -- my personal feeling,
considering all the testimony thus far is that it may be time for us to
diversify a little bit in the area of nonemergency transport, simply
because I really do not want it to be a default setting for our only
emergency transport entity, which is Collier County EMS, to have to
pick it up, should it become a problem. I think that's something that
we really cannot bear in either the short term or the long term.
So at this time, unless there are other comments from
Commissioners, I'm going to call on the applicant to make their
summary comments, if any, up to 10 minutes, to be followed by the
opposition party to make their final summary comments, if they have
any.
Do you have any, ma'am?
MS. NASSBERG: I do not.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do you have any, gentlemen?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, at this time I'm going to close the
public hearing and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- invite the Commissioners to
commence their discussion, final discussion and deliberation.
Commissioner Hiller?
Page 144
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
approve the COPCN award --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to the Concierge Medical
Services for medical transport.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion by Commissioner
Hiller and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Comments?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a fact-finding motion that
it meets the requirements of the ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll add that, that based on all the
evidence presented at the hearing, based on staffs presentation, as well
as all the backup that we received, both from the applicant and from
staff, that the application --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- is sufficient to find on behalf of
the applicant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do want to say, I think
Commissioners Fiala made a very good observation. We didn't have
that growth in 2012 that is out there today. And it is all over the
county. So there's -- it's on our doorstep.
And Ambitrans has done a fabulous job. I've never gotten any
complaints from that. And I wish them success.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any other comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second. Hearing
no further comments, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
Page 145
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, it passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, would you like to take --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: A break for the court reporter?
MR. OCHS: I don't think she's -- unless she needs one right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you need a break?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm good, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're okay right now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's like a rarity. That we were
timely in asking you if you wanted a break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the next item?
MR. OCHS: Well, you have two items: You have 11.D, which is
the report on the status of the interlocal agreement discussions with the
North Collier Fire District, and 11.E is the report from my office on the
payment process, for you to pay it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 11.D?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, let's go with 11.D.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT A STATUS REPORT FROM
THE COUNTY MANAGER AND COUNTY ATTORNEY AS TO
THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NORTH COLLIER FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT CONCERNING A NEW
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND CONSIDER CONTINGENCY
PLANS TO MAINTAIN ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT (ALS)
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS WITHIN THAT DISTRICT —
Page 146
October 27, 2015
MOTION FOR STAFF TO PREPARE BUDGET AMENDMENTS
IN THE EVENT AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS NOT
REACHED AND TO OFFER NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICT A COPCN CONTINGENT TO THEIR
WORKING WITH THE COUNTY'S MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
COMPLYING WITH NFPA STANDARDS FOR A 4-MINUTE
RIDE TIME, THAT UNIFORM PATIENT INFORMATION IS
SHARED WITH STAFF WHEN REQUESTED AND REQUIRING
THAT THEY GENERATE UNIFORM INFORMATION; MOTION
TO ACCEPT THE STATUS REPORT AND CONSIDER THE
CONTINGENCY PLANS TO MAINTAIN ALS LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARDS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 11.D, that's a recommendation to accept the status
report from the County Manager and the County Attorney as to the
recent discussions with the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District concerning a new interlocal agreement, and consider
contingency plans to maintain advanced life support level of service
standards within that district.
Commissioners, I'll kick this off, and I know the County
Attorney's got a couple of comments, and then Chief Kopka will take
you through the contingency plan.
As the Board recalls, on September 22nd staff was directed to
approach the North Collier Fire and Rescue Control District leadership
to propose an interlocal agreement that would allow them to maintain
the provision of non-transport ALS services in that district.
Since that time, Chief Kopka submitted a letter to Chief Stoltz on
October 2nd that contained a sample interlocal agreement, with an
offer to subsequently meet and discuss the specifics of that proposal.
That meeting was held on October 15th. And in addition to Chief
Kopka, Len Price, our Administrative Services Department Head and
Page 147
October 27, 2015
Mr. Klatzkow, our County Attorney, attended that meeting.
There were several ideas discussed and shared between the
district and the staff. Most of those contained some kind of a package
of both a conditional COPCN and a negotiated interlocal agreement.
All of those were concepts that were preliminarily discussed at that
meeting. And I think Mr. Klatzkow will elaborate on that.
Finally, on October 19th, following the meeting on the 15th,
Chief Stoltz and Chief Kopka sat down again and had a more detailed
personal discussion about the prospects of an interlocal agreement. I
think it's fair to say that they reached some common ground, but there's
also some areas of disagreement that haven't yet been bridged.
So that's my brief status update on where we are in discussions
with the district on the prospects of entering into an interlocal
agreement. And I'll turn it to Mr. Klatzkow to give you some more
color on the meeting on the 15th.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, and keep in mind that the fire district
did bring suit against the county.
The thought process was for the fire district to come back to the
county with a proposed settlement in whatever form the fire district
deemed appropriate, whether it was a conditional certificate or
whatever.
They're meeting sometime in November. I was told that they are
preparing something. They will take a vote on it and you will have
hopefully some sort of proposal from them for you to consider.
What their proposal is, I do not know. My guess is it will be in
the form of a COPCN with conditions on it. The conditions will be
substantially similar to what's in a typical interlocal agreement.
I think our big stumbling block, and this is personal, is that they
want their own medical director. They do not want your medical
director. And I think that's the rub that this entire thing rotates around.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
Page 148
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So Mr. Klatzkow, what is the
status of the interlocal agreement right now?
MR. KLATZKOW: It will expire December 31st.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And based on the fact from this
meeting --
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me take that back. Let me take that
back, that's incorrect.
The question is the status of their existing certificate.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Their existing certificate will expire
December 31st.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But the interlocal agreement, the
concept of the interlocal agreement, what is the status of it now?
MR. KLATZKOW: They are taking the position that they cannot
enter into an interlocal because an interlocal is unlawful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is our position for the
county?
MR. KLATZKOW: The county's position is of course it's lawful.
You have already entered into these things before. The same attorney
who entered into this is now telling you it's unlawful. But besides the
point, that's not relevant.
The issue is not what we call this thing, the issue is getting to
some sort of understanding as to how they're going to live with these
ALS services. Once we are in agreement in how they can do this, we
can structure the transaction.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And did they give you -- I know
you said sometime, sometime, sometime. Have we got any type of
time frame around when they are coming back to us or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the fire board's going to have to meet.
And then whether or not they come up with a proposal to the Board, I
don't know.
Page 149
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might, that's part of the reason
why I followed on the status report on the interlocal discussions with a
draft contingency plan for consideration. Because obviously, since we
don't have an agreement sitting here right now, and in the worst case
scenario if we don't have some agreement by the end of the calendar
year, we are going to need to continue to provide ALS transport
service in that district at a level that meets your adopted AUIR level of
service standards.
So I asked Chief Kopka to develop this contingency plan in case
and if it's needed. And obviously we'll need some period of time to
actually implement the plan if in fact that's called for. Somewhere in
the 30-day range I think would be reasonable.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's go to Commissioner Henning and
then Commissioner Hiller. And then if the Board pleases, we'll have
Chief Kopka and Mr. Ochs present their contingency plan.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm shocked that there's no staff
member here from North Collier Fire Department. And I guess they're
going to communicate the way they have been, is this campaign
against the county through mass media outlets, social media. And I
can tell you, if the County Manager conducted himself the way that
North Collier is conducting themselves, themselves on behalf of the
fire commission, I would ask for you to be removed.
I mean, we're here to work with agencies. But, however, being a
former fire commissioner in the '90s, I understood North Naples to be
the best. And I hear that today, they're the best. I get that. They are
the best. Just ask them, they'll tell you, okay?
Jeff, I don't understand, the same attorney that says that it's illegal,
an interlocal agreement, signed the past interlocal agreement for North
Naples.
Page 150
October 27, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the statute says we
can do that. Your opinion says that we can do an interlocal agreement.
My understanding from the local -- our local, EMS local, their attorney
has opined that it's legal. But they're questioning this and it's bringing
some problems with the other members that we have interlocals with.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, the argument's a red herring. You could
issue them a certificate having them -- conditioned on them using Dr.
Tober as their medical director, conditioned upon them doing swaps
with our people, and it's the same thing. That's where your argument
is. Your argument is what type of service they want. They want their
own medical director training their people --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. They're saying that the
interlocal is illegal. However, they haven't challenged that. They're
challenging -- the fact is, is the Board turned them down on the
COPCN.
And I'm just kind of wondering, Chief, your understanding. Is
there some kind of confusion with their legal staff or staff about, you
know, interlocal agreements versus some other type of agreement?
CHIEF KOPKA: For the record, Walter Kopka, Chief of EMS.
I will give you my opinion of their thoughts on the interlocal
agreement.
From what I understood from the conversation we had at the
meeting was they could not enter into an interlocal agreement because
they are not a like agency. They would need to have a COPCN and be
a like agency to enter into an interlocal agreement. And Mr. Klatzkow
can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got from that
meeting on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're not a like agency like
we are?
CHIEF KOPKA: They are not a like agency because they don't
Page 151
October 27, 2015
have a COPCN.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a COPCN. As the county
we have our own COPCN.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know that.
CHIEF KOPKA: Now, this sometimes is relative to a mutual aid
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHIEF KOPKA: In other words, we enter into mutual aid
agreements with like agencies. We have a mutual aid agreement with
Lee County EMS. They have a COPCN for transport. We have a
mutual aid agreement with Broward County EMS, which has a
COPCN for transport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're doing transport.
They're not doing transport.
CHIEF KOPKA: I understand that. That's where the difference
of opinion comes in.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They don't want to do transport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, but they're saying
what we're doing and have been doing is illegal. But I think they're
really confusing the issue. You know, they're not doing transport,
we're not asking them to do transport, they don't want to do transport.
CHIEF KOPKA: Correct. It's never been mentioned in the
meetings for them to do transport.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So maybe that's where the
confusion is, or it's just what the County Attorney says, it's really about
they don't want to work with Dr. Tober.
So let me understand the difference between the services out
there. Under the interlocal agreements that we have with the City of
Naples and Marco Island and all the other independent fire districts
that we have interlocals, you share information, correct, on patients?
CHIEF KOPKA: Yes, sir.
Page 152
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now under the North Collier's --
or North Naples COPCN, do you share patient information?
CHIEF KOPKA: We do not. We do not have access to their
patient care reporting system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you asked for it?
CHIEF KOPKA: I'm sure it has at some point. Not recently to
my knowledge that we've asked for that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The other difference is --
I mean, they're all unique in certain ways, correct? All the interlocal
agreements?
CHIEF KOPKA: Correct. For the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: North Naples' certificate, it's
from the door to the hospital. When they provide ALS service,
advanced life, they're going all the way to the hospital with the patient?
CHIEF KOPKA: Yes, sir. If North Naples paramedics start ALS
prior to our arrival, they attend with the EMS paramedics in the
ambulance on the way to the hospital. Or if the patient's condition
warrants another set of hands, they have agreed to ride with that patient
to the hospital as well, no matter if they've started the ALS or not.
MR. OCHS: Any hospital?
CHIEF KOPKA: Correct, any hospital.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many paramedics do they
have? I forget. It's probably twice --
CHIEF KOPKA: I believe it's about 85, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, that's more than twice that
greater Naples has.
CHIEF KOPKA: I don't know those numbers off the top of my
head. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to have an
Page 153
October 27, 2015
understanding. This item is a recommendation to accept a status report
from the County Manager and the County Attorney as to the recent
discussions with the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District,
correct? Is that what it is?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not taking any action, you're
merely providing us with a status report?
MR. OCHS: And I asked you to consider --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A contingency plan, right. But this
is our business. This has nothing to do with North Naples. You're
giving us information and you're asking us to contemplate what we're
going to do in the event no agreement is reached with North Naples,
since the COPCN is expiring December 31st.
MR. OCHS: That's essentially it, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So their absence is of no
import. The fact that they're not here is irrelevant, contrary to what
Commissioner Henning said.
With respect to the agreement, the interlocal or whatever
agreement you'd like to call it that they're claiming is invalid, I would
have to agree, they cannot enter into an agreement with us for services
that they can't provide on their own. The law is very clear, you cannot
do indirectly what you can't do directly.
And very clearly, if we don't give them the license to do it, they
can't do it merely because they are contracting with us. We cannot
contract away our powers that are given to us by way of the license
that we have applied for.
So I think it's very clear that there is a very serious issue. And,
you know, with respect to their prior agreement with us, it didn't work.
That's why there ended up being an inter-- why they were awarded a
COPCN, and it has worked. And we're very dependent on the
assistance that they provide us, because we cannot afford to provide
Page 154
October 27, 2015
ALS in that district known as District 1, I believe. Isn't it District 1? Is
that the -- what's the North Naples Fire District's --
CHIEF KOPKA: Their zones are 40.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, Zone 40, sorry. I was
confusing that with police. Police is 1. So Zone 40, which is a very
large district; it's a very large area.
I am very concerned that the North Naples Greater Corkscrew
District is going to be inadequately serviced because we have not
awarded the COPCN to North Naples. There is clearly a need. They
clearly have the ability to provide the service. The evidence that they
presented in the hearing was unequivocal. It satisfied all the elements
that had to be satisfied. And on a factual basis, they were denied.
They were denied on a political basis. And to the detriment of the
community as a whole.
A detriment to the community, because if we're now going to
have to divert your staff and your ambulances to an area which now
North Naples is supporting with their staff and their trucks, then clearly
other areas within the county are going to be receiving less. And in my
opinion, other areas in the county are already receiving less than they
should.
So we are now compounding the problem that was created by the
denial, because not only is North Naples not going to have adequate
service, but the other areas of the County are going to have lesser
service. And we're talking about life and death.
This means a great deal to me, as you know. And you've been
wonderful, by the way, Chief. I'm very grateful for your service. And I
know you're retiring soon; isn't that true?
CHIEF KOPKA: May of next year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May. That's too soon. You're too
young to retire.
CHIEF KOPKA: Thank you.
Page 155
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I really regret that you're going
to be leaving us.
I really appreciate you coming forward and telling us what's
going on, and I'd like to hear your status report on -- I'm sorry, forgive
me, your contingency plan as to how we are going to protect this
community in light of the Board's, I believe, incorrect decision to deny
North Naples their COPCN.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think before you begin, Chief, you
know, I believe that the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one more point.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: One moment, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I believe that the independent and
dependent fire districts are truly our partners in Emergency Medical
Services. I don't think that they can be provided well without them.
That having been said, I think because of the hard work of Chief
Kopka and Collier County EMS in their comprehensive providing of
service and in the movement of the independent fire districts to
consolidate and to become more uniform and efficient in their
operation, that Collier County enjoys the opportunity that we did not
have just a few years ago of establishing a fully coordinated and
cooperative EMS system countywide.
I believe that it needs to be consistent and uniform in its
administration. I believe it needs to be consistent and uniform in its
education, training and experience requirements, and I believe that
should be done through one COPCN license administered by the
Collier County Medical Director.
I believe that a failure to do that is a failure to really start
positioning ourselves together, as all these cooperative agencies
function in a synergistic way, to really start providing gold standard
service in the county. I do not believe for a minute that the only way
Page 156
October 27, 2015
North Collier Fire can continue to provide excellent service is with
their own independent license. I think that's complete -- I don't think
there's any evidence to support that's the only way they can do that. I
think they can provide it through any license.
And I am very, very disappointed that they haven't stepped up in
leadership and reached out to work together with the county for the
overall good of the public. I think they continue to act first in their
own self interest, and I can't tell you how disappointed I am in that.
So, you know, I think it's very critical that we understand what
our proposed contingency plans are, but if North Collier Fire decides
that they do not want to continue to provide ALS service and the only
way they'll do that is with their own independent license, then the
burden is on them. The decision is theirs and the ball is in their court
to decide that they no longer want to provide ALS service and work
with the county in a cooperative way. The burden is strictly on them.
So I look forward to hearing what the Chief has to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just make one last comment?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The burden is definitely not on
them, the burden is on us, since we have the power to approve the
COPCN, and they can't act without it. There's no other way for it to be
done.
I do want to mention a couple of things which are very important.
The first is, this Board has consistently over the past few years said,
well, if the fire districts consolidate we'll give EMS to a consolidated
district.
Well, guess what, the Board can't do that legally. The Board
cannot do it. The only way that the Board can give a general service
over to another entity is by way of referendum. And this matter would
actually have to go to the voters of Collier County, and the voters of
Collier County by referendum would have to make the decision that
Page 157
October 27, 2015
yes, we can transfer that service to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, but I want to bring that up,
because it goes very much to this issue.
The other issue that I'm concerned about and this goes to, you
know, this contingency plan and the SWAP program, and I've
mentioned this to Leo, and I want to bring it out because it hasn't been
addressed.
You know, through all the discussions I've had with different
members of the community and very experienced individuals at that, it
was brought to my attention that there potentially could be a problem
-- and I raised it with Leo as a concern -- that reimbursement through --
what did we say, Leo, Medicare, Medicaid? That basically, the federal
reimbursement programs --
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- would potentially find fault with
us because we can only bill for who our employees are. And right
now, if my understanding is correct, with the SWAP program what
we're doing is, if there's a paramedic hired by a different district riding
our trucks, we are actually billing for -- or riding in our ambulance,
we're actually billing on behalf of an employee who does not work for
us and is not on our payroll. And we could be challenged by the Feds
and we could end up owing a lot of money back to them as a result of
this improper billing.
Now I'm not saying that I know for sure that we face that risk.
But I think that question has to be asked and answered, because if in
fact that is the case, this SWAP program needs to stop, and we need to
make sure that going forward we do not continue to build on a liability
that may exist as a result of what we have been doing.
And the fact that we have been doing it and it has not been
uncovered or has not been challenged doesn't mean it's right. Just
Page 158
October 27, 2015
because agreements were entered into in the past doesn't mean that it's
legal or it's right.
So I have a real concern about the SWAP program, and I think we
need a really -- I think we need an investigation and an understanding,
because we could have serious financial issues and a major contingent
liability.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, you brought up
some very good points, but before I do that, just an observation. Do
you want to know why our meeting is so long? Because we can never
stay on the item that we're talking about. Never. So -- and it wastes
staffs time. I'm sure Chief has other things he could do. And the
public's time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the meetings are not long. It's
2:30, and we're almost done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Anyways, a little history. We
used to provide ALS service 90 percent of the time eight minutes or
less throughout the whole County, until the recession hit. And then
this Board decided to count the independent fire districts as part of
their response, as part of our response. So it was a way to save money,
in cooperation with the independent fire districts.
Was it the wise thing to do? I don't know. I mean, I'm hearing
that you can't, you know, delegate your authority or delegate your
responsibilities.
But I still want to try to work with at least the fire commissioners
in North Collier, understanding the staff has a different view about
working with the county.
Obviously I hope it's not the same opinion of the fire
commissioners. However, they've been very silent on this issue about
this campaign against the county.
I think it's important that we direct at this time staff to prepare
Page 159
October 27, 2015
budget amendments to -- in light of that we can't come to an agreement
with North Collier.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have to listen to the status
import.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of the motion. But
there's a second part.
Now, I've got to step back. Even though that I know and I feel in
my gut that I'm right about these interlocal agreements, they're not
going to accept that no matter what. They're the best. They always
have been the best.
So part of my motion is going to be to offer a COPCN to North
Collier under the conditions that they work under our medical director,
have a whole bunch of paramedics out there, they comply with the
NFPA standards of four-minute ride time. That's the second condition.
And most important -- and this is very concerning when I was talking
to staff-- that they share patient information with our staff when
requested.
Now, the hospitals share their information with ours and we share
-- obviously share our information with the hospitals. There's no
reason that they want to be this island out there in the North. It's all
about patient care. Consistent patient care is very, very important.
So that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I will second
your motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not on the agenda. I object. I
absolutely object.
We have the acceptance of a status import. No mention of making
an offer of extending a COPCN. This matter hasn't been noticed. A
COPCN has to be awarded during a quasi judicial hearing, based on
evidence --
Page 160
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't my motion. I said it
was an offer. Holy cow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many times do we, when we
have a land use petition, we'll work something out so it's a better
compromise? And I think that's exactly what you're doing right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: This is regarding an interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it's a COPCN. And it's not
for the Board to approve it, okay, like is being said over here why
we're tied. It's an offer.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I will second
your suggestion if there's a requirement to generate uniform
information. I think your comment on uniform information is
absolutely essential. I don't see how we can self-evaluate, plan or
adjust if we don't have uniform information. It's one of my greatest
anxieties that we don't have it, and that the failure of an independent
license results in non-uniform information for us to decision make by.
How else do we decision make?
So if your offer includes the requirement that we have common
standards for information throughout, I will support it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, well, that's all about it.
Jeff, do you have a problem with my motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Not a problem with the motion so much as
from a procedural standpoint. You do have an existing litigation here.
What you're suggesting would put an end to that litigation. If you want
to make that in the context of a settlement offer to them in the
litigation, that will be one approach.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I think they need to
understand they don't have a case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's impossible.
Page 161
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all. So it's the County's
objection to award or not award. So it will come back. It has to come
back. They have to -- it has to come back for the Board to ratify to
take final action. This is just an offer to them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If we offer and they accept, it's
done. But worse is that it is a quasi judicial decision. It can't be
arbitrarily made. The decision was made to deny. There would have
to be a rehearing. And during the course of that rehearing the offer
could be made.
You can't sit there and just go oh, well, you know, we changed
our mind, we'll give it to you if you do A, B and C. Now all of a
sudden you're imposing, you know, conditions on a COPCN, which I
don't even know we have the ability to do legally. I don't think that we
can. I'm not even sure about legally whether we can impose
restrictions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- well, first of all, you can't
rehear the item, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure we can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you can't. It's past time for it
to be reheard.
Anyways, that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know, and let me just
say that that is not true. Because the only thing that limits us from
rehearing an item is an ordinance that we have that can be created that
we can amend or choose -- can we waive our own ordinances, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm curious. Can we just say we
decided to dispense with our own laws?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If we don't do that I'll be shocked,
Counselor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just curious. You know, certain
Page 162
October 27, 2015
things are waivable, certain things are not.
Are they?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's generally not a good idea, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, so it's not a good idea to
waive, but we can certainly amend.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I would like
you to lay your motion -- this is going to be a little bit of Robert's rule
here. I would like you to lay your motion and my second on the table,
and let's hear Chief Kopka's proposed contingency plans.
Before we get started on that, do we want to take a break for the
court reporter?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Apparently we do.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let us take a 10-minute break for the
court reporter, and we'll meet back here at 2:55.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Continuing this fascinating
conversation, I believe that we have Commissioner Taylor next in line
to give us some wisdom.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wisdom? I forgot what my
wisdom was going to be.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm not surprised, ma'am. Sometimes I
forget too. Hold that thought --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I think if I'm going to
frame it -- and I was thinking about this. What I think is very, very
important to do is to give both parties, the county and North Naples,
time. But not to give them so much time that at the end the reson de
tete or the reason of the day is, oh, you didn't give us enough time and
you've pushed us in a corner.
So I think the sooner we can frame this and make a decision and
Page 163
October 27, 2015
come to a settlement agreement or disagreement so we know what
we're doing, the better it is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So Chief Kopka, given the potential
occurrence that North Collier decides that they no longer want to
provide ALS service, please outline for us your contingency plans to
maintain the level of service standards that we've adopted.
CHIEF KOPKA: Mr. Chair, I'd be glad to.
Let's start with the second page of the executive summary. And
we have a couple of charts here which are a year's time period, that
most recent year's time period.
The first chart is showing all EMS and all ALS engines in the
North Naples area. The zones, these 40 zones, are encompassed in the
North Naples Fire District service area. These are the current travel
times, eight minutes or less, and the percent of times that we meet
those goals.
The chart on your right is just EMS resources only. And you'll
see in that chart on the right there's three zones that we, EMS alone,
does not meet the current level of service standard: Zone 42, Zone 43
and Zone 46.
There is a footnote by Zone 48. That zone for EMS has only been
in effect a couple of months so we don't have enough data there to
establish a trend or a need. But certainly in those three zones we
would not meet the level of service standard.
Our contingency plan is broken into two different phases: Phase I
is beginning January 1st of next year to utilize existing EMS personnel
in quick response vehicles, quick response paramedics, to assign them
to those zones and bordering zones. So they would not only affect
improved response times in those zones that aren't meeting level of
service standard, we feel that they would approve response times in
bordering zones as well.
Remember what you're losing with the North Naples lack of
Page 164
October 27, 2015
COPCN are non-transport vehicles. They're engines, they are squads.
They do not do patient transport. So what we are replacing it with is
the same type of response. It's a non-transport ALS response. And it's
under EMS direction.
So these quick response paramedics in these vehicles would be
under the strict supervision of EMS battalion chiefs and supervisors to
move to zones, move to calls, wherever they needed, to improve that
level of service standard.
We currently don't have that with North Naples engines. They
currently are obviously under their own management, their own
direction. When they go to training, when they're in service or out of
service, EMS has no control over that. Where with this plan we would
have direct control over them to make sure we meet our level of
service standard.
So these are using existing personnel 24/7 from the time period
January 1st through September 30th. The cost for that is $720,000.
Phase II would start next fiscal year, and that is to hire those
personnel as FTEs to maintain that level of service standard. And the
cost for that is $982,000.
If you move on to the next page, we're talking about the Big
Corkscrew service area of North Collier. Currently as you remember
we have an interlocal agreement with them. We currently provide a
paramedic firefighter to their attack truck at Station 10, and that's
obviously an advanced level ALS service with that paramedic, that
EMS paramedic.
If North Collier decides to void that interlocal agreement or they
don't want to continue that interlocal agreement, we are showing you
that we would move that EMS person to again a quick response
vehicle under our control to maintain the level of service standard.
There would be no cost for that for the remainder of this year. It's just
moving a person from one vehicle to another. Minimal cost for a
Page 165
October 27, 2015
vehicle use.
The Phase II plan would be to purchase the vehicle, that quick
response paramedic vehicle, for next budget year. No additional cost
from what we currently have for that FTE.
I think it's important to note here that, as with all of our resources
response times, we continually monitor them, determine what's
working well, what's not working well, where we need to adjust, and
we do that accordingly. And we'll do that with this plan as well. I
think we're taking a very conservative approach with adding these
resources and personnel, adding one for each of the zones that does not
meet a level of service standard. I think we may find that they're doing
better than expected and we can maybe adjust that down the road. So I
think it's a good approach and a good plan.
So we -- and the fiscal impact we have broken down what each
phase cost is. Again, the Phase I goes through September of this year,
not adding any existing personnel or vehicles. It's using currently what
we have in staff and supply.
And then Phase II would be a budget item for next year. And this
money would come from general fund reserves, a transfer to EMS.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then --
Commissioner Hiller, are you back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, I just want to make sure my
understanding is correct that we can put conditions on a COPCN.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. That's it.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You say it represents 2.75 percent?
It's approximately what, 1.7 million, right?
CHIEF KOPKA: For Phase I, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Divided by -- I'm not sure that's
Page 166
October 27, 2015
correct. But anyway, you can just run those numbers to be sure.
Doesn't North Naples have an application in for their COPCN?
Didn't they submit again on September 30th? It was a completely
different application?
CHIEF KOPKA: Those applications do not come to my office.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, where is that application?
MR. OCHS: I believe Mr. Summers is doing his review.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have an application that's
forthcoming. When is that anticipated to come before the Board?
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, I don't know. Right now Dan is in
discussion with the County Attorney on that issue. And I know we
have 60 days under the ordinance, once Mr. Summers deems the
application complete, to bring that in front of the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it was submitted when, at the
end of September?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. But I don't know that it's been -- and
I'll ask Dan to briefly comment on the status of his review at this point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, for the record, Dan Summers,
Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services.
I'm still reviewing that application, Commissioner. At this point
I don't see anything new in this particular submission other than an
awful lot of very informative type academic research. But the concept
of the operation, it is still a Class III application. So there's a lot of
weight to that application. There was a lot of work, additional
supplemental research data put into it. But within the framework of
our current ordinance in the Class III at this point I don't really see
anything new.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they're asking for the
COPCN for ALS non-transport. I mean, that's --
MR. SUMMERS: That was the original application.
Page 167
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And this one is the same.
MR. SUMMERS: And this is the same.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's with different facts,
additional facts.
MR. SUMMERS: Well, not anything that was within our
framework of the ordinance. There was a lot of additional research,
accomplishments, more information with resumes and experience
denoted. But substantially in terms of staying within the framework of
our ordinance, ma'am, I don't see anything that is new.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. Very interesting.
There was discussion -- Commissioner Henning brought up the
NFPA four-minute standard. Is that the standard we're using?
CHIEF KOPKA: No, ma'am. We're using the AUIR for EMS,
which is an eight-minute travel time, which does mirror the NFPA
eight-minute ALS time as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not the standard that
Commissioner Henning wants to impose through the COPCN
settlement offer that he's suggesting. Because he's suggesting the
NFPA four-minute standard.
CHIEF KOPKA: There's a four-minute BLS response time
standard in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he said four minutes for the
ALS. I mean, we're talking about a COPCN -- you did say a
four-minute NFPA, correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. That applies to fire
districts. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're talking about an ALS
response time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we need to comply with is
just what the Chief said, is what we adopted through the AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're setting a different
Page 168
October 27, 2015
standard for the North Naples COPCN, we're adopting a four-minute
standard for the North Naples COPCN?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have 80 paramedics. And
how many paramedics do we have in that area?
CHIEF KOPKA: Countywide we have 116.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Countywide?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we're not providing 100
percent of the service countywide because we're partnering with, you
know, for example, North Naples through a COPCN. So it's spread
based on the services provided by other agencies.
I can't believe it. We should have a four-minute standard for the
entire county. That is the standard we should be living to. That is the
right standard. Four minutes drop to shock is what the standard should
be to save a life.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, this is not on the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is on the agenda. It's part of
the discussion.
Well, Commissioner Nance, you said that it was perfectly all right
to bring this settlement offer forward, even though that's not on the
agenda and you seconded it. And I'm telling you that is completely
unacceptable. We do not have two standards for life in Collier County.
We are not going to say four minutes for North Naples and eight
minutes for everyone else. Let them wait four extra minutes so they
can drop dead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should take another
break.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's ridiculous. We have to save
lives. If four minutes is the standard, then four minutes should be our
standard for everybody. And I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The discussion was how to reach
Page 169
October 27, 2015
accommodation through a cooperative agreement with North Collier
Fire. That is the nexus of this discussion. If we cannot reach a
cooperative agreement with Collier Fire, this is going to be the activity
that we're going to engage in. That is the proposal that's before us, and
that's the proposal that we're going to vote on if we're going to approve
this contingency plan, if we cannot reach accommodations.
So there are a lot of greater issues. I wish we had all sorts of
better performance standards, Commissioner Hiller, but that's not
before us today. What's before us --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nor is the discussion about a
settlement with North Naples. We have a pending application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You keep interrupting.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a second. What we're going to do
today, I'm going to -- Commissioner Henning's motion and my second
has been laid on the table. I'm going to make a motion at this time to
accept the status report and to adopt and approve the proposed
contingency plans that have been presented by Chief Kopka in the
event North Collier Fire decides that they cannot reach accommodation
with the county and they no longer want to provide ALS services in
that service area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's already part of my --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order. Sorry, Robert's
rules. We've got two motions on the floor. You can't make --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, we've got one laying on the table,
ma'am. This over here is dead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, it's dead?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, it's just sitting there, it's not active.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, we need to withdraw that
motion and make your motion then.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, it's still there. It's just laid on the
table.
Page 170
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think you can, but --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, we can, we can lay that motion on
the table for another --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is procedure, this is
procedure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right, it's Roberts rules. So I'm just
going to make a motion on this agenda item.
And my motion is to accept the status report from the County
Manager or the County Attorney and to approve the proposed
contingency plan that's been presented to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, that's already in
my motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's already in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, all right. Well, then, we have a
motion and a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we please repeat the motion?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please restate your motion,
Commissioner Henning, so all commissioners understand what it is
we're voting on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The executive summary is
making recommendations or observations of budgets that need to be
done to cover the area. And my motion was to direct staff to prepare
budget amendments in case there is no agreement with North Naples.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And accept this proposal?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And I seconded that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there any further comment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's two items.
Page 171
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's speakers.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Public speakers. Let's hear public
speakers.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we have two registered speakers:
Shirley Cothran. And I do believe Ms. Cothran told me at lunch she
had to leave.
Paul Anderson.
CHIEF KOPKA: Mr. Chair, while we're waiting for the speaker,
do you mind if I can clarify?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
CHIEF KOPKA: If I misspoke, I apologize. The NFPA standard
is a one-minute call processing time, a one-minute turnout time, a
four-minute travel time for BLS with an AED, and an eight-minute
arrival of advanced life support. And I apologize if I misspoke, but
that's the NFPA standard, four-minute for BLS --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the NFPA?
CHIEF KOPKA: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is the NFDA --
CHIEF KOPKA: NF. National Fire Protection Agency.
Again, not exactly what the County goes by for their AUIR and
level service, but I wanted to clarify that for the Board.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Chief Anderson, please, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Hi. Paul Anderson, Fire Chief for
Immokalee Fire Control District.
I wanted to address some of the contingency plan -- some of the
concerns that Immokalee Fire Control District has.
I also spoke to Commissioner Burke, who was here earlier, from
North Collier. He had another meeting to attend, so he had to leave.
He indicated to me that staff from North Collier was directed by
the legal counsel not to attend this meeting, so that's why they're not
here, not because they didn't want to be here. They were advised by
Page 172
October 27, 2015
legal counsel not to be here because of pending litigation.
A couple of items. Right now currently North Collier operates on
a daily basis anywhere from 7 to 11 advanced life support units
responding to calls in the previous North Naples Fire District. Their
COPCN request would have maintained that 7 to 11 units in the old
North Naples and added an additional three to four in Big Corkscrew,
bringing the total available every day somewhere between 10 and 15
advanced life support units in the system.
The contingency plan proposes to reduce that level of service
from between 10 and 15 units to three units.
We rely on mutual aid, automatic aid from Big Corkscrew on a
regular basis. Those units being ALS would benefit Immokalee Fire
Control District as well. The contingency plan calls for the funding for
those three units in the decreased level of service to come from county
reserves this year. But next year it's going to cost a million dollars. I
don't know of any government entity that just has an extra million
dollars laying around, not earmarked for anything. So that money has
to come from somewhere.
Our concern is that in the fiscal years '16 and '17 there will be a
countywide tax increase to fund that extra million dollars, which the
Immokalee residents will also pay in order to fund a decreased level of
service in North Collier. And we're in opposition to that. We are in
favor of the county approving North Collier's new COPCN application.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much, Chief. I
appreciate your words and you highlighting the weaknesses of the
contingency plan being proposed. It's a material decrease in the level
of service being provided, and it's putting lives at risk. And I have to
agree with you, I find it woefully inadequate and unacceptable and just
Page 173
October 27, 2015
makes no sense at all.
And I agree with you, the COPCN application that's currently
pending should be heard by this Board, and this matter should be
addressed in the context of a quasi judicial hearing. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any other comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, we have a motion and a
second on the floor. Hearing no other comments, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. And I oppose on the basis it's
woefully inadequate. We're inadequately budgeted, we're inadequately
staffing, and we're putting lives at risk. This is unacceptable.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, it passes 4-1 with
Commissioner Hiller in dissent.
Mr. Ochs?
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST THAT THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PURSUANT
TO THE SCOPE OF SERVICES ENUMERATED IN THE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT, PREPARE AND SUBMIT A PAYABLES
REPORT IN THE FORMAT AND CONTENT SPECIFIED BY
THE BOARD — MOTION TO APPROVE COUNTY MANAGER
Page 174
October 27, 2015
RECOMMENDATIONS — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yeah, that takes us to 11.E. This is my item.
Commissioners, 11.E is a recommendation to request that the Board,
pursuant to the scope of services enumerated in the interlocal
agreement between the Board and the County Clerk, ask the Clerk to
prepare and submit a payables report in the format and content
specified by the Board.
The Board will recall at the September 22nd board meeting, I was
asked to bring back an agenda item to discuss potential methods by
which payments would be presented to the Board for approval.
The objective of this item is to create a mechanism by which the
Board may properly achieve compliance with its purchasing ordinance,
in particular Section 16F of the procurement ordinance, which requires
that prior to payment the Board shall approve all expenditures with a
finding that such expenditures serve a valid public purpose.
The specific action recommended in this item is to direct the
Clerk to the Board, who is your contracted vendor for these types of
services, to prepare and submit a payables report to the Board in
format and content that you specify. The recommended report format
that's in your backup will give the Board the assurance that the list of
payables presented in that report has been pre-audited by the Clerk in
conformance with Florida law.
This type of management reporting is specifically contemplated
and enumerated in the scope of services within the interlocal
agreement that was entered into by the Board and Clerk back in 2010.
For the current fiscal year 2016, the Board is paying the Clerk a
little over $6 million annually to provide a variety of those types of
services.
This payable report should be separate and distinct from the
disbursement report that is filed historically by the Clerk into the
Page 175
October 27, 2015
minutes of the BCC meeting. That report is essentially a report of
checks written and issued by the Clerk for expenditures that were
previously authorized. A finding by the Board in the past on that
disbursement report that those expenses serve a valid public purpose
does not really satisfy the requirement in your procurement ordinance,
because that requirement says that prior to payments being disbursed
the Board must make that finding that expenditures serve a valid public
purpose, are approved for payment, and then the Clerk is authorized to
make disbursement.
Also, and I've mentioned this before, that since September of
2015 the Clerk has removed provisions from the disbursement report
that had allowed the Board to find that those expenditures served a
valid public purpose and were approved for disbursement.
Currently the Clerk is disbursing payments, some of which are
not approved prior to disbursement by the Board, and that creates a
compliance problem in your procurement ordinance, and a concern at
least for the staff in that regard.
And finally, Commissioners, the payables report that is
recommended in your packet contains information that is entirely
available in your SAP financial system. That's a financial system that
the Board pays the Clerk to manage. He has full access to all the data
in that system.
In fact, the report that you received in today's agenda under your
miscellaneous correspondence is a report that with some modifications
and expansions could be used to kind of form the basis of this payables
report I'm recommending to you. That report is prepared exclusively
by the Clerk with data that's available to the Clerk's Office in the SAP
system.
So with that, Commissioners, again I recommend that the Board
direct the Chair to reach out to the Clerk of Courts and request that he
prepare and submit this payables report that will allow you to be in full
Page 176
October 27, 2015
compliance with your purchasing ordinance and have the assurance
that the payables presented for approval have been pre-audited in
accordance with Florida law. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And Mr. Ochs, you've submitted these
examples to us in Exhibit A and B and Exhibit 1 in the executive
summary. Is that where they're located?
MR. OCHS: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: July 16th, Judge Shenko signed
an order. It's mutually agreed upon that the Clerk will provide those
invoices to the County Manager to put on the agenda.
Shouldn't we go to the judge and ask him to change before we -- I
mean, that's the law right now, until the hearing.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, up on the visualizer is I think the
pertinent section of Judge Shenko's order.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Zoom in on it so I can see it.
MR. OCHS: Section 2 deals with how reports will be made. And
this is just for expenditures below the competitive threshold of
$50,000, okay. This doesn't deal with the payment process for
expenditures above $50,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But those --
MR. OCHS: And what this says is that under C the Clerk places
all pre-audited expenditures on a report to the Board of County
Commissioners. Let me read it again.
The Clerk places all approved pre-audited expenditures on a
report to the Board of County Commissioners. And he is doing that
for expenditures under $50,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you want
expenditures over $50,000 to be on the same agenda for the Board to
approve?
MR. OCHS: Well, that's what you want, sir. It's your
Page 177
October 27, 2015
procurement ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do that anyways.
Anything over $50,000 needs to come to the Board for contracts.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. In that contract it has
specific duties. It has the dollar amount tied to it and the Board
approves it. And then it becomes the County Manager's to manage
that contract and the Clerk to audit to make sure those (sic) invoice
complies to the contract, correct?
MR. OCHS: Your procurement ordinance says that prior to
payment -- I'll read it again --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know what we have. We have
approved it through the contract. That's what I'm saying.
What you're asking is to put it on the agenda twice. Contract, and
then those invoices on the contract. And I think that's a lot of work.
MR. OCHS: That's what was being done up until this past
summer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know there were things was
put on the agenda that the Clerk felt that it wasn't a part of the contract.
Is that right, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, we were -- we were providing the
reports, the 136 reports, and there's a time frame that the valid public
purpose was mutually agreed upon for a very temporary period, hoping
for the AGO. Things have progressed. We're now in litigation. But
you're correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. You didn't
answer the question. The Board approves a contract, and in that
contract there's certain expenditures for certain performance. That's
providing the valid public purpose, correct?
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, are there
Page 178
October 27, 2015
expenditures dealing with that contract that you brought to the Board,
or you asked staff to bring to the Board, you're not going to pay that?
MS. KINZEL: If we had an issue or a concern with an item that
was not seemingly in compliance with the contract the Board had
already approved, we would reject it and give it back to county staff to
do additional --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County staff would bring it to
the Board.
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm really confused why we
want to put it on the agenda twice.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, your procurement ordinance says
that prior to payment the Board shall approve all expenditures with a
finding that such expenditures serve a valid public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I heard you say that.
MR. OCHS: And up until this summer all of your disbursement
reports contained a listing of every expenditure, whether it was above
50,000 or below 50,000, for you to make that finding and approve the
payment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Do you have a problem
with the disbursement list, the way it's being done?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Because a disbursement --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is not finding a valid public
purpose, it's just reporting under Statute 163.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 136.
MR. OCHS: 136.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 136.
MR. OCHS: There's really two issues here, or two reports, okay.
One is what I'm recommending, which is the payables report that
allows you to satisfy the requirement in your purchasing ordinance, in
my opinion. Okay? It's not a check that's already been issued.
Page 179
October 27, 2015
Your disbursement report under Florida law, as I read it, is a
payment or a check that's already been drawn and issued, and the only
duty at that point of the Clerk is to take that report and file it into the
minutes of the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. OCHS: So by filing -- in fact, if you look at your agenda
today --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: J?
MR. OCHS: Yes. There's a filing there of a disbursement report,
but it contains no opportunity for the Board to make any declarations
about the valid public purpose of those expenditures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, because we already have,
through the contract.
MR. OCHS: No, sir, I wouldn't agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So when you approve -- when
we approve a contract, we're approving the terms of the contract and a
budgeted amount for that contract. And that's not a valid public
purpose when we approve the contract? No.
MR. OCHS: I don't know. You tell me. That's the Board's
finding, not mine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, you couldn't approve it without the
implicit finding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not -- can I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, let's hear from
the other lawyer.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not an implicit finding that a
valid public purpose has been provided. What it is, it's an implicit
Page 180
October 27, 2015
understanding that it is intended that the goods or services being
procured will be for a valid public purpose. Then a determination has
to be made whether or not the goods or services were provided in a
public context, and then the Board -- and I should say the Clerk will let
us know whether it was used in a public context, and then the Board
will make the discretionary determination of whether a valid public
purpose was served. And they will make that finding after being told
by the Clerk that in fact yes, the good or service was provided in a
public context.
But it's up to you, members of the Board, to make that
determination, which is a discretionary determination, that it's a valid
public purpose. And that determination has to be made ahead of
payment.
And it's very clear. It's very clear. There is an Attorney General's
opinion. In fact, I'm very concerned, because the Attorney General's
opinion that I'm looking at makes it clear that the Clerk of Courts may
not sign warrants without approval of the Board of County
Commissioners, which is going on right now.
It also says that the language suggests that the Board of County
Commissioners is responsible for approving the payment of any claim
against the county prior to its being presented to the Clerk for payment.
And that's exactly what our ordinance says, and that's exactly what we
are asking be done every single meeting.
It says that the Clerk of Courts is not authorized to pay county
bills that have not been previously approved for payment by the
County Commission. That is exactly what we are doing. We are
ensuring, through our ordinance and through the procedures that the
County Manager has described, that every expenditure is approved by
the Board of County Commissioners before payment.
The Board of County Commissioners does not delegate spending
authority to the staff. The County Commission will not delegate
Page 181
October 27, 2015
spending authority to the Clerk of Courts. The County Commission is
the sole body politic that has the ability to make a determination that
public funds shall be expended for what the Board deems to be a valid
public purpose.
What you are proposing, Mr. Ochs, is absolutely correct. We
have to do what any other governmental entity, any nonprofit entity,
any corporation does. We have to review the accounts payable ledger,
which has been subject to in effect what is a compliance audit, which
is the pre-audit by the Clerk for us to be able to make the determination
that a valid public purpose has been served and to make the
determination that as a result of the fact that we know that the
expenditure is legal and serves a valid public purpose that the payment
should be made. And that authorization by this Board is then what
allows the Clerk of Courts to cut the check.
And then pursuant to 136.06, the Clerk of Courts then has to
record in the minutes what is the check register, which States what
payable has been paid by what check, the number of the check, the
date of the check, to whom the check was made and the purpose of the
check. But he cannot issue that report ahead of our approval of the
expenditure for payment. And no one can approve payment of an
expenditure except this body politic. And no one can make the
determination that a valid public purpose is served except this body
politic, and that can't happen 'til after the expenditure is made.
And I'll give you an example. We had a situation where we
entered into a contract to have an affordable home stuccoed, a home
that we were going to resell in the community. And guess what
happened? We received an invoice and it wasn't stuccoed.
Now we had approved the contract, and it served a valid public
purpose. Based on the logic that Commissioner Henning is espousing,
that should have been paid automatically. That is unacceptable.
The verification that a public purpose is being served by the good
Page 182
October 27, 2015
or service must be presented to us based on an inspection by the
Clerk's office as part of his pre-audit.
And Alachua is crystal clear. Alachua says that there are three
prongs to the pre-audit: There has to be a determination made that it's
budgeted, that the expenditure is budgeted for; a determination has to
be made that the goods or services were procured according to local
ordinance or State statute; and thirdly, that the expenditure, the
proposed expenditure -- or let's restate that, the procurement was for a
public purpose, which is a fact determination. Not that it is a valid
public purpose, which is a discretionary determination, which we
make.
Unless I'm told by the Clerk that the house was stuccoed, I do not
know that a public purpose was served. And when that comes to me
and I say, yes, oh, it should have been stuccoed and that stuccoing does
serve a valid public purpose because our intent is to resell that
refurbished house to help people who can't afford homes otherwise, I
say yes, there's a valid public purpose.
And then we as a Board declare, having found a valid public
purpose, that that expenditure -- or I should say that procurement. Let
me restate and clarify, that that procurement should be paid. It's very
clear.
And what is going on right now is completely illegal. Completely
illegal. Because we have the Clerk making expenditures and making
discretionary decisions about public purpose without the Board's
approval. We are not getting the accounts payable ledger identifying
that the proposed procurements have been subject to pre-audit.
In fact, I was reading part of-- I was reading the Clerk's
deposition which is, you know, right here. And, I mean, he admits that
he doesn't pre-audit these expenditures in whole.
I mean, I'm really concerned. Because the fact of the matter is,
that's a big problem.
Page 183
October 27, 2015
I'm going to make a motion to approve the County Manager's
recommendation. We need an accounts payable ledger that shows us
that the Clerk has pre-audited those expenditures and it is a list of
purchases of goods and services which are ready for our review, for
our determination that a valid public purpose is served and that
payment should be made.
And then secondly -- and that's for everything, for every
expenditure from zero to infinity. Because the mere fact that we
approved a contract for over 50,000 is irrelevant. Absolutely
irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't talk me out of the second. Let
me just say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Sony. I'm just saying.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Stop talking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, I'm stopping, I'm
stopping.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the reason I'm seconding it is
because I count on the Clerk clearing these things through first with the
pre-audit. And I had always based my vote for valid public purpose,
knowing he'd already cleared that and made -- you know, made it a
clear path to get to the final results. So that's why I will second that
motion. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I'm going to -- I'm going to make a
comment. I'm going to try to distill Commissioner Hiller's comments
down to about 15 seconds, which she needs to work on. But basically,
if we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a genetic defect on my part.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm sorry, ma'am, I know you're
enthusiastic about this topic.
Page 184
October 27, 2015
When we enter into a contract, we're anticipating a valid public
purpose. We're bartering for something that's in the public's interest,
and we're anticipating that that's going to be forthcoming. But that --
entering into that anticipated outcome doesn't really get us to a valid
public purpose until we verify that those things that we've been
bartering for have in fact been received.
And we've got two ways to check that. We've got staff that
submits the warrant for payment based on the fact that they go out
there and they say yeah, we're saying we received what we contracted
for. And then the Clerk is supposed to provide, through a separation of
powers, his pre-audit that says yes, it passes through my office. And
then we are supposed to announce, as the Board, through our powers
which we are only supposed to be the ones that have it, that indeed a
public purpose has been served and the Clerk is therefore authorized to
disburse payment. That's my understanding of this really long issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. That was perfect.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And I don't think that we have it. I think
we used to get it, but I think that the Clerk is assuming that the court's
direction is mutually exclusive with the other, and I don't think it is.
I think it's very convenient for the Board to continue to receive those
summary documents, as the County Manager has suggested we
request, so that this is a little cleaner. Right now we've got it coming
through several different things. And I really have no faith whatsoever
in the disbursement report. That's after the fact. And I don't know if
there's anything we can do about it. If the money is expended in error,
how would we ever get it back? We'd have to take a court action to
retrieve it.
So I'm not a big fan of the disbursement report, other than it's
required by statute. I'm not relying on that to get us to a public purpose,
personally.
But Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Taylor.
Page 185
October 27, 2015
Were you first, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I was, but --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so is this about
bookkeeping? We're spending an hour or more about bookkeeping?
Can't we just pick up the phone and ask each other to do it? Why all
this drama?
The other issue is that's not what the memo on Exhibit 1 says.
The memo on Exhibit 1 says that the Clerk has to verify that the funds
were spent for public purpose in a payables report. When does this
payables report come to us? Does it come before we approve and
determine it's for a public purpose? I'm not getting this.
So I'm -- you know, this is as clear as mud to me. I don't
understand what we're doing here. What are we doing here? Are we
asking the Clerk to duplicate what he does in another report to us so
that it's clear? Then let's just ask him and be done with it.
MR. OCHS: That's what this -- I believe that's what this is
designed to do, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think that -- ask him to supply -- the
interlocal agreement, unless I'm wrong, Mr. Ochs, and if I am please
correct me -- enumerates that the Clerk is going to provide us with a
statement of activities that we endorse.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is it called the payables report?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, in the form that we request.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And the Clerk has thus far not been
willing, apparently, to provide us with this report, as he has in the past,
in the form that we've requested. We've requested the form and the
process to support the purchasing ordinance which we have adopted.
And the purchasing ordinance that we have adopted requires that it
Page 186
October 27, 2015
happen in that order so that we're complying with our responsibilities,
he's complying with his, it's in the proper order.
But apparently there are payments that are being made that are
being made prior to us actually declaring it a valid public purpose. And
I have anxiety over that myself.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to have the question called.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Call the question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Commissioner Henning -- I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning was
supposed to follow Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Jeff, you already
determined those contracts on the agenda when the Board approves it
is a valid public purpose.
MR. KLATZKOW: I've never seen a contract before you that
was not a valid public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, Commissioner
Hiller's example about somebody is supposed to be stuccoing a
building, one of the homes -- and I think it actually did happen -- we
have an agreement that somebody is going to -- and that's what she
said, to stucco that, correct? Is that your understanding?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Agreement is a contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you provide what statute
that the Clerk of the Court is to manage that contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: He's supposed to pre-audit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pre-audit.
Is there a statute that the County Administrator is supposed to
manage that contract?
Page 187
October 27, 2015
MR. KLATZKOW: The County Administrator is supposed to
manage all of your contracts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
So whose job is it to point out that the house wasn't stuccoed?
The person managing the contract, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, in that case there's no point
of an audit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know -- and I'm sure the
Clerk can assist to make sure that the materials and the job is being
done is being done. But get your checkbook out, because he's going to
have to hire people to manage the contracts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Go out in the field.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there has to be a separation
between the county, the expenditures, and the person who holds the
checkbook. And you want -- well, I should say Commissioner Hiller
wants that separation to be gone. She wants that, contrary to Florida
law, that the county -- or the auditor manage the contracts. And it's not
provided in the Florida statutes.
So this is an item for the argument in the courts, in my opinion.
Just -- well, sure, it is, it's already in the courts. Commissioner Fiala,
you agreed to -- you agreed to fight it in the courts. So --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the argument in the court is about
the authority of the County Administrator and the purchasing director
to make purchases. We're talking about a management report that is
part of the scope of services in your interlocal agreement. It says under
management reporting in your executive summary: The Clerk will
prepare various reports in accordance with State and local laws,
including the law on prepayment, as I understand it, through Alachua
versus Powers, and ordinances as reasonably requested by the Board.
And what I'm suggesting is that you're making a reasonable
request for a report with data that's already in the financial system that
Page 188
October 27, 2015
the Clerk manages for you under this report, so that you can comply
with your purchasing ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you're saying -- you just
said it, that complies with law, state law. The state law requires you to
manage the contracts. The Board makes the determination -- actually,
I should say you're to manage those contracts after the Board approves
those contracts.
MR. OCHS: And I agree with you 100 percent. And I think even
the Clerk would agree he has a legal duty to pre-audit expenditures.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I thought that the Clerk of the Court sued
the Board to establish his right to audit in declaring that he had the
absolute duty to pre-audit because he didn't want to make an
expenditure that was illegal or not in the public's interest. So, I mean,
I don't know that we can talk out of both sides of our mouth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just finish, Mr.
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Go ahead, sir. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got two Hillers over here who
want to interrupt me all the time. Hiller 1, Hiller 2.
So I'm just saying, you're going to have the Chair go over there
and ask the Clerk to do this. I can guess he's going to say, doesn't
comply to law. You're going to come back to us and say what? Let's
go ask the judge. That's all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, then we have a
motion and a second here on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Alachua v. Powers is clear, the
Clerk doesn't have the option to assist, as you wrongly state
Commissioner Henning. The Clerk has an affirmative duty to pre-
audit. And that pre-audit again, determination of whether the money is
in the budget, determination whether it's being procured legally,
according to local ordinance or state statute; and thirdly, determination
Page 189
October 27, 2015
that the procurement was for a public purpose as opposed to a private
purpose. Whether it's a valid public purpose is a discretionary decision
of the Board.
The staff does not make expenditures; staff makes purchases. It
makes ministerial decisions, not discretionary decisions. Only the
Board of County Commissioners decides on the spending and whether
it's for a valid public purpose. And that has to be done ahead of the
Clerk making payment, and the Clerk is not doing that right now.
The Clerk is not properly pre-auditing; the Clerk is making
payments ahead of the Board's approval -- ahead of the Board's
determination of valid public purpose and ahead of the Board's
approval of expenditure. And the Clerk has a duty to report to us that
he has pre-audited so that we can make the appropriate findings so that
he can then turn around and make the payment on our behalf.
We have to have that accounts payable ledger which has been
subject to his pre-audit in order to be able to make the determination of
whether or not a valid public purpose has been served. We have to
have that accounts payable ledger pre-audited in order for us to make
the decision that we should approve the expenditure.
We have liability. If we approve an illegal expenditure, we
depend on his pre-audit to ensure that the expenditure that we are
approving is in fact legal. It is clear we need the report that the County
Manager says we need. It's clear also by way of statute that we need
the check registers 136.06.
And this is not merely bookkeeping. This is the Clerk's job, and
this is the financial information we need as fiduciaries of the taxpayer's
dollar to make the right decision with respect to spending, which is our
obligation. We cannot do it without information. So I'd like to call the
question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The Clerk frankly has agreed to do this
in the interlocal agreement.
Page 190
October 27, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. So I'd like the
question called, please.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You'll have the final word unless
Commissioner Henning has -- do you have additional comments, sir?
Commissioner Taylor, then you, if you have another comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At what point does calling the
question become a moot point?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, I'm going to let everybody have their
piece.
Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner Henning, then we'll
vote.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Hiller, I have
something from the meeting of November 12th, 2014 that I'll pass
down, and your comments in it. And I'm so confused because -- and I
think we need to get that down there.
You said that one thing is missing from this policy is that, you
know, ratification has to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've got plenty now.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- has to occur before it goes to
the Clerk for payment. And then you say that it comes to the Board for
ratification prior to going to the Clerk for payment, and that resolves
the issue, doesn't it? Now, that's about emergency issues.
And then you say that you're -- in the motion that you're adding
one policy that basically provides it has to be approved by the Board
and the Board has to find a valid legal purpose.
Now I've heard you say valid legal purpose, but I'm so confused
because now you're talking about the Clerk finding that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- it's for a public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. There's a difference
Page 191
October 27, 2015
between -- and just to clarify and help you with your confusion,
because I want to make sure you understand -- a public purpose means
that it was used in the context of government business. Whether that is
valid or not is our determination. Whether we have -- let me give you
an example.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, I do understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, you said you didn't. Let
me finish.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm very clear about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The valid -- the public purpose, the
Clerk has to find that it was used in the context of government activity
as opposed to that it was used in someone's private home.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How do you propose he does
this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He needs to audit it. He either has
to inspect or verify by some other means.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He has --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, you have to use audit
techniques.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He has --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The law -- let me just make it very
clear. Alachua requires that he find a public purpose. That's what the
law says.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the Supreme Court saying
that's what he has to do.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I'm asking you for your
definition of how he determines he finds a public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He has to do whatever audit --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He inspects?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- testing is necessary. He either
Page 192
October 27, 2015
has to inspect or get a confirmation letter or whatever he needs to do,
whatever testing is appropriate for that particular activity, whether it's
the procurement of goods, whether it's the procurement of services.
There's different testing depending on what the transaction is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: What about a signature from the
staff?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It cannot be relied upon. Because
he is actually --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: According to who? According to
who?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He is auditing the staff.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's your idea. That's not --
show me where it says in the law and the statute that you cannot rely
on staff signing something --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you know what? Let me just
say this. Let me answer. He can choose to do that. It is his
determination. And if he wants to rely on staff and not do more and he
is wrong and he should have done more because a reasonable
professional or reasonable auditor would have done more, he will be
liable for what is a fraudulent expenditure. And I give you BQ as an
example. I give you BQ as an example.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not sure that that's a correct
example.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So anyway, as I was saying, to
answer your question --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think I have the floor, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, you asked me a question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor has the floor.
Go ahead, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
I have no trouble -- I believe the law says that approval of
Page 193
October 27, 2015
contracts is, when we approve it, that the information is there, that we
determine it's a valid public purpose, et cetera.
I believe the government is set up with checks and balances. I
don't have any problem asking the Clerk to expand the way he reports
things. What I have a problem with is this memo on Exhibit 1 where
he has to determine that the funds were spent for a public purpose.
I'm not sure -- if we're rising to this level, then I would agree with
Commissioner Henning, we'd better just figure -- open our
pocketbooks, because there's going to be a lot more into this than ever
can be.
I'm not sure what we're doing here except when there is litigation
going on. This is a very, very slippery slope that we're on. This to me
is part of the litigation. It is part of gotcha. It's part of, see, he's not
doing it right and it happened this day and we discussed it and it
passed. And I really want no part of it.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if I might, and not to belabor this,
but ma'am, that was never my intent. With respect to pre-audit, all I
did was copy the pre-audit requirements under the Supreme Court
decision of Alachua versus Powers, which until it's reversed -- and I'm
no lawyer, but Mr. Klatzkow could opine -- I believe is the law of the
land, and that's all I put in there was the three-part test that's outlined in
the decision in Alachua County versus Powers. I did not mean to
imply or force any other additional pre-audit requirements on the
Clerk, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, real quick.
Now, Commissioner Hiller, I agree, we need to find a valid public
purpose. You have said that. I don't think anybody disagrees with it.
However, I just want to make sure you're aware, you have said that the
Clerk needs to find the valid public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I didn't. No, what I said is that
Page 194
October 27, 2015
the Clerk, according to Alachua v. Powers, must find the public
purpose; that the expenditure will serve the public purpose. Not a
valid public purpose, but a public purpose. That it was used in the
context of a governmental activity.
The validity of that is determined by the Board, which is a
discretionary decision. The Clerk does not have the legal right to make
a discretionary decision. In fact, we have an Attorney General's
opinion that he provided that clearly states he does not have the right to
make the decision that it serves a valid public purpose. And we have a
Supreme Court case that makes a determination that he must find a
public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad you corrected it,
because that isn't what you said on the record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. After enjoying all that, we
have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. It passes 3-2, Commissioner
Henning, Commissioner Taylor dissenting.
Okay. Mr. Ochs, I believe we are to —
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 195
October 27, 2015
MR. OCHS: Item 15, Commissioners. That's staff and
commission general communication.
I have nothing today, Commissioners, except to remind you of
your November 3rd workshop, which is upcoming on the subject of
sustainable and integrated water resource management. That's 1 :00
p.m. here in commission chambers on November 3rd.
All right. Commissioner comment. Do you have any guiding
words for us, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Davis Boulevard, State
Road 84, has been in resurfacing mode for over a month, maybe two
months.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Secretary Hattaway.
Maybe there was a misunderstanding, because no action has been --
taken place. And the turn lanes, the approach lanes are milled, there's
no asphalt there, it's just that subsurface there. Actually, there's no
final surface within the job.
And I called this morning again and haven't received any
response. So I think it's time that the Chairman writes a letter on
behalf of the Board and asking the Secretary to make the contractor
finish the job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to support that effort too.
Because I'm getting calls regularly from people complaining about the
fact that no work has been done and it sits there idle and all they have
is the milled surface and holes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Very problematic. So you've got
two supporting. I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would support that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'll nod yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's see if we can get that moved ahead.
Page 196
October 27, 2015
Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Other than that, I'm looking
forward to Thanksgiving. Oh, wait a minute, we've got one more
meeting before that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've got Halloween coming up
next.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I had the honor yesterday of
attending the ribbon cutting of Bascom Palmer Eye Institute. The fact
that we have a facility in Collier County with actually international
recognition as being the number one in providing eye care is nothing
short of outstanding.
And I was presented with a book, "50 Years of Vision," which is
the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute's history. And so I wanted to go
ahead and present it to the Board and give it to the County Manager. I
was thinking maybe you could put it on one of the coffee tables like,
for example, in your office, since more people seem to go to your
offices than come to ours.
So it's a really beautiful book, and we really want to thank
Bascom Palmer for being a member of this community and making the
significant investment they've made. That's number one.
Then the second thing I want to share with you, and this is a
good-news item, is that finally, finally, Cavo has opened up. And as
you all know, in the interest of tourism, it's really important that we
have great night spots for our visitors. And while we have a lot of
outstanding restaurants, we really don't have a lot of clubs or lounges
that visitors can frequent.
And Rocky Patel, who owns Burn, which is a cigar bar and
somewhat of a dance club in Mercado, with his partners from New
York that own Cavo in New York have made a multimillion-dollar
investment in Mercado and have opened an incredible club.
Page 197
October 27, 2015
And I encourage all of you to attend and visit. I think you'll
really, really like it. It's very elegant, and it's stylish and hip and what
this community needs.
I'm trying to think if there's anything else. No, I think that's about
it.
All in all, I think that things are moving in the right direction.
We're seeing a lot of very positive development on the commercial
front that's good for the community. And Happy Halloween.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just I'm glad it's over.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, you're supposed to
have a big, happy pumpkin on your desk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, usually you wear the
cutest pumpkin outfits. Like last year you wore the blouse with the
pumpkin on it and the pumpkin earrings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know, I should have had those
things on.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Nothing? Okay.
I have a related request, Nick, and that is on the construction of
County Road 951, I think there are some very, very difficult legs of
that construction going on right now. The one I'm very concerned
about is the one that is just north of Pine Ridge Road, between Pine
Ridge and Golden Gate Boulevard. That is probably one of the
heaviest stretches of road that's used in the morning and in the evening.
Right now I think the Sheriffs Office and everybody has done
whatever they can to slow traffic down through there, and they have
some very small 35-mile-an-hour signs up there that are actually from
-- they're from residential areas. I believe you need to post something
there to slow people down, because I'm very fearful. That's an area
Page 198
October 27, 2015
where they have to move the whole road, they have to move the
swales, they have to move the sidewalks, they have to -- I can see that
they're going to be going back and forth.
They need to slow people down there, because I fearful that
they're going to run someone over somebody doing construction.
That's a very, very hazardous thing.
I find myself going too fast in there, and I drive like a little old
lady, so -- I mean, I get passed by people, you know, and they have
cones up there and they've got cons-- but I just don't think they -- you
need to put some illuminated signs there or something. You need to
slow some people down.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We can do that, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's very tough, because there's actually
no place in there for anybody to go on a bicycle or walk or anything.
It's going to have a bad outcome.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I drive it as well, too. So does my new
driving daughter. So --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You know how bad that is right there.
Other than that, thank you for -- I think we had a fairly tough day.
We tackled a lot of tough issues, but I think we're finding some
pathways here. So thanks for the -- I think we had actually a higher
order of conversation than we have had a lot of other meetings, and I
thank you for taking the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Much better than the last meeting,
wasn't it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. The last one was awful.
Any final comments from staff or Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If not, we stand in adjournment. Thank
you.
Page 199
October 27, 2015
**** Commissioner moved, seconded by Commissioner and carried
unanimously that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR
THE EQUESTRIAN CENTER AT HORSE CREEK,
PL2006050002/PL20110001996, AND UNCONDITIONAL
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF WATER FACILITIES AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF
$31,464.86 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — STAFF PERFORMED A FINAL
INSPECTION TO UNCOVER DEFECTS SEPTEMBER 17, 2015
AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND ACCEPTABLE ON THE
PROPERTY BETWEEN PINE RIDGE AND VANDERBILT
BEACH ROADS
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER FACILITIES FOR
ESPERANZA AT TIBURON, PL20140000327, AND FINAL
CONVEYANCE OF A PORTION OF WATER FACILITIES AND
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF
$14,701.10 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — STAFF PERFORMED A FINAL
INSPECTION TO UNCOVER DEFECTS AUGUST 20, 2015 AND
Page 200
October 27, 2015
FACILITIES WERE FOUND ACCEPTABLE ON PROPERTY
BETWEEN LIVINGSTON AND AIRPORT PULLING ROADS
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2015-214: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF BRIGHTLING AT TALIS PARK APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20110000242 WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND
AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
— A DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF LIVINGSTON ROAD
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2015-215: FINAL APPROVAL OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF FAIRGROVE AT TALIS PARK, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20 1 1 0002647 WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATELY MAINTAINED AND
AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
— A DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF LIVINGSTON ROAD
Item #16A5
AN EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT FOR LOT 52, ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT OF TORINO REPLAT AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 52, PAGES 76 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF COLLIER COUNTY — FOR AN ENCROACHMENT THAT
WAS MISSED ON A SPOT SURVEY IN REGARDS TO A 2014
PERMIT FOR A POOL DECK AND SCREEN THAT FALLS
Page 201
October 27, 2015
APPROXIMATELY 4.3 FEET INTO A 24-FOOT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THIS
PROPERTY IN GREY OAKS THAT'S MAINTAINED BY GREY
OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC.
Item #16A6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COLLIER COUNTY'S
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S (MPO)
FY15/16 OPERATING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $171,986
— TO RECOGNIZE GRANT FUNDS AND BRINGS THE MPO'S
TOTAL FY15/16 OPERATING BUDGET TO $671,777
Item #16A7 — Continued to the November 10, 2015 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT WITH AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT, LLLP,
AND A FIRST AMENDMENT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE AVE MARIA
STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT, TO RECOGNIZE
RESCISSION OF THE AVE MARIA DRI, TO RECOGNIZE THE
COLLIER COUNTY RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
AS A STATUTORY RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 163.3248(11),
TO RECOGNIZE A REVISION TO THE AVE MARIA SRA TO
ADD 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/
WAREHOUSE, TO MEMORIALIZE THE DEVELOPER'S PRIOR
COMMITMENT TO RELAX THE IMPACT FEE COLLECTION
USE RESTRICTION, AND TO PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO
TRANSFER OR ASSIGN ALL OR A PORTION OF THE ROAD
Page 202
October 27, 2015
IMPACT FEE CREDITS TO ROADS WITHIN DISTRICT NO. 5
OR TO ADJACENT ROAD IMPACT FEE DISTRICTS
Item #16A8
RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $231,800 FOR A PAYMENT OF $450,
IN CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. KIMBERLY M. FRY, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20110003169,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6025 ENGLISH
OAKS LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — AN ORIGINAL
LIEN FOR CONVERTING A UTILITY ROOM INTO A LIVING
SPACE AND ADDING A ROOM WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING
REQUIRED PERMITS ON THE PROPERTY; THE PROPERTY
WAS ACQUIRED BY JAMES H. AND LISHA M. MIDDENDORF
VIA WARRANTY DEED AUGUST 4, 2015 AND PROPERTY
WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON AUGUST 25, 2015
Item #16A9
A SHORT-LIST OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) #15-6418, CEI SERVICES FOR THE VANDERBILT DRIVE
BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS PROJECT AND TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND AECOM
TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. FOR "CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES FOR
VANDERBILT DRIVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS PROJECT
NO. 66066" — STAFF WILL SEEK BOARD APPROVAL ON A
CONTRACT WITH TOP-RANKED FIRM AECOM TECHNICAL
Page 203
October 27, 2015
SERVICES FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS
Item #16A10
A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND ORCHID RUN APARTMENTS, LLC,
THE DEVELOPER OF THE ORCHID RUN APARTMENTS, FOR
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE LIVINGSTON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY — IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDE GROUNDCOVER, SHRUBS, SOD AND SMALL
FLOWERING TREES; ORCHID RUN APARTMENTS, LLC HAS
AGREED TO MAINTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE AGREEMENT
Item #16A11
A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE
DETAILING THE TERMS OF A COMBINED EFFORT TO
IMPROVE HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS ON WETLANDS AND
WATERSHEDS ON A PORTION OF BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL
PRESERVE, IN THE VICINITY OF BIRDON AND TURNER
RIVER ROADS — TO ASSIST STAFF OF THE BIG CYPRESS
NATIONAL PRESERVE (BCNP) WITH PHASE 2 OF THE
THREE PHASES OF THE OCHOPEE SHEET FLOW
RESTORATION PLAN THAT ENCOMPASSES AN AREA
APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES EAST OF STATE ROAD 29
Item #16Al2
RESOLUTION 2015-216: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN
Page 204
October 27, 2015
TO EXECUTE A FLORIDA HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION
COUNCIL GRANT, LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN WHICH COLLIER
COUNTY WILL BE REIMBURSED $100,000 FOR MEDIAN,
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ON STATE
ROAD 951, APPROVE A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT, AND
AUTHORIZE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FOR
IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN FIDDLER'S CREEK (.6 MILES IN
LENGTH) TO AN UNIMPROVED MEDIAN NORTH OF
MAINSAIL DRIVE (.5 MILES IN LENGTH) WITH A
COMPLETION DATE OF JUNE 30, 2016
Item #16A13
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR A
ROADWAY SEGMENT ON IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM
LOGAN BOULEVARD NORTH TO IBIS COVE, WITH THE
VOLUNTEER GROUP, FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
OF NAPLES, INC. — A GROUP THAT WILL PICK UP LITTER
ACCORDING TO AGREEMENT INSTRUCTIONS WITH $200 IN
COSTS FOR RECOGNITION SIGNS
Item #16A14
GRANTING A WELL EASEMENT AND AN ACCESS AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
FOR A STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND
SITE RECENTLY ACQUIRED AS PART OF THE 4-LANING OF
Page 205
October 27, 2015
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD BETWEEN WILSON
BOULEVARD AND 20TH STREET EAST (PROJECT NO. 60040)
(FISCAL IMPACT: $0) — ALLOWING THE DISTRICT TO
RELOCATE THREE WELLS TO A 5. 15 ACRE TRACT AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND
THE 8TH STREET SE INTERSECTION AND TO CONTINUE
MONITORING ACTIVITIES
Item #16A15
MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT AND AGREEMENT WITH
PELICAN MARSH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
IN WHICH THE COUNTY ACCEPTS TRANSFER OF
PROPERTY AND ASSUMES MAINTENANCE
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR A WALL AND LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION SYSTEM LOCATED THEREON; AND FINAL
DISPOSITION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES AGAINST
THE DISTRICT — THE CDD WILL CONVEY 13.2 ACRES TO
THE COUNTY TO SETTLE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
AGAINST THE DISTRICT IN REGARDS TO A DETERIORATED
WALL AND IN RETURN THE COUNTY WILL ASSUME
MAINTENANCE COSTS ESTIMATED AT $57,000 ANNUALLY,
WILL SHARE HALF OF THE $5680 ASSOCIATED WITH WALL
REPAIR AND STOP ALL CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
AGAINST THE DISTRICT RELATED TO ANY CONCRETE
FENCE OR WALL IN, ON OR ADJACENT TO VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD OR THAT IS IN AND/OR ON THE PROPERTY
Item #16B1
CRA RESOLUTION 2015-217: REVISING CRA ESTABLISHED
Page 206
October 27, 2015
BYLAWS AND AMENDING CRA RESOLUTION 2001-98
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2015 TO COINCIDE WITH THE
REPEAL OF THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE ACT AND
THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 95-22;
CRA RESOLUTION 2015-218: RETAINING THE CURRENT
MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE
ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BY APPOINTING THEM TO
THE IMMOKALEE LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
BOARD AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-345
EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2015 TO COINCIDE WITH THE
REPEAL OF THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE ACT AND
REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 95-22 (COMPANION TO ITEM #17D)
Item #16C1
A WORK ORDER FOR $402,000 AWARDED TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC. UNDER RFQ #14-6213-45,
UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES, FOR
WASTEWATER PUMP STATION 302.09 IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NUMBER 70046 — TO ADD A STANDBY DIESEL
PUMP AS PART OF THE EMERGENCY POWER PROGRAM ON
SAINT PETER APOSTLE CATHOLIC CHURCH PROPERTY
AND IMPACTING APPROXIMATELY 587 PARCELS
Item #16C2
A WORK ORDER FOR $449,800 AWARDED TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., UNDER RFQ #14-6213-43R, SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT LIME
SLAKER REPLACEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS PROJECT
NUMBER 71065 — TO REMOVE AND REPLACE A PIECE OF
Page 207
October 27, 2015
FAILING EQUIPMENT AND MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO
ANOTHER THAT FEED A MIXTURE OF LIME AND WATER
TO REACTOR TANKS THAT REDUCE HARDNESS AND
IMPROVE CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO WATER FILTRATION
Item #16C3
CONTRACT #11-5782 AMENDMENT 1 WITH CDM SMITH,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $697,313 FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIDDING
AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE FOR BASIN 101 OF THE
"WASTEWATER BASIN PROGRAM" — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D1
RELEASING A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS PLACED
ON A 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROJECT WITH COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND EXTERIOR REHAB ON HOUSING
UNITS IN FARM WORKER VILLAGE & HORIZON VILLAGE
IN IMMOKALEE — TO REMOVE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
REGARDING AFFORDABILITY THAT EXPIRED IN 2008
Item #16D2
PLACEMENT OF TURTLE SCULPTURE(S) ON COLLIER
COUNTY PROPERTY TO SUPPORT THE "TURTLES ON THE
TOWN" COMMUNITY ARTS PROJECT WHICH WILL TAKE
PLACE FROM NOVEMBER 2015 TO MARCH 2016 AND WILL
BE PROVIDED BY THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL IN
Page 208
October 27, 2015
COLLABORATION WITH THE NAPLES COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION AND THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA — LOCATIONS INCLUDE FIRST STREET ZOCALO
PARK, GORDON RIVER GREENWAY PARK AND NAPLES
REGIONAL LIBRARY ON CENTRAL AVENUE WITH A GALA
AUCTION HELD IN MARCH OF 2016 AND ANY FUNDS
RAISED BENEFITTING THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D3
AN AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
INC. TO GRANT EASEMENTS FOR 3 PARCELS; 339BSE1,
339BSE2, AND 339BSE3, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
TRANSIT BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTING
EASEMENTS TO CONVEY 750 SQUARE FEET (FISCAL
IMPACT: $100) — EASEMENTS ON PORTIONS OF LAND
IDENTIFIED AS FOLIO #14038880000, #14045560009 AND
#14045680002 TO THE COUNTY FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
BUS STOPS ADJACENT TO NCH ALONG EIGHT STREET
AND TAMIAMI TRAIL SOUTH
Item #16D4
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #15-6483 TO QUALITY
ENTERPRISES USA, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE
"EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK SOCCER FIELD," IN THE
AMOUNT OF $573,641, APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE CONTRACT — THE FIELD WILL PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AND WILL INCLUDE LIGHTS
Page 209
October 27, 2015
ALLOWING GAMES TO BE PLAYED UP TO 9 PM
Item #16D5
SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENTS FOR PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PROJECTS IN THE FY 2015-16 ACTION PLAN
FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT PROGRAMS — WITH
SUBRECIPIENTS: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, NAPLES
EQUESTRIAN CHALLENGE, YOUTH HAVEN INC., LEGAL
AID SERVICE OF COLLIER COUNTY, UNITED CEREBRAL
PALSY OF SW FLORIDA, BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND
CHILDREN
Item #16D6
RESOLUTION 2015-219: REMOVING FY10/11 ACCOUNTS
RECEIVABLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $129,613.23, CONSIDERED
UNCOLLECTIBLE OR SHOULD OTHERWISE BE REMOVED
FROM THE FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-252
Item #16D7
AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR THE OLDER AMERICANS
ACT PROGRAM TITLE III PROGRAMS AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS FUNDING FOR
Page 210
October 27, 2015
FY 2015 (FISCAL IMPACT $33,101.95) — CONTRACT OAA
203.15; AMENDMENTS NO. 1 AND NO. 2 TO OAA 203. 15 AND
CORRESPONDING ATTESTATION STATEMENTS
Item #16D8
AFTER-THE-FACT CONTRACT, ATTESTATION STATEMENT
AND BUDGET AMENDMENT AWARD FOR THE NUTRITION
SERVICES INCENTIVE PROGRAM FROM AREA AGENCY ON
AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. (NET FISCAL
IMPACT: $38,255) — CONTRACT NSIP 203.16 THAT PROVIDES
COMPANIONSHIP AND MEALS TO QUALIFIED COUNTY
RESIDENTS THAT ARE UNABLE TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES
Item #16E1
TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS ACQUIRED FOR WATER
FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION IN THE CASE ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. CHRIS A. STONEBURNER AND
JOSEPH D. BONNESS III, AS TRUSTEES OF THE WILLOW
RUN LAND TRUST, ET AL — FAILURE TO INCLUDE A
TERMINATION DATE IN THREE (3) 2005 AGREEMENTS
REQUIRES A FORMAL RELEASE OF THE PROPERTY THAT
TAKEN AS PART OF THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) REVERSE OSMOSIS
WELLFIELD PROJECT, THAT IS NO LONGER NEEDED
Item #16E2
AMENDING CONTRACT #11-5673, DISASTER DEBRIS
Page 211
October 27, 2015
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL SERVICES WITH ASHBRITT,
INC., TAG GRINDING SERVICES, INC., AND CROWDER-
GULF JOINT VENTURE, INC., EXTENDING THE CONTACTS
THROUGH MAY 22, 2016 OR UNTIL A NEW CONTRACT IS
AWARDED
Item #16E3
LETTERS OF UNDERSTANDING THAT AUTHORIZE THE
PLACEMENT OF EXCESS PRODUCTS AND COMPLETED
OPERATIONS INSURANCE THROUGH THE PHILLIPS 66
BRANDED DEALERS EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE
PROGRAM AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY — A PROGRAM
THAT OFFERS EXCESS COVERAGE ON FUEL SOLD AT THE
COUNTY'S THREE (3) AIRPORTS TO PROTECT AGAINST
FINANCIAL LOSS AND LAWSUITS IN THE EVENT OF AN
AIRCRAFT CRASH RELATED TO ENGINE FAILURE WHEN
FUEL QUALITY IS A FACTOR
Item #16E4
REJECT ALL VENDOR BIDS FOR ITB #15-6474, MEDICAL
OVERSIGHT OF THE COUNTY'S OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
PROGRAM (PART A) AND EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS &
DRUG TESTING (PART B) — AN INVITATION TO BID WILL BE
RESOLICITED AND THE CURRENT AGREEMENT WILL BE
EXTENDED 90 DAYS TO ALLOW THE RESOLICITATION
Item #16E5
DEEMING AIRBUS HELICOPTERS, INC. THE SOLE SOURCE
Page 212
October 27, 2015
PROVIDER TO PURCHASE HELICOPTER PARTS FOR THE
COUNTY'S AIR AMBULANCE HELICOPTER FOR A PERIOD
OF FIVE (5) YEARS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 — THE
ONLY APPROVED SALES REP IN THE U.S. WITH $200,000
BUDGETED IN FY16 FOR AIRBUS PARTS
Item #16E6 — Moved to Item #11F (Per Commissioner Hiller during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2015-220: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F2
A REPORT COVERING BUDGET AMENDMENTS IMPACTING
RESERVES AND MOVING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT UP TO
AND INCLUDING $25,000 AND $50,000, RESPECTIVELY —
BA #16-043 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 TO COMPLETE FDEP
MANDATORY REPAIR TO A FUEL TANK AT CAXAMBAS
PARK
Item #16F3
AWARDING RFP #15-6419 SPORTS FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
TO HUNDEN STRATEGIC PARTNERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $70,000, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED AGREEMENT AND MAKE
A FINDING THAT THIS EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM
— THE ASSESSMENT WILL INCLUDE TRENDS IN SPORTS
Page 213
October 27, 2015
PARTICIPATION, A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF CURRENT
FACILITIES, AN ANALYSIS OF FACILITIES NEEDED IN THE
NEAR AND DISTANT FUTURE, A SPORTS MARKETING
PLAN, DETAILED REVENUE AND AN EXPENSE ANALYSIS
FOR NEEDED OR EXPANDED FACILITIES
Item #16F4
RENEWING THE SUBLEASE AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC
INCUBATORS, INC. FOR A LEASE WITH KRAFT OFFICE
CENTER LLC FOR DEDICATED OFFICE SPACE TO HOUSE
THE COUNTY'S SOFT LANDING BUSINESS ACCELERATOR
PROGRAM — RECOGNIZING MARCH 10, 2015 AS THE
ORIGINAL OCCUPANCY DATE AND ADDING A 1-YEAR
EXTENSION WITH FOUR (4) RENEWAL OPTIONS; SECURING
A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A WESTERN COLLIER COUNTY
ACCELERATOR IS A REQUIRED ELEMENT OF THE PROJECT
AND IS IN ITS AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2015-221 : APPOINTING THOMAS EASTMAN,
INTERAGENCY, REAL PROPERTY AND REGULATORY
COORDINATION DIRECTOR, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION AND A TERM ENDING
OCTOBER 1, 2019
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 214
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
October 27, 2015
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. CLERK OF COURTS:
1) Items to be Authorized by BCC for Payment:
B. DISTRICTS:
1) Ave Maria Stewardship Community District:
FY15/16 Regular Meeting Schedule for the period October 1, 2015
thru September 30, 2016 for the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District
2) Heritage Bay Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 08/06/2015
Meeting Minutes 08/06/2015
3) Quarry Community Development District:
FY15/16 Regular Meeting Schedule for the period October 1, 2015
thru September 30, 2016 for the Quarry Community Development District
4) Verona Walk Community Development District:
FY15/16 Regular Meeting Schedule for the period October 1, 2015
thru September 30, 2016 for the Verona Walk Community Development District
C. OTHER:
October 27, 2015
Item #16J1
PROVIDING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT'S INTERNAL AUDIT
REPORT 2015-8, FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM:
ARTHREX MANUFACTURING, INC., ARTHREX, INC., AND
RES COLLIER HOLDINGS, LLC, ISSUED OCTOBER 14, 2015 —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16J2
A REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING THE INVESTMENT
OF COUNTY FUNDS AS OF THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16J3
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE GRANT AWARD FOR
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FY2015-2016 INVEST
GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,035 AND
APPROPRIATE A BUDGET AMENDMENT — AN AMENDMENT
OF $43,000 IS NEEDED TO USE CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS
AS THE MATCH FOR INVEST GRANT PROJECT NO. 33438
Item #16J4
RECORDING IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN FOR
Page 215
October 27, 2015
THE PERIOD BETWEEN OCTOBER 1 AND OCTOBER 14, 2015
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06 — AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K1
A MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $462,500 AS TOTAL COMPENSATION FOR PARCEL
136FEE1 AND 136FEE2 IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. GROVER C. WOODY, ET AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-
00199, CONDEMNED AS PART OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD ROAD WIDENING PROJECT NO. 60040.
(FISCAL IMPACT: $357,436) — FOR PROPERTY LYING TO
THE EAST OF THE SE QUADRANT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
CENTER SUBDISTRICT AT THE CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE
AND WILSON BOULEVARDS
Item #16K2
A CORRECTIVE STATUTORY DEED FROM COLLIER
COUNTY TO CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT LLC, WHICH
WOULD WAIVE THE AUTOMATIC PHOSPHATE, METALS,
MINERALS AND PETROLEUM RESERVATION BY VIRTUE
OF SEC. 270.11(1), F.S. FOR THE 2.226 ACRE PARCEL
DEEDED TO CITYGATE DEVELOPMENT LLC IN 2006
(FISCAL IMPACT: $0) — TO CLEAR TITLE ON A 70' WIDE
RIGHT-OF-WAY THE COUNTY DEEDED TO CITYGATE IN
2006 THAT CITYGATE IS NOW UNDER CONTRACT TO SELL
Item #17A
Page 216
October 27, 2015
RESOLUTION 2015-222: PETITION VAC-PL20150001622, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE TWO (2) DRAINAGE
EASEMENTS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 4865,
PAGES 2237-2240 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED ALONG THE EAST AND
WEST BOUNDARY OF CAROLINA COMMONS, PLAT BOOK
48, PAGES 78-79, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2015-56: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2003-54, AS AMENDED, THE ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL
ACADEMY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 550
TO 600; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR
MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL 15.35+ ACRES OF LAND ZONED RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE ROYAL PALM
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY PUD; BY REVISING THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER
PLAN; AND ADDING DEVIATIONS AND REVISING
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED
ON LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONSISTING OF 178± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION: PUDR-PL20140002683]
Page 217
October 27, 2015
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2015-223: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2015-16
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2015-57: REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 95-22, AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE
ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THIS IS A COMPANION TO
ITEM #16B1
*****
Page 218
October 27, 2015
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:07 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E.BROCK, CLERK
�...A Ase, : 0_C .
st asto vnairtnaelt
signature only,
These minutes approved by the Board on (Ycember g 2aSS ,
as presented ,/ or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 219