BCC Minutes 01/12/2016 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
January 12, 2016
January 12, 2016
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 12, 2016
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
C,'
r 410230
(41
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3" Floor
Naples FL 34112
January 12, 2016
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."
Page 1
January 12, 2016
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Rabbi Ammos Chorny - Beth Tikvah of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
B. December 8, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
C. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN
Page 2
January 12, 2016
D. That the Board appoint its members to offices of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Community Redevelopment Agency, the Tourist
Development Council, the Community and Economic Development Board,
the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council, and to authorize the new Chairs for both the Board of
County Commissioners and the Community Redevelopment Agency to
execute all documents approved at both this meeting and those documents
which were previously approved but are pending signature.
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing the 19th Annual Reverend Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Parade and Celebration on January 18, 2016. To be accepted by
officers of the NAACP of Collier County - Harold Weeks, President;
Barbara Melvin, 1st Vice President; Vincent Keeys, 2nd Vice President;
Diann Keeys, Secretary; Irene Williams, Assistant Secretary; Akita Cannon,
Treasurer.
B. Proclamation recognizing Human Trafficking Awareness Month in Collier
County. To be accepted by Collier County Sheriff Kevin Rambosk.
C. Proclamation recognizing eight World War II veterans who were honored
with the French National Order of the Legion of Honour. To be accepted by
Harvey Limon, Gerald Cabot and Richard Heath.
D. Proclamation designating January 14, 2016 as Kindness Awareness Day in
Collier County. To be accepted by representatives of One Million Acts of
Kindness: Bob Votruba (with his dog Bogart), Stacey Dooney and Susanna
Tocco.
E. Proclamation honoring the work of Collier County staff to improve the
National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System for Collier
County from a Class 6 to a Class 5. To be accepted by Howard Critchfield,
William Lang, Caroline Cilek, Kathy Badger, Bethany Mitchell, Matt
McLean, Robert Wiley, Rick Zyvoloski, Jamie French, Travis Gossard,
Jonathan Walsh, Bob Garee, Mike Dumais, Laura Gibson, Gary McAlpin
and the Collier County Floodplain Management Planning Committee.
Page 3
January 12, 2016
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County Business of the Month for January 2016
to Premier Sotheby's International Realty. To be accepted by Judy Green,
President/CEO, Premier Sotheby's International Realty; Kristi Bartlett, Vice
President, Opportunity Naples, the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce;
and Andrea Sturzenegger, Vice President, Marketing & Membership, the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Mr. Nader Amani requesting that the Board of
County Commissioners remove condition #3 and amend condition #4 of
Ordinance 2006-61 (Whippoorwill Lane rezone). Presenting on behalf of the
petitioner is Mr. Biagio Bernardo of CRE Consultants.
B. Public Petition request from Ms. Camden Smith requesting that the Board of
County Commissioners consider discontinuing fluoridation of Collier
County water.
Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Items #8 and #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 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 95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add Private
Clubs and Private Parking Garages, and associated required features, as a
principal use in Tracts B & C: Community Commercial, to add minimum
standards for the Private Clubs and Private Parking Garages principal use, to
increase the maximum footprint of all structures for the Private Clubs and
Private Parking Garages principal use in Tracts B & C: Community
Page 4
January 12, 2016
Commercial from 20% of the commercial land area to 27%, or 188,062
square feet, of the commercial land area, to limit the maximum square
footage of all structures for the Private Clubs and Private Parking Garages
principal use in Tracts B & C: Community Commercial to 40%, or 278,610
square feet, of the commercial land area which comprises 188,062 square
feet of the building footprint on the ground level and an additional 90,548
square feet of mezzanine areas, to add a deviation allowing an alternative
landscape buffer along Livingston Road and Radio Road, to add a deviation
allowing the required 8-foot wall at the top of a berm instead of being
located at ground level, to add a deviation to eliminate the requirement for
terminal landscaped islands adjacent to parking areas within individual
driveways, to add a new alternative landscaping exhibit for Livingston Road
and Radio Road, and to add a new conceptual master plan for the Private
Clubs and Private Parking Garages principal use, for the PUD property
consisting of 209.17± acres located on the east side of Livingston Road,
north of Radio Road, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date [PUDA-
PL20150000178].
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, with conditions, an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2003-11, the East Gateway Planned
Unit Development, by adding 250 residential dwelling units to be developed
in addition to the commercial development on the commercial development
area or as an alternative to industrial and business park development on the
industrial business park development area; by changing the name of the
planned unit development to the East Gateway Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development; by adding Permitted Uses for residential development; by
adding Development Standards for residential development; by adding
Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by adding Exhibit B and Exhibit C,
Road Right-of-Way Cross Sections; by revising Developer Commitments
for the PUD located on the north side of Davis Boulevard and west of CR
951 in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida consisting of 37.35± acres; and by providing an effective date
[Petition PUDA-PL20140000548].
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to approve a Resolution requesting the United States
Page 5
January 12, 2016
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) budget full funding for Gordon River
Pass Dredging in the upcoming Civil Works Operations and Maintenance
Work Plan. (Commissioner Taylor)
B. Recommendation to direct the Collier County Supervisor of Elections to
place a straw ballot referendum on the March 15, 2016 Presidential
Preference Primary ballot asking the voters of unincorporated Collier
County if they support a single combined fire and emergency medical
response independent special district in unincorporated Collier County that
is governed by an independent elected body. (Commissioner Taylor)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to accept and approve the proposed Parks and Recreation
Division Fee Policy in order to establish guidance for future fees for
services. (Barry Williams, Parks and Recreation Director)
B. Recommendation to award Contract No. 15-6447, Chokoloskee Bridge
Replacement, to Kelly Brothers, Inc., in the amount of$8,050,911.82,
Project No. 66066. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation Engineering Director)
C. Recommendation to approve a contract between Paradise Reef, LLC and
Collier County for the production and distribution of a 56 minute
documentary film, a three minute film, and two 30-second film spots;
approve the necessary budget amendment in an amount not to exceed
$527,614; and make a finding that this item promotes tourism. (Jack Wert,
Tourism Division Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This Closed Session item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Recommendation
for the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County
Attorney related to settlement negotiations and litigation expenditures in the
pending case of North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District v. Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Case No. 15-CA-1871, now
pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Collier County, Florida.
B. Return from Closed Session to be heard at 1:00 p.m. Recommendation
for the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to the County
Page 6
January 12,2016
Attorney regarding settlement negotiations and litigation expenditures in the
pending case of North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District v. Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Case No. 15-CA-1871, now
pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Collier County, Florida.
'13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. To provide the Board of Collier County Commissioners information
regarding a portion of an outstanding invoice received by Collier County
Board of County Commissioners on or about September 11, 2015 from
Gillig, LLC pursuant to the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)
Contract #14-009 dated December 5, 2013; and inform the Board of other
matters regarding this Contract.
B. To bring to the Board's attention outstanding invoices related to the
procurement of background checks and fingerprinting by the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
due to new statutory requirements for a shared clearinghouse amongst
agencies established by Florida Statute 943.053.
C. To provide the Board information regarding outstanding invoices received
after the expiration of Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. Contract #11-5715 on
9/12/15, and before the execution of Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. Contract
#15-6475R on 12/8/15.
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Page 7
January 12,2016
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of$3,280 which was posted as a development
guaranty for an Early Work Authorization (EWA) (PL20150002294)
for work associated with Saint Peter the Apostle Catholic Church.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release an
Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit in the amount of$25,000 which
was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.110
(PL20130002033) for work associated with Sienna Reserve.
3) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Del Webb Naples Parcels 203-
204, (Application Number PL20150001882) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Esplanade at Hacienda Lakes
Phase 2A, (Application Number PL20150002005) approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Winding Cypress Phase 2,
(Application Number PL20140002533) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
Page 8
January 12, 2016
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Fiddler's Creek Marsh Cove -
Phase 2, (Application Number PL20150001903) approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Lakoya Lot 341,
Application Number PL20150002534.
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Mockingbird Crossing -
Phase 2, Application Number PL20150002144.
9) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Golf Club of the
Everglades Amenity Center, Application Number PL20150002440.
10) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$252,750 for payment of$500, in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Ronnie G. and Beverly Bishop, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CESD20110017156, relating to property located at 1329 Saint Clair
Shores Road, Collier County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$3,363.33 for payment of$513.33, in the
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Kevin P. McCormick and Kathy McCormick, Code Enforcement
Board Case No. CELU20140016371, relating to property located at
3575 3rd Avenue NW, Collier County, Florida.
12) Recommendation to approve the release of two (2) code enforcement
liens with a combined accrued value of$196,707.09 for payment of
Page 9
January 12,2016
$757.09, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County
Commissioners v. Jeffrey M. Stone and Mardi S. Moorman, Code
Enforcement Board Case No. CESD20120004892 and Code
Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CENA20130011451,
relating to property located at 5741 Painted Leaf Lane, Collier
County, Florida.
13) Recommendation to approve the release of two (2) code enforcement
liens with a combined accrued value of$29,273.91 for payment of
$4,223.91, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County
Commissioners v. Roger Dale Mooneyham and Roxie Mooneyham,
Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Nos. CEPM20110004770
and CEROW20120000549, relating to property located at 4998 23rd
Ct. SW, Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to approve the release of three (3) code enforcement
liens with a combined accrued value of$74,631.03 for payment of
$2,831.03, in the code enforcement actions entitled Board of County
Commissioners v. Chad A. and Crystal M. Shannon, Code
Enforcement Special Magistrate Case Nos. CEPM20100002536,
CEPM20110011548 and CEPM20140011736, relating to property
located at 6654 Castlelawn PL, Collier County, Florida.
15) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$48,250 for payment of$1,000, in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Kimberly M. Harrington and James W. Harrington, Code
Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No. CEPM20140020881,
relating to property located at 1103 Wisconsin Drive, Collier County,
Florida.
16) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf
& Country Club of Naples, Phase B and R2, PL20140000380, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
17) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facilities for North Naples Research and Technology Park Storage
Page 10
January 12, 2016
Suites, PL20140000267, to accept unconditional conveyance of the
off-site utilities, and to authorize the County Manager, or his
designee, to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and
Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of$5,454.24 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
18) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf
& Country Club of Naples, Phases Cl and C2, PL20140000985, and
to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
19) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf
& Country Club of Naples, Phase Al, PL20140000060, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
20) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf
& Country Club of Naples, SDP #1, PL20140000054, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
21) Recommendation to approve an Adopt-a-Road Program Agreement
for the roadway segment of Golden Gate Parkway from Airport-
Pulling Road to Livingston Road, with two (2) recognition signs and
two (2) Adopt-a-Road logo signs at a total cost of$200 with the
volunteer group, Oracle America, Inc.
22) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Collier
County and The City of Naples setting forth the future ownership and
maintenance responsibilities for Sandpiper Street, south of Marlin
Drive and Quit Claim Deed conveying the road to The City of Naples.
Estimated fiscal impact $60,000 (Project #60131).
23) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
Page 11
January 12, 2016
Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 14C01 with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and
Coastal Systems Beach Management Funding Assistance Program for
Collier County Beach Nourishment and make a finding that this item
promotes tourism.
24) Recommendation to accept the fee-simple conveyance of the Oak
Drive right-of-way to Collier County, authorize the recording of the
Warranty Deed in the public records, and accept the maintenance
responsibility for said right-of-way.
25) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Utility Facilities Quit-Claim Deed and Bill of Sale between Collier
County and Wentworth Estates Community Development District
(CDD) , in order to re-convey to the CDD all irrigation utility
facilities associated with the development project at Treviso Bay
Roadway, PL2004080032, which were previously erroneously
conveyed to the County.
26) Recommendation to approve the name of a Collier County artificial
reef site pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding with the
Community Foundation of Collier County and accept and appropriate
a donation in the amount of$98,000 for Artificial Reef Donations
Project No. 44038.
27) Recommendation to approve a short-list of professional engineering
consultants pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) #15-6456, CEI
Services for LAP Funded Projects and to authorize entering into
negotiations between Collier County and Aim Engineering &
Surveying, Inc. for "Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI)
Services for LAP Funded Projects." Growth Management Grant Fund
711.
28) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between City of
Everglades and Collier County for Utility work in the amount of
$264,124.14 as an integral part of the Chokoloskee Bridge
Replacement project. (County Project No. 66066)
29) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
Page 12
January 12, 2016
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve a Resolution approving a Special Treatment development
permit to allow construction of boat dock and dock access
improvements on property owned by Standard Pacific of Florida with
a zoning designation of RMF-6(3) and a Special Treatment overlay
located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Companion to Item 17D)
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners acting as
the Community Redevelopment Agency Board execute a Bare
License Agreement between the Community Redevelopment Agency
and Naples Auto Donation Center, Inc. on property located at 1965
Tamiami Trail East for vehicle storage on a month-to-month basis.
2) Recommendation that the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency approve an Exclusive Right of Sale Listing Agreement
authorizing Commercial Real Estate Consultants, LLC to market and
sell Community Redevelopment Agency property located at 4265 and
4315 Bayshore Drive consisting of 17.89 acres in accordance with
Florida Statutes 163.380 as outlined in the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Plan and bring back any and all offers to the Board.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award Contract #15-6365, "Disaster Debris
Management, Removal and Disposal Services" to multiple firms.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve a Fourth Amendment to the Subrecipient
Agreement with Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., to shift
remaining project funds between line items in order to fully expend
remaining awarded funds for Infrastructure Improvements. There is
no net fiscal impact.
2) Recommendation to approve a donation of$23,263.40 as offsite
preservation for St. Peter the Apostle Church (SDPA-PL-
20150000903) to satisfy the native vegetation retention requirement.
Page 13
January 12, 2016
3) Recommendation to approve Resolutions authorizing submittal of
Federal Transit Administration Sections 5310, 5311 and 5339-Rural
FY2015/2016 grant applications and applicable documents to the
Florida Department of Transportation. (Total anticipated fiscal impact
of$1,734,157.60 with a Federal share of$568,446.08, State share of
$608,155.76 and local match of$557,555.76).
4) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact Amendment to the
Master Contract and Attestation Statement with Area Agency on
Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc. for Federal-and State-funded
Services for Seniors programs (No Fiscal Impact).
5) Recommendation to approve an after-the-fact Amendment and
Attestation Statement with Area Agency on Aging for Southwest
Florida, Inc. for Services for Seniors Older Americans Act Title III-E
Grandparent program and budget amendment to ensure continuous
funding for FY 2015 (Fiscal Impact $7,000).
6) Recommendation to approve after-the-fact contract Amendment and
Attestation Statement between the Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida, Inc. and Collier County for Services for Seniors to
extend the grant period through February 29, 2016 for the Older
Americans Act Programs and allow for additional in-home
reimbursement rates (No Fiscal Impact).
7) Recommendation from Community and Human Services Division to
approve a satisfaction of mortgage in the amount of$5,000 for an
owner-occupied affordable housing unit that has satisfied the terms of
assistance of Collier County State Housing Initiative Program.
8) This item continued from the December 8, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve FY15-16 contract with the State of
Florida Department of Health for the operation of the Collier County
Health Department in the amount of$1,378,200 and also to allocate
additional funds in the amount of$249,220 to fill a funding gap due to
state non-funding of the ACHA Medicaid match programs.
9) Recommendation to approve a Long-Term Community Market
Agreement with The Florida Department of Health in Collier County
Page 14
January 12, 2016
to provide a Community Market at the Collier County Government
Center (no fiscal impact).
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the cancellation of
2015 taxes upon a fee-simple interest in land Collier County acquired
by Warranty Deed for Conservation Collier and without monetary
compensation (on behalf of Public Services Department).
2) Recommendation to approve a Termination of Facility Lease
Agreement with the District School Board of Collier County for
leased property in Immokalee on behalf of Transportation/GMD.
3) Recommendation to approve the sale and disposal of surplus property
through an on-line auction(s) in compliance with Florida Statutes and
Resolution 2013-095 and authorize the County Manager or designee
to sign for the transfer of vehicle titles.
4) Recommendation to reaffirm the continued use of the industry's best
practices of utilizing "lump sum," "time and materials," a
combination of both price methodologies, and "unit price" for County
purchase orders and projects.
5) Recommendation to retroactively authorize the use of Contract #14-
6280 Fencing Installation and Repair for "lump sum" quoted projects
to Carter Fence Company and BUE, Inc. d/b/a/
Gatekeepers/Gateswork and inform the Board of termination notices
received from both contractors.
6) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for modifications to work orders,
change orders, surplus property and other items as identified.
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.
Page 15
January 12, 2016
2) Recommendation to approve Ferris Marketing of Florida as a
qualified applicant to the Collier County Basic Industry Growth
Promotion Incentive Program and approve the attached agreement for
Project "15-013."
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to appoint a member to the Bayshore Beautification
Advisory Committee.
2) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board.
3) Recommendation to reappoint a member to the Isles of Capri Fire
Control District Advisory Committee.
4) To provide information regarding North Collier Fire Control and
Rescue District cancelling the Inter-Local Agreement between Collier
County and Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District.
(Commissioner Henning)
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) 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 November 26 and December 30, 2015 pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve the Right of Entry Agreement with Lely
Community Development District to ensure proper monitoring of
groundwater well levels.
Page 16
January 12,2016
2) Recommendation to approve a Joint Motion and Final Judgment in the
amount of$15,000 for Parcel No. 264RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Ganash Rajaram, et al., Case No. 15-CA-379 for the
Golden Gate Boulevard widening project. (Project No. 60040) (Fiscal
Impact: $10,105.50)
3) Recommendation to approve a Retention Agreement for specialized
legal services with the law firm of Kelley Stiller PLLC on workers'
compensation matters.
4) Recommendation to approve a Final Judgment as to Bank of America,
N.A.'s interest in Parcels 113FEE and 113TCE as part of the US-41 /
Collier Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project, Project No.
60116. (Fiscal Impact: $5,040)
5) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to satisfy the Final
Judgment in the matter styled Penny Phillippi v. Collier County
(Second DCA Case No. 2D14-5805 and Circuit Court Case No. 14-
0416CA) and approve all necessary budget amendments.
6) Recommendation to approve a Final Judgment for Parcel 212RDUE
in the case styled Collier County v. Eva Baldrich, et al., Case No. 14-
CA-2701, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier
County, required for the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard (Project
No. 60040). (Fiscal Impact: $11,355.50)
7) Recommendation to approve a Final Judgment for Parcel 200RDUE
in the case styled Collier County v. Baby Brothers Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case No. 15-CA-0298, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, Collier County, required for the widening of Golden Gate
Boulevard (Project No. 60040). (Fiscal Impact: $10,305.50)
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
Page 17
January 12, 2016
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-
PL20150002259, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public
interest in a portion of the 10-foot Utility Easement, recorded in Official
Record Book 1137, Page 638 and the 50-foot Utility Easement recorded in
Official Record Book 1401, Page 757 of the public records of Collier
County, Florida, located in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 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 Petition VAC-
PL20150001066, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public
interest in a portion of the 12-foot drainage easement located along the rear
border of Lot 15, Block "C" of Habitat Village, as recorded in Plat Book 37,
Pages 48 through 51 of the public records of Collier County, Florida, located
in Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending "Schedule Four" of
"Appendix A" of Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) by
providing for an amendment to Ordinance No. 2015-17 to correct a
scrivener's error in the Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Rate Schedule and
to provide for the incorporation by reference of the corrected Correctional
Facilities Impact Fee Update Study.
D. 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. Kathleen Riley, et al. requests an appeal to the
Board of County Commissioners of a final decision by the Collier County
Planning Commission to approve Petition BDE-PL20150000487 for an 18-
foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit allowed by
Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 24
Page 18
January 12,2016
to 38 feet to accommodate a 26 slip multi-family docking facility for the
benefit of a 15.61 ± acre project to be known as Haldeman Creek Docks in
Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida [Petition ADA-PL20150001703] (Companion to item 16A29].
E. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2015-16 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
Inquiries concerning changes to the Board's Agenda should be made to the County
Manager's Office at 252-8383.
Page 19
January 12,2016
January 12, 2016
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning
and welcome to the Board of County Commission meeting of January
12th, 2016. Happy New Year.
I will request, in order to help us have an orderly meeting, that
each of you silence your devices. And if you have a phone call that
you feel obligated to take, please step out into the foyer to conduct
your business so that we can have an orderly meeting.
At this time we will have invocation delivered by Rabbi Ammos
Chorny from the Beth Tikvah of Naples. And please remain standing
following his invocation for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY RABBI AMMOS CHORNY FROM THE BETH
TIKVAH OF NAPLES — INVOCATION GIVEN
RABBI CHORNY: Good morning, everyone. Happy New Year.
Our God and God of our fathers: As we stand here this morning
we ask your blessings for our country, for our state, our county, for its
government, for its leaders and advisers; for all who exercise just and
rightful authority. We ask that you teach them insights of your law,
that they be administered over affairs of state fairly. That peace and
security, as well as happiness and prosperity, justice and freedom will
forever abide in our midst. Creator of all flesh, bless all inhabitants of
our country with your Spirit, that citizens of all races and creeds forge
a common bond in true brotherhood to banish all hatred and bigotry
and safeguard the ideals and free institutions which are our country's
pride and glory.
May this land under your providence be an influence for good
throughout the world, uniting all man in peace and freedom in helping
Page 2
January 12, 2016
them fulfill the vision of your profit. Nations shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. As we all say,
Amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At this time we are going to address
today's regular consent and summary agenda. And at this time I will
call for any additional changes from commissioners and for their ex
parte disclosure. Commissioner Henning?
MR. OCHS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir.
MR. OCHS: I have a few items for the change sheet this
morning.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Ochs. Please lead us
through those.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE
PROBIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT
AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. These are the
proposed agenda changes for the Board of County Commissioner's
meeting of January 12th, 2016.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16.H.4 from the
consent agenda to become Item 10.0 on the regular agenda. That is an
executive summary from Commissioner Henning regarding the North
Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Interlocal Agreement. That
item has been moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Page 3
January 12, 2016
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.5 to become Item
11.D on the regular agenda. That is an item related to the authorization
of the use of a fencing repair contract. And that item was moved both
at the separate request of Commissioner Henning, and your change
sheet says Commissioner Taylor, but I believe it was Commissioner
Fiala who also asked for that to be moved separately. I apologize for
that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's good. Because I didn't
remember that.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Wrong name, I'm sorry.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16.E.4 to become Item
11.E on the regular agenda. That is a recommendation to reaffirm the
use of certain procurement methods by county staff for goods and
services. That item is moved at Commissioner Taylor's request.
There are three time certain items on the agenda today,
Commissioners. The first is Item 11.C. That has to do with the award
of a contract for a documentary film, and that will be heard at 10 a.m.
Then at noon the Board will convene at a closed session to
discuss a litigation matter.
And at 1:00, we'll come back and open session and report out on
the results of that 12:00 meeting.
Reminders for court breaks are typically around 10:30 a.m. and
2:50 p.m.
And those are all the changes that I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Ochs. My apologies for
jumping your process there a little bit.
At this time we will ask Commissioners for any additional
changes that they may request and their ex parte communication.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No further changes.
I do have correspondence on 17.D as in David. Had meetings,
Page 4
January 12, 2016
phone calls. Of course we heard this item at our last -- I believe our
last meeting. Numerous correspondence, including emails. And
they're all in my file.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No disclosures and no changes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, on my part I likewise had -- have
numerous ex parte on item -- consent Item 16.A.29 and Item 17.D
which is the Standard Pacific boat dock access improvement item.
And of course those include the staff report. Meeting with counsel, Mr.
Yovanovich; various letters from associations and citizens; meetings
with staff; correspondence from the County Attorney; correspondence
with counsel for the petitioner, and supplemental material also from
Mr. Pires. No other ex parte communications on my part.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. On the consent agenda,
Item number 16.A.3, which is the Del Webb Naples parcels, I've been
invited to a few events. I've had emails from Judy Hushon and more
about impact, not the project. And that's all I've had on that one.
On 16.A.5, which is Winding Cypress, I've had meetings,
correspondence, emails and met with staff Some of those that I've met
with is Rich Yovanovich, Kristi Hastings, Michael Hunnican. Email
from residents -- and emails from residents of the surrounding
communities.
Moving on down to 16.A.7, I was actually -- this is Lakoya, and I
was the speaker at a ribbon cutting way back in 2011. But just for the
sake of telling everybody that's where I was and that's what I did.
And 16.A.9, again we're still on consent agenda, Golf Club of the
Everglades, I've only had meetings with staff And I met with John
Passidomo and Bill Barton in March of 2010, and I had a site visit
years ago with Alex Sulecki, so I became familiar with the property.
16.A.29 -- I'm sorry I keep going on and on, but that's the way it
is. I've had meetings, correspondence, emails, calls with staff I've
Page 5
January 12, 2016
met with staff on this and read the report. I met with Tony Pires,
Kathy Riley, Maurice Gutierrez, Vicki Tracy, residents in the
surrounding communities, meetings with the hearing examiner, CRA,
MSTU meeting, boat tour with Bob Mesmer, Planning Commission
meetings, and I've met with a couple of the planning commissioners,
and emails from the County Attorney.
Moving on to the summary agenda -- I'm sorry, moving on to the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Very busy, ma'am. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness. This one is pretty
simple. Only on 17.D, which is the Haldeman Creek docks, again just
the same as I mentioned on the last one, staff report and meeting with
Tony Pires, Kathy Riley, Maurice Gutierrez, Vicki Tracy, surrounding
residents in that area. I told you I took a boat tour, because that was
really quite an eye opener. Meetings with the hearing examiner, the
CRA and the MSTU group, and the Planning Commission Meeting
and email from the County Attorney. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll start with 9.A, which is the
Briarwood issue --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, we'll take the hearing --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's for later on, that's fine,
good.
Okay. And so then we go to -- and the Gateway is -- okay, so
there's nothing except as almost ditto to Commissioner Fiala on
16.A.29. There were meetings with staff, meetings -- a town hall
meeting that I attended last year. A neighborhood meeting, CRA
meetings, site visit at Ms. Riley's house, conversations with residents,
conversations with the MSBU folks. Also a lot of correspondence
from the folks in the area of the Haldeman Creek area.
Page 6
January 12, 2016
And 17.D would be exactly the same. Again, town hall meeting,
neighborhood meeting, Haldeman Creek CRA, MSTBU meetings,
many emails from residents, personal calls from residents, a site visit
with Ms. Riley. I think that pretty much covers it. No boat tours,
though. Saw it from the shore.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And there's no changes to the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No changes.
Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Seeing 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, the agenda is approved as
amended.
Page 7
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 12,2016
Move Item 16H4 to Item 10C: To provide information regarding North Collier Fire Control
and Rescue District cancelling the Inter-Local Agreement between Collier County and Big
Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16E5 to Item 11D: Recommendation to retroactively authorize the use of
contract 14-6280 Fencing Installation and Repair for"lump sum"quoted projects to Carter
Fence Company and BUE,Inc.d/b/a/Gatekeepers/Gateswork and inform the Board of
termination notices received from both contractors. (Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Taylor's separate requests)
Move Item 16E4 to Item 11E: Recommendation to reaffirm the continued use of the
industry's best practices of utilizing"lump sum,""time and materials,"a combination of both
price methodologies,and"unit price"for County purchase orders and projects.
(Commissioner Taylor's request)
Time Certain Requests:
Item 11C to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 12A to be heard in a Closed Session at 12:00 noon
Item 12B to be heard in an Open Session at 1:00 p.m.
January 12, 2016
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 2015 BCC REGULAR
MEETING — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That takes us to Item 2.B, which is the
approval of the Board of County Commission regular meeting minutes
of December 8th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to
approve.
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: Any opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Those are approved.
Item #2C
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHAIRMAN — MOTION
TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER FIALA CHAIRWOMAN AND
COMMISSIONER NANCE VICE-CHAIRMAN — APPROVED
Page 8
January 12, 2016
All right, at this time it is time for the selection of a new
Chairman and Vice-Chairman for this board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Donna Fiala as
Chair and Penny Taylor as Vice-Chair.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to nominate Tim Nance as
Vice-Chair.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, you are declining
Vice-Chair?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, then I'll amend my
motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I can't support that. The
reason being is that Commissioner Henning is going to be off the
Board. He's not running again. So I can't support that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Well, in full disclosure, since
we're getting to that point, I was going to wait for this announcement a
little later, but after serious deliberation it's fair for all of my colleagues
on this board to understand that I made the decision not to run for an
additional term as the District 5 Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. Commissioner
Hiller has applied for or is running for House of Representatives in
2016. So what's the difference if I'm not running for anything and her
running for House of Representatives? Doesn't make sense to me.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I mean, in full disclosure, if
anybody wants to know, those are my intentions and I've given each of
you a very short statement of my thought process. It's just a very
personal decision to me. Each of us have time passages in our lives
and I think this moment is an important one for me. So I've made that
Page 9
January 12, 2016
decision.
And, you know, we'll have additional discussion under
Commissioner comment. I don't think it's appropriate to do it right
now. But in all fairness and honesty to everyone on the Board and in
the room I think it's fair that I just let you know that I've made that
determination, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's regrettable, because you've
been a great Commissioner and you've brought a lot to this community
and this Board. And, you know, I understand that this is what you
want to do, but I wish you would take a little more time and maybe
reconsider.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you for your kind words.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I won't stop asking you to
reconsider until election day in August.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you for your kind words, and
everybody's support actually. You've been very kind.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, with the motion and a second
motion that I be Chair and you be Vice-Chair and Commissioner
Taylor saying she would prefer it that way, then I think we should go
to a vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I think -- what was the -- did
you want Commissioner Nance as Vice-Chair?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Commissioner Henning --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The motion was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- nominated Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- Commissioner Fiala as Chair and
myself--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fiala as Chair and you as Vice-
Chair?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- and Commissioner Taylor as Vice-
Page 10
January 12, 2016
Chair. Commissioner Taylor declined Vice-Chair and suggested that
Commissioner Henning change his motion to be myself as Vice-Chair,
which I believe he agreed to; is that correct, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So the current motion is Commissioner
Fiala as Chair and myself as Vice-Chair.
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: Okay, that is a new Chair and Vice-Chair
for 2016.
(Applause.)
Item #2D
BOARD APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE OFFICES OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL,
AND THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL, AND AUTHORIZE THE NEW CHAIRS FOR BOTH
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
Page 11
January 12, 2016
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO EXECUTE ALL
DOCUMENTS APPROVED AT BOTH THIS MEETING AND
THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BUT ARE PENDING SIGNATURE — MOTION
APPOINTING COMMISSIONER NANCE CRA CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR VICE-CHAIR; EDC —
COMMISSIONER HILLER; PSCC — COMMISSIONER HENNING
REPRESENTATIVE; TDC — COMMISSIONER TAYLOR
CHAIRWOMAN; SWFRPC — COMMISSIONER NANCE AND
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR REPRESENTATIVES — APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What I would like to do is I would like to
consider at this time the offices and committee assignments or kind of
leadership assignments for the Board of County Commissioners. Then
we're going to take a short break, we're going to move around. I'm
going to move 10 feet to my right, Commissioner Fiala is going to
move 10 feet to her left and we'll continue the meeting at that time.
But the current offices of the Board of County Commissioners
include the Community Redevelopment Agency, Tourist Development
Council, Community and Economic Development Board, Public
Safety Coordinating Council and the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council.
So what I'm going to do in order to stimulate this discussion is I
am going to take the lead and I'm going to make some suggestions and
I'll let everybody -- I'll let the melee proceed to see if we can come to
terms.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The elbows.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: On the CRA, for the chairmanship of the
CRA, I am going to propose that myself, Tim Nance, be Chair and
Commissioner Taylor be Vice-Chair.
For Community and Economic Development currently being
Page 12
January 12, 2016
served by Commissioner Hiller, I'm going to recommend and nominate
Commissioner Hiller to continue in that capacity; I think she's done an
outstanding job.
Commissioner Henning is the current Vice-Chair of the Public
Safety Coordinating Council. I am going to nominate him to continue
in that capacity.
For the TDC chairmanship, which is currently being held by
Commissioner Taylor, I'm going to nominate her to continue in that
capacity.
And for the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, I'm
going to throw that up in the air because I've got my reservations on
that. Currently Commissioner Taylor and myself serve in that
capacity. I'm going to see what everybody else has to say.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the South Florida
Regional Planning Council, what's the status on that? They're selling
the building or is it --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The building's been sold. They've
moved. But now we're waiting to see what the legislature should do.
Because you know by state statute, I believe that's correct, County
Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we keep it status quo
until the legislators figure out what they're going to do. I know the
Governor doesn't believe in regional planning. So that would be my
suggestion on that one.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That we just continue, sir, as we are?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, until the end of
legislation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second your motion,
Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a good idea.
Page 13
January 12, 2016
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, what do
you think?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's a good slate and I think
we should call the question. I second you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's your -- those are your
choices.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, those are my suggestions. Please --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please correct me if I'm in error.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no correction, no correction. I
will go along with it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. So just to review, for Board of
County Commissioner, Commissioner Donna Fiala will be our Chair
for 2016, Tim Nance will serve as Vice-Chair.
On the Community Redevelopment Agency, Commissioner
Nance will be the Chair and Commissioner Taylor Vice-Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I be a co-chair with you on
that? Because I'm so involved.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, you are not restricted from any
of your activities. I know you're super interested in that, so we'll be
delighted --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to continue to take the comments of
the chairmanship of the Board.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think so.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Community and Economic Development
Liaison will be Commissioner Hiller will continue in that capacity.
Commissioner Henning will continue to be Vice-Chair of the Public
Page 14
January 12, 2016
Safety Coordinating Council.
Commissioner Taylor will be appointed as 2016 Chair of the
Tourist Development Council, and Commissioners Nance and Taylor
will continue our representation with Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council until the legislature makes a determination on the
future of that organization.
Is there a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second to
approve those positions and appointments.
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That passes unanimously.
Thank you very much. At this time we'll take a short --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one second, if I might.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I would like to acknowledge that
sitting in our audience is a lady named Bridgette van den Hove-Smith,
who is officially representing the Consul General de France in Miami
Page 15
January 12, 2016
for the presentation of the Legion of Honor proclamation this morning.
And I'm so proud to have Bridgette right here. Thank you very much
for being here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I have another thing, as long as I
have the microphone. This happened to wander into my desk here, and
so --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Has that been dunked in a bucket of
water, ma'am? Does anyone know what this is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We happen to know what this is.
I'm going to just stand up and say you have done such an
outstanding job as our chairman. You've been a joy to work with for
all of us, I have to speak for everybody. And so on behalf of the
County Commission and the county --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Once again, my heartfelt thanks to
everyone. Thank you so much for your courtesy and the various
kindnesses that you've had for me during this time.
I've done my best to try to work with everyone and I feel very
good about the result from this last year. So thank you once again very
much. You're very kind.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioner, you should,
you have done an outstanding job of conducting these meetings and
making sure everybody is heard. And I know Commissioner Fiala will
continue that stride as we move on through 2016.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
At this time we'll take a short break for a little bit of
reorganization and then we will proceed. Thank you very much.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
Page 16
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Although I don't look like Tim Nance,
I'm --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank goodness, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- sitting in his seat.
And I just want to thank all of the Commissioners for giving me
this vote of confidence, and I hope that I am the chairman that you
wish me to be. Thank you very much.
Audience, it's so nice to see everyone here today. And before we
get into too, too much, what I would like to ask the other
Commissioners, I'm going to experiment a little bit, if this is okay with
them. And what I'd like to do is when we hear issues -- now, this won't
be on the proclamations or anything -- but when we hear issues, we
have a presenter who presents what they're talking about and then
usually staff comes up after that. And then after that we have people in
the audience who would like to speak.
And I would ask the Commissioners to bring just a paper and pen
and when they want to make notes or ask questions, let's wait until
after we've heard the presenters and after we've heard the speakers so
everybody's had their opportunity to speak, and then we can deliberate
amongst us. So that's just what I'm asking the other Commissioners to
do, and I hope that meets with your approval.
Okay, moving on to proclamations.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS — ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE 19TH ANNUAL
Page 17
January 12, 2016
REVEREND DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PARADE AND
CELEBRATION ON JANUARY 18, 2016. ACCEPTED BY
OFFICERS OF THE NAACP OF COLLIER COUNTY — HAROLD
WEEKS, PRESIDENT; BARBARA MELVIN, 1ST VICE
PRESIDENT; VINCENT KEEYS, 2ND VICE PRESIDENT; IRENE
WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY; AKITA CANNON,
TREASURER — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item 4.A is a proclamation recognizing
the 19th annual Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Parade and
Celebration on January 18, 2016. To be accepted by officers of the
NAACP of Collier County: Harold Weeks, President; Barbara Melvin,
First Vice-President; Vincent Keeys, Second Vice- President; Irene
Williams, Assistant Secretary; and Akita Cannon, Treasurer. If you'd
please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. WEEKS: TV, you got it?
MR. KEEYS: Good morning, County Commissioners and
distinguished guests to the community. I just would -- by default --
should I say my name is Vincent Keeys. I'm here on behalf of my
lovely wife, Diann Keeys, who unfortunately could not make it.
But we would like to invite all the County Commissioners and
distinguished members of the community out to the 19th annual Dr.
Martin Luther King Day parade. We would hope that everyone can
attend. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll be there.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: When is it?
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Make sure to tell the audience.
MR. KEEYS: Monday, January the 18th.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's next Monday.
Page 18
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Where?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Where do you meet?
MR. KEEYS: It will be at Cambier Park. We will start off on
Broad and 3rd and we will convene -- the celebration will take place at
Cambier Park.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. 10:00 in the
morning?
MR. KEEYS: No, at 11:00. Not that early. 11:00. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, sir.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HUMAN TRAFFICKING
AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY
COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF KEVIN RAMBOSK — ADOPTED;
READ INTO THE RECORD BY COMMISSIONER HILLER
MR. OCHS: Item 4.B is a proclamation recognizing Human
Trafficking Awareness Month in Collier County. To be accepted by
Collier County Sheriff Kevin Rambosk.
Sheriff Rambosk, if you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: And also Linda Oberhaus, the Executive Director of
the Shelter For Abused Women and Children is here this morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And also Angelina Spencer.
MR. OCHS: And Julie Spencer, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ladies and gentlemen, human
trafficking is an egregious crime and we in Collier County stand firm
against it. We have an incredible team led by our Sheriff that has done
an outstanding job in stopping this crime.
I would like to read the proclamation and then I would like the
Page 19
January 12, 2016
Sheriff to make a very special announcement about what his team has
accomplished most recently.
WHEREAS, human trafficking is an egregious crime; and
WHEREAS, Collier County government and the Collier County
Sheriff s Office have launched a partnership, Collier County Against
Modern Slavery, to bring awareness of the criminal act of human
trafficking in our community and to end human trafficking in Collier
County; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
adopted an ordinance introduced by Commissioner Georgia Hiller
which went into effect January 1st to enforce the posting of public
awareness signs at adult entertainment and massage bodywork
establishments alerting employees and patrons to remedies and
protections related to human trafficking, including contact information
to report anyone forced to engage in an activity against their will; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners went further,
making human trafficking one of the county's legislative priorities for
2016. Commissioners will work with the Collier County Sheriffs
Office to add measures to the 2012 Florida Human Trafficking Law
that improved and strengthened the current legislation; and
WHEREAS, Sheriff Kevin Rambosk, who has been a partner in
this effort, has established a human trafficking unit in the Collier
County Sheriffs Office, which focuses on stopping human trafficking
and has had success doing so; and
WHEREAS, these measures were taken to end human trafficking
in Collier County and were endorsed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, Collier County is committed to taking a firm stand
against human trafficking and will remain focused on ensuring that all
Collier County residents are safe and abusers are held accountable for
their crimes.
Page 20
January 12, 2016
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners hereby proclaims January, the entire
month of January, as Human Trafficking Awareness Month.
We really want to thank you all for all that you're doing. Sheriff,
we present this to you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Ladies and gentlemen, after the
Sheriff makes his announcement, I would like to ask Linda Oberhaus
to speak to what the Shelter is doing in partnership with the Sheriffs
Office on human trafficking, and then Angelina Spencer also to
describe her involvement with the efforts to save the victims.
And then in conclusion, as I said in the proclamation, Collier
County, in conjunction with the Sheriffs Office, has launched a public
information campaign to fight this crime and promote awareness, and
we will give you a very short video of what we -- not video, but slide
show of what we are doing and explaining how in partnership we are
launching this campaign.
Sheriff?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Good morning, Commissioners, Madam
Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Hiller, for making this recognition
possible.
I will tell you that this is an ongoing investigative problem for not
only Collier County but around the country and around the world.
As you stated, we've made a commitment and appreciate you
working together with us to bring the community's awareness up to the
point that they can help us. Because without their help it becomes very
difficult to make successful cases.
This particular weekend I'd like to recognize our human
trafficking unit that was just up here. They rescued four victims --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can they stand while you're
Page 21
January 12, 2016
speaking?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Yes, please stand up.
They rescued four victims so far.
(Applause.)
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: They are looking at the attempt of
another 12 victims, and they have arrested two subjects whose bail is
just at $4 million.
So we thank you very much and appreciate your support.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Linda?
And Linda, when you present, before you start, could you
announce who you are and who you represent?
MS. OBERHAUS: Sure.
Good morning. My name is Linda Oberhaus, I'm the Executive
Director at the Shelter For Abused Women and Children.
And last year we provided shelter, safety and support to 23
victims of human trafficking and their children. We were able to find
-- actually what I want to say is that we've been very, very fortunate to
work closely with the Sheriffs Office who has done a great job
identifying victims of human trafficking in this community.
It's my understanding that this is the only sheriffs office in the
entire circuit that has a designated unit to address the issue of human
trafficking. So the Shelter works very closely with the Sheriffs Office
so they can identify the traffickers and so that they have a safe place
where they can bring the trafficking victims 24 hours a day, seven days
a week.
And so we're just honored to be a part of this work and I
commend the Sheriffs Office for their commitment and their
dedication to really stopping human trafficking in our community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Linda, we want to thank you and
the Shelter for all you're doing for safeguarding these victims.
Page 22
January 12, 2016
Because the bottom line is if we don't safeguard the victims, if we don't
house them, we don't have a prosecution. And you are doing an
outstanding job. You are the lead partner with the Sheriffs Office in
sheltering the victims, and we hope you continue to expand your
efforts. And I understand that you're going to continue to expand your
efforts to house these victims into the future. So anything we can do to
help -- you know, you're a part of the county's Victim Advocacy
Coalition. If there's anything we can do to assist by way of grant
funding or any cooperative assistance on any other level, please let me
know, because you know that we are all as a Board and as staff
committed to what you are doing and what the Sheriff is doing.
MS. OBERHAUS: Thank you. And I appreciate your
commitment on this issue as well.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Angelina?
MS. SPENCER: Good morning and thank you.
My name is Angelina Spencer and I'm a partner in a government
relations firm in Washington D.C. called Empowerment Enterprises,
Limited. We had the honor of working with Georgia Hiller and the
County Commission and the Sheriffs Office.
And I think it's important for everyone to know in this room,
human trafficking is the third largest criminal enterprise in the U.S.,
following identity theft and the illicit drug trade. One trafficker can
earn more than $100,000 annually abusing one victim.
Today Collier County and its Sheriffs Office have committed to
end modern day slavery. And this partnership will serve as a
quintessential example across the county of commitment to this
community saying when they see something they will say something.
It's been an honor and a pleasure to work with Commissioner
Hiller and the Sheriffs Office and all of the wonderful people here in
this room that are in the trenches fighting against this horrific crime.
Page 23
January 12, 2016
Thank you.
And I will add that you have been much more efficient and
pleasant and easier to work with than the federal government.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great. Thank you, Angelina.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: While our technical staff brings up
some of the slides on the public information campaign, I would like to
give credit to the team that put together this outreach effort. Chief
Stephanie Spell from the Sheriffs Office was by far the lead creative
director. I mean, her ability to get the word out in a way that is tasteful
and effective is beyond words. So I want to personally thank Chief
Stephanie Spell.
Linda Oberhaus, part of our team, and Angelina Spencer, part of
our team, who really have done everything possible to put this
campaign together and make it a success, starting this month. It is
Human Trafficking Month.
And please, as you're out there in the community, pay attention,
be aware. And if you see any signs, call the Sheriffs Office, that guy
standing right over there.
How's the tech going?
IT TECHNICIAN: I'll bring up the Facebook page in just a
moment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I was just wondering, is Anna
Rodriguez still involved with this, or no?
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: She is not locally. I believe she's in the
Tampa area now. I believe she's still involved in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I want to share something that
I think is really important. There was a -- the Sheriff had a press
conference yesterday announcing the arrest of the two traffickers and
sharing a little bit about the victims. And one reporter asked a very
Page 24
January 12, 2016
interesting question that I think our audience probably would ask
themselves and that is how many of the victims were foreign nationals,
how many were immigrants. And the answer was none. All the
women that were victimized were all local girls. So I want you to keep
that in mind.
This is a local crime. And the victim could be your next door
neighbor's daughter, or son for that matter.
So this is the logo, which you are going to see come out on
hundreds of T-shirts in the near future. And you can see, it doesn't say
stop human trafficking, it says Stop Modern Day Slavery.
And it is slavery. It isn't just sex slavery, it's domestic slavery, it's
other forms of labor slavery, and it's a crime that transcends both
genders and all ages.
It also says Collier County Partnership to End Human
Trafficking. That partnership is between the Board of Collier County
Commissioners and the Sheriffs Office.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is this a film that we're --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, this is actually an information
campaign and this is the logo for the campaign. This is the slogan.
And what's going to happen is we're going to have T-shirts, we're
having Twitter, Facebook, every type of social media. They are going
to be -- this is the Facebook page.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just in the interest of time I was
wondering what we're doing so we can move forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's it.
And this is an example of, you know, what you see -- can you
lower it? This is the Facebook page. As you can see, we're starting to
announce all the arrests, the nature of the crime, how you can call law
enforcement, the 1-800 number and so forth.
And that's basically it in a nutshell. So get the word out and let's
get more arrests.
Page 25
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much for your
involvement, Commissioner Hiller. We appreciate that. And thank
you everyone for being here and letting us know what you're doing.
Things that we never see normally. I appreciate that.
Leo?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING EIGHT WORLD WAR II
VETERANS WHO WERE HONORED WITH THE FRENCH
NATIONAL ORDER OF THE LEGION OF HONOUR. ACCEPTED
BY HARVEY LIMON, GERALD CABOT AND RICHARD HEATH
— ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item 4.0 is a proclamation
recognizing eight World War II veterans who were honored with the
French National Order of the Legion of Honour. To be accepted by
Harvey Limon and Gerald Cabot. If you gentlemen would step
forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you like to turn and face the
camera.
MR. LIMON: I would just like to thank the Collier County
Commissioners for this honor. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 14, 2016 AS
Page 26
January 12, 2016
KINDNESS AWARENESS DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF ONE MILLION ACTS
OF KINDNESS: BOB VOTRUBA (WITH HIS DOG BOGART),
STACEY DOONEY AND SUSANNA TOCCO — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.D is a proclamation designating January 14,
2016 as Kindness Awareness Day in Collier County. To be accepted
by representatives of One Million Acts of Kindness: Bob Votruba,
with his dog Bogart; Stacey Dooney; and Suzanna Tocco. Please step
forward.
(Applause.)
MR. VOTRUBA: Just a short speech I'd like to read.
I'd really like to take this time to thank you guys so much, the
Commissioners for making this annual event happen every year and
giving it your support along the way. This proclamation lends a high
degree of credibility because of your backing.
This third annual Collier County Kindness Awareness Day is
having a big impact, an impact that is both immediate and long term.
The immediate being the kind acts that are being done by individuals,
families and businesses/organizations on this day across Collier
County. The long term is the desire of our youngest residents who
choose to embrace kindness as a lifetime goal because of this event.
With the blessing of the Collier County School Board, elementary
schools throughout Collier County will take part in this one-day event.
Some of the schools are even extending it out through the end of
the year. Over 10,000 students in Collier County School System will
be directly affected this year by this event. Not only the students but
the educators and administrators as well.
The students then take home and discuss this wonderful event
with their parents and siblings. I can see this event ultimately touching
the lives of 50,000 people throughout Collier County this year alone.
Page 27
January 12, 2016
I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the people that helped me
reach this goal. I must admit, I stacked the deck a little bit with five
moms who have children in four different elementary schools
throughout the district, so in a way success was tipped in our favor.
Thank you to Stacy Dooney, Susanna Tocco, Beth Houswert,
Laura Pacter, Lois Bhola, Lorraine Ryman and Melissa Cahn for their
help these past few years. Kudos to them for making this happen.
Thank you once again.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION HONORING THE WORK OF COLLIER
COUNTY STAFF TO IMPROVE THE NATIONAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM'S COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM
FOR COLLIER COUNTY FROM A CLASS 6 TO A CLASS 5.
ACCEPTED BY HOWARD CRITCHFIELD, WILLIAM LANG,
CAROLINE CILEK, KATHY BADGER, BETHANY MITCHELL,
MATT MCLEAN, ROBERT WILEY, RICK ZYVOLOSKI, JAMIE
FRENCH, TRAVIS GOSSARD, JONATHAN WALSH, BOB
GAREE, MIKE DUMAIS, LAURA GIBSON, GARY MCALPIN
AND THE COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
PLANNING COMMITTEE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation honoring the work of
Collier County staff to improve the National Flood Insurance
Program's Community Rating System for Collier County from a Class
6 to a Class 5 rating. To be accepted by Howard Critchfield, William
Lang, Caroline Cilek, Kathy Badger, Bethany Mitchell, Matt McLean,
Robert Wiley, Rick Zyvoloski, Jamie French, Travis Gossard,
Page 28
January 12, 2016
Jonathan Walsh, Bob Garee, Mike Dumais, Laura Gibson and Gary
McAlpin, and the Collier County Floodplain Management Planning
Commission.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, can I --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo, would you -- as the people come
walking up, would you tell them how much that saves them on their
insurance bill, please. I think that's important. They don't realize what
that five or six means.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Come on up, folks.
MR. OCHS: Please, everyone step forward.
(Applause.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the audience's education, we
started out as a Class 7 and worked our way down to Class 6 and
ultimately to Class 5. Each one of those represents anywhere from a
1.5 to $2 million savings for Collier County insurance payers if they
live in a flood zone.
That's been about a four-year process and it's been with the hard
work of the staff and the Floodplain Committee.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: These are the people working behind
the scenes that make us look good, by the way, folks.
MR. BROUGHAM: Good morning. I'm Phil Brougham and I
serve or have served and am serving and will serve on the Floodplain
Management Planning Committee since its formation in 2006.
I have to give a lot of credit to our former County Manager, Mr.
Mudd, who formed this committee under his direction, and the
continued leadership of County Manager Ochs.
And as Commissioner Fiala said, a lot of people in this county
don't realize what a one point improvement in this community rating
system means to them that have flood insurance policies. In the case of
Page 29
January 12, 2016
Collier County, as Nick said, this one percent or one point saved the
residents approximately a million and a half to $2 million in their
annual flood insurance premiums. And that's due primarily not to the
day-to-day work of the Floodplain Management Planning Committee,
it's county staff And we've been through a lot of ups and downs with
this committee, but I can tell you that there have been hundreds, if not
thousands of hours put in behind the scenes by county staff to make
this improvement happen.
And the work is not done; there's still more points out there. I
would only ask you to be inquisitive with your county leadership as to
what an additional one point improvement might make in these
insurance premiums and what the associated staff costs to get there
might be. We're getting into pretty rare air here, so there's more fruit
there if you want to spend the money to get it. We're there to support
you. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, very briefly, on behalf of staff, we
would really like to sincerely thank the volunteer members of your
Floodplain Management Planning Committee, Mr. Brougham in
particular, for his steadfast dedication and perseverance in this project.
I think it's commendable, and we're very grateful for their service. So
thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to approve today's
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
Page 30
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH FOR JANUARY 2016 TO PREMIER SOTHEBY'S
INTERNATIONAL REALTY. ACCEPTED BY JUDY GREEN,
PRESIDENT/CEO, PREMIER SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL
REALTY; KRISTI BARTLETT, VICE-PRESIDENT,
OPPORTUNITY NAPLES, THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE; AND ANDREA STURZENEGGER, VICE-
PRESIDENT, MARKETING & MEMBERSHIP, THE GREATER
NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE — PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 5 on today's
agenda, presentations. Item 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month for January, 2016, to Premiere Sotheby's
International Realty. To be accepted by Judy Green, President/CEO of
Premier Sotheby's International Realty; Kristi Bartlett, Vice-President,
Opportunity Naples, the GOeater Naples Chamber of Commerce; and
Andrea Sturzenegger, Vice-President of Marketing and Membership
with the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Does somebody want to get up and
say -- oh, you're going to do that? Okay.
MS. GREEN: I just want to take a minute to thank each and
every one of you. And, you know, it's -- as part of the Lutgert
company and the Lutgert family, our company has always been
focused on Collier County. So to receive this from you certainly just
really is very special to all of us. And we continue to love this county
Page 31
January 12, 2016
and want to make it better in many, many ways.
But as a citizen I just have to take a minute to also say to the
Floodplain that just went through and all, I personally live on the
water. I personally have to buy flood insurance. And I just want to
say to all of the work that each one of you do and as the county and the
city works together in so many ways, I personally want to thank each
and every one of you for the work that you do. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do we start on the 10:00 time certain?
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT NO. 15-6447,
CHOKOLOSKEE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, TO KELLY
BROTHERS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,050,911.82, PROJECT
NO. 66066 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Well, ma'am, we should wait technically 'til 10:00.
We do have perhaps one item that we could take, if the Board
would be so inclined, and that would be Item 11.B on today's agenda.
It's a recommendation to award Contract Number 15-6447 for the
Chokoloskee Bridge Replacement to Kelly Brothers, Incorporated, in
the amount of$8,050,911.82. And Mr. Ahmad is available to make a
presentation or answer questions from the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which bridge have we been
working on over there for quite a while? Is that a -- I thought that was
the Chokoloskee Bridge.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
Jay Ahmad for the record.
Page 32
January 12, 2016
Chokoloskee Bridge, we worked on this bridge about maybe
three, four years ago where we did some repairs. Now we are actually
replacing the whole bridge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you put in some kind of
amenities for fishing then. That was a hard surface. Is that all going to
go? Is that going to be removed?
MR. AHMAD: Actually, the seawall that exists is going to
remain, so the amenities that exist out there pretty much from the
seawall inward toward the roadway will remain -- that will be
replaced. But from the seawall outward will remain.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask another question.
There's amenities for people who fish that were placed on that bridge.
Are they remaining or are they being removed?
MR. AHMAD: The bridge -- the answer to that question, sir, it's
improved. We're not removing any amenities that existed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, I mean, that repair
was, if I recall, was quite extensive.
MR. AHMAD: It was actually not too ex-- what we did in the
past, we patched the deck, we did some side sloping to the -- for
erosion to the sides of the bridge, but we just kept it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the pillars were scoring, and
I remember it was --
MR. AHMAD: Oh, that is a different bridge, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is a different bridge?
MR. AHMAD: You're talking about Route 92 near Goodland
where we did some scour and the piers. We did some work there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, not on the Chokoloskee
Bridge?
MR. AHMAD: Not on Chokoloskee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't do any subsurface
work on the --
Page 33
January 12, 2016
MR. AHMAD: Not that I recall. We just -- some of the deck,
parts were falling, we patched those, and we patched some work on the
piers, but nothing substantial and subaqueous.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just half a million dollars worth.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Ahmad. I
appreciate the work that everybody's done on this bridge. I know that
have it's been -- since it came under discussion and the original designs
were proposed there have been changes to elevate it to allow vessels to
pass under it in better form, and also to allow the fire boat and other
things.
And Commissioner Henning, there was quite a bit of public
impact regarding the aprons on the edge of the bridges, and staff did
respond to keep that as a recreational amenity, I think is very
important. People have utilized it, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If it needs to be done, I don't
have a problem. The problem I have is, you know, just a few years
ago we spent money on repairing that. You know, a half a million
dollars, that's quite extensive repairs. That's the only thing that
concerned me.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
I want to thank staff for working on the details of the bridge and I
want to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We have no speakers.
Page 34
January 12, 2016
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good, this passes unanimously.
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT BETWEEN
PARADISE REEF, LLC AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE
PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF A 56-MINUTE
DOCUMENTARY FILM, A 3-MINUTE FILM, AND TWO 30-
SECOND FILM SPOTS; APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $527,614;
AND MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS ITEM PROMOTES
TOURISM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to our 10 a.m. time
certain, which is Item 11.0 on today's agenda. This is a
recommendation to approve a contract between Paradise Reef, LLC
and Collier County for the production and distribution of a 56-minute
documentary film, a three-minute film and two 30-second film spots,
and to approve the necessary budget amendment in an amount not to
exceed $527,614, and make a finding that this item promotes tourism.
And Mr. Wert is available to make a presentation.
If the Board will recall and the public -- for the public's
knowledge, the Board had previously approved this item and had
Page 35
January 12, 2016
directed the staff and the County Attorney to work on a contract to
bring back to the Board to formalize the agreement.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Mr. Wert?
MR. WERT: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We have a motion and a second to
approve.
Commissioner Hiller, you have a light on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I can't support this motion
for the following reason: We are paying over a half a million dollars
for a film that we will not be owning. And by we, I mean Collier
County, the public. So you're using public funds to pay for the full
value of an asset that we will have no ownership interest in.
In fact, we are overpaying excessively since we're only getting a
very limited use right. This would be the equivalent of, for example, if
you wanted to lease a song on iTunes and they would charge you the
full value of the production of the song rather than the value of
listening to it, which is the equivalent of .99 versus, you know, let's say
a million dollars.
So, I mean, this is just an unbelievable proposal. You know, if we
were paying for the value of the limited interest we were getting, I
could accept it. But to pay for the full value of the film that the public
is not going to own is really outrageous, so --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I can't vote for it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there's a lot of things that
we pay for that we don't own. I know we spend a lot of money on
economic development, expanding jobs and bringing in companies
here in Collier County.
This product will benefit a lot of our employees that are in the
Page 36
January 12, 2016
hospitality industry.
One thing that I heard two weeks ago from my neighbor who
comes from Germany, actually a visitor here that owns property, a
condo, that the Euro is being devalued to equal to what the dollar is.
That's going to affect a lot of visitors from Europe.
So we need to try to diverse our -- the people who visit here in
Collier County. I think this is a positive step forward. So I support it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It's my button on before yours, if you
don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And that is for the people in the
audience, you probably know we've been building a reef for -- actually
the process started quite a while back. This reef is the largest reef in
the northern hemisphere. Largest reef in the northern hemisphere. And
what it's going to do is create a whole new business in our already vital
tourism business. It's going to be creating the fishing and diving
business. Fishing has waned because our fish stock has had no place to
hide. And so by building this reef we've already seen it coming alive.
And now the divers are going to go in.
Now this reef is pretty far out, so it will be great for the divers.
We've never been able to attract divers and the diving industry tourism
industry before, but we will be able to now. And I believe that this
film will be able to be used not only here locally but around the
country.
And I'm hoping when they go on some of these junkets that they'll
be able to see it as they travel as far as the tourism department taking
that with them. So I'm so pleased to see this going forward. And as
you can hear, my vote is absolutely yes.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning, thank you for bringing up economic
Page 37
January 12, 2016
development. When we invest in economic development, we have
standards of return. And in fact we don't make payouts 'til we actually
see the standards become a reality. For example, like job creation, we
don't incentivize and merely give money to a company, because we
require that they create jobs, we require that they prove that they have
created those jobs and then we reimburse them for that contribution to
our local economy.
This is not happening here. There is no standard, there is no
requirement that they create a certain number of jobs, there is no
requirement that there be proof that those jobs be created.
This is unacceptable. If we were paying for the value of the very
short advertising slots that we are getting, if we were paying for the
value of those short clips, that would be justified. But to pay for the
full value of the film when we are not getting the full value of the film
for the benefit of the public is unacceptable.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, and so I've had a motion and a
second. No other comment-- oh, I have two other people. Okay, I
don't know which one was first.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One of the best things about this
project, unlike a lot of the filming we're doing in the tourist
development agency, is that it's employing local people. It's local
people about a local story.
And I wasn't up here at the time, but this Commission, they saw
into the future. It's about sustainability. It's about taking 800 tons per
reef, is that correct, of debris from the landfill and dropping it and
creating a nursery for fish. 36 reefs. Do you know what that means to
the landfill?
This is probably -- you know, I've said it to people, I'll say it right
now, it is such an exciting time to be part of Collier County. Because
we've taken this one large step into the future. And this documentary
Page 38
January 12, 2016
is not only going to tell the State of Florida about it, we're very
optimistic it's going to tell the world. And no more will a tourist
happen to meet our wonderful Assistant County Manager who is
swimming in to ask him where the reefs are, because they're going to
know where the reefs are. So I'm very excited and really looking
forward to this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm ready to vote.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a 4-1 vote on that, it
passes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And Madam Chair, if I could ask
Mr. Julian to come up for one second to just clarify a couple of things.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You have a pretty aggressive time
frame established. Can you tell me what your concerns are or how we
go forward? Because it's your time schedule and your payments are
dependent upon it. And we're going to hold your feet to the fire on
this.
MR. JULIAN: Absolutely. We -- in fact, we'll be done filming
late this week. We have Andy Casagrande working with us. He's a
famous underwater photographer who will do the underwater section
for us, and we're all in. We'll be self-funding expenses until we can get
Page 39
January 12, 2016
reimbursement from the county.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Could you state your name for the
record?
MR. JULIAN: Harry Julian.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so what kind of-- I know
that the county has to approve every section of this. There's four
sections and they have to approve it. What kind of turn-around do you
need from our side? Understanding that everyone's busy, but I think it's
important to put it on the record.
MR. JULIAN: I do believe it is outlined in the contract. I believe
it's a 30-day turnaround, which works for us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: For each --
MR. JULIAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- time.
Okay, so you deliver the film, the county gets it back in 30 days
and then onward and upward, make sure everything is okay.
MR. JULIAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Perfect. All right, thank you very
much. And congratulations.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo?
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MR. NADER AMANI
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REMOVE CONDITION #3 AND AMEND CONDITION #4 OF
ORDINANCE 2006-61 (WHIPPOORWILL LANE REZONE).
PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IS MR.
BIAGIO BERNARDO OF CRE CONSULTANTS — MOTION TO
BRING ITEM BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING —
APPROVED
Page 40
January 12, 2016
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that takes us back to Item 6 on your
agenda this morning, public petitions.
Item 6.A is a public petition request from Mr. Nader Amani
requesting that the Board of County Commissioners remove condition
number three and amend condition number four of Ordinance 2006-61,
the Whippoorwill Lane rezone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion that we
have staff bring it back --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Could we hear him finish?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: And presenting on behalf of the petitioner would be
Mr. Biagio Bernardo of CRE Consultants.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let's hear him first and then you're the
first one to speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have to hear him speak?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think everybody in the audience
deserves to hear what he's talking about, if that's all right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Yes, sir.
MR. BERNARDO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Biagio Bernardo with CRE Consultants, a commercial real estate
brokerage firm here in Naples.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you speak into the
microphone, please.
MR. BERNARDO: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. BERNARDO: I also reside here in Naples.
I'm here today on behalf of behalf of Nader Amani. He's the
Page 41
January 12, 2016
owner of the subject property, 1450 Whippoorwill Lane. It's a 10-acre
vacant lot located on the southeast side of Whippoorwill Lane. It was
rezoned RMF-6 in 2006 when the property was rezoned. There were
four conditions of approval, according to the Ordinance 06-61. And
that's what we're here speaking about today, condition number three
and four.
Condition three states that certificate of occupancy shall not be
issued until the roadway connection from Whippoorwill Lane to
Livingston Road is fully operational.
Condition number four speaks of the developer's contribution,
their pro rata share for Whippoorwill Lane and Livingston Road
extension and the Pine Ridge Road and Whippoorwill Lane
signalization costs.
It's come on our attention that on May 14th, 2013, the Board of
Commissioners meeting proposed Whippoorwill Lane to Livingston
Road extension was unanimously denied approval; thus the road
project was abandoned.
So herein lies the problem: With the extension road abandoned,
the conditions of Ordinance 06-61 makes the development of the
property difficult and the certificate of occupancy, if it is developed,
unattainable.
We're respectfully asking the Board of Commissions to amend
Ordinance 06-61 to remove condition number three and revised
condition number four, eliminating the cost referencing Whippoorwill
Lane/Livingston Road extension. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion
that we ask staff to bring this back. I think this should be discussed by
the Board because, you know, clearly to the extent that we're going to
continue to delay that, I don't see any reason why this developer should
be held hostage by a Board vote. They should have the right to
Page 42
January 12, 2016
develop. But I'd like to hear staffs perspective on this and so --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: First let me see if we can get a second
on that, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm sure we will.
Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And then you wanted to hear from
staff now or did you want to wait until it comes back before us?
MR. OCHS: I believe the motion was to bring this back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just bring it back. I don't think we
should discuss it now, I want to hear what staff has to say.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the
floor and a second -- oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning. I didn't see
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, this was a zoning action
agreed upon by both parties, the property owner, petitioner and Board
of Commissioners. The conditions were made based upon knowing
the failure on Pine Ridge Road at the intersection of Livingston and
Pine Ridge.
The relief is what is being recreating (sic) in other areas is
interconnectivity. That's the reason in there.
It takes a supermajority to amend a PUD ordinance. I'm not going
to support it. I think that interconnectivity is important for the residents
here today. Not the future residents, but the residents that are impacted
by the decisions that we make on a daily basis.
Now, I know it's in your district, Commissioner Hiller, but it
affects all the residents that travel through that intersection, and I just
cannot support an amendment. I apologize.
Page 43
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it actually is not in my
district. The -- it's -- well, and I'm not specifically talking about the
project, I'm talking about the connectivity issue. That is in
Commissioner Taylor's district. And there is no failure at that
intersection as of right now. And that is why that interconnectivity
was not expanded through, you know, those proposed road
improvements.
We don't do things just because. It has to be justified. And at this
point in time there is no failure and there is no justification. So, you
know, there's no -- if we're going to continue to delay, it may never be
needed. And to that extent, you know, while I understand that this
developer agreed to the condition in the past, circumstances have
changed, and it doesn't look like it will be needed, or may not be
needed.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You mean the interconnectivity
would not be needed; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, because there's no failure
right now. And that was clearly established. We had a public hearing
on it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But we have to look at the future too,
don't we?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Well, and the future is, you
know, a different issue. But they -- I mean, they have the right to
develop.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, let's see what the other
Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's not going to adversely
impact the traffic at the intersection, so there's no reason to deny it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor, do you have a
comment on this?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I would like -- I do not
Page 44
January 12, 2016
agree to remove the restriction at the time. I think we have to look at
the larger network. Frankly --
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may interrupt, the issue is whether or not
you want to bring this back, not lose a good --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so I don't want to bring it
back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you bring it back we
have to vote on it. It takes a supermajority, right?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Staff will have an opinion as to do that. You
have processes in your LDC where you can waive certain obligations.
You'll have it fully vetted in your executive summary. But I'm just
saying that --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it is a supermajority, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that the issue here is
whether you want to bring this back for discussion. You are having
this discussion now, but that's not what you should be doing, you
should be having the discussion when the item has actually been
noticed and heard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any amendment to a PUD takes
a supermajority.
MR. KLATZKOW: But this is not a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Straight zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a straight zoning change, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I think --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: If we brought it back we can just --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- any zoning takes a
supermajority.
Page 45
January 12, 2016
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, in talking to staff, I think it's their
opinion that in the process that it was approved would be -- the process
would be adjusted. But I think we'll work with the County Attorney's
Office, and if this is brought back by the Board, we'll bring you back
options.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is straight zoning? And we
have a contract? I mean, is this contract zoning?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is not contract zoning. The only issue
-- ma'am, we're just going to expand this into areas nobody wants to
talk about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I understand that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The only issue is do you want to hear this is
the only issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think it's absolutely
essential that we hear it. Because if it is straight zoning and it is not a
PUD, then the fact that we have a contract that requires them not to
build conditioned upon what this Board decides with respect to a future
road improvement is a real problem.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, that's why we bring it back on
executive summary, so that all the facts and circumstances are before
the Board as to what happened, where you are, what you can do.
I'm --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should bring this back.
MR. KLATZKOW: --just asking, rather than discussing this
issue, the only issue before you, and it's your rules, the only issue
before you on a public petition is do you want to bring this back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I made a motion that we do and it
was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. I think it's very important.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: This way then we'll have it in front of
everybody, we all have our say in it and we can vote to decide what we
want to do in the end.
Page 46
January 12, 2016
So we have a motion on the floor.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, I'm going to defer to the
Commissioner of the district and recommend that Mr. Amani and his
representative Mr. Bernardo meet before we go any farther with this,
meet with the Commissioner of the district in which you're in and
address her concerns. I'm going to defer to her because I believe she's
going to know that situation better certainly than I do. If she has
reservations then I believe that it's only fitting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it affects my district too .
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- that the petitioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you actually physically in my
district?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is the project physically
located in terms of the boundary?
MR. BERNARDO: I couldn't speak to that. It's at the end of
Whippoorwill Road where the high tension wires -- actually high
tension walls bifurcate the lot. You know where the high tension --
right past Andalusia on the left-hand side. Down Whippoorwill Lane
all the way to the end. On the east side of Whippoorwill.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: South of the --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: South of Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's on the south side of Pine
Ridge?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, you need to address this
issue, because he can't move forward on a road that you don't want to
build.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. It's unacceptable. It's
absolutely unacceptable. I think it's contract zoning and --
Page 47
January 12, 2016
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not contract zoning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: Before we get the lawsuit on claims of
contract zoning we did this wrong we did that wrong, I'm begging you,
if you want to hear this, and you should, because he can't develop --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- because you don't want --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why I made the motion --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the road --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that we bring it --
MR. KLATZKOW: --just bring it back without further
discussion or don't bring it back, one or the other.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I made --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To bring it back.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- to bring this back. A motion and a
second. Everyone has made their comments.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll support it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And so all in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, we have a 4-1 vote. We'll
bring that back.
MR. BERNARDO: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 48
January 12, 2016
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MS. CAMDEN SMITH
REQUESTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONSIDER DISCONTINUING FLUORIDATION OF COLLIER
COUNTY WATER — MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK AN
AGENDA ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING
REMOVAL OF FLUORIDE FROM WATER AT A FUTURE BCC
MEETING — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 6.B is a public petition request from Ms.
Camden Smith, requesting that the Board of County Commissioners
consider discontinuing fluoridation of Collier County water.
MS. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Camden Smith for the record, and I do handle strategy and operations
for Commissioner Tom Henning. However I'm before you today as a
resident of Collier County, longstanding, for 16 years.
And a little bit about me, I am a Bachelor's degree holder of
telecommunications/broadcast news, and most importantly, I have a
Master's degree in public administration with a background in case
study and public policy analysis.
So I've got 10 minutes, I'm going to fly through it and I've got a
video to show, so let's hope I don't go over, because you'll cut me off, I
know.
What is fluoride? The FDA has classified a drug as something
that is used to diagnose, cure, mitigate treatment or prevent disease.
Well, that really is what fluoride is used for in water fluoridation.
So this is one time where a drug has been allowed to be added to the
water since really the 40's but massively since the 60's.
Water fluoridation began because there was a 1940's study in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, did a little bit of an experiment, added
Page 49
January 12, 2016
fluoride to the water, hey, tooth decay went down, we need to
fluoridate water. Yeah, because you didn't have fluoridated toothpaste,
mouth rinse or prescriptions available.
And let's be honest, our dental and medical care has seriously
changed over the years, so that's something very important to keep in
mind as I discuss my request to end the water fluoridation program,
and I'll talk to you about why.
Touted by the dental industry as a solution to ending tooth decay,
fluoride does not prevent tooth decay. This is a scientific fact. And I'll
tell you why I have this background. My dad's been a dentist for 38
years, he's at the top one percent of the entire country of earnings for
dentists, and he is proactive for dental prevention, issues of prevention.
Fluoride does not prevent decay, it hardens the enamel. This is
important to understand. And in fact Dr. Scott Frey of FreySmiles, a
non-family member out of Allentown, Pennsylvania, says, and I quote:
Topical application of fluoride from toothpastes and mouth rinses for
example is more effective than systematic delivery.
Now, I know that's quite a controversy so I'm going to talk to you
a little bit about why. Cavities still occur in children and adults despite
water fluoridation. So it's not preventing it.
Like I told you, my dad is a dentist and so I got into the real
science of this, because I am not a scientist and I'm not a dentist.
Internal fluoride application -- that means taking it within your
body; not just applying it to the teeth, drinking it -- benefits two sole
audiences: That's children ages 10 and under and pregnant women like
myself, I have a little bambino inside of me, and she needs to develop
strong bones. It's not benefiting me, it's benefiting her.
Here's what fluoride doesn't do: Fluoride does not stop strep
mutants.
What are those? That's the bacteria that actually allows tooth
decay to develop in our bodies. That is a scientific fact that even the
Page 50
January 12, 2016
American Dental Association will say; fluoride's important in
hardening enamel but it does not eliminate strep mutants.
So if we remove fluoride from our water, what are we looking at
here? If children need it internally because they are 10 and under, their
bones are still developing -- I'm going to tell you why that works --
hydroxy appetite is a calcium ion. It's very weak, it's naturally
occurring. That's what develops our bone and our enamel. But fluoride,
therefore fluorapatite, replaces hydroxyapatite as we are developing.
That's up to the age of 10. Then our bones are hardened. So you can
create stronger bones and enamel.
But after 10 only topical or external application of fluoride is
what works and is most beneficial, specifically for people taking
medications where the enamel can be affected or they have severe gum
disease.
We can get fluoride for topical and internal applications, if you
look at the list that's on the screen. We have fluoride toothpaste, we
also have fluoride free options for those of us who don't want it. We
also have fluoride rinses. You even have pharmacies with prescription
where you can get fluoride drops. And I'll talk a little bit about, you
know, the fact that they do 50 milligrams per milliliter versus our very
low dosage in water fluoridation to actually make a difference. And
you have fluoride supplements. For pregnant women like me, we're
already getting it in our foods and -- but believe it or not the foods can
be pretty cheap because it's canned fruits and vegetables.
So let's talk about this. If it benefits mostly 10 and under for
internal application to replace the hydroxyapatite with fluorapatite,
you're talking about less than 11 to 11 and a half percent of this
population. That means 88 to 89 percent of us out there are drinking it
and it's not making a difference on our enamel. We would need a
topical application instead.
So in my opinion, and actually in my father's, who is one of the
Page 51
January 12, 2016
few dentists who agree with me, water fluoridation is a medical
treatment for the super minority population here, and it's unnecessary.
Because again, times have changed, we have fluoridated products
available to us vastly on the market.
The CDC released a report: Since water fluoridation has
occurred, yes, it's one of the great accomplishments, but as care has
changed and products on the market have changed, dental fluorosis is
at a higher rate than ever in children 12 to 15. This is from the CDC, I
didn't make this up. Look at the chart, it's 40.6 percent of them have
dental fluorosis.
What is that? Very quickly, normal healthy teeth, top left.
Progressive fluoride over exposure moving down to the right where the
person's enamel has been permanently damaged.
Now, does this happen to everybody? No. Perhaps in sensitive
individuals, people with overexposure. But the point is we all react
differently.
Take you to the next slide. Harvard School of Public Health
partnered with China in a study showing that fluoride overexposure
actually reduced children's IQ by seven points. Now, grant it, China
has higher fluoride levels than we do, it's an important disclaimer, but
Harvard thought this was important enough that we need to study low
level, like water fluoridation, continual exposure and what it does. The
adjunct professor said: Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury and
other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. Again, not on everyone,
but we need to study this.
The National Research Council scientists agreed and they created
a video about the potential of why are we putting fluoride in our water.
Even in Federal government, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, is
reviewing hundreds, and I mean hundreds, I counted them; I couldn't
even go up that high, to human, animal and cell studies to determine
fluoride's true effect, specifically on the brain. And what we're talking
Page 52
January 12, 2016
about is with the elderly and dementia, because they believe that may
be one of the contributing factors.
I want to exit out of my presentation very quickly because I need
to show you a video that the National Research Council produced.
And it's just real brief. This is a snippet to explain why fluoride, why a
drug is in the water.
(At which time, a video was shown.)
MS. SMITH: And that's the point. Each person is different.
So I'm going to go back into my slides here. There is no such
thing as one-size-fits-all. There just isn't. Every single body is unique
and different and reacts and processes foods, chemicals, environmental
issues and toxins differently. That's just human nature.
So a benefit to one or some may not be actually beneficial to all.
What I think we've done is finding other studies that have linked
fluoride exposure to reducing white and red blood cell production, and
the fact that it can cause diabetes and renal disease in rats. We've
created a cumulative effect with water fluoridation at seven milligrams
per liter in addition to having access to fluoridated cosmetic products
like toothpaste, mouth rinses and naturally occurring fluoride in our
soil and water.
So to wrap up very quickly, because I am at time, I hear the beep,
if we continue to add fluoride to the water, what we were doing is
assuming that 89 percent of us who are over the age of 10, I certainly
am and all of us in here are, need it, and we do not. Fluoride only
changes the bone and enamel structure internal application-wise when
it's under the age of 10.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Camden, do you -- has there
been any studies of areas that doesn't have fluoride versus the same
area having fluoride or studies where fluoride has been removed from
Page 53
January 12, 2016
an area, what the cause and effect is?
MS. SMITH: I did find a study that showed countries, by the
country. Not United States, because there are some areas, especially in
the northeast that do not have fluoridated water and they don't have a
higher tooth decay rate than we do.
But I did find a study that shows -- Leo, can I put this on the --
MR. OCHS: Sure.
MS. SMITH: You're the pro at that. I'm not good at that
visualizer.
That graph right there, if you're looking, the red is people with
fluoridated water. And non-fluoridated water is the blue. So you can
see tooth decay has declined over -- since the 1970's tooth decay has
actually declined in all areas, whether a country has fluoridated water
or not. Now, that doesn't mean that fluoride doesn't strengthen enamel,
but in adults, again, you're still going to have tooth decay decline if
they're brushing and flossing their teeth and eating a lower sugar diet.
And let's face it, sugar's a little bit of a problem with the increase in
obesity.
But looking at that graph, yeah, Commissioner Henning, there is
no difference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Camden.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Take a look at this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, right now the issue is do
we want to bring it back for discussion or do you not?
And let me ask the County Attorney, if we hear -- if the motion is
to bring it back for discussion and they have -- and it's three votes you
can bring it back, if it's only two votes we cannot, is that the way it
goes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Majority rules.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Page 54
January 12, 2016
So let's see, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, my daughter got fluorosis
right here in Collier County and she had to go to the dentist because
her teeth were turning yellow and pitting when she was a little girl and
the dentist said stop drinking fluoridated water, don't use the tap water,
and it went away.
It is not a one-size-fits-all, and that's the problem. And to the
extent children under a certain age, if they could benefit from it -- and I
don't know whether they do or not; I grew up in a community that had
no fluoridated water and I have fine teeth -- you can choose to get it.
And if Collier County wants to support, you know, the distribution
through its Health Department of fluoridating tablets or fluoride tablets
to, you know, allow parents to choose to opt to give it to their kids,
that's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the majority of Collier County
where children live does not get Collier County fluoridated water. So
we're actually fluoridating water where the majority of people are more
likely than not on their third set of teeth.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What I'd like to do is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I'd like to make a motion to
bring this back for a public discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I hear a second.
And Commissioner Henning, you were next. But I don't think that
as long as the motion is on the floor to bring it back -- well, I'll take
whatever leads you want, but I would think we could discuss most of
this if we bring it back. If the motion goes away then, you know,
Page 55
January 12, 2016
continue on if you'd like to.
But Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the motion would be for
staff to bring it back for consideration of removing fluoride out of the
water.
And one of the issues that we're going to be faced with, and
probably we need to address it now, we're going to take over the
Orange Tree Utility system. The Orange Tree Utility system -- we're
not, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's been a lengthy, lengthy road. But
perhaps, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you say that's going to be
a while?
MS. SMITH: Some day.
MR. KLATZKOW: Some day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some day?
MR. KLATZKOW: Some day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, they do not
fluoridate the water over there. So if they become the county system,
it's going to be the same as the rest of the county water system, so it's
going to affect a wide larger population, potentially, what our County
Attorney says.
MS. SMITH: We have a lot of people on wells who also don't
have water fluoridation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's true.
MS. SMITH: And we don't have higher decay rates out there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we don't. And that's the key.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No comment.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No comment, okay. Is that all that we
have then?
Page 56
January 12, 2016
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, so we have a motion on the
floor and a second to bring this back. All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
Okay, so I've got the third vote to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All right fine. So we have a 3-2 vote.
MS. SMITH: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, if I might, we had several people
who wanted to speak on the public petition, and I informed them all
that we don't do that and told them that we would -- they could speak
under public comment.
However, now at your discretion as the Chairman, public
comments for topics not on current or future agenda, so should those
people wait to speak under public comment today or should they come
back when this item is going to be heard?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Come back when the item is to be
heard, because the Commission has voted, right.
MR. MILLER: So if you did want to speak on this, you would
come back when the item is heard --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's right.
MR. MILLER: -- at a future agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No need to hear it twice.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 57
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, I'd like to ask
staff as part of the information that they bring back, to tell us the
number of households that are on well water and where they're located,
because clearly those are households that are not getting fluoridated
water. And I want that number.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But do you notice everybody up here
has their own bottles of water. Nobody drinks the regular water, it
seems. But anyway --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There you go. So we could save
money.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, so right now we have a break
for our stenographer.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Or did you want to say something?
MR. OCHS: No, I was just going to remind you it's court reporter
break.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: 10 minutes, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We'll be back in 10 minutes, which
makes it 10:51. Thank you.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You know what, everybody walked
out the door and they didn't come back.
Okay, Leo, on to the next one.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2016-14: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE
Page 58
January 12, 2016
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)
BUDGET FULL FUNDING FOR GORDON RIVER PASS
DREDGING IN THE UPCOMING CIVIL WORKS OPERATIONS
AND MAINTENANCE WORK PLAN — MOTION TO APPROVE
INCLUDING A LETTER TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
AND COORDINATING WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES AND
CONGRESSMAN CURT CLAWSON'S OFFICE — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That takes us to Item 10 on the
agenda, Board of County Commissioners. Item 10.A is a
recommendation to approve a resolution requesting the United States
Army Corps of Engineers budget full funding for Gordon River Pass
Dredging in the upcoming Civil Works Operations and Maintenance
Work Plan.
This item was brought forward by Commissioner Taylor, who --
there she is. Ma'am, we're on your Gordon Pass site.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I do apologize.
Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is there anybody to present or are you
the presenter?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I'm assuming I'm the
presenter. But basically the issue is a grave one, because the navigation
of the Gordon Pass is being severely impacted by the natural drift of
sand. And it needs to be dredged. And I understand in the past the
Army Corps of Engineers shoulder that responsibility and apparently
they're taking their hands in their pockets and bringing them out and
saying they have no money.
So I think it's very, very important that we as a Commission and
as Collier County send a letter to them, but also we will do it in
conjunction with Naples City Council, who have also written a letter.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. I have Commissioner
Page 59
January 12, 2016
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm going to support -- I'll
make a motion to approve. However, where is the shoaling taking
place? Is it in the Pass or --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In the Pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so it's to the --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: My understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- north on the north side --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I understand --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll have Gary come up and talk.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Because there is a specific area.
And according to those folks who navigate it said well the whole Pass
doesn't want to be done but there's one hotspot. And I do not think it's
marked at this point, which is extremely dangerous.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, for the record Gary McAlpin.
The shoaling is just outside the mouth of the Pass. So it's slightly
offshore. And we will -- that's the area where they're having problems
at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, as you go out the Pass, it's
marked?
MR. McALPIN: The Pass is channeled and it's marked, yes, that
is --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On the north side?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where is it in correlation with
the marked channel outside the Pass?
MR. McALPIN: Just right outside the Pass. There's an area that's
about 1,000 feet where we have some shoaling just outside the Pass in
the marked channel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the north side?
Page 60
January 12, 2016
MR. McALPIN: It's more in the middle of the channel, but it
tends to -- you know, in that whole area right in through there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, and you've made a motion to
approve.
And did I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair? Excuse me, the actual item talks
about approving a resolution, but I heard a reference to a letter from
the Chair. Is there a preference or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I speak?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it needs to be -- I mean, it
could be combined. You know, whatever is the most effective, and I'll
bow to your experience in this. But I think we need to reach out and
communicate to the Army Corps of Engineers the severity of the
problem.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Got that?
Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and you did mention a letter,
Commissioner Taylor. It properly should be a letter. You know,
resolutions are for policy issues. This is not a resolution, this is a
request by us. And it does make sense to have the Chair write a letter
on behalf of the Board and join the city to ask for funding. We're in --
we should be getting the money back. I mean we've got a whole
community full of federal taxpayers and we have a waterway that's in
need of dredging and we need those federal dollars back in this
community doing what they're supposed to do. So, you know, it's very
appropriate to ask by way of letter, and our new Chair should prepare
that letter in conjunction with staff and get it out as quickly as possible
and work with the city to make sure that the wording is coordinated in
Page 61
January 12, 2016
a way that it's united.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So I'm sure that the Manager will
work with the City Manager to accomplish that --
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- and probably Gary McAlpin will be
a part of that as well.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. McAlpin, I have a question,
sir, you might be able to help me.
I share Commissioner Henning's concern about the shoaling and
the location of that, and I don't have any direct experience with that,
but I've read a number of articles and I've heard of instances where
there have been boats run aground out there in this circumstance.
Due to the fact that we have so many part-time residents that
obviously are having trouble with this, who is responsible for our
navigational aids and markings of hazards out there, and would it be
possible for us to get something done in the interim while we're having
this discussion with the Corps to mediate people running aground out
there when there's no need of it?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we have worked with the City
of Naples to potentially identify and mark that shoaling out there. The
city has elected not to do that because they believe that it's a situation
where once you start it you have to continue it.
But right now this is our only federal project and so the Corps has
done this in the past. We have asked, in conjunction working with the
city, that it be marked. They have said this is not something that they
believe is their responsibility. And the county does not -- this is within
the city's jurisdiction and so the county has elected not to move
forward with this at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So because the Pass itself is
jurisdictional under the Corps of Engineers. Are they responsible for
Page 62
January 12, 2016
channel marking and whatnot, or is it the United States Coast Guard
that's responsible?
MR. McALPIN: Well, the Coast Guard would have to -- the
markers themselves is a Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers both jointly. Marking the Pass for hazards would be -- we
would have to get a permit that would go through the Coast Guard,
which is relatively easy to do with a notice to mariners.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, Commissioners, is it
appropriate to address that at the same time we're talking about the
dredging?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I believe we should include that.
Because the bottom line is we've got residents, citizens and visitors
that are running aground out there and I think we need to do
something. That's just me.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the problem -- well, one of
the emails, and I've gotten several, but from one gentleman in Royal
Harbor whose a sailor basically said, just get it marked; help us. And,
you know, there's going to be a wait. So I think we definitely need to
mark it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do you want to call on somebody
from the city over there to talk about markers?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, Mr. Jacobson.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: He kept raising his hand so I figured
MR. JACOBSEN: I just have current information for you.
Roger Jacobsen, Captain Roger Jacobsen. I'm the harbor master
for the City of Naples, Code Enforcement Manager, I wash floors, I do
whatever the city wants from me.
Last week I got a call from Governor Clawson's office -- excuse
me, not Governor Clawson, Congressman Clawson's office. They
Page 63
January 12, 2016
wanted to know what kind of marker they should coordinate with the
Army Corps of Engineers to put out there.
I know that Pass like the back of my hand. Putting a marker in
that Pass is extremely interesting. We've had to mark a couple of
pilings here and there over the years and it's such a rough channel that
the markers probably last a month or two and you have to replace it
again and again.
Not only that, once you mark it, let's say the city put the buoy out,
and I had the same conversation with Gary. If we mark it are we now
liable for it. So if the marker gets blown away that night and
somebody runs aground the next day.
So I passed all of this information on to Congressman Clawson
because he is spearheading the charge against the Army Corps of
Engineers. And between the Army and Clawson's office, they asked
me what kind of buoys should go out there, what kind of chains. I've
encouraged him to contact some of the local marine companies that
would do the installation for them.
I also got a call yesterday from Melissa, who is Curt Clawson's
immediate secretary, wanting to know -- the Army classifies
commercial vessels by their tonnage, where Mr. Clawson wants to
change that. And if you're paying somebody to be on their boat,
fishing boat, touring boat, that should be the definition of commercial.
And the reason the Army Corps of Engineers right now is not
pushing to get it dredged is because we don't have enough commercial
traffic based on tonnage. So that's the newest information I have for
you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you so much for bringing that
to our attention.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So do you think it would be
advantageous to also send a letter to Representative Curt Clawson's
office?
Page 64
January 12, 2016
MR. JACOBSEN: Absolutely, because the city has already done
that. Senator Rubio, Curt Clawson, Army Corps of Engineers, we've
sent letters to just about everybody at this point.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Unless there's an objection -- I'm
sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's all right.
Commissioner Hiller and Henning also have their lights on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, unless there's a real
objection, I think a resolution would be wonderful as well as a letter. I
just think it shows intent much stronger than a letter.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And we do have a motion on the floor
and a second for that.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, first of all, I can't support
marking that Pass without more information. And being presented
with something that's not on the agenda and asking for a vote without
getting input from the rest of the community on the issue I think is
most inappropriate. Because I am sure there are arguments on both
sides of this. And I think we need to understand what the position of
our constituents are. So I can't support adding the markers at this time.
If you want to bring it back, and again, this is not a policy
decision, we're asking for funding to dredge the Pass to continue to
keep it navigable. A resolution is not the appropriate action, the letter
is.
Secondly, you know, if we're discussing impassable waterways,
Leo, I've received complaints about Wiggins Pass and that the markers,
that between the second and third markers there's a problem again. So
if you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me finish what I'm saying.
Page 65
January 12, 2016
Since we're talking about navigability, I would like to ask that at
the next meeting you please bring back a status report on what's going
on and what's going to be done about that second and third marker.
And that's all I wanted to say on that issue.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just like, by the way, the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It takes three votes --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- buoys were not on the agenda
either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It takes three votes for direction,
okay? You get direction from the majority of the Board of
Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, this is a request for
information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So anyway --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you know what, Leo?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Boys and girls --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't bother. Just bring it back to
me and I'll put it on the agenda. But I want the information.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, the floor is
yours. Captain Henning, Boat Captain Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not a captain.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You're a captain of your own boat.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm captain of my own
boat.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- that's in the jurisdiction of
the City of Naples. We don't -- as far as marking it, we don't want to
Page 66
January 12, 2016
get involved in that, in my opinion. But that's not the motion.
However, we want to coordinate with the city because of the
safety of all the residents in the county.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so would you agree to
amend the motion to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It's on the floor now. We have a
motion and a second, right? And the motion was to coordinate our
efforts with the City of Naples and our people will send a letter as well,
but they'll first coordinate with them and we'll even work through Gary
McAlpin to make sure all of the wording is proper and correct and get
that done tout suite.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Not only to the Army
Corps, but -- which is what I requested here, but also to Representative
Clawson's office, et cetera, et cetera, coordinating.
And would you agree that a resolution needs to be part of this?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, yes.
Okay, is everybody clear on that?
MR. OCHS: Yes. This only relates to the dredging of the Pass,
not the marking --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: -- of the Pass.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes. Yes, sir.
Okay, fine. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I can't support a resolution, I
can support a letter.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, so we have a 4-1 vote on that.
Page 67
January 12, 2016
Thank you very much.
Okay, let's move on.
Item #10B (Tabled until after 12:00 pm Closed Session)
RECOMMENDATION TO DIRECT THE COLLIER COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO PLACE A STRAW BALLOT
REFERENDUM ON THE MARCH 15, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL
PREFERENCE PRIMARY BALLOT ASKING THE VOTERS OF
UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY IF THEY SUPPORT A
SINGLE COMBINED FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL
RESPONSE INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICT IN
UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY THAT IS GOVERNED
BY AN INDEPENDENT ELECTED BODY — MOTION TO TABLE
UNTIL AFTER CLOSED SESSION IS HELD — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10.B is a recommendation to direct the Collier
County Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot referendum on
the March 15th, 2016 Presidential Preference Primary ballot, asking
the voters of unincorporated Collier County if they support a single
combined fire and emergency medical response independent special
district in unincorporated Collier County that is governed by an
independent elected body.
And this item was brought forward by Commissioner Taylor.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, do we have somebody
presenting from staff or does Commissioner Taylor present?
Okay, Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Madam Chair, I'm going to make a
motion that we continue the discussion of this item until after our
shade session, because I think they're kind of related. And I believe it
would be appropriate to wait and see what we discuss in that session
Page 68
January 12, 2016
before we take action.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is there a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we discuss this in this
particular --
MR. KLATZKOW: We will not be discussing it in the shade, but
perhaps your discussions in the shade might impact your decision.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Well, I mean, there's not --
I don't mind, as long as it's heard today.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, that's fine with me as well.
Does everybody agree that we can just discuss it right after the
shade session?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Some nods?
Okay, we'll do that then.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right. So I'll second
that motion to continue until after our shade session.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do we need a motion for that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I don't know, I just made a motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: Technically yes, but okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Technically yes? Okay, all in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, very good, thank you. Done.
Item #10C
Page 69
January 12, 2016
TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING NORTH COLLIER
FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT CANCELLING THE
INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND BIG CORKSCREW FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10.0 was previously Item 16.H.4, and that is to
provide information regarding North Collier Fire Control and Rescue
District canceling the Interlocal Agreement between Collier County
and Big Corkscrew Fire Control and Rescue District.
This item was moved to the regular agenda for discussion at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Chief Stolts, could you step
to the podium? Do you have the letter written by Fire Commissioner
Lombardo with you?
CHIEF STOLTS: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you introduce it on the
record and either you read it or I read it, whatever your preference is?
CHIEF STOLTS: I'll have you read it, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. Can I have it, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean the letter he signed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this is the Fire Commission's --
the North Collier Fire Commission's response to Commissioner
Henning.
Dear Commissioner Henning: It is with great interest that I read
the executive summary for agenda Item 16.H.4 -- which, by the way, is
the agenda we are now addressing, 10.C, since I requested that it be
moved from consent to the general agenda.
As there were numerous inaccuracies within it, I felt that a
response was necessary so that these false statements regarding the
Page 70
January 12, 2016
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District -- which I will refer to
further as the District -- would be corrected.
Protecting citizens and visitors' lives. The path that the District
and Collier County are currently on is a direct result of the Board of
County Commissioners' decision to deny the District's renewal of its
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, COPCN, and request
to include its Big Corkscrew Island service delivery area within the
approved service area. This denial occurred despite the
recommendation for approval by Collier County's own staff and Public
Safety Authority.
The District did not ask the BOCC deny the District's request.
When the vote occurred, the District was stunned and it was denied --
that it was denied. I believe that many others were also shocked since
the BOCC's action resulted in almost a million dollar budget
amendment soon after its new fiscal year began.
Since the BOCC's granting of the District's first COPCN, the
District and Collier County staff have worked harmoniously providing
Advanced Life Support services, ALS. Gone were the accusations and
ongoing conflict between our agencies.
This all ended with when the BOCC voted on September the 8th,
2015. To state or imply that the District is not committed to protecting
its citizens is inappropriate. If any government is to be accused that it
is not taking steps to protect its citizens and visitors, it's Collier
County.
One district. As of January 1st, 2015 there is only the North
Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. There is no North Naples
Fire Control and Rescue District or Big Corkscrew Island Fire and
Control Rescue District. The executive summary is full of references
to entities that no longer exist. There are no Big Corkscrew Fire
personnel and rather all personnel are employees of the North Collier
Fire Control and Rescue District.
Page 71
January 12, 2016
It's been over a year since the District's successful creation
through merger which has saved over a million dollars already.
Interlocal agreement. The District disputes that the Interlocal
Agreement advanced life support partnership between Collier County
and the District as successor to Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and
Rescue District, the Interlocal Agreement has been terminated.
The Board of Fire Commissioners has not taken a vote to
terminate, nor has required notice been provided to Collier County.
In addition, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services
paramedics continue to ride on the District's fire apparatus per that
Interlocal Agreement.
The District's paramedics or emergency medical technicians are
still working with Collier County EMS paramedics by providing basic
life support services while the Collier County EMS personnel provide
ALS services. If the District had terminated that Interlocal Agreement,
why are any of these things occurring?
The District's personnel are assisting in helping Collier County
EMS personnel. This has not changed. To allege otherwise is
inappropriate as it's just false. Neither has the District violated Chapter
2015-191 Laws of Florida as the Interlocal Agreement is still in effect.
The only thing that has changed is that it has been identified that the
District's personnel will not be providing ALS services in conjunction
with Collier County EMS personnel as there is no specific authority
that prescribes such right to the District personnel.
Unlike what occurs in the North Naples Service Delivery area,
there is never a situation in which District personnel can begin ALS
services prior to the arrival of Collier County EMS, as this agreement
is only associated with one fire apparatus and that apparatus has a
Collier County EMS paramedic.
It also allows an emergency medical technician to staff the fire
apparatus, even though such district personnel cannot provide ALS
Page 72
January 12, 2016
services.
In addition, as the District believes that the Interlocal Agreement
is still in effect, it included within District Resolution 15-043 the
following. Item 10, the District contends that in addition to that which
has been pled or further pled in court proceedings the following are
issues of conflict between Collier County and the District.
Subsection C: The Interlocal Agreement advanced life support
partnership between Collier County and the District as successor to the
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District. Closed
quotes.
The District will be discussing the Interlocal Agreement with
Collier County staff during the conflict assessment meeting scheduled
for next week. If there was no agreement it would be unnecessary to
include it as an item in conflict to discuss.
Attached for your convenience is District Resolution 15-043
which was adopted on December 10th, 2015.
Department of health. As it relates to a letter sent to the
Department of Health regarding issues related to the District's
demobilization of its ALS program, I do not see why this is of concern
to you. The District did not ask for a legal opinion regarding the
legality of the Interlocal Agreement or Collier County's actions. It also
did not ask a legal opinion regarding the legality of one medical
director authorizing paramedics working under another medical
director to practice outside their approved COPCN jurisdiction.
Rather, the District is trying to determine how to shut its ALS
program down as a direct result of the BOCC -- and by the way,
BOCC is Board of County Commissioners -- decision to deny the
District's COPCN renewal.
The District needs to ensure that when the clock strikes midnight
on January 29, 2016, that the actions that are taken by the District and
its paramedics related to the demobilization of its lifesaving services
Page 73
January 12, 2016
will not result in a violation of state law.
In conclusion, the Board of County Commissioners made a
political decision and is now having to face the consequences of its
rash decision. All of the steps that the District has taken to date are to
protect its residents. I hope that this letter corrects your
misunderstanding on this issue; however, I am concerned that
regardless of the truth there will be a continuation of the propagation of
false information in an attempt to shift the responsibility of this
travesty from the Board of County Commissioners to the District.
Unfortunately the District did not deny the renewal of its
COPCN. That was solely at the hands of the Board of County
Commissioners. The District continues to be hopeful that we will be
able to resolve this dispute.
And this was a letter signed by Chris Lombardo, who is the
chairman of the North Naples Fire District. It was sent to all the
County Commissioners, to all the North Naples Fire District
commissioners and to County Manager Ochs.
Staff, can you please make sure that a copy of this letter as we've
received it is included for the court reporter behind my statement?
MR. OCHS: Yes, we will.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Chief Stolts?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It's in the backup material.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I know. I want it behind my
statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's your question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't support what you have
brought forward for the reasons stated in that letter. And so, you
know, I will make a motion to deny what you have presented since it's
false.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, there's a motion on the floor.
Let's see, how did these -- whose buttons were on first?
Page 74
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then
myself, then public speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine, yes.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, if you want to
follow me on packet Page 1935 in your packet, you will see a letter
from the Chief to all personnel: The District supports the paramedics
and recognizes the struggle it faces in light of the District's directive
not to provide ALS service within the Big Corkscrew Island Service
delivery area. And it goes on. And it's based upon the Board of
Commissioners denying the COPCN.
However, Big Corkscrew Island Service area, delivery area, has
an ILA. And their paramedics, fire paramedics, will assist our
paramedics. That's within the ILA. The directive was --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What's an ILA?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Interlocal Agreement.
However, what's interesting through the chairman, written by
their attorney, from what I'm told, is they recognize they can do an
ILA, Interlocal Agreement. And maybe they'll get one or the other, I
don't know, we'll wait and see what the directive is after that. But over
and over they have said they cannot.
I just want to provide the Commissioners with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not a true statement. They
have said that they have --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Excuse me, let's just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- they can't provide ALS through
the ILA because the COPCN was denied.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, Commissioner
Henning has the floor, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I appreciate you trying to
bring order to the meeting.
Page 75
January 12, 2016
It's recognized by their Chief and back then in 2003 Chief Webb
the utilization of fire district's paramedics providing ALS support
patient care under the direction of the county certified paramedics
assigned to EMS operations.
So if you want to see that, that is right here. And it's backed up
by the actual protocol by the District and the Medical Director's
protocol. So, you know, it's -- the bottom line is whether they canceled
it, whether they amended it, they did so without even consulting with
us. I mean, Chairman Nance signed it, they signed it, this agreement.
Now they're amending it now without our approval or our consent.
However, our staff, our EMS staff, is committed to still providing
an enhanced service in that area. We've -- I think it was a quarter of a
million dollars that we're spending out in that area because the chief at
that time said it's needed, we needed more paramedics. So we have
three paramedics to cover that area.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You know, I went against everything
I said in the beginning, I was going to ask speakers first to come to the
podium and I already started calling on Commissioners, but I wanted
to let you finish.
And let me call on the speakers first and then we'll have -- let's
see, Commissioner Nance is next and then Commissioner Hiller after
the speakers.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, you have two registered speakers
for this item. First Orly Stolts, and he'll be followed by James
Cunningham.
CHIEF STOLTS: Good morning, Commissioners. Chief Stolts,
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District.
Thank you for the opportunity to actually be here and addressing
this today. Quite frankly, it was pulled off the agenda and I appreciate
the opportunity to address this.
First of all, Commissioner Henning, the Interlocal Agreement that
Page 76
January 12, 2016
has been entered into between Big Corkscrew and Collier County is an
Interlocal Agreement that is absolutely legal to do. It is not an
Interlocal Agreement that gives the District powers to provide
advanced life support. It is a simple Interlocal Agreement that allows
your Collier medic to ride on our firetrucks. That's an Interlocal
Agreement that is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not true.
CHIEF STOLTS: -- absolutely legal and we agree on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
CHIEF STOLTS: Okay, your opinion.
Your memorandum -- or actually your executive summary --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask you, why did you
write the letter telling them to stop providing ALS?
CHIEF STOLTS: I will explain that.
In the Interlocal Agreement that Big Corkscrew signed into with
Collier County EMS -- and quite frankly, the memorandum that you
included in your executive summary today explains it very well. This
is a memo sent to County Manager Ochs from Walter Kopka. My
letter -- he refers to a number of things.
In my letter that I sent to you all identified that unlike other
Collier County interlocal agreements, the Big Corkscrew Island ALS
agreement does not authorize the District's paramedic to practice under
a Collier County EMS paramedic. That's what I said in the letter to
you.
Walter Kopka is answering that question for Leo Ochs. Walter
Kopka, your Chief of EMS, says that is true. He agrees that our
paramedics are not able to operate under the direction of a Collier
County paramedic, sir.
But he goes on to say that it's not like the other interlocal
agreements within Collier County. And the other interlocal
agreements in Collier County, the medics that are in the fire service are
Page 77
January 12, 2016
certified under your County Medical Director, they train under your
County Medical Director. This Interlocal Agreement is totally
different. We did not do a swap program in the Big Corkscrew area
back when this thing was negotiated. There was no SWAP program.
The medics out in that area didn't have to do ride-alongs to the
hospital. They weren't allowed to do advanced life support under that
Interlocal Agreement.
Also, my letter that I sent to you all back on December 9th, I
stated that it also does not require the District's paramedics to certify
by the County Medical Director, which is different than the others
ALS interlocal agreements. Chief Kopka also agrees with that.
Our paramedics in North Collier do not have to be certified by Dr.
Robert Tober, the county's medical director. Therefore, we're not
allowed to practice outside the boundaries of our COPCN, 70 square
miles of the old North Naples Fire District.
Now, back to the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't you agree that they can
provide ALS support under the paramedics license?
CHIEF STOLTS: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's what we -- that's part
of the Interlocal Agreement.
CHIEF STOLTS: In the Interlocal Agreement, and if I can, I
know my buzzer's beeping here, but you asked me the question.
Under the Interlocal Agreement, one of the whereas's says:
Whereas this agreement provides an advanced life support ALS
partnership between Big Corkscrew firefighter paramedics and
firefighter emergency medical technicians to work and train under
Collier County paramedics with and for -- with ALS or BLS duties.
My paramedic, the North Collier paramedic that's out in the Big
Corkscrew area today, will work right alongside of a Collier County
paramedic who rode in on the same truck with us. We're going to
Page 78
January 12, 2016
work alongside.
When your medic says draw me up two cc's of a certain drug, my
paramedic can draw up two cc's of that certain drug. We're going to
hand that drug to your Collier County medic and that medic, your
medic, will administer that drug. My medic will not. I'm working right
alongside. He wants two cc's, here you go, here's your two cc's.
In the other side of the imaginary line in North Naples we can
pull up the two cc's, my paramedics, and my paramedics can
administer the two cc's. Your medic can tell my medic: Hook up a
12-lead monitor, which is an ALS function. My medic in Big
Corkscrew Island today will hook up the 12-lead monitor. We will not
interpret what the monitor is saying; your medic will interpret.
So we are working side-by-side, hand-in-hand with your Collier
paramedic. We just can't do those ALS skills in that particular 110
square miles is the only place in Collier County that my 100 plus
paramedics can't practice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that was a directive of
you.
CHIEF STOLTS: It was. And my medics are doing it today.
Your medic is riding on my engine. We're going on calls. We're
working side-by-side with your Collier medic. If he wants two cc's,
here we go.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Orly, you're way past your time. I
know that you've been communicating with Commissioner Henning,
but we do have to get to the next speaker.
CHIEF STOLTS: Thank you very much for your time,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I've got a question for the Chief.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Chief Stolts, correct me if I'm
wrong, but it seems to me there's been some correspondence from
Page 79
January 12, 2016
North Collier Fire District and the county or perhaps Chief Kopka or
somebody in EMS where you asserted that interlocal agreements are
illegal in general. Is that true?
CHIEF STOLTS: Some are and some aren't.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, no, didn't you say that they are
illegal?
CHIEF STOLTS: An Interlocal Agreement --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah.
CHIEF STOLTS: -- for you to give us the privileges to provide
ALS --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Interlocal Agreement for
cooperative work together.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think it's appropriate to ask
the Chief for a legal opinion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, I'm asking him if--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you a lawyer?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ma'am, excuse me, I'm asking the
questions right now, if you don't mind.
I just want to know if there hasn't been correspondence between
your District, sir, and the county or county staff in which you said or
your attorney advised you to take the position that interlocal
agreements were inappropriate and illegal for us to engage in together.
Is that true?
CHIEF STOLTS: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So before we go --
CHIEF STOLTS: Some are and some aren't.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- before we go into our shade
session today to talk about our relationship, are there any other reasons
or excuses that I'm unaware of on why you don't want to cooperate
with the county? Just let me know now so when we get in the shade
we can talk about it. Is there anything left?
Page 80
January 12, 2016
CHIEF STOLTS: Sir, we are absolutely wanting to and willing
to participate with the county. This is -- we should have never got to
this position. We have participated, we have augmented your system
tremendously over the last five years.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I do agree, I agree with that. Thank
you very much. No further questions.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is James Cunningham. He's
your final speaker on this item.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Madam Chair and
Commission. My name is James Cunningham. I'm currently the
Operations Chief for North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District.
Commissioner Henning, you indicate there's a termination letter.
There is no actual termination letter. The only letter that was issued
went out to our field paramedics to be very clear on what we have been
consistent with all along and that is they cannot provide, meaning
administer, medications or procedures that are considered advanced
life support under the rules governed by the State of Florida to the
patients. We have and always will work cooperatively with EMS,
whether it's on scene or in the back of the ambulance. However, we
cannot provide these services to the public unless we're under a
licensed doctor to do that.
In the Corkscrew area we do not have a medical director that
oversees us; therefore, we cannot physically administer. But we
absolutely are committed to working hand-in-hand with the medics
that are out there.
Just like in September we were surprised by the vote by the
Commission, especially when staff had recommended approval as well
as the PSA had recommended approval. We were again surprised to
see this letter. The first time we saw it was in the executive summary
in the packet. That was the first we learned that there was intention by
Page 81
January 12, 2016
the County Commission to terminate the ALS agreement.
I can assure you the Interlocal Agreement between Corkscrew
and the fire district -- I'm sorry, fire district and the county, we didn't
know of any such indication until then. And at no time has our
commission taken a position to terminate the Interlocal Agreement
with the county.
It's vital from the operation side that we continue to have -- the
only one resource for advanced life support out in that area is the EMS
medic on a fire direct. The reason why it's different, Commissioner
Nance, is the Interlocal Agreement between the District and the
county, your EMS medic is the one providing the care. That is why
that Interlocal Agreement is legally sufficient under the rules of the
State of Florida.
EMS can put medics on all of our vehicles. We don't need a
license to do that. It's one of the many options provided to the Council
and to the Commission as we're trying to work through the process.
We're committed to continuing to work through the process as
we're going forward with the conflict resolution sessions throughout
the remainder of this week.
I can assure you that the purpose of the letter that was sent to our
staff was to make sure we're complying with State of Florida rules
without having a medical director, and based upon the denial by this
Commission, because our medics do not have a doctor to work under
for that area, they cannot provide ALS services, whether it be
medications or procedures, to patients. That is the reason why that
letter was sent.
Secondly -- we need to change the operational response --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you wind up, please?
MR. CUNNINGHAM: I will wind up.
The ALS, Advanced Life Support, medic from EMS had to go on
the engine because what we had was the EMS medic on the firetruck
Page 82
January 12, 2016
and the EMS ambulance in that area were both going to the same call,
thus leaving no additional resource available for the remainder part of
that district.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Sorry, but I gave Orly a lot of extra time, I just can't give anymore.
Thank you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- very much.
So Georgia Hiller, you are the first --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. Thank you so much.
Stay up there, please. The -- Jeff, does the Interlocal Agreement
have a provision in it that says that if any provision within this
agreement is no longer valid the rest of the agreement remains in full
force and effect and the specific provision that is deemed illegal
essentially disappears?
MR. KLATZKOW: Give me a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And while you're looking that up,
you're absolutely correct, you cannot -- since the Board of County
Commissioners did not expand the boundaries of the North Naples Fire
District to include Big Corkscrew, North Naples paramedics cannot
provide ALS in that area.
The Collier County paramedics who have a COPCN that does
include that area can provide ALS. But that geographical area is
barred to your paramedics to provide advanced life support.
Now, you can provide BLS, but you cannot provide ALS. And to
do so would be completely illegal.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: And I can give you an example of that,
Commissioner. I would say Engine 42 on Immokalee Road and Oakes
Boulevard, that engine is fully equipped with medics on it every day.
Has all the tools and equipment. They can provide it across the street
in Longshore Lakes from the Quarry. When they go east of Heritage
Page 83
January 12, 2016
Bay, even though that truck is fully equipped with the paramedic and
all the information and drugs on it, as soon as they cross that invisible
line they must only do basic life support --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And here's the problem. If-- you
know, the county does not have sufficient trucks or personnel to
service Big Corkscrew without your presence. And as a consequence,
if our paramedics are not permitted to ride on your trucks, at that point
in that Big Corkscrew area Big Corkscrew has zero ALS.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: And that is why we're asking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a crisis for the citizens of
Big Corkscrew.
And again, I will tell you, my husband died of cardiac arrest and
ALS is critical to saving lives. And I will not sit here and watch the
citizens of Big Corkscrew's safety compromised because of the politics
this board is engaging in which is downright offensive, because it's
about life and death.
The bottom line is that Interlocal Agreement does not allow for
ALS if we as a Board do not expand north Naples COPCN to include
what is now part of your district which is formerly known as Big
Corkscrew.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: And if we can stick germane to the item
that we have right now, we would just ask that you not terminate the
Interlocal Agreement that exists today between North Collier and
Collier County, because at least we have one EMS paramedic that can
practice out there, even though the North Collier paramedics cannot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You see, that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I finish what I was saying?
It's still my time. I'm waiting for Jeff to respond.
MR. KLATZKOW: I do not see that clause.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any provision in there that
addresses anything along those lines?
Page 84
January 12, 2016
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, it's a cooperative agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It what?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a cooperative agreement. That's the
point of these things. There's a clause in there that says if either party is
not happy with each other, give 90 day's notice and it's done. But it's a
cooperative type of agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So essentially what Commissioner
Henning is doing by way of his motion is looking to end this
agreement to allow -- is that in effect what he's doing? I mean, to end
this agreement is he essentially giving 90 days notice, is that the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, what's the
recommendation on the executive summary?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you read it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She doesn't read her agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She doesn't have it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's nothing here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, because I do it electronically
because I don't believe in killing trees, which is --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: To provide information regarding --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- what I actually started when I
first got elected --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The Chair has the floor.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: To provide information regarding
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, canceling the Interlocal
Agreement between Collier County and Big Corkscrew Fire Control
and Rescue District.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the essence of what
Commissioner Henning wants, as I understand it, is to in effect make it
so that even the county isn't providing ALS.
Page 85
January 12, 2016
MR. KLATZKOW: No, ma'am. This is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I understand that he
really wants.
MR. KLATZKOW: With all respect, you've done this in the past
yourself, where you're providing information to the public. That's
what this is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't believe that is the intent. I
believe his real intent is to leave Big Corkscrew out there with no ALS
support at all. That is clearly where we are going. Because that is in
essence what's happening. And we have 'til the end of this month.
And otherwise my district, my district, District 2, which is serviced by
North Naples, Collier, is also not going to have ALS. And I will not
see my constituents of my District's public safety compromised by this
Board. And that is exactly what's going on. This Board is trying to
hold North Naples hostage by compromising Big Corkscrew's public
safety. That is unbelievable. It's blackmail. And they are using the
citizens of Big Corkscrew to blackmail the North Naples Fire
Commission.
I'm not going to let my constituents be compromised like this.
That's what's really going on here. That is what's happening.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you so much, Jim.
Our next Commissioner up is Commissioner Henning, followed
by Nance and then Taylor. Taylor then Nance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Boy, there's no truth to
what she just said, or whatever his name's understanding is. It's just
information. It's not canceling an agreement. You're still going to get
advanced life support in North Naples, our paramedics are still going
to be there, our ambulances are going to be there. No matter what this
Board does there's still going to be advanced lives. So the drama here
going on is just false. I mean, there's a lot of false information from
North Naples. And it's unjust to the citizens.
Page 86
January 12, 2016
Leo, what has changed in the Corkscrew area since the
submission of Chief and Assistant Chiefs letters to the personnel?
What has changed? What are they doing different?
MR. OCHS: Sir, I'm going to ask Chief Kopka, if you don't
mind, to come up. He's got more day-to-day operational knowledge of
any substantive changes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I do have some other
questions.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHIEF KOPKA: Good morning, Madam Chair and
Commissioners.
I think it's first very important to let the public know that are
watching this today services are being provided by all the personnel,
whether it's Sheriffs Office, whether it's fire department, whether it's
EMS. I want them to be assured that services are provided. If 911
needs to be called, we'll be there in whatever fashion or form we need
to take care of patients in the field, first and foremost.
Secondly, the memorandum we received from Chief Aguilera on
November 13th states: Effective immediately under no circumstances
will any North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District credentialed
paramedic provide advanced life support within the Big Corkscrew
Island Fire Service Delivery area. This includes when on scene and
under the guidance of a Collier County paramedic.
Therefore, to answer your question, sir, what has changed is when
our paramedics are on scene, the direction they've been given is that
paramedic that is working for Big Corkscrew or North Naples Service
Delivery area are not allowed to perform advanced life support.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And prior to that they were able
to.
CHIEF KOPKA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Prior to that memo.
Page 87
January 12, 2016
CHIEF KOPKA: Correct.
And again, for the general public's purpose, there are many calls
that EMS are on day-to-day where we don't have other paramedics
from the fire district on scene. And the paramedics of EMS do the job
they need to to take care of patients with whatever care they need,
whether it's basic life support or advanced life support. So that's the
change that has happened since November 13th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is part of the ILA that
we signed and put more staffing out there for advanced life support.
Part of that was that the fire paramedic was going to work under the
county's certified paramedics to provide ALS.
CHIEF KOPKA: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, that's the whole information
that I want to provide, and I did, and has been changed by the staff of
North Collier.
CHIEF KOPKA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would you repeat that, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That the staff from North Collier
changed or amended the Interlocal Agreement with Collier County
without notice so that their paramedics cannot -- will not work under
the state certified paramedic of Collier County. That is the difference.
Although they are providing BLS service, and I think they have to do it
by statute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that is a false statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not finished.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On your part.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there's a -- I gave you an
email, Commissioner Fiala, that was recognized by Chief Webb of the
utilization of the fire paramedics under the state certified paramedic.
And back in March 15th of 2002, I just want to read this: Purpose and
intent to provide specific direction on utilization of state certified
Page 88
January 12, 2016
paramedics employed by the local fire districts on scene in providing
advanced life support care.
Assigned responsibility: All departments under Collier County
certified paramedics assigned to EMS operations, you are responsible
and commend of all respect of patient's care being provided (sic). The
fire paramedic in question has the -- identified and participated in the
current ALS engine program with Collier County and is known to you
as having complete course curriculum in the current participation and
training required by Collier County EMS MOU coordinator.
Prior to any ALS procedures being performed, the fire
paramedics must obtain your consent and approval. Prior to the
administration of any medication, the Collier County certified
paramedic must verbally confirm the approach, dose and route.
Confirmation of ET tube placement is also required on the intubation.
Only Collier County paramedics may initiate the ALS patient during
transport to the medical facility.
So it's been an ongoing practice in Collier County that the fire
paramedic will work with Collier County paramedics; certification to
administer drugs if needed and patient care.
And this information is in the files of now North Collier Fire
District. They can.
Now it has been changed by the staff of North Collier that the fire
paramedics cannot provide that type of medical care. That's all. That's
all I was providing is information. And hopefully maybe the fire
commissioners of North Collier will send us 90-days of an intent to
change the Interlocal Agreement that we both agreed upon. We'll see.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Nance, I think
you were next, and then Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I -- you know, I think that the
fire districts are very essential and very, very good partners in
providing emergency medical response. I don't think we could do the
Page 89
January 12, 2016
job without them.
However, that being said, for us to go forward in Collier County
and really achieve a gold standard level of service that others in our
nation rarely have achieved, we are going to have to unify our
emergency response. And in order to do that we're going to have to
have much, much better cooperation than we're currently getting.
I am completely underwhelmed by people that want to make legal
and personal decisions to restrict service or find reasons not to
cooperate based on individual interests, and I'm going to continue to
vote based on people that want to get together instead of people that
want to fragment a system that is so vital to our people. Because we
are right on the cusp of being able to have a unified emergency
response, and it's one of my highest priorities.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One of the things you do on your
Christmas vacation is that I received an email from Mr. Myers, Ron
Myers, who's on the public safety committee. And he sent each
Commissioner a letter, the same letter that's saying, you know, we
always hear about King County out in Seattle, Washington and we
always try to compare it. Well, here's their annual report. Read it.
Well, I did. And guess what? And this was recommended to read.
They have one medical director. It's unified. There are subdirectors,
it's much larger than Collier County, but there's one medical director.
And I really want to thank Mr. Myers for this, because to me it's
confirmation that we are heading in the right direction.
Is it easy? No, it's not. But certainly after this discussion and the
allegations and the drama and, you know, people dying, which of
course is not happening, it is again underlined to me that this is ripe,
this issue is ripe for settling. And we will do it.
And so thank you very much. And please, any kind of more
information, please send it to us. I read it. Thank you.
Page 90
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Yeah, when is the Board going to send a 90-day letter to North
Naples saying that they have amended this Memorandum of
Understanding since they have declined to expand the North Naples
Fire District to include the Big Corkscrew area and as a result North
Naples -- the new North Naples Fire District cannot provide ALS
services to that part of the district. The county is the one who has
amended the understanding.
Jeff, in your opinion, is that -- you know, and it's interesting, you
made a comment when I asked if there was a provision in that contract
that addressed, you know, if there's any provision of this agreement
that is no longer valid that the rest of the agreement remains in effect,
and you said no, no, there isn't because this isn't a contract, it's merely
a Memorandum of Understanding.
Are you taking the position that that's not a contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: I did not say that, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I misheard. What did you
say?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I said was that no, that provision is not
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you said that --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not surprised it's not there because it's a
cooperative agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, it's a cooperative agreement.
So --
MR. KLATZKOW: The intent of the agreement is that Collier
County and the fire district sit down and figure out what's in the best
interest of the residents of Corkscrew and work together.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you agree that the North
Naples Fire District cannot perform any services if it would be illegal
Page 91
January 12, 2016
to do so under the current circumstances?
MR. KLATZKOW: If it was illegal?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: If anything's illegal you can't do it, ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- I would agree with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it is illegal for North Naples
to provide ALS where it doesn't have a COPCN to allow it to do so.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's your opinion, ma'am, but they
did it for years and years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I think for years and years
what has been done by this county is illegal, as has been proven over
and over again, that the county has done things illegally.
MR. KLATZKOW: You keep saying that, ma'am, but I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'm saying it. And we're in the
middle of a lawsuit that we have been challenged on that in the same
words.
MR. KLATZKOW: Not for nothing, if that lawsuit takes two
years to resolve itself, those residents aren't getting the services they
want.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then we --
MR. KLATZKOW: You just say I don't want to do something
because the agreement is unlawful, that's the easiest thing in the world
to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it is required by law. If you --
MR. KLATZKOW: Then they should have done it. In all those
years when they did it under the Interlocal, they were wrong. The
same --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And guess what? All the --
MR. KLATZKOW: The same people who thought it was right
now think it's wrong.
Page 92
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- other districts --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Folks, our stenographer cannot take --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the districts --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner, listen, please.
-- when both of you are talking at the same time. One or the
other.
Now, you were answering a question.
MR. KLATZKOW: I am answering the question. I mean, we're
being attacked here by ourselves, we eat our own here, that our
agreements are unlawful. They are not unlawful. I've got somebody
wants a certificate, they didn't get their certificate so now they say
well, the Interlocal Agreement, you have to give us a certificate.
Really? You did business under the Interlocal for years and years
and years and it was fine. But as soon as you get the certificate all of a
sudden well, we can't do it under the Interlocal because that's unlawful.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. That's why they went for
the certificate and why every other independent fire district should
have its own COPCN, so they can deal lawfully with us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ma'am, that's the past.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it isn't. It's the future.
But here's what I'd like to know. In addition -- Chief Kopka, I
thank you for presenting today. And I would like to ask, what were
you doing up in Tallahassee and who were you representing when you
were most recently up there lobbying, and what were you lobbying
about?
CHIEF KOPKA: Home rule issue on COPCN legislation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Specifically. What position did
you take on what issues and who authorized you to lobby on behalf of
the county on the position you took?
CHIEF KOPKA: Well part of the Collier County Board
approved legislative packet is home rule and that's what I was
Page 93
January 12, 2016
supporting, local home rule.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Specifically what?
CHIEF KOPKA: Senate Bill 742.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what does that bill say? What
was your position with respect to that bill?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has nothing to do --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It does have everything to do with
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this is totally
ridiculous. It has nothing do with that item. She is interrogating staff.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, that's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have the right to ask the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it has nothing to do with
this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I believe it does. That's what I'm
trying to find out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need procedures here.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let's go --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have the right to get information
to see how it relates.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, but we don't -- this is not part of
the subject.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How do I know? I'm trying to find
out. Unless I get an answer, I can't make that determination. I have
reason to believe that it is but I need to confirm that. And I have the
right to request information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She knows it's not.
Page 94
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I think it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She's just pontificating.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what then? If we're
going to continue to argue, we're going to go to the shade session right
now and when we come back we'll discuss it again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve this item.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I will second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I call the motion because we've
already had discussion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: A motion on the floor and a second.
Any -- I won't say any further comments, because -- all in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chief, I want to apologize on
behalf of the Board of Commissioners on the conduct of some
interrogation of you in the day-to-day job that you have to do. This
item is done and you don't have to respond.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You do. I have the right to receive
the information.
Leo, I would like to know exactly what Chief Kopka was doing in
Tallahassee, who he met with, what position he took, and I would also
like to know who authorized him to do so.
MR. OCHS: I'd be happy to provide that information. And just
for the record, I authorized him to be there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I want all the specifics
Page 95
January 12, 2016
of the position he took and who he spoke with.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And with that we are going -- yes, sir?
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY RELATED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
AND LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASE OF
NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT V.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, CASE NO. 15-CA-1871, NOW PENDING IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — CLOSED SESSION
MR. KLATZKOW: If we're going to shade session, ma'am, just
a quick announcement to the public that we will be meeting in the
shade session. Estimated time is no more than one hour. We'll be
coming out at 1:00. And that the persons attending the shade session
will be the five Commissioners, the County Manager and myself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wait a second. And that it will be
transcribed by the court reporter who will be attending that shade
session with us and that once the litigation is concluded the full
transcript of our discussion will be made public and available to
anyone who wants to read it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. And with that,
folks we will not adjourn but we'll research for now.
(Luncheon recess.)
MR. OCHS: Please take your seat.
Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
Page 96
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But I don't know if we can conduct it
yet.
MR. OCHS: You don't have a quorum right now, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We're missing a couple people.
MR. OCHS: We'll bring this session to order.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good afternoon, everybody. We have
returned.
And Leo, would you like to start us off here, please.
Item #12B
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE
DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING CASE OF NORTH COLLIER
FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT V. BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO.
15-CA-1871, NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — NO DIRECTION GIVEN
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, that takes us to Item 12.B. And that is
the item for the County Attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, reporting out after the
closed session.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's just the closed session is now
terminated.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What did you mumble?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He said the closed session is now
terminated.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The closed session is now
Page 97
January 12, 2016
terminated. Six words.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that would now take us to Item 7 on
today's agenda, public comments on general topics not on the current
or future agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MILLER: I have one registered speaker, Michael George
Hagan.
MR. HAGAN: Thank you. I have two items I'd like to discuss, if
possible. The first one is I'm Michael George Hagan; I'm a social
worker. I've been here in Collier County 12 years. I'm from New
York and Chicago, spent 10 years in Palm Beach County attempting to
do this and I didn't leave -- the guy told me I was interfering with their
investigations. But I did leave and came to Collier County because my
mother insisted I do. And she was here, because I insisted she come
here and live here and not Palm Beach County over there, because
that's a little too difficult.
So my first item is my brother did this in Chicago. He was on the
board or in charge of or it's under his name where he made Chicago
and Gallway where our family's from sister cities. So my first proposal
is I'd like to do something if possible and make Collier County and
Cook County, Illinois sister counties. And I know it's a new theory,
but there's so many people here from the Midwest. And that's really
the Midwest.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You might have a problem with
Page 98
January 12, 2016
Ohio.
MR. HAGAN: We went to Notre Dame, but, you know, it's just a
thought.
So I'd like to -- you know, if possible to consider that. I'm willing
to work with the Commissioners and/or your staff to research this and
look into it, and maybe we can do something -- if it can be done maybe
we can get it done by next month. If not, that's fine. But I think it's a
good idea.
And my second thought is I'm here to advocate for the needy, as a
voice of the needy. I don't want to say the word homeless because that
draws a lot of attention here in Collier County, but that's basically who
I'm speaking about.
And my second request or question is, is there any way possible
that the Collier County Commissioners in Collier County could come
up with a way -- and I have some ideas, and again I'd like to speak to
you directly and speak to your staff and whoever works on this as far
as a free bus pass is concerned for homeless people. Because I am
homeless and I've been homeless on and off for 22 years of my life in
Florida. By my choice. And I've seen everything. Everything. And
most of it's unspeakable. That I need to see. I'm not going to hell and
I'm not going to prison, which is pretty much the same thing, but those
people are here.
And what happened last week pushed me to come here. And
what's happening over there and on Bayshore and Tomlinson and
Naples Manor and in Immokalee is unspeakable. And I've seen it all.
And I'm asking for your assistance, whether you grant it to me or
not, you know, something has to be done. Because if you lose this
county, like Palm Beach lost their county, like Broward, Miami-Dade
and like you lost -- or Collier County lost Hertz Corporation and Lee
County and what -- you know, I'm just asking for your help. Thank
you.
Page 99
January 12, 2016
MR. MILLER: That is the only registered speaker we have for
public comment.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #10B (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
RESOLUTION 2016-15: DIRECTING THE SUPERVISOR OF
ELECTIONS TO PLACE A STRAW BALLOT REFERENDUM ON
THE MARCH 15, 2016 PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE PRIMARY
BALLOT TO ASK VOTERS THE QUESTION, AS AMENDED, OF
WHETHER THEY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF A "UNIFIED
EMERGENCY RESPONSE" IN THE COUNTY — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that would bring us back to Item
10.B, which the Board said they wanted to hear after the noon session.
And 10.B is a recommendation to direct the Collier County
Supervisor of Elections to place a straw ballot referendum on the
March 15th, 2016 Presidential Preference Primary Ballot, asking the
voters of unincorporated Collier County if they support a single
combined fire and emergency medical response independent special
district in unincorporated Collier County that is governed by an
independent elected body. And Commissioner Taylor brought this
item forward.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you, County Manager
Ochs.
At this time because I did bring it forward but I was not the
genesis of it, I'd like to ask Commissioner Burke and Commissioner
Page to stand up, because they're the initiators of this -- well, I guess --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: While they're coming up, could I
mention that a straw ballot --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we're still on public
Page 100
January 12, 2016
comment.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: They said that was the only public
comment. Troy just said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many more public speakers
are there?
MR. MILLER: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many more public speakers
are there under public comment?
MR. MILLER: I was just explaining to this gentleman who just
handed me this right after we announced 9.A, I have one other speaker
for public comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought there were two. Isn't
there another one, too? I thought a lady walked up as well.
MR. MILLER: No, she handed something in for a different item.
That was for 9.A.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we should let the public --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let us finish this one because we've
already started this and we didn't hear anything from anybody who was
MR. MILLER: I explained to the gentleman I would speak to
you on the break. Because we had the item, we heard the item and we
moved to the next item.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Okay, so you want to address it after this item?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, please. Because we've already
started this.
And I was starting to make a comment. You said a straw ballot,
but on the presidential preference, aren't only republicans allowed to
vote on it? You can't get independents and you can't get democrats to
vote because it's the republican presidential primary, so you're leaving
out about two-thirds of the county on a straw ballot.
Page 101
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're going to have democrat
candidates for president that's going to be on the presidential
preference.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: The same day as this one or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, really? Okay, I had not heard
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure you don't pay attention
to what that side is doing, but --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, how about independents, are
they allowed to vote on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, just like any other race,
whether it be the primary -- I mean, the general election you have
ballot questions -- you can put a ballot question on any of the --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I realize that. I just wanted to make
sure we got the most voters. Because I know if it was only on the one
presidential primary, you'd have a whole lot of people that were pretty
angry. If it was just on two, then you'd still have a whole bunch of
people that are registered as something else feeling like they were
eliminated from the opportunity to vote.
I'm just throwing this out as a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know, but any time you hold a
voter's registration, you have a right under certain parameters.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right, certain parameters, you're
exactly right. That's what I checked on yesterday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, so you're well aware of it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes. And that's why I brought this
up, because I just want to make sure that everybody that wants to vote
can vote, you know, that hold a voter's registration.
But anyway, so now we can talk about it. Okay, and you have a
speaker?
Page 102
January 12, 2016
MR. MILLER: Yes, I have two. Commissioner Page. And
Commissioner Burke, if you want to go to the other podium, sir?
COMMISSIONER PAGE: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
For the record, Jeff Page. I'm with the Greater Naples Fire District, I'm
the Chairman there.
I also am here representing the Collier Citizen Council. I believe
they also sent the Board a letter in support of this straw ballot vote.
Basically what we're asking, we do not as a district have the
ability to put out a referendum question like that countywide. So we're
actually coming to the Board similar to what happened in 2010, asking
the Board's support with that.
Commissioner Burke and I both serve on the Emergency Services
Task Force which has had -- been continuing to meet over the last say
two years.
So with that I'm going to defer to Jim.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Yeah, Commissioners, you all
know that I'm a commissioner of the North Collier Fire District. But I
want to make it clear, I'm not speaking for that commission today. I'm
speaking as an individual who's also active with other organizations.
But the first thing I want to do is commend you for once again
taking the lead on this critical issue of moving forward with
consolidation. I also want to commend the citizens -- the Greater
Naples Fire Board for making the request and the CCC for a letter of
support.
But as a reminder, in November, 2010, the BCC took the
initiative on a consolidation straw ballot that was overwhelmingly
supported by the public, and which I think served as the foundation
piece for what took place in November of 2014 with fire districts
consolidating. I think the time is right to try to continue that
momentum and keep this moving forward.
I can tell you, it's no secret, I've been a big proponent of
Page 103
January 12, 2016
emergency services consolidation, but I've come to see it not as an end
in itself but as a critical part of the quality improvement process. I
don't think we can reach the alternate level of performance unless we
come together as one.
So I think this is a big step you're taking and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I do have additional public
speakers. As it turns out, Mr. Chao just came up -- not public
comment. He wants to speak on this item. Ramon Chao. And he'll be
followed by Chris Spencer.
COMMISSIONER CHAO: Yes, I am also a commissioner of
North Collier, but I am not here for that reason.
If this is going to be put on the ballot, one of the most important
things, at the ending you must ask the question: Even if it raises taxes.
I think that would be the true statement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about and potentially reduces
the level of service?
COMMISSIONER CHAO: Yeah. Well, that goes without
saying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it has to be stated.
COMMISSIONER CHAO: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Even if it raises taxes and reduces
the level of service.
COMMISSIONER CHAO: I agree with you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All depends on the wording, doesn't
it?
COMMISSIONER CHAO: I just wanted to -- that was my one
comment I wanted to make here, but I came here specifically, I was up
in Tallahassee yesterday and we met with probably seven, eight
different senators and representatives, and it just -- we were speaking
with people and they were yes, yes, yes to our faces and then
Page 104
January 12, 2016
completely against it when it went to the vote. And it just really
shocked me.
And I would hate to see -- it's the politics of it. We need people
in our local government who care about the people, that there's no
agenda, there's no job waiting on the other side of a vote, that there's
nothing going on here where the people are going to suffer. Because
I'm speaking as a taxpayer. I'm paying taxes on both ends for services.
And we the people need people who are here for the people. And
if you're not, just get out. That's just simply where I'm at. It really
breaks my heart to see all the political garbage going on, you know,
and -- I'm not trying to jump into any other subjects, and I won't, I'll
respectfully respect the Board. And I've said it over and over, people
are dying, and it's criminal. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Chris Spitzer. He'll be
followed by Paul Anderson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, isn't that a political
statement?
MR. SPITZER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Happy New
Year to each of you. It's good to see you again.
My name is Christopher Spencer and I'd like to speak about the
consolidation. Number one, I want everyone to know that I'm for
consolidation, anything to get away from the county.
However, most of these districts have already done that because
they felt that the job the county has done has been horrible at best so
they incorporated into independent districts; thus they've moved
forward and some of them have merged.
But the language on this proposed bill is missing -- or this vote is
missing some pretty important facts that I don't know how you're going
to word this into a question.
Number one, the cities will not be allowed to vote on this, but
they're still going to be utilizing the services of the EMS aspect, which
Page 105
January 12, 2016
you keep saying is a golden carrot but it's really not a carrot. It's a big
money pit.
And the whole issue that we're talking about with consolidation
and ALS service, which is a little outside the scope, I'm bringing it
back, is we just want to do the service and we'll adjunct with you. You
can transport, you can do anything, but the cost of EMS will cripple
every single independent fire district, merged together totally or not,
and the increase of the people's taxes will go up dramatically.
Furthermore, would it not be fragmenting the system if the city
doesn't get to vote taxation without representation? And they're going
to be utilizing the services of who, the new independent district? This
idea is put forth by a group of people who have all combined and made
different groups and associations, the CDC, the LMNOP, all these
different groups. But it's the same people over and over again. It's not
the contingency of the people.
The vote was had a while ago, and it was like five years ago, I
think it was like 2010, November 2nd, if I'm correct. And they voted
for consolidation. Consolidation has happened. But to move forward
without the clear direction of there is a huge cost to this would be
disheartening and problematic for the people of the cities, of Marco
Island and the City of Naples, and I would just like you to before you
opine on this to sit back and think about this a little bit longer, because
the idea of doing the same vote over and over and over again, you're
going to get the same result if you keep asking the same question, will
it save taxes and be more efficient. This will not. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Paul Anderson. He'll be
followed by Bob Naegele.
MR. ANDERSON: Hi. I 'm Paul Anderson, Fire Chief and
District Manager with the Immokalee Fire Control District. I'm
speaking on behalf and at the request of the Board of Fire
Commissioners of Immokalee Fire District. Several of them gave me
Page 106
January 12, 2016
some thoughts they want me to share with the Board of County
Commissioners. I'm going to try to get through the list. I might speak
a little quickly, but I got a couple of calls on the way here this morning
to add some thoughts.
First of all, my board feels that special districts were created by
the people and for the people for specific local services. The intent of
a special district was for local people to vote to tax themselves for
services that they wanted in their community.
The other intent was to provide the people in the local community
local control over their local resources. Local residents who live in the
area are elected to govern the special districts. They do not believe the
legislature intended for special districts to cover an entire county other
than those specified by law such as the school district, stuff like that.
One of the concerns is currently there's inequality in resources
currently provided to Immokalee on a countywide basis. All you need
to do is drive through Immokalee. Older smaller CAT buses.
Sidewalks not equal to sidewalks in other areas of the county. We
have asphalt sidewalks instead of poured concrete. Streets not up to
par with other areas of the county. County parks. We have a county
park that has two porta-potties for a bathroom. There's nowhere else in
the county who has porta-potties as the only bathroom. They have field
houses with bathrooms and concession stands.
Why would residents of Immokalee want to give up local control
to a county commission who doesn't currently provide equality in any
services, let alone fire protection?
Immokalee Fire Control District Commission considered the
option of consolidation and voted unanimously that they were not
interested in consolidation because they felt it was not in the best
interest of Immokalee Fire District's residents and business owners.
If the Board of County Commissioners votes yes for the straw
ballot to be county-wide, they will be circumventing another local
Page 107
January 12, 2016
elected body's decision. Who does the County Commission think they
are to circumvent another elected body's decision that was made with
the best interest of that body's constituents in mine? Who does the
Greater Naples Fire Board think they are to dictate a straw ballot that
shoves down the throat and applies to other independent fire districts
when those districts feel it is not in the best interest of their district.
They're also circumventing the decisions of another elected body.
The language in the question is misleading. The questions should
ask: Would you support a single combined fire and emergency
medical response independent special district in unincorporated Collier
County that is governed by countywide independent elective body with
you no longer having local control of your own fire department?
Immokalee Fire District Board of Commissioners requests that
the Board of County Commissioners vote no on the straw ballot
question because it's misleading.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on Item 10.B is Bob Naegele.
MR. NAEGELE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
thank you very much.
In 2010 you did what I think was historical. You put the item to
the people to say should we proceed with a straw ballot. And it was an
overwhelming vote. I believe it was 70 percent. And I think that at
this stage we've had pretty good success.
And in 2016 we ought to put this on the straw ballot again to see
if we should make another move forward. I'm here today as president
of the Pelican Bay Property Owner's Association. I live at 7993 Via
Vecchia. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it's interesting, they say
that EMS is a money pit. But North Collier's budget is greater than our
EMS and we service the whole county, and you only have that much of
Page 108
January 12, 2016
the county. We service the whole county for less. So I don't see where
it's a money pit. Actually, I think our employees do a wonderful job.
We don't do it, ask the question in the cities, Marco Island or
Naples, because they self-govern under the Florida statutes. However,
they have the right to ask the same question of their residents.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: How do you feel about the straw
ballot, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I'm in support of it.
Here it is. The thing is, there's nothing binding. It's just asking
citizens, how do you feel about this? That's all it is. It's not -- how do
you feel about it. There's no binding for the independent fire districts
or the county or any other elected official.
And like Mr. Naegele said, you know, because of the 2010
question after that, we had two districts merge into -- well, four
districts merge into two. That's not a bad thing.
So I'm very supportive of the item of asking taxpayers a question.
There's nothing wrong with that. So I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the principle of smaller
government is fundamental. It's very clear that big government is
ineffective and inefficient. In fact, that's the fight between the
republicans and the democrats that republicans want less taxes and
smaller government and the efficiencies that come with it.
We all know what it's like to deal with the federal government.
Bigger is not better. Bigger is most certainly not cheaper.
To put this question on the ballot -- and by the way, I'm not
saying that this is a republican versus democrat question. What I'm
saying is that point that the chief from Immokalee made, that we in
America value smaller government by way of special districts, by way
Page 109
January 12, 2016
of municipalities. That's what the whole political system has been
founded on, on local rule being as close to the people as possible. Not
having a big umbrella government.
Asking this question about whether consolidation is something
the people would want without telling them that the taxes could be
raised and the level of service could be lowered or that the level of
service will be higher and the taxes will be lowered, or that nothing
will change whether you consolidate or not makes this an absolutely
empty question. That's like saying, you know, do you or do you not --
or do you like ice cream, without telling you what flavor you're going
to get at what price. I mean, is it Publix ice cream or is it Haagen
dazs? Is it chocolate, is it vanilla?
I mean, it's absolutely the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. I
mean, if you're going to ask a question say would you accept
consolidation if your new taxes are going to be raised by 10 percent
and your level of service is going to be decreased because now you're
going to have a larger government and it's going to be more inefficient
in delivering the service? And of course that's parenthetical.
But the bottom line is putting this question, as empty as it is, on
the ballot is useless for informational purposes. I can't support it as it's
written. If you tell me consolidation will lower taxes by X percent and
will increase level of service because delivery times will increase, you
know, by X minutes, I could support that. But this is ludicrous.
And to the point that Commissioner Henning made that, you
know, whether or not EMS is a money pit, oh, EMS is absolutely
losing money. And the reason we have relationships with fire
throughout Collier County is because we cannot deliver the level of
service necessary to save lives unless we would raise taxes
exponentially. So we are actually using the taxes paid to those special
districts to subsidize the system that we cannot support on our own
unless we turn around and raise your taxes exponentially. I can't
Page 110
January 12, 2016
support this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I would like to make a couple
of comments.
I have absolutely no problem asking the public for their opinion.
But I think the way this is worded is a little difficult because I think it's
got two separate and distinct elements. I think that there are things to
like about it and things not to like about it.
I wholeheartedly support a straw ballot that asks the public a new
question. We've asked them several times if they support fire district
consolidation, and they did. And the fire districts to their credit have
done a marvelous job working that direction. We need to give credit
where credit is due. I think they've worked at it steadily, I think there's
great progress, and I think the public likes it. I think there's everything
to like about it.
However, we've never, and I think this is what this is touching,
we've never talked about a unified emergency response, a response
system that includes fire and rescue and emergency medical services.
We've never asked them that question.
So from that perspective, if it was worded properly I think we'd
really get some good information. If we asked them: Do you support
a system in the county that contemplates a unified emergency
response. You can even include the Sheriff in it. The Sheriff is
involved as a first responder and, you know, it makes every bit of
sense to discuss those sorts of things.
However, when you add: That's governed by an independent
elected body, that throws a whole other element in it now. That
contemplates the administration of a completely different organization.
And nobody's ever done that, nobody's said, look, throw out the
independent districts you have, put a new one in there, substitute this
elected body for that elected body. I don't know that that's going to
Page 111
January 12, 2016
produce meaningful results that you can -- I don't know that you're
going to be able to take these results and you're going to derive
anything from it.
So I certainly would support asking the question if they support a
unified emergency response, because I think it's new information. It's
not just a repeat of fire district consolidation.
And really, you know, that's been introduced in many forums, it's
been introduced by many citizens, it's been introduced by the media,
it's been introduced by a lot of people. So I think it's a good question.
I think that the two-parted question is problematic but, you know,
if the rest of the Board wants to stick with it, I would support it. But I
think it could be improved if you just remove the portion about the
independent elected body and just ask them about a unified emergency
response. I think you would get good and meaningful information
from that question.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Nance, the
problem with the change is the fear from a lot of the independent fire
districts. By taking that out would be oh, they want to take over fire.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Right, I think that's why we're
getting the response that we're getting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And if you remove that,
because it is an independent special district, like the independent fire
districts are created under Florida statute, which is a special district.
But if we would add: Would you support a single combined fire and
EMS medical response independent special district in unincorporated
Collier County that is governed by the independent elected body that
unifies emergency response or provides a unified --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Henning, here's my
concern. My concern is we're asking the question of the citizens, and I
hate to tell you this, a whole bunch of them don't even know that the
Page 112
January 12, 2016
fire districts are independently elected body. They don't even know
that. They don't know that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do they not vote? They voted
those commissioners in. How could they not know?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I know, ma'am. If you went out
and you did a poll on the street and say hey -- all they want to know is
when they call the fire department that they come, when I call EMS
that they come. They're not concerned with the administrative
arrangement of it. We are as professionals because we're tasked with
that responsibility. The average citizen is not pulling his hair out over
the administrative arrangement of any of these emergency responders.
They're not. They're not worried about how the Sheriffs organized,
they're not worried about how EMS is organized. They could care less.
All they want to know is they get great service. That's all they care
about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So Jeff, can we add: To provide
a unified --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can change the language, sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to amend my
motion.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think the question --
MR. KLATZKOW: The easiest way if we can get the question
on the overhead so that we could just do cross-outs, we'll know exactly
what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: If we're talking about unified
emergency response, I think that's a new question and valuable
information.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To provide a unified --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Emergency response.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- emergency response.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And that covers a lot of territory.
Page 113
January 12, 2016
That covers everyone. And I think that's the pot of gold at the end of
the rainbow; is it not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm going to amend my
motion to reflect that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I would agree.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You want to put it up there and
craft it? Commissioner Henning, you're the motion maker.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Excuse me, Madam Chair.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's all right.
While they're putting that together I would just like to say it all
depends on how it's worded as to what decision is actually made from
it.
When they were mentioning before about the straw ballot and the
way it was worded at that time, it directed you to, you know, do you
want to live or die. You know, it wasn't really like that, but it's kind of
like that of course, naturally they knew what answer they wanted to
come up with.
So then East Naples Fire Department put out one that was just the
opposite and it got just the opposite answer. You can lead people to
say whatever. What you want to do is be clear. You want to be clear.
And you want to -- the way Donna Fiala likes it, anyway, be fair. Just
be fair.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let's add at what cost and what
level of service. What's the response time county-wide and at what
cost to the taxpayers.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, let me finish what I was going
to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's be fair.
Page 114
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And then also, I think another thing is
if you direct it to a primary, you're going to get very low voter turnout.
That happens every time, we all know that. If you direct it to a general
election, and this is going to be a big one, you're going to get a lot of
voters. I think you would get a much better cross-section if you wait
until the general election.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I believe that we are limited in a
Presidential election year to putting these sorts of ballots on given
elections. We need to check with the Supervisor of Elections, Jennifer
Edwards. I believe actually we're restricted from putting additional
things on the Presidential ballot date. I might be wrong, but I think
we're restricted from that at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah, I don't know that either.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We have to inquire.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We could check. But I also want to
check with the Elections Office to find out who all can vote. Because
if it comes down to you can only have republicans voting then you
cross out like two-thirds of the community. That's not good. If you
have two parties but no other people can vote, that's not good either.
But I think we need to get a little bit more information. If a lot of
people can vote in the Presidential primary and that's what you folks
feel should be done, well, you know, I'll just go along with that. I just
want to make sure that everybody has a say.
Okay, let's see, who was -- Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think Commissioner Henning
was before me.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, to say on there, at an
added cost, is saying that these (sic) merging has failed. When these
people from North Collier are saying we saved a million dollars, okay?
And greater Naples, they saved money.
Page 115
January 12, 2016
So to put a question on at an increased cost is just the opposite of
what has been done. So it's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: State what the point is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- those fear mongers in there
that want to try to get government efficiencies not to happen.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in the wording, isn't it? You can
lead them to vote however you want them to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just state what the cost is. I'm not
saying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it should be more or less, just
state it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'm not done.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, as far as the general
election Presidential preference, anybody -- when you've got a
question on the ballot, anybody can vote, that's number one. Who's
going to go to the ballot would be the democrats and republicans,
because that's the Presidential preference. And they are contested in
both of the races, on the democrat and republican side.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Can the independents vote then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They can vote on the ballot
question.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So they can't vote for the other, so
that probably won't draw them out, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But they could vote if they made their
way to the elections office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, obviously another reason
that you want it in the Presidential preference, you got a result back
from the citizens. Let's say it's positive. Then the civic organizations
Page 116
January 12, 2016
and the media have the ability to ask the candidates: So what do you
think about this?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's including county
commissioner candidates because it includes EMS.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So again, the citizens can base
their decision on what candidate based upon how they feel about the
straw ballot.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, I voiced my concerns.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just needed to understand, are
we changing the wording on this or are we leaving it the same and then
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You would add: To provide the
unified response.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Unified emergency response.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Emergency response.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And leave in governed by an
independent elected body? Leave that in? Okay.
Now, this was not my issue, this was greater Naples, I'd like to
hear from Commissioner Page to see if--
COMMISSIONER PAGE: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And Commissioner Burke who
spoke?
Okay, and let the record show they waved it's okay.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Commissioner Chao would like to
interject --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You can't talk from the audience, sir,
I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Stand up to the mic. Stand up to
Page 117
January 12, 2016
the mic, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has to be -- you're not the
Chair, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But no, you're calling up all the
other fire commissioners and you have another fire commissioner here.
COMMISSIONER CHAO: I apologize --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And she still wants to guide the
meeting.
COMMISSIONER CHAO: I apologize if there's been any
confusion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, would you then sit down? But
thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CHAO: Yes, ma'am. God bless.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Okay. Now we have a motion on the floor and a second.
Whoever made that motion, please tell me what the motion was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion was to forward to
the Supervisor of Elections the language in the amended language to
put on the Presidential preference ballot.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good. Everybody in agreement with
that?
Then all in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 4-1 vote. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the audience is here
Page 118
January 12, 2016
to assist us, not participate up here when we're in deliberation. We had
public comment, that is over with. A commissioner has the right -- any
individual commissioner has the right to ask the public a question. But
the Chairman needs to recognize the -- if somebody wants to come up
and speak that hasn't signed up prior to the item being spoke.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I'm sorry that I just -- but we
were all done and I didn't mean to offend you in any way, but thank
you very much for understanding.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Madam Chair, may I say one
thing?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller has --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I beg your pardon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I really have a problem with
the way this last issue, the last point of addressing Commissioners
Page and -- which other commissioner was here, Burke --
Commissioner Burke, and not addressing Commissioner Chao. You
do understand that's a fire commissioner. The gentleman who --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I don't understand what you're talking
about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When Commissioner -- I'm losing
track of all my names here. Commissioner Taylor -- I've got so many
commissioner names in my head. Commissioner Taylor turned around
and says, you know, do you commissioners have any other comments,
they waive, and Commissioner Chao is ignored and then you tell him
he can't speak. I mean, I just --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: He spoke already.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but at the end she asked
again as a follow-up --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Nobody spoke then at the end.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they chose not to, but they
were asked.
Page 119
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the next item?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We're done with that item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, I think as a courtesy,
they're our commissioners and it's on a topic that involves their district.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: The subject is now voted, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but I think as a courtesy --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: As a courtesy to me, if you would
stop talking, please. We'll move on to the next subject.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As a courtesy to my constituents I
will say whatever I feel is necessary to represent them, and he is my
constituent.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, your next item would be your
advertised public hearings.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do you dare?
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-33, THE BRIARWOOD PUD, AS
AMENDED, TO ADD PRIVATE CLUBS AND PRIVATE
PARKING GARAGES, AND ASSOCIATED REQUIRED
FEATURES, AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN TRACTS B & C:
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, TO ADD MINIMUM
STANDARDS FOR THE PRIVATE CLUBS AND PRIVATE
PARKING GARAGES PRINCIPAL USE, TO INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT OF ALL STRUCTURES FOR THE
PRIVATE CLUBS AND PRIVATE PARKING GARAGES
PRINCIPAL USE IN TRACTS B & C: COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL FROM 20% OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND
AREA TO 27%, OR 188,062 SQUARE FEET, OF THE
COMMERCIAL LAND AREA, TO LIMIT THE MAXIMUM
Page 120
January 12, 2016
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL STRUCTURES FOR THE PRIVATE
CLUBS AND PRIVATE PARKING GARAGES PRINCIPAL USE
IN TRACTS B & C: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO 40%, OR
278,610 SQUARE FEET, OF THE COMMERCIAL LAND AREA
WHICH COMPRISES 188,062 SQUARE FEET OF THE BUILDING
FOOTPRINT ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND AN ADDITIONAL
90,548 SQUARE FEET OF MEZZANINE AREAS, TO ADD A
DEVIATION ALLOWING AN ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE
BUFFER ALONG LIVINGSTON ROAD AND RADIO ROAD, TO
ADD A DEVIATION ALLOWING THE REQUIRED 8-FOOT
WALL AT THE TOP OF A BERM INSTEAD OF BEING
LOCATED AT GROUND LEVEL, TO ADD A DEVIATION TO
ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TERMINAL
LANDSCAPED ISLANDS ADJACENT TO PARKING AREAS
WITHIN INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS, TO ADD A NEW
ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING EXHIBIT FOR LIVINGSTON
ROAD AND RADIO ROAD, AND TO ADD A NEW
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN FOR THE PRIVATE CLUBS
AND PRIVATE PARKING GARAGES PRINCIPAL USE, FOR
THE PUD PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 209.17± ACRES
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD,
NORTH OF RADIO ROAD, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND
BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDA-
PL20150000178] — MOTION TO DENY — APPROVED; COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO PREPARE RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2016-16
MR. OCHS: Item 9.A requires ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members, and all participants are required to be sworn in.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I thought this would be a nicer day.
MR. OCHS: This is a recommendation to approve an amendment
Page 121
January 12, 2016
to Ordinance No. 95-33, the Briarwood PUD, as amended, to add
private clubs and private parking garages and associated required
features as principal uses in tracts B and C.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, it would be appropriate at this time
to take ex parte disclosure from Commission members.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. And we will start with
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I have had numerous
conversations with residents; I attended a neighborhood meeting; I
have had meetings with staff; meetings with the principals that are
developing this property; I actually had a meeting with staff with Mr.
Strain before I was even sworn in about this issue because it had to do
with procedure in a neighborhood informational meeting.
I have received literature promoting this and asking for my ability
to buy it. Yes, a postcard. And that's all, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I've had meetings and
discussions with staff on this item.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had meetings with staff about
this and received correspondence from staff about this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I spoke to the County
Manager on this issue.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, and I myself have had
meetings, correspondence, emails and calls, messages from Fred Hood
and a staff report.
And sir, what we're going to do is hear from you, then we'll hear
from staff, then we'll hear from our guest speakers here, and then we'll
hear from Commissioners.
Page 122
January 12, 2016
MR. HOOD: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
For the record, Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering.
I want to start with the video of the project that we prepared for
the Planning Commission, if you would permit me.
(Video was played.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Fred, how long is this.
MR. HOOD: Another 30 seconds.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's not really showing us much of
anything.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I like the music. Very
soothing.
MR. HOOD: Okay. Sony for that. Just wanted to give you an
idea of what it was going to look like.
With me this afternoon is one of our project engineers, Crystal
Weems, with Davidson Engineering. Don Stevenson, our project
architect with Don Stevenson Design, and Lotus Architecture.
Christian Andrea is our project landscape architect with Architectural
Land Design. And Mike Werchek, our applicant and developer is also
here with me.
The applicant, Premier Auto Suites of Naples, is seeking a PUD
amendment to the Briarwood PUD to add private clubs and private
parking garages and associated required features as a principal use in
tracts B and C of the community commercial district of Briarwood
PUD.
We're also looking to add minimum standards for the private
clubs and parking garages as principal use, to increase and define the
maximum footprint of all structures for the proposed private clubs and
private parking garages principal use to 27 percent of the commercial
land area, to limit the maximum square footage of all structures in the
principal use private clubs and private parking garages to a maximum
of 40 percent, to add a deviation allowing an alternative landscape
Page 123
January 12, 2016
buffer along Livingston and Radio Roads, to add a deviation allowing
an eight-foot required wall at the top of the berm instead of being
located at ground level, to add a deviation to eliminate the requirement
for terminal islands adjacent to parking areas within individual
driveways, to add an alternative landscaping exhibit for Livingston and
Radio Roads, and to add a new master plan for the private clubs and
private parking garage's principal use.
The 15.99-acre subject property is located at the northeast corner
of the intersection of Livingston and Radio Roads within the
Briarwood PUD.
The property has been set aside for nonresidential uses and has
the designation of community commercial.
The subject property is bordered on the northern and eastern
boundaries by a small portion of the Briarwood's platted native
preserve, Dover Park residential community condominiums and water
management tracts of the Briarwood PUD.
The proposed site plan identifies 16 separate buildings on-site, 15
which will provide a maximum of 148 private garages within the
private club development.
The 16th building and associated clubhouse that you saw in the
video will accompany the other 15 buildings as an amenity for the
private garage and private club land uses, owners and guests near the
Radio Road entrance.
This amenity area and all common areas within the project will be
for the sole use of owners and their guests and will not be open to the
public.
The maximum floor area as defined in the PUD is currently 20
percent of the commercial land area. That 20 percent equates to
139,305 square feet permitted floor area for the property. The total
footprint floor area square footage sought at full use build-out is
188,062 square feet. The increase in footprint floor area over the
Page 124
January 12, 2016
current maximum allowed is 48,757 square feet, which amounts to an
increase of seven percent over the 20 percent that's allowed right now.
When the proposed mezzanine floor areas, which each individual
garage are required to have, are added to that maximum floor footprint,
an additional 90,548 square feet is being requested to provide a total of
278,610 square feet of developable floor area, or 40 percent of the
commercial land area.
As noted previously, in addition to the land use and floor area
increase request, we have also proposed a deviation for the required
Type D landscape buffer along Livingston and Radio Roads. To
increase buffer screening and enhanced views from the roadway, the
developer will provide additional trees that will collectively double the
minimum number of trees required by the LDC on those right-of-way
corridors.
Where the additional trees are planted in clusters of three trees or
more, there shall be a maximum of a 60-foot gap between each cluster.
Where a hedge is planted along Radio and Livingston Roads, the
placement of these shrubs will be planted at three feet on center and
maximum 60-foot lengths with a maximum of-- minimum, sorry,
minimum of 60-foot length with a maximum of 30-foot breaks in
continuity.
When adjacent to residential uses, we are providing a Type B
15-foot landscape buffer as required, with an eight-foot high masonry
wall, meeting the standards of the LDC.
A deviation for the construction of the wall is also being
requested to require the eight-foot wall be placed on the top of the
berm instead of being placed at the ground level, in accordance with
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
A final deviation to eliminate the requirement for terminal
landscape islands adjacent to parking areas within individual
driveways is being sought to maximize the parking areas that will be
Page 125
January 12, 2016
located in front of every unit. This intent of the LDC requirement is to
provide a landscaped terminus at the end of delineated parking spaces
and parking lots of commercial developments as a separation to
buildings, drive isles, sidewalks, et cetera.
In this case we are parking vehicles in individual driveways, like
we would for residential development, which departs from the intent of
the LDC requirement for commercial development.
The clubhouse, or building number 13 as identified per Exhibit B,
shall provide off-street parking at a ratio one per 200 square feet.
Through Section 63-70 of the PUD document as proposed, we
have defined the parking regulations for this land use as two parking
spaces per unit. One of the two spaces must be provided in the
individual unit's driveway. The additional required space may be
provided within the individual unit.
As accepted by the Planning Commission, parking spaces located
in driveways shall be provided in an area at least 23 feet from the edge
of pavement for 90 degree parking. Where parallel parking is
proposed, a 15-foot setback was being asked to be required from the
edge of pavement to the principal structure.
As a condition of this Board's approval, we would like to request
that that 15-foot setback from the edge of pavement to the building be
reduced to a 10-foot setback to the edge of pavement. And I'll discuss
why I'm asking for that in a little bit, but it's part of the presentation.
Within this minimum 10-foot setback we would still be able to
provide the minimum one parking space per unit in a parallel format in
some of the tighter areas of the development.
The development, as represented in the site plan, would not be
altered by this request. If the 15-foot setback is implemented, the site
plan would need to be re-worked to allow for additional space to be
added between building facades and edge of pavement.
Unintended potential consequences will range from driveway
Page 126
January 12, 2016
alignment along Radio Road being shifted and water management
areas being redefined.
In a few other examples of this land use across the country,
namely in Naperville, Illinois, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Chandler,
Arizona, the private garage use has not been seen to provide an
additional parking standard for the garage use itself, meaning the
garages themselves are the parking areas. And in this case, Premier
Auto LLC's product, we are attempting to provide additional parking
and driveways, and for the clubhouse located on site. Those other
developments have been seen to operate successfully without the
additional parking standard we've implemented for this project without
the minimum setback for the building to the edge of pavement.
These other developments have also been seen to have a limited
visiary (phonetic) component in place when accompanied by an owner
much like this development will.
In practice, these other developments have a drive-in directly
from the isle field, whereas the Premier Auto Suites product is
attempting to make this private garage and private club use less
utilitarian and more upscale with separate driveways and landscaping.
The lessening of the internal 15-foot setback to 10 feet will not
have an adverse impact on how the development is perceived from the
adjacent right-of-ways and will still implement and promote the intent
of the additional parking standards we have proposed for Premier Auto
Suites.
Per discussions with members of the Briarwood Master
Association, we would like to further limit the number of membership
in the private club and private garage's land use. With this Board's
agreement, Section 6.37.0 will be revised to reflect a maximum
membership of no more than two individuals per unit with an overall
maximum of 296 members, instead of the original 10 individuals per
unit with a maximum of 1,480 members.
Page 127
January 12, 2016
And that concludes my presentation. I will answer any questions
that you have at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, I've asked everyone to make
notes and then we'll ask after we've heard you, after we've heard staff
and after we've heard speakers. Thank you very much.
Staff members?
MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. Eric Johnson, Principal
Planner, Zoning Section.
For the record, staff reviewed the subject petition in accordance
with the Growth Management Plan, the Land Development Code and
the PUD regulations. Staff is recommending approval of the project,
subject to conditions.
The project went before the CCPC, the Collier County Planning
Commission. They also had conditions of approval, and those
conditions have been incorporated in the proposed ordinance before
you today.
That really concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any
questions, if you have them.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Speakers, please?
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Kim Bennett. She'll
be followed by John Alcott.
MS. BENNETT: Hi. Thanks for hearing me today. I'm Kim
Bennett. I live at 642 Briarwood Boulevard. And I've been involved
with this project since its very beginning as Chair of the Architectural
Committee of Briarwood.
This whole process has been a little frustrating for me and all of
the homeowners in Briarwood, feeling that regardless of how much
participation is put out there, how many people show up, how many
people sign petitions, it's kind of ignored and moved forward, pushed
forward, without really hearing what we're trying to say.
Page 128
January 12, 2016
From the very beginning the way they affected this zoning as a
private and a parking garage as being a conditional use of the PUD was
so irresponsible and so out of the realm of what the private parking
garage was really intended to be as a conditional use.
Private parking garage for conditional use under that PUD was
meant to be the parking structure that's at, say, Mercado, where they
park and then shop, or downtown where they park in a garage structure
that's available to the public to get to the shops on the land. It's not
intended to be a storage facility for cars and dub them garage. That's
not what it was intended.
To call it a private club, does that mean it can be a car club, a gun
range, any other kind of club? Who all can buy in this? Can it be a
corporation? Can it be then two corporations, since it's limited to two
owners? And how many members of that corporation will be able to
use this facility?
The bottom line is the PUD was never zoned for that and the
zoning that they're trying to use doesn't even fit the reality. It's a made
up fictitious use that they're trying to force us to believe is a garage or
a private club. It doesn't take into consideration the residents or the
impact on the residents having that kind of facility there and the kind
of use that it's going to be. It's an experimental use and it's in our
neighborhood next to our homes. So it's very emotional for us that
you're taking an experiment that doesn't actually have a zoning and
trying to pigeon it into a zoning that's not real reality and experiment
with our homes and our investment and our lifetime investment of our
future.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have one question, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Excuse me, I have one question,
ma'am, you might be able to help me for my understanding.
Page 129
January 12, 2016
How is it -- how do you think you're negatively impacted?
Explain to me how -- I just want to understand your perspective.
MS. BENNETT: Well, from the very beginning when the PUD
was originally set up, that was always set forth to be something of
community use, whether it be shopping stores, a medical plaza,
restaurant, something that the whole community could use.
There's actually access into our community directly from it. And
during a hurricane those gates will have to be left open, which means
Briarwood residents will have the expense of securing and policing
those gates that are open directly into our community.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So you're telling me it's a cost
issue?
MS. BENNETT: There's a cost issue, there's a noise issue, there's
an appearance issue. Their beautiful video was just lovely with their
glass doors that are not realistic. We know they're going to be steel
commercial warehouse doors. And their landscaping that they
featured, if they plant that much landscaping, was 10 to 15 years
mature. That's not what I'm going to be looking at for the first 10 to 15
years, assuming what they plant survives that long to grow that size.
So the eyesore of a giant warehouse structure, the noise from
muscle cars, motorcycles, motor homes, boats, you name it, having
their engines there and having no control of what they do inside the
units. Yeah, we can call and file a complaint, but the police are going
to be limited to what they can do or what they can see.
To have it open 24 hours a day, I mean, there's not many places
open 24 hours a day except for the AA Club on Pine Ridge Road. You
know, if it was a storage warehouse it would close at a decent hour and
you wouldn't have semis dropping off muscle cars in the middle of the
night.
The way it's structured now, they can come at any time of day or
night and do whatever they want to in there. They can make as much
Page 130
January 12, 2016
noise as they want. They can even live there. Because by the time
someone comes to check, they can leave and turn around and come
back or they can say I was just leaving, I wasn't spending the night.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Alcott. He'll be
followed by Sharon Johnson.
MR. ALCOTT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's
John Alcott. I live in Briarwood and my address is 379 Dover Place,
unit 601. I am a member of Dover Park, which is a condominium
community there. And I have been asked by -- I had served on their
board for 18 years, just stepped down this year. I've been asked by
their board and I was also asked by the president of the board of Dover
Place, which is our neighbor community, condo community, to come
and speak this morning.
Both Dover Park and Dover Place see this addition as quite okay
with us. And the -- one of the reasons for this is we obviously don't
know what the future will bring so we don't know what's coming in in
the future. We have looked at this project and found it to be acceptable
to us. And it is literally in our backyard. We sit on the property that is
directly adjacent to it.
We have looked at it, we have seen it from the beginning. We
were very much more skeptical at the beginning, but have been very
happy with the changes that the ownership has made, the reduction of
the amount of members, et cetera. Naturally you can't see into the
future to see exactly that would number one be there. But we feel we
have taken a good look at this, and we feel that it is okay with us.
Other than that, I don't think there's much more to say. As I said,
it's directly in our backyard, we've taken a look at the landscaping, et
cetera, and we're happy with it and we're the ones most affected by it
and we quite honestly don't think that -- there may be a problem with
noise, but I think that can be effectively handled.
Page 131
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So sir, you're the community most
adjacent to the project?
MR. ALCOTT: That is correct. Dover Park is and Dover Place
is right next to us, which is -- they have a couple of buildings that are
not on the property line but adjacent. Dover Park and Dover Place, if
you will go around a lake, Dover Place is primarily on Briarwood
Boulevard. It curves around so that it then faces Radio Road and then
curves towards Skelly Road, which is in our development and then it
meets our homes, which are directly behind along the property line that
you see where it butts up -- abuts us --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. ALCOTT: -- as far as our community is concerned.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Next speaker?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Sharon Johnson. She'll be
followed by, and my apologies, I think this is Jarvis -- Janice? Okay,
you'll be our last speaker.
MS. JOHNSON: Hi. I think Kim's pretty much covered a lot of
the things that I wanted to discuss.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Who covered?
MS. JOHNSON: One of my concerns and my neighbors is
security. I didn't hear a lot about security being mentioned as far as we
have an emergency exit on the property. What will keep these people
from walking into our neighborhood? We're concerned with theft,
we're concerned with just in general having these people walking
through our community. So I don't know what kind of security. These
are questions that I'm bringing forth because my neighbors have asked
me to.
The other question was in the Naples News there was something
about one person purchasing five units. At that time the owners were
10 per unit. Obviously there was a concern with that because what's
Page 132
January 12, 2016
the story on subletting? Are they allowed to sublet, these two people?
Can they form an LLC and have people under them? We're not sure
about that. Do you all happen to know what the situation is with
subletting?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's not on the record.
MS. JOHNSON: Does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
MS. JOHNSON: Do we know about the security? I mean, it's
easy to say that we can call the police or we can do whatever we have
to do, but that's a long-term situation, you know, for us.
The other thing that we saw going through the website, we
noticed that a lot of these clubs would have huge car shows. Now, I
came from an area that was known for car shows. And believe me, the
residents were so grateful at the end of the week when all the cars were
gone. And now we're going to be living with this next door. It's not
that we think the idea is bad, we just think the location is not proper.
I don't think anybody would really care to hope that that isn't
going to happen in this neighborhood. I know in Marco Island there
was a problem with people supposedly setting up a gun range in one of
these warehouses. Now, it came to pass that it was okay because they
claimed it was for personal use. I personally don't want a gun range in
my backyard.
I believe the other one was the fact that they were manufacturing
motorcycles in one of these units. Well, come to pass, the motorcycle
company did have other places where they lacquered and they put the
parts to it, but they were basically selling motorcycles out of this unit.
And no one can prove that, but that's what they were doing. So there's
a lot of questions and concerns.
I don't know that I necessarily would want to live right next to it.
But security is major, subletting is major, and there's no management
and there's no control over this.
Page 133
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. JOHNSON: I don't see a management company in place, I
don't see anything like that happening. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Janice Kiernan.
Thank you.
MS. KIERNAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I just have a
few things.
I think it's a good project. I think it's in the wrong place. It's right
next to a development; there's no road separating it. There's I believe
right now 148 garage units. They can have RVs, boats, at least eight
cars can be in there, it used to be 10, and have a partying atmosphere
24/7.
There's a lot of gas in those. That's going to be quite the same as
a gas station as far as the amount of gas in there, from what I can
figure out.
They also at one point had these car condo garages as a
warehouse, but because it went through the previous PUD thing, they
now want to call it a private club. The thing is I looked up, and I
would like to give you the documents on the Collier County and what
the private club really should mean. And as far as what it should mean
is it should be for the neighborhood which would promote public
health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience,
appearance or general welfare. And I don't think any of those do that.
So I would like to at least leave a few things with you, if you don't
mind.
I also looked up -- in fact, they mentioned Iron Gate, I think.
Well, Iron Gate is in the middle of an industrial park with nothing
around it. So I printed out some pictures of Iron Gate, and I also
printed out an article from the Chicago Tribune about what they
entailed. And one of the things was the Commissioner Chairman, Patti
Gusten, said she believes the garages are far enough away from homes.
Page 134
January 12, 2016
This is going to be like what, 15 feet from homes? That's not so
good.
So I'd like to leave this, what they specified as far as the Iron
Gate.
They also specified something about Garagetown. In fact, they
said Chandler. This is also an industrial park and there's nothing else
around it, but I printed out when they bought it what they bought in an
industrial park. I also have pictures, but I didn't want to do too much.
Okay. Also I have maps of the area here and it is considered
commercial ind-- neighborhood commercial and shouldn't be anything
with industrial matters to it.
And I also printed out up in North Naples they have one called
My Other Place, and here's what it looks like today two years later. It's
a dust bowl. I also printed out the FLUE, and also --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. KIERNAN: -- sorry about that, the Florida, if they do make
it public, the accesses they have to do for a private club.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Ma'am, you can just give those to the
County Attorney. Ma'am, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to see them. Can I see
them?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, you can -- Commissioner Hiller
would like to see them. So would you give them to the County
Attorney and he can pass them down to all of us.
Okay, now, Commissioner Taylor, you were the first one that had
your button on, do you know which one was first after that?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. I'd like to preface my
comments by saying I've been troubled by this, because this is a use
that is not -- contrary to what is in our documents, this use has been
controversial from the beginning. We've had the developer say that it
is a private club and a private garage. But yet at the Collier County
Page 135
January 12, 2016
Planning Commission meeting one of the future owners, or one of the
owners of this development said I'm not going to be there, I'm going to
store my cars there, this is for storage. But yet we still have it as a
private club and a parking garage.
And under this commercial zoning storage is not allowed, storage
is supposed to be in industrial, and there's a reason for that. So I'm
really struggling with this, because it's been a moving target. It's
almost what do you want us to be today so we can get approved, we'll
be there.
So I think the first question I have is for Mike Bosi. I would like
to know why there wasn't a zoning verification of this property
developed.
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Director of Zoning Division.
When you have a PUD amendment, as this petition started as a •
conditional use request, that use is analyzed and examined for the
proposal based upon the use characteristics: Its intensity, its impacts.
Based upon that, that's a much higher level of analysis and review,
because it's not only reviewed at a staff level, at an administrative
level, but also from the public hearing bodies. So therefore a zoning
letter which is done from just strictly a staff analysis on a limited basis
would not provide the in-depth and type of review that this petition had
to go through as first as a conditional use and now as a PUD
amendment. So a zoning letter is actually a lower level of review than
the type of review that it's been forced to go through.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Why are we allowing
additional density to this? Just because they asked for it?
MR. BOSI: There's no densities, no living associated -- there's no
living quarters, there's no dwelling units associated with this use. If
this use was associated, it would be a dwelling unit for vehicles. That
is not density in the sense of residential use.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Intensity.
Page 136
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, would you say that part
again?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I was corrected by --
MR. BOSI: The last part was there was a question as to whether
this was an increase within density. This is not an increase in density
because there's no residential use being proposed. I think the question
was intensity.
And the intensity question would be based upon what is the
highest use that's allowed for within this PUD document. And this
PUD document would allow for -- and actually an SDP was approved
for a Lowe's Hardware Store. The trip intensity, the intensity of
impact for that type of a C-4 use was based upon the use
characteristics, the intensity analysis provided against what's the
highest use provided within that PUD in that commercial area against
this proposed used. This proposed use had less of an intensification
compared to the highest use allowed within the PUD and therefore that
use was one of-- that comparison was one of the main components
which we utilized to rest upon our recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So -- and I know this was late in
the -- late in the process, because they were already before the
Planning Commission. But when there was testimony given that this
was going to be used for storage, that didn't cause you pause to think
about --
MR. BOSI: It most certainly did. And one of the overriding
questions that we had, even when it was a conditional use and as we
moved through the PUD amendment process, was what components,
what requirements, what conditions would we and could we put on this
to make sure that that recreational component would be utilized within
this facility.
Your office had asked me to provide for an analysis of this use
compared to a Vault. The Vault was a storage facility that's going on
Page 137
January 12, 2016
in the City of Naples near the airport. And that characteristic of that
facility is you have a car, you give it to a valet or custodian, they take it
to an individual area within the garage, they store it, you request that
car again, they do maintenance services on it, that car comes out to you
again, you never interact with that facility.
This facility is much different. This facility as it's provided or as
it's proposed and as it's required by some of the conditions within the
PUD amendment says that these units have to have some assembly,
some living space component. The units are owned by the individual
owners that they interact with. The characteristics of these are
different than a straight storage.
And one of the things that we've had the most difficulty with this
is because the range of uses within the commercial component of this
PUD do range from neighborhood commercial but to ones that we
have as a C-4 in a regional zoning district.
So -- and this use being a use that we've never really had before,
we've never had a request to have a condominium so to speak for
automobiles. And with a recreational component incorporated.
So the entire time we have had a struggle but we think based upon
the intensity analysis and some of the restrictions and the conditions
that not only staff but the Planning Commission has incorporated with
into the document, that we feel that we could arrive upon that
recommendation of approval.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So you're -- initially it was
introduced to me as a Premiere Auto Suites. And then it morphed into
motorcycles and boats.
And boaters up here -- when you have a boat, you have to flush
that boat. And according to what I have here in the notes is that boats
cannot be flushed between the hours of 8:00 p.m. at night to 6:00 a.m.
in the morning but after that they can be flushed.
And what I understand, when boats are flushed, there's noise
Page 138
January 12, 2016
involved.
MR. BOSI: I'm sure there is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And lots of running water.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: And exhaust.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So now we're morphed into
maintenance outside, because they're not going to do it inside, right?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then I had a hard time with a
question that was posed to me, what is going to prevent two people
from having a motorcycle club and revving their motors up? How are
we going to, as a -- how are we going to, there's a word for it, monitor
what goes on in the inside of these so-called auto suites that now are
motorcycles and boats and who knows what?
MR. BOSI: I don't think that there's any intention for us to
monitor what's going on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How are we going to enforce the
rules?
MR. BOSI: If there's noise spillage, if there is an impact in a
negative way to the adjoining residents, there's a code enforcement
process.
And there's also one of the things that I think was maybe
understated but there's an association, and I'll let the applicant speak
because I'm not as familiar with their product. But I know there is an
association within the membership requirement, and I'm sure there's
governing bodies of regulations. And the intent of this association, I
would think, to make sure that there was some monitoring going on
therefore as to ensure that they are compatible with the adjoining units
and the characteristics that they are proposing are the characteristics
that they exhibit through the actual use of their day-to-day owners of
these individual units.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And then finally, I believe
Page 139
January 12, 2016
that the Collier County Planning Commission did put a condition on
this that there would be no shows involved, no public shows. So the
idea of having a car show there doesn't -- it will not happen.
MR. BOSI: That was most certainly one of the identification
(sic), that this could be one of the inactivities that they did not want to
see because of the potential negative impact that some of the speakers
spoke about. So that is a restriction.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And then the other thing -- I'm
sorry, there's one other thing.
I understand they started off with one square footage computation
per unit and then they expanded it; is that correct? In the process over
all these months.
MR. BOSI: There's been a number of different iterations based
upon the original SDP that was submitted. Some of the issues that
were raised by the Planning Commission, by staff. Based upon those
concerns they've modified their square footage, they've modified the
requirement for how much of that square footage had to be a ratio
between storage and the garage unit and the actual recreational unit
and the assembly unit. So there's been a number of different changes
throughout the process. And I think what the Planning Commission
had recommended, which was within your packet, is a much different
product than what was originally proposed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I believe that 15 feet has
been maintained in their recommendations; is that not? Isn't that
correct?
MR. BOSI: Yes, I believe so. I believe the applicant is asking
you to make a recommendation against what the Planning Commission
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I believe the suggestion by
the Planning Commission is that they make the square footage space of
each individual less to accommodate the 15 feet that staff wants them
Page 140
January 12, 2016
to maintain; isn't that correct? That was a suggestion, right?
MR. BOSI: It could be. Maybe I'll defer to Mr. Johnson, but I
don't remember that specific --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it was.
MR. BOSI: -- statement from the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, I don't know which one was
next, Hiller or Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Me?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't understand how this ever
could have been approved as a community commercial project. I don't
see how these units could be approved as private clubs.
Based on my reading of those definitions, neither the structure of
this community is being proposed and more specifically the garages
and the living areas within those garages fall within these parameters.
To ask for essentially a 50 percent increase in intensity, you know,
literally without any justification for that, I just can't support.
I can't support this project. I have to say that I agree with one of
the speakers that said this project might work in a different part of
town. It seems to be more of an industrial warehouse project.
I'm concerned about the quote, private clubs within the warehouse
component, because, you know -- I'm not familiar -- you know, I've
heard of mixed use, but I haven't heard of residential industrial. It's not
a combination that I think works in the public's interest or in the
public's welfare. So I can't support this project based on the evidence
I've seen.
And I'm going to wait until the hearing closes, and I have not
Page 141
January 12, 2016
heard any evidence to rebut the conclusions that I've come to.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, part of the ordinance of
the original ordinance is missing. Because I wanted to understand what
is allowed today on this piece of property, so I had Nick forward it to
me.
Mike Bosi, maybe you can help me understand what I'm seeing
here. A permitted use, uses, you've got restaurants with no drive in.
Cocktail lounge, retail package sales of liquor and other beverages. No
drive in. Subject to provisions of the Land Development Code.
Retail shops, shopping centers, stores -- retail shops, shopping
centers, stores, may include incidental processing and repair activities
provided they are an accessory or subordinate to the retail sales use
provided within all storage processing repair, merchandise occurred
within the principal building except such use as garden shops may be
outside but within the total fenced in area of the connecting principal
building (sic).
Financial institution, of course we know. Golf driving range was
there. Professional business, financial, utility offices, in-service,
medical office, clinics for humans, barber shop, beauty shop, shoe
repair, laundry, dry cleaning pickup establishment and self-service
laundry, retail bakery, tailoring, milling, garment alteration repair and
museum.
What would you say that is? Would you say that would be --
MR. BOSI: Those are uses -- the majority of those uses are uses
within the C-2 and C-3 category. The one aspect, because of the age
of-- those uses, those uses have square footage limitations within those
zoning categories.
This PUD does not have square foot limitations, and because of
that the only limitation that they have is total square footage of the
Page 142
January 12, 2016
commercial allowed. So the total commercial allowed could be the
type of a use attending for meaning 120,000, 136,000 retail
establishment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Retail.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I see it as retail.
How does this use compare to retail?
MR. BOSI: In terms of intensification comparison, it's a much
lower impact than retail. Because the trip generations of the retail are
much higher than -- and one of the things from the analysis, they've
requested more square footage so you would think that they would
have a higher impact. But because of the characteristics and utilization
of how that square footage is only interacted with by one individual or
one owner and not available to the community, so it's different.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. So you're talking about
traffic impacts.
MR. BOSI: Traffic impacts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Traffic trips, so on and so forth.
What I looked at is what kind of impact of the use it has and how
does that compare with other land uses. Now, this is a storage facility
of the boys toys, there's no question about it. There is not an impact.
However, how the boys toys are being utilized, worked on,
engines flushing, which you must do to a boat whether it's an inboard
or outboard, there's an allowability for lifts in there. So you know
there's going to be repair in there. There's going to be impact guns,
there's going to be compressors running those impact guns.
MR. BOSI: There was -- there had been restrictions placed on no
repair allowed within the facility. Now --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, their own brochure
said lifts. Now, I don't know what kind of boy would want a lift if he
couldn't fix his toy, work on his toy. I have no idea. So to me it -- like
Page 143
January 12, 2016
Commissioner said, it's more of an industrial use than a retail use.
And I'm looking at a compatibility issue of the surrounding areas.
Under our Growth Management Plan that's one of the things we need
to take a look at is the compatibility of uses. And this one doesn't have
the smell test for compatibility for a residential. I don't care if it's
multi-family residential, single-family residential, ALF residential. I
can't see the comparable, that's my problem with this. And nobody has
convinced me otherwise.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, I'll just weigh in on this a little
bit myself. And see, I was listening to all the -- I guess it was -- they
were hoping for a Home Depot there originally, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, a Lowe's.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: A Lowe's? Okay, fine. And I was
thinking, my goodness, that is intense, with deliveries all night long
and people picking up their construction projects and things in the
morning. And I thought that would be difficult for any family to live
with.
This one sounded far less intrusive, far less intense, so I thought it
was pretty good. And I think guys need a place to go, you know, where
guys can, you know, man cave type of a thing. And so I was thinking
of that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where man is never wrong.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's right. We women stay away
from it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rule three is refer to rule one.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm afraid that's a parallel
dimension that's not in our Land Development Code.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And what I thought was if this doesn't
go through, then maybe they will get that shopping center that this lady
talked about and they can have car shows there then, which is
something they don't like to see, and they could have bars, and that's a
Page 144
January 12, 2016
lot of noise all into the night. And I'm thinking, you know, I would try
and think of the lesser of the two intense projects myself. But that's
just where I was going. You're the Commissioner for the district. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, one of the things that -- you
know, one of the questions early on I posed is look, this is not -- this is
storage. It's not permitted in this zoning. Contrary to what staffs report
is it's storage. It's storage. So it can go into an industrial.
But this is a new beast in our -- coming to us. You know, it's a
new use. Because it does have a recreational component. It is going to
be used -- it does have lifts, there's storage and working on things, and
it's much wider than just autos. And I think we need to really develop
some standard and some industrial -- or some standards outside the
industrial area if this is something that we want to entertain that's
coming before us, because it's a brand new world. This is a new
coming to us.
But I can tell you how troubled I am, because it was auto and then
I learned it was boats and then it was motorcycles and they can flush
their boats and it's like a moving target. It's almost like what do you
want me to be today, I'll be it so I can get through.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Maybe you can work that through
with them so that the most intensive things would not be a part of this
PUD.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, and again it's how is it
going to be monitored? Who's going to -- and maybe it would
incumbent upon the ownership. I think there's a lot of concern about
whether things can be supervised. And unlike a shopping center,
there's I don't remember how many units there are.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Are they expensive units? I
remembered something like a couple hundred thousand dollars. And
of course that doesn't limit one with how much -- you know, what they
Page 145
January 12, 2016
want to put in, something of that price range.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it can be constructed with
LLCs.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do you know?
MR. HOOD: Yeah, there's 148 total units individual right now,
and they're going for about 230 to start.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: $230,000? I thought -- you're not
going to be putting your old ramshackle something in there and store
it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But when you think about the
concept, just the visual concept of it, it's 138, did you say?
MR. HOOD: 148.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: 148 closed doors. It's units where
things are going on in those units.
And I heard it again and again in the neighborhood meetings.
They're nervous about it. What is going on there? Who's monitoring?
What's happening? What if, what if, what if.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So -- and it's fun to talk like this
because you can actually talk and ask people questions. I like that.
So what they are permitted to put there are the intensive units of a
shopping center and things. I mean, they're already -- by right
somebody can just go in and install a shopping center, right? I mean,
that's what it's zoned for. So they would have no say about that, right?
Okay, do you think that would be better for them?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Some of the neighbors in these
meetings said yes. You know, wouldn't it be great if I had a coffee
shop or, they didn't want to say, a bar to go to. Wouldn't it be nice to
have some facility so I don't have to get in my car and drive, it's right
there.
And there is some question whether the Lowe's was even allowed
in the original zoning. It went through but there's a question whether
Page 146
January 12, 2016
it's allowed.
So I think we're kind of at an interesting place, but it is not a
project I can support right now. I can't. I just can't. I think it's not --
as I say, I'm so uneasy about it, because it's been a moving target.
They didn't come and say this is what I'm going to do and have us
modify it. And the idea that they want to reduce that setback by five
feet but not reduce the square footage in their units which they
enlarged during this process, all this stuff is going on and I do not feel
comfortable about it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioners, what do you want to
do?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Close the hearing and have a vote.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, I forgot to close the hearing.
Thank you.
MR. HOOD: Excuse me, sorry. Madam Chair, would you mind
if I answered a couple of questions --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Please do.
MR. HOOD: -- before we get to that point?
I just wanted to start to look at Commissioner Taylor's concerns
with the noise with boats. The use itself and the storage lifts were
questions that we had that was discussed.
Let me just start with the noise from the boats. That is something
we looked at all of the uses that, you know, the boys toys that you
could have that you would want to put into a garage. The major one is
automobiles. We would like to be able to park automobiles in these
garages. Boats was a secondary idea that got put into the PUD
document. It's something that we could live without. Our developer
has looked at it and there's not that many people that want to be storing
boats in these types of units. They want to store their vehicles. It's --
so that's an issue we can take off the table right now and we don't have
to talk about flushing motors, we don't have to talk about, you know,
Page 147
January 12, 2016
pulling them in with tractor-trailers, whatever that happens to be.
Another issue that came up was hours of operation for the
flushing of the motors, for the delivery of vehicles, would these be
open for 24 hours a day. There was a comment about storage facilities
not being open 24 hours a day, storage facilities or rental facilities.
These are condominium units that will be owned. To preclude
someone from getting to their property for 24 hours is not something
that we considered, but it is something that we could consider if that
was a large issue that would help this move forward.
Security gates. This project from the very beginning -- from the
very beginning we looked at putting -- it was buildings one and two on
the north and east side and on the west and south side that was all one
building. We were trying to use those two buildings as our security so
that you would not be able to move between buildings and go off
property.
What we've done instead of that, per the Planning Commission
and the coordination with staff, is we've put several security gates at
the entrances where the emergency access road is behind these
buildings, we've put more security gates between these buildings now.
There was an issue about the lifts. We're not looking at doing
maintenance lifts where you put your car up on a hydraulic lift and you
are draining your oil, you're dropping your motor, you're doing
anything like that. These are storage lifts. You put them on a storage
lift, they stay there. We're not looking at doing -- the people that are
going to own these that are going to pay $230,000 for a unit, they're
not looking to work on their cars. They have other people to work on
their cars. I know that sounds kind of callous, but that's not what these
units are for. They are for the parking of their high-end vehicles.
That's it.
So if we can put something into the document that says no
maintenance lifts, we can do that as well. But these are just for
Page 148
January 12, 2016
storage. That is the point of this whole project, parking cars that you
don't have space to park in your three or four-car garage, but you have
somewhere else to come here and put them on a storage lift. And if
you want to put eight cars in your unit, you can.
The number of units being bought by one or more people, we've
come down from 10. We didn't even really want to say that we were
going to have more than one person owning a unit. We put in 10
because at one of the neighborhood information meetings there was a
question about well, how many people can own these and how many
people are going to be able to have access to this? So we said, okay,
we'll run the traffic impact statement at 10 members per unit to see
what that does from an LOS standpoint or a traffic standpoint, to see
what that would do to the right-of-way and to -- to the adjacent
right-of-ways and what that would do to utilities.
It still didn't rise to the level of 163 or 170,000 square foot
shopping center. We were well below it.
So for us to come down from the arbitrary 10 that we were
requested to look at down to two I think was a major step from our
developer. And if we had to go down to one person per unit, I think
we could live with that.
The subletting and management issues. That goes to our
condominium documents. We will have condominium documents for
this project. This will run basically like a commercial condominium
with residential standards. You can't do certain things. There -- you
can't do certain things after certain hours. You can't -- you know, you
can't store more than eight cars in your unit. There will be a list of
items into these documents that are being created right now that will
control some of these issues that have been brought up.
I hate to make the comparison between this being a hybrid
commercial auto residential sort of community, but that's kind of what
it is. We are looking at this to have a place to store your cars but that
Page 149
January 12, 2016
also has rules that are set up like a residential community. We are
trying to be good neighbors, we've, you know, looked at putting the
wall being higher, we've looked at additional landscaping so that these
buildings won't be seen as much from the right-of-way. We've looked
at again the clubhouse component of it, it being a private garage, it
being limited to the owners and their visitors only.
We have tried very hard for the last two years to try and make this
a perfect product. There's no other product like this in the country right
now. We have done something that is well above what The Vault is
doing right now, what Iron Gate is doing in Naperville, what the
Autoplex Garage has done in Minneapolis. This is a far better project
in my opinion and our developer's opinion.
And I would just like to work with you all to come to a
satisfactory conclusion on this project that we've been working very
hard to bring a new use to Collier County.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I -- you know, the urban
coastal zone is going to build out. It's going -- if it builds out in
traditional ways, you pretty much know what you can expect on that
piece of property. And I think some of the uses are pretty intense.
Now when you start talking about big box store, which as our
population increases those are going to be more and more likely. You
know, there's deliveries there with semi-trucks, there's recycling,
there's dumpsters, there's forklifts, there's all kinds of stuff. That we
understand and know about.
This product, although I appreciate Commissioner Taylor's
concerns about it, I can clearly see that it's developed. But, you know,
from my third-party look at it, I mean, there's nothing like that in my
district and I think in my lifetime it's very unlikely that there will be.
But I think that, you know, this sort of a project has the opportunity to
be very high end good neighbors. I don't think that this is likely to
Page 150
January 12, 2016
attract an industrial sort of a clientele. I think this is a completely
different concierge sort of an offering that does have -- I mean, this is
my perspective, this is my gut level feeling on it.
I believe that some of the people that testified that they like the
project are forward thinking in that they honestly feel like this is going
to be a better neighbor to them than one of the traditional C-3, C-4
sorts of intensity and use.
So I certainly defer to the Commissioner of the district but I think
there's a lot of things to like here under the right circumstances. And,
you know, the fact that it's new to the area makes it problematic but
that's okay, that's a good thing. I'm happy to see that somebody's
thinking about other additional amenities here that are just --just add
to the attractiveness of our area. So that's just my comment.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I was also impressed that you were
willing to work with the people. Like you said, so no boats then and
you could have certain limitations for hours. I thought that was very
good. And it certainly makes it a less intense project than what they
might have to deal with. And afterwards they can't ever say oh, I wish
we would have, because it's too late.
So I too like the project, but I know -- because I think it's
something that we don't have before us and how nice that you're
bringing something of this quality.
In a $230,000 parking area you're certainly not going to be sitting
there working on junk. And so that -- and the caliber of people that
you're going to get in there are going to be a different caliber of people
too.
MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. We're not looking at this to be a
maintenance parking garage. That's not what we're looking at doing
here. And just additionally, when the conversation came up about, you
know, having a shopping center here, sure, that could have been here.
That has not been proposed here for several decades now. We've got
Page 151
January 12, 2016
two shopping centers that are at Santa Barbara and Radio right now.
One of them is not doing as well as the other. But to put another one
here that close, I don't know if that would work out. I don't have a
crystal ball but sure, that could be here, but it hasn't been here yet.
And we're looking at a new use that would operate as a great neighbor
to an existing and well established residential community.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, I'll make a motion to approve,
just to get the motion started.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you close the hearing?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, no, thank you. Good girl. You
get a star for that one.
I'd like to close the public meeting, please.
And with that, I'll make a motion to approve.
Okay, then do I hear another motion from anybody?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One of the things I had asked
staff is if we could continue this and then staff develop criteria for
what this really is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I would be happy to do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is an industrial use and it's
incorporating --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Speak into the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's really an industrial use and it's
incorporating -- I mean, it's a bastardized definition of club and
confusing residential in the mix. I just don't think -- it doesn't rise to
the level of warranting a vote as a conditional use for this location. I
mean, this might work in a different location, but it doesn't work in this
location.
I mean, I can't support this in this location on any level based on,
you know, community commercial, what the definition of a private
club is, you know, what currently is there. They're asking for an
Page 152
January 12, 2016
increase of 50 percent in intensity. I mean --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, 50 percent less.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, more.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: More.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: More.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And, you know, let's call an apple
an apple and orange an orange.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's not compatible because it
doesn't fit in the zoning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But it is a hybrid of a new use
that's coming in and my thought was can we not make it compatible
with this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- and by doing that put in zoning
or criteria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't, because it's zoned. We
have the standards. It's in the LDC. If we want to do something down
the road and change our definitions, we can do that. But we don't have
this for this.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the applicant's entitled to a yes or no
at this point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I can't support it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I make a motion to deny.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, what I was going to say is
if you wanted to continue this to try to work with the applicant, put the
onus on the petitioner instead of staff to make it compatible, that's one
Page 153
January 12, 2016
thing. I think that's very noble. If you're going to deny it, deny it
based upon it's not a compatible use --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to the neighboring properties
or within the PUD.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Henning, could you
support it under some circumstances?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here's the thing: The idea
that it's a $200,000 unit, boys are boys, they still want to tinker, okay? I
don't care how much money they got. If they got a toy, they're going
to want to tinker with it. They're going to want to take off the exhaust
and put on a baffled muffler on there so it makes it more throaty or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what I want to do with my
car. And I'm not a boy.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, if the guy is working on his
Bentley, is that really a bad thing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm losing my concentration
here.
So if you're going to have -- if you're going to allow it, it has to be
restrictions that is within the PUD, not into the governance document,
in making the management company responsible for enforcing the
ordinance.
MR. HOOD: Sir, we have that. It's in the ordinance that no
major maintenance will be there. I can add the language that will say
the management company will be responsible for it, but that base
language is there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, well, what's the definition
of major?
MR. HOOD: Engine overhaul, pulling your exhaust off and
replacing it with another. Minor to me is changing oil.
Page 154
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Minor, okay --
MR. HOOD: That's as far as I would see these people taking
their car and, you know, pulling it into the driveway and putting it up
on ramps and changing the oil. But I don't really see somebody who's
going to go and buy a $350,000 Ferrari changing their own oil. It's a
service that Ferrari's going to do for them so they're going to drive it to
the dealership and they're going to drop it off and it's going to come
back and it's going to sit in that garage. These are not the people that
you're thinking of that are going to spend $250,000 who are going to
have a, you know, '69 Chevelle that want to come in there and rehab
their engine. They're not going to spend that kind of money to have a
facility to do something like that. That's not our clientele that we're
looking to have here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In our --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on.
In our Land Development Code you have allowed in C-4 district
minor repairs of automobiles. C-5 you have major repairs of
automobiles. C-4 you can have a muffler shop.
MR. HOOD: You can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay? Now, if a guy wants to
go there and polish it, all right, or change his oil, I don't see where
that's going to be invasive to the neighborhood. But when you've got
air tools, when you allow compressors, when you allow lifts to work
on the vehicles and have compressors, you're going to have noise that
is going to impact the neighbors.
The problem is your petition hasn't addressed the compatibility
issue for me.
MR. HOOD: Compatibility insofar as being next to neighbors
and potentially having compressors or compatibility insofar as the land
use itself versus the residential land use that's --
Page 155
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I thought we closed the hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, this is land use
compatible with the neighbors, and we're just having a dialogue of
what that land use really is.
MR. HOOD: Right.
MR. WERCHEK: Could I address -- it's funny that you bring up
the -- I'm sorry, Mike Werchek, I'm the developer of-- hopefully,
maybe the developer of the project.
But it's funny that the gentleman that was buying the five units,
we started just kind of playing with how it might look inside. And I
had suggested, I said, where are you going to put a lift somewhere?
And he said, you know, I really don't want a lift. And I said, but a lift
is like a tool box in a garage. Even if you never use it, it's cool. And
it's something that just -- it's like an accessory. And our guys have no
intentions of working. If there is a lift, it would be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It doesn't say anything in the
PUD document.
MR. WERCHEK: But it does. It says that we cannot work on
our vehicles at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have -- no, you have -- you
said major --
MR. WERCHEK: Going through it with the Planning
Commission, it was left to where -- the way we stated it, it was more of
what could be done in your garage at home or what you might do in
your garage is what could be done here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to overhaul my engine
in my garage. My tool box is --
MR. WERCHEK: You can't buy a unit from us. I'm sorry, Mr.
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not -- for $200,000
you know what I'm going to say? I'm going to do it out of my garage.
Page 156
January 12, 2016
MR. WERCHEK: But, you know, you also look at the need for
this in this community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't disagree with it. I just
think it's a compatibility issue.
MR. WERCHEK: We build in the downtown district and we
cannot get enough garages for the gentlemen. A lot of our
communities have restrictions on their garages where they can't park
outside overnight in a golf course community or a lot of communities.
And what we looked to do here was to make it so many steps
above what anyone else is doing in the country because we are in
Naples. And I thought that we could have the finest facility ever built
of this type, and this would be the place we could do it.
I can't do this in other communities. I can't charge $231,000 for a
base unit as a starting price and do that anywhere else but Naples. And
that's why we took the time to lay the project out. Every 25 feet we jag
in our out. And nobody does that with a commercial building because
it costs too much money.
We are again trying to have the flagship of all these garage
facilities that are popping up across America, we wanted to have the
one in Naples that everybody looked up to and said, that hands down is
the best one that was ever built. And this is a community where we
can do it, and this is an opportunity to do that. And also again to take
care of our residents with something that is very, very much needed,
which is storage for their vehicles.
But the intent of working on them, I mean, our guys are -- they're
not mechanics. And a lot of these cars, have you ever tried to work on
a car, one of the new cars today? I can't even hardly find the oil filter
or the dip stick. I mean, this isn't something that you work on a car
today. They're so complicated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's true. But these guys
have muscle cars, okay. Your clientele is going to be in the Fifties and
Page 157
January 12, 2016
Sixties. They're going to have muscle cars. And, you know, guys are
guys.
I had an automotive repair shop. I know your clientele. I used to
fix their cars because they would work on them.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Folks, we've got a motion on the floor
and a second. And it's been very interesting, but I think it's time to
vote on that now. So the motion is on the floor and a second.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All right. All those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, aye.
Motion is denied.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the petition is denied. The
motion passes to deny the petition.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Okay.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I think it's appropriate for a court
reporter break at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: 15 minutes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: 15 minutes sounds good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Recess.)
Item #9B
Page 158
January 12, 2016
ORDINANCE 2016-02: AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2003-11 WITH CONDITIONS, THE EAST GATEWAY PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY ADDING 250 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED IN ADDITION TO THE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AREA OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT ON THE
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT AREA; BY
CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST GATEWAY MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING PERMITTED
USES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS; BY REVISING
THE MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING EXHIBIT B AND EXHIBIT C,
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS; BY REVISING
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR THE PUD LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND WEST OF CR
951 IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 37.35± ACRES;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PETITION PUDA-
PL20140000548 — ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Commissioners, we move now to Item 9.B. This item also
requires ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members, and
all participants are required to be sworn in.
This item is a recommendation to approve with conditions an
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2003-11, the East Gateway
Planned Unit Development, by adding 250 residential dwelling units to
Page 159
January 12, 2016
be developed in addition to the commercial development on the
commercial development area or as an alternative to the industrial and
business park development on the industrial business park
development area.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. And ex parte from
County Commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Blake Gable and staff.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I reviewed the backup material and
I spoke to staff
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I've read the staff report, I've
had phone calls and discussions with Mr. Yovanovich, who's counsel
for the petitioner, and I've had meetings and discussions with staff
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I've had discussions with
Mr. Yovanovich, a short discussion with Mr. Gable, and lengthy
discussions with staff. And with -- and The Conservancy, Nicole
Johnson.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
And I've spoken with Rich Yovanovich and David Genson and
also with Blake Gable, with Nicole Johnson, with April Olson with
The Conservancy. I've spoken with a couple of the planning board
members, and I read the staff report.
Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Wayne
Arnold, representing the applicant today.
With me is Rich Yovanovich, counsel for the project; David
Genson from the Barron Collier Companies, and Tim Hall with Turrell
Page 160
January 12, 2016
Hall, our environmental consultant for the project.
I'll put up an aerial for you. By way of orientation, this is about a
33.4-acre project located in your activity center number nine, which is
located at Davis Boulevard between I-75 and Collier Boulevard.
We're adjacent to partially developed industrial to the east and we have
two residential multi-family projects located immediately west of us.
The project that we're proposing is to add, as the title mentioned,
250 dwelling units to the previously approved commercial and
industrial and business park PUD. And we've put in place some
standards that have development standards appropriate for the
residential and required buffering for the combination of uses.
The CCPC had a lengthy discussion on our project and we had
discussion that principally centered on two deviations, the
recommended approval, subject to not agreeing with two of the
deviations we requested. And one of those deviations has to do with
on-site native vegetation preservation, and we are requesting a
deviation to allow us to go off-site for a substantial portion of our
on-site native vegetation requirement.
The Planning Commission disagreed with our request and they
were suggesting that we go in a direction that would preserve more
on-site vegetation and go off-site with less vegetation.
And we apologize for the late notice, but we have been working
toward a new plan that would sort of go in the direction of the
Planning Commission, and we have come up with a new master
concept plan that would have a preservation requirement of our 7.7
acres. 6.37 acres would be on-site and then we would go off-site with
about 1.35 acres.
And let me just reorient you to the master plans so I can maybe
talk about this deviation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wayne, can I ask for clarification,
how are you revising this proposal?
Page 161
January 12, 2016
MR. ARNOLD: We're revising our deviation request to preserve
more vegetation on-site and to go off-site with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: An acre and a half.
MR. ARNOLD: 1.35 acres.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So less than one and a half acres.
MR. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And still develop the same number
of units notwithstanding.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Well, we've asked for a
maximum of 250 units. In reality if they pursue a higher density
single-family, that seems to be the market right now, they probably
will net fewer units than proposed but the unit count is still suggested
to be 250.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the unit count remains the
same?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you're simply reducing the
number of acres that you would transfer off-site.
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you would keep like six acres
on-site, transfer 1.3 off-site?
MR. ARNOLD: A little over six acres would be retained on-site.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: So before you is the master plan that depicts in
the hatched shading area the preserve which goes up our western
boundary and then along I-75.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wayne, you're asking for an
increase of units.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we've asked for 250 total dwelling units.
None are approved today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Hiller just
Page 162
January 12, 2016
asked you, you're asking for the same number of units and you said
yes.
MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought it was
in the context of if we're increasing the amount of on-site preserve are
we decreasing the number of units in our request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's what the question was.
The request for additional units is consistent with your original
application. The 250 that you're asking for is the original number.
What I wanted to find out was, was there going to be a change in that
number of units because you're decreasing the number of acres that
you're moving off-site.
MR. ARNOLD: And the answer is we're keeping the 250 unit
request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that is consistent with
the original application.
MR. ARNOLD: This before you shows a preservation area along
I-75 only and it was an area that would have allowed us to recreate 2.3
acres of vegetation on-site, get no credit for it and then mitigate off-site
all 7.7 acres. Staff didn't like that suggestion, the Conservancy didn't
like that suggestion. The Planning Commission seemed to be willing
to allow us to take credit for the area we were recreating on-site. Staff
was not supportive of that.
So we've come up with our third option which is what I just
described, and this would retain 6.37 acres on-site and then we would
go off-site for 1.35 acres. So we are deviating from the code that
would require us to preserve 7.7 acres on site.
One of the things I think's important is the area we've identified
for the off-site mitigation. The area that's lightly shaded with a
labeling pointing to it actually is land that's owned by Barron Collier
Companies, and we would use this to mitigate for a portion of this
property and you're going to see a similar request for Creekside
Page 163
January 12, 2016
Commerce Park coming forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're offsetting it with 26 acres?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, we would propose to do this at a
one-to-one, because we do have another project that's in the pipeline
where we would like to utilize a portion of this for that mitigation as
well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're going to take 1.3 acres
out of this 26.3-acre site?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
And the area that's shaded in yellow is part of your Pepper
Preserve out in Immokalee, Pepper Ranch. And the area that's shaded
in purple is part of the South Florida Water Management District's
conservation land holdings. So this actually connects to conservation
area --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is this 26 acres?
MR. ARNOLD: It's right now zoned agriculture I believe with a
mobile home overlay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Continue, please.
MR. ARNOLD: And just to wrap that up, it's my understanding
that Nicole Johnson representing The Conservancy is here to withdraw
their objection to our off-site mitigation request and would -- I
wouldn't say support the project, but they would not object to the
off-site mitigation of 1.35 acres of our preservation requirement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then the only issue is the
additional units.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think the additional units have been
an issue for staff or Planning Commission. The only other deviation
that was not supported by your Planning Commission was a request,
we had two new road cross sections shown for the project, one for our
commercial where we're deviating from the standard 60 feet to go
down to a 54-foot wide right-of-way. Staff was supportive of that
Page 164
January 12, 2016
request.
We also asked for a deviation for the residential to allow sidewalk
on one side only of the street. And the Planning Commission, I think it
was in the -- we had been in the pipeline for quite some time when
they had a discussion on sidewalks, and I know the Board has had
some discussion on sidewalks. We believe that on these highly urban
projects, and really, 250 units may sound like a lot, but it's of a smaller
scale, that having a sidewalk on one side of that street is sufficient. We
don't believe that it's necessary to have dual sidewalks on all of these
communities. I mean, we've run the gamut of projects from 30 units to
what is the maximum number of units where we need these, and we
believe that having dual sidewalks is excessive for a project of this
magnitude.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Is that the end of your presentation?
MR. ARNOLD: It certainly can be.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, do we have the staff member
here that wants to present?
MR. ARNOLD: I did have a couple of other things I needed to
add --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. ARNOLD: -- if I could.
Your staff had communicated with us just in the last day or so,
asking us to add a condition with regard to transportation and
interconnectivity. And Mr. Yovanovich has had that discussion I think
with Mr. Casalanguida and Trinity Scott from your transportation
planning group. And if I could read some language into the record?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a copy to put in the
overhead.
MR. ARNOLD: You know, I do, actually. Now I can't read it.
Okay, this is a condition that generally replaces an existing
Page 165
January 12, 2016
condition in the PUD. And it says: The portion of the joint
access/frontage road/interconnection shown on the PUD master plan
from the I-75 Alligator Alley CPUD located within the MPUD which
conducts Bedzel Circle to the intersection of State Road 84/Davis
Boulevard and Market Street shall be constructed to the property line
prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a
residential unit or end commercial user. Temporary construction
trailers, models and sales facilities shall be permitted prior to the
completion of the frontage road.
And that language is acceptable to us. It replaces some older
generic language for interconnections that was in the original PUD.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Okay, staff?
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Fred Reischl with
zoning division.
We got the revised master plan on Friday and we didn't get a
PUD, so we're basically looking at this the same time you are.
We did have time to do a color rendering that shows that with the
adjacent preserves, that will show you how the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's a lot of preserve there.
MR. REISCHL: That will show you how the proposed preserve
here will connect to the adjacent preserve to the west and to the east.
A couple of conditions that we saw over the last few days which I
think I should bring to your attention. With this they would need an
additional deviation to allow non-contiguous preserves, because that
little area in the southwest --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is noncontiguous.
MR. REISCHL: And there are also changes due to Section 2.11,
because that describes how the native vegetation is going to be
preserved. So if you do decide to go with this altered master plan,
those are some additional changes.
Page 166
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. REISCHL: Thanks.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: How many speakers do we have,
Troy?
MR. MILLER: We have two registered speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, would you call them?
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Jane Cheffy. She'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
MS. CHEFFY: Hi. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
I'm really not quite sure where we stand with the deviation on the
sidewalks, because I understand now that the petition is going to be
amended or has been amended. So I'm going to just make a statement
based on the assumption, and I could be wrong, that they're still asking
for a deviation regarding sidewalks on both sides of a residential street
that has housing on both sides of the residential street.
And basically I just want to say that Naples Pathways Coalition is
who I'm here on behalf of and that we do support having more and
better and safer pathways and infrastructure that is conducive to people
getting out and walking and exercising and being more active.
We think that when you have a brand new community that's being
planned, it's not the time to be eliminating elements of your
infrastructure that is conducive. This is a new age. We people now
realize that we're all obese and people don't get enough exercise, and
we look at our infrastructure and it's just not conducive to getting out
in the beautiful outdoors that we have here and exercising.
And so why sidewalks on both sides of the street? Well, I
believe, and PC believes, that it's more conducive to come outside the
door of your home and get onto the sidewalk, whether you're walking,
whether you're wheeling in a wheelchair, whether you're wobbling in a
walker, to be able to get going and get the exercise, the outdoor air and
just health in general. I think it's more conducive. I think that a person
Page 167
January 12, 2016
in a wheelchair with a walker or a child being required to cross the
street to get to a sidewalk, that's just an impediment that we don't really
have to approve at this point. This is a brand new development. And
any time you have to retrofit and put in sidewalks, that's extremely,
extremely expensive.
I personally have driven around and looked at communities that
have sidewalks on one side of the street, and I notice that the
driveways on the other side of the street don't match up. So it isn't as if
you wheel your wheelchair down your driveway and go straight across
to the next sidewalk. It's usually then you have to go down the road a
ways until you find the ramp, basically, the driveway, to get up to get
to the sidewalk.
So that is my statement on behalf of Naples Pathways Coalition.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Nicole
Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And from an environmental perspective, this project really
highlights the issue of on-site preserves. Specifically do urban
preserves have value.
And we appreciate the fact that staff included our very lengthy
comment letter in your backup materials. And while the letter is
lengthy, I think that everything can really be summed up by saying the
mosaic of preserves within the urban area of Collier County is
extremely important from both an environmental and a quality of life
perspective. And it makes Collier County the unique and beautiful
place that it is today.
And some of the maps that we included I think really show you
the picture. These are all of the preserves that we have in the
urbanized area west of 951. And there's a lot of green on that map.
Page 168
January 12, 2016
Therefore, we were concerned by the applicant's unwillingness
during the Planning Commission hearing and their consent agenda
meeting to not even acknowledge that on-site preserves were important
for their project.
The Planning Commission, in an attempt to find a compromise,
did recommend allowing the proposed 2.5 acres of scrape-down water
management area to count towards the native vegetation requirements.
And that was certainly a generous compromise. The Conservancy
wasn't opposed to looking at that, but we were pleased that albeit at the
11th hour the applicant has come forward with a revised master plan
that includes over six acres retained on site of the native vegetation. It
would require a deviation of about 1.35 acres off-site and -- but this is
actually more on-site native vegetation preserve than the Planning
Commission recommendation, because those 2.5 acres that would have
been scraped down are going to be retained as is.
So because this exceeds what the Planning Commission
recommended, The Conservancy is not objecting to this revised master
plan and we do appreciate the fact that the applicant has finally come
around on this.
And I want to end with the project really illustrates I think two
important points: First of all, we do appreciate that the applicant has
proposed a revised master plan, making the changes just several days
before the BCC hearing. But really, this is not the process that we
want to be following in Collier County. These sorts of things really
needed to be discussed with staff prior to the Planning Commission or
at least at the Planning Commission so that what comes to you has
been thoroughly vetted and isn't sort of the messy process that you
have today.
And I think the second point is that projects can still be
economically viable and marketable while preserving native vegetation
on site. A lot of the feedback we got during the Planning Commission
Page 169
January 12, 2016
hearing was they couldn't preserve anything on-site and be marketable.
And I think that this revised master plan shows that you can have both
your preserve and your development.
So we appreciate their revisions and appreciate the opportunity to
comment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you going to close the public
hearing?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, I'm not, as a matter of fact.
Do you have anything else to add?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think I would add only with respect to
the sidewalks. Part of our discussion over time has been that -- our
view is that you also create potential conflicts of people backing on
driveways onto the sidewalk on both sides of the street and that's not
necessarily the best scenario either. Our streets are 20 feet wide. It
seems like it's an opportunity to cross the street to get to the sidewalk
for certain sized communities.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, actually --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to talk about the sidewalk
issue.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We'll just -- we've got three other
people's lights on. But you're one of them. You're the third one.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. It kind of works on Tenth
Street. Sidewalks on both sides of the street, narrow streets, lots of
driveways. They don't have a problem. It's been there for -- probably
it's the oldest working class neighborhood in the City of Naples.
I don't agree. I know we tried to do this before, I think Mr.
Yovanovich was the attorney at the time, with another development.
We need sidewalks. I can't not support this if we do not get rid of
the sidewalk deviation.
Page 170
January 12, 2016
And also, the LDC says an acre maximum off-site. We have an
LDC, that's what we need to follow. And I can't support it unless it
conforms to the LDC in that area.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The proposed land to do the
off-site mitigation, is it being used for any other kind of mitigation?
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it being proposed for use of
any other mitigation?
MR. ARNOLD: Not that I'm aware of. And I'm sure we can get
confirmation. The client is saying absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The proposed language
added by staff, are you proposing that that's a deviation of road width
and sidewalk also?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, we are asking for two road crossings. The
county code requires a minimum of 60 feet for local streets. And that's
what both these roadways, whether it's the residential or commercial,
would be. We're asking for 54 feet in width for the commercial and
down to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Even for this?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
And 40 feet for the residential component.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, see, I just don't know how
that works, because I know that interconnection is going to serve a
larger area, more traffic. And I don't know if that six feet really makes
a difference as far as right-of-way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Do you have a copy of the
cross-section of the street? We can put it on the viewer. It's got at
least 12-foot lanes and it's in probably pretty good shape. It's got
12-foot lanes.
Page 171
January 12, 2016
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it does have 12-foot travel lane and it has
dual sidewalks through the commercial component.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, there will be dual
sidewalks on this portion of it but not dual sidewalks on what now?
MR. ARNOLD: We've specified that the commercial portions
would have the dual sidewalks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. ARNOLD: And then on the residential only there would be
a sidewalk on one side of the street only.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that eight-foot sidewalk?
MR. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is that?
MR. ARNOLD: The sidewalk shown on each side of that
cross-section are five feet wide.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five foot.
MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the standard?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For local, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For -- okay. So if you propose a
sidewalk on one side for residential, what is the width going to be for
that?
MR. ARNOLD: It's proposed at five feet as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm not sure five feet will
work for both sides of the street. I mean, I can understand the
deviation if you're going to have wider sidewalks. I mean, five foot is
basically -- that's hard for one person to passing -- let's say an old man
pushing a stroller and --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Who would that be?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know. And his neighbor
coming the other way.
Page 172
January 12, 2016
MR. ARNOLD: Would it be helpful --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think it is.
MR. ARNOLD: -- if we increased the residential sidewalk on
one side to six feet wide, would that be better?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if that's
appropriate or not. I know five foot wouldn't be appropriate. But a
six-foot -- or should it be eight foot?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's no longer a sidewalk at eight
feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six-foot --
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, five and six feet are your pretty good
common sidewalk widths.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct. I mean, eight feet is
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, I think you're
next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll wait for anybody else,
what do they think about --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I sit on the statewide advisory
board to the Department of Transportation for Pathways and Bicycle
Safety and I work very closely with Billy Hattaway who has defined
what complete streets are. And he came to speak to us and we had a
workshop on it. And it's very clear that the Pathways Coalition,
notwithstanding that they were present when he presented, didn't hear
what he said. And he was very clear that two sidewalks in a
development are not a requirement to have a complete street.
In fact, to Commissioner Taylor's point, I walk out of my door in
one of the oldest residential neighbors in the county and it's Pine Ridge
Page 173
January 12, 2016
Estates, and we have no sidewalks. And I will tell you there are no
sidewalks needed at all. At all. In our neighborhood everybody walks
off their driveway, walks on the road, runs on the road, cycles on the
road. There's no conflicts, no issues, no problems.
The point being is that it turns on the volume of traffic, the
pedestrian traffic, the car traffic. It does make sense to have two
sidewalks in the commercial area where you have more traffic and you
have more pedestrians. But in the residential areas where you have
very light traffic and very few pedestrians, it doesn't make sense to
have sidewalks on both sides. That doesn't increase walkability. It
doesn't encourage more people to exercise.
I will agree with Commissioner Henning, you know, increasing it
to six feet does make more sense. I mean, I'm very familiar with the
comfort level because I've looked at it from the perspective of my
involvement with him and working on this whole issue. Eight feet is
no longer a sidewalk. You know, now you're moving into like a
multiuse pathway, which is not what the intent is via residential area.
That's completely different. That's more along the lines of, you know,
when we're trying to build a large corridor for multiuse activity in front
of a bunch of high-rises. It's a very different pathways concept.
But Commissioner Henning is correct, I mean, moving from five
to six feet would make sense. Having a sidewalk on one side and not
on the other actually promotes better usability because then on the
other side you can have people actually like cycling and you would
actually have like one side where people are cycling, one side where
people are actually walking on the sidewalk and then the cars going in
between. Otherwise your road just becomes very cramped and it
doesn't work well.
I have to say that first of all I'm happy you made the adjustment
on the preserve, but secondly I don't see this issue about the sidewalks
as an issue which would justify denial. This is not a deviation. The
Page 174
January 12, 2016
way our code is currently written is overly restrictive and doesn't
contemplate what the Department of Transportation is considering by
way of its complete roads concept.
And we have agreed to adopt that, we did that in our workshop,
we talked about it here at the Board level and that's what we have to
respect. I mean, it makes perfect sense. You have to look at every
situation and tailor your sidewalks and your pathways and your bike
lanes based on the traffic of both pedestrians, cyclists and cars within
that unit.
So yeah, I just wanted to get that on the record. Because there's
absolutely nothing wrong and nothing that takes away from promoting
healthy living by having a sidewalk on one side.
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioner Hiller, I agree with you on many
of those points and I would just reaffirm that the typical cross-section
that we have in our Land Development Code is for a local public
street. These are not typically public streets we're asking for the
deviation from. This likely will be a gated community, it doesn't
connect anywhere else, so there is no connectivity of the residential to
something else. They have to come through the commercial to get out
of the project to an adjacent industrial project.
So when we talk about these deviations for sidewalks, a lot of it
becomes buyer profile. We ask for these for builders because half of
the buyers would like a sidewalk on one side of the street, half the
people seem to not want a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They don't. And I know that for a
fact because I'm an example of someone who doesn't like the sidewalk
on my side of the street because I don't want to have, you know, a
parade of traffic walking in front of me. If there's a choice, one side or
the other, I would go for the non-sidewalk side.
And that's true. I mean, it's good to give people choices. And I
really have to say, in light of the configuration of this development
Page 175
January 12, 2016
having two sidewalks on the commercial side and one sidewalk, you
know, expanded to six feet on the residential side makes sense.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Would you like to go next? I was going to go next but you can
certainly go first.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I just want to chime in on the
dual side -- you know, if two sidewalks are indicated because the
volume is there and the need's there, I certainly support it. But I don't
think it should be required just out of pocket. Because you remember,
when you have a small development like this, if you put in more
impervious surface and sidewalk that you really don't need, what's
taken up is green space. It's taken up with plantings or room for a tree
to develop properly or so on and so forth. So there is every reason to
make a calculated determination on the need for two sidewalks. Two
sidewalks per se are not necessarily better than one. It depends on the
need and what you're exchanging for that paved surface.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I really like what you just said
about the fact that --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, think about it, it's not going
to be some other pavement. You're going to lose grass or shrubbery or
tree space or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You are taking away from green
space. And that's important. I mean, we need as much open space as
possible for, you know, water.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, now it would be my turn and
thank you for that.
First of all, when I talked to the developer originally and they
didn't want to leave much of the preserve I was kind of shocked,
because they back right up next to I-75 and all that truck traffic noise
all night long. And when you eliminate the preserve you don't have
any buffer from all that. And I said, are you sure you're building
Page 176
January 12, 2016
homes back there? It sounded like it would be commercial. No, we're
building homes.
I said, you know, that just wouldn't work. In my estimation, I
would never want to buy a home backed up next to I-75. And they
said you know what, you're probably right. So we came to talking
about that a little bit. And I felt much better about that when they
increased that preserve a great deal, back to just about what it should
have been. I would have liked to have them just leave one acre -- take
one acre off-site according to the Land Development Code and stick
right with the LDC.
The second thing is, and I'm just as passionate as the others are
about sidewalks. We have in our LDC sidewalks on both sides of the
street. You're finding more and more people all the time, every time I
come home from work they're walking their dogs, they're walking up
and down the street, people are getting their exercise even if it's just in
their own neighborhood. Which is a great thing.
I have -- this one couple, they ride on one scooter, it's for a
disabled scooter, and the woman rides alongside of him holding on.
She's sitting on part of the seat and they walk down together. But I
mean at least they're doing that.
But on our street, when my community was built in '74, they
didn't put any sidewalks in. And finally they put sidewalks in a few
years later but only on one side. So everybody that is on my side has
to go over across the street. Now you've got an open roadway where
people could be hit by cars because they have to keep crossing over to
the other sidewalk. And everybody's -- they're kind of crowded on
those little sidewalks because you've got so many people walking.
I believe that we should stick to what our Land Development
Code says. And once we deviate just once, and I'm going to say that
again, once we deviate once everyone that's going to come in is going
to say nope, we only want it on one side. And I just don't think that's
Page 177
January 12, 2016
the way to go.
If we want to talk about it at some kind of a workshop if you want
to change that, fine, but right now Land Development Code says
sidewalk on two sides. I don't mind that ifs a five-foot sidewalk, at
least people can ride on both sides or walk on both sides or whatever.
But I'm sticking with that.
And so I would say, I'd like to make a motion to approve this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to close the hearing.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, yes, there we go. I keep forgetting
to close the hearing. Thank you for you and your poking of the stick.
I'll get it, though.
Okay. So with that, I will close the public hearing. Okay. Do I
need to pound a gavel or anything?
MR. ARNOLD: Could I just add one thing, Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah.
MR. ARNOLD: With regard to the one acre of off-site preserve,
that's part of the reason we're asking for the deviation to go with the
1.35. And that's not a new number. Apparently that's been a number
that's been supported by this Board previously and by staff.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's a different day, sir. Not this
Board. Not me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But legally we can't support
similarly situated petitions differently. We can't say okay, we're going
to do it for A but not do it for B and it's exactly the same set of facts.
MR. YOVANOVICH: What I would ask you to consider -- Rich
Yovanovich for the record -- is what Nicole said, which was we're
actually giving you more on-site native preserve by not using the water
management area for preserve, as your Planning Commission
originally recommended to you. So we're doing more than the
Planning Commission recommended with this second proposal.
Also, and I think we shared this with Commissioner Fiala, the
Page 178
January 12, 2016
unit price change by bringing this preserve on-site, we had an average
selling price of 281 before, we're now at 307 in the after because we
went to what we proposed. We'll probably lose another unit or two
which would further bump up the purchase price of these units by
losing that sliver and being able to count it. The reason we're counting
it -- and if you look at where that sliver is and what it's adjacent to
off-site, that's where there's some lower income housing, so we
strategically put that in that location to further enhance this project.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think you have a better chance of
getting a better price now that you've got preserves buffering them
from the main highway.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So what we're asking is, is -- the 1.35 is in
line with what has been approved before. And what we're proposing is
greater than what your Planning Commission asked us to keep on site.
So we understand the sidewalks. You know, if we've got to trade
one for the other, you know, we'll go to sidewalks on both sides, but
it's really important for the off-site preserve to keep these units in --
and again, I told you what the difference of the price points are. And
we're asking you to, if you'll go with that tradeoff, one sidewalk on
both sides with the 1.35 acres off-site.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I could make a motion to approve
that, as a matter of fact.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion and a
second to keep the preserves as they have proposed, the latest proposal,
let me say that, and the sidewalks on both sides.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have questions.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wayne, where has this been
done before?
Page 179
January 12, 2016
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not certain. It was mentioned to us by your
staff.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Collier 36 on the east side of Collier
Boulevard, just north of Vanderbilt, around that area. It was 1.36 as
part of a deviation.
MR. OCHS: One time?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you prefer to change the
motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I do. The motion is
the deviation for the sidewalk on one side?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're going to do sidewalks on
both sides?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The --just added the off-site --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, I can't hear Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That the off-site mitigation
property will not be used for any other mitigation purposes?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In other words, no double
dipping.
MR. YOVANOVICH: We understand the no double dip
comment.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I got that same impression when he
was first making his presentation. I know where you're going, because
when he said we'll use that elsewhere, right?
MR. YOVANOVICH: When we say elsewhere, we have a
couple of other projects. We're not looking to use it for Water
Management District mitigation or Corps mitigation, but there are
Page 180
January 12, 2016
other projects where we're forming kind of our own mitigation bank, if
you will, for other projects. So that 20-acre piece that we just
identified, we'll be using more of it but we won't be using it for other
agencies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And the added language
for the cross-section that was put out there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the interconnection.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, that has to be -- I thought that
was already a part of it. I'm sorry, if it wasn't I do want to add that.
The interconnect is a strong part of our thrust forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, so now let me see if I can
restate that, and thank you for your guidance there.
My motion is to approve it with the preserves as recently
proposed, taking 1.35 off-site -- not that I'm crazy about that, but I'm
willing to go with that -- and sidewalks on both sides of the street, and
the interconnect in place.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Madam Chair, may I speak to the
1.35?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We were talking about how infill
is happening within the urban area. And if we keep allowing the camel
to get into the tent inch by inch by inch, at some point it just keeps
growing.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So what you're saying is?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Hold to the LDC. If we want to
change the LDC, let's change the LDC. We have a guide, let's just do
it. Because it's open space, it's urban.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you like to make the motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If you would just modify your
Page 181
January 12, 2016
motion that --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Just for one acre on-site and period --
rather one acre off-site of preserve?
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I'm allowed to respond?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You can.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Well, then you may as well
just eliminate the deviation process from the Land Development Code
in the first place. Because all we're asking for is a deviation to a stated
Land Development Code provision. You have a process to ask for
deviations, because you recognize that one size doesn't always fit. So
that's why we have a deviation process.
We're talking about a very specific piece of property here in a
very specific location. I would say why would you change your entire
code when you see very few requests for deviations from the native
preservation requirements through this process. And sometimes they
make sense and sometimes they don't. We think it does on this
particular piece of property in this specific location.
And how often do you see The Conservancy not opposing a
request for an off-site deviation like you see right now? And they are
an environmental advocacy group and they're not saying don't do this.
And I believe the Planning Commission said on the record had we
made this as part of our original approach they would have been fine
with 1.35 acres off-site.
So I would ask you -- you have a deviation process in place so
you can look at specific situations. What I think Commissioner Taylor
is saying is don't allow deviations at all. Well, then you may as well
take that out of the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, sir, what I'm saying is this is
2016, not 2009. And development is back with a roar. And if we don't
hold the line with open space --
MR. YOVANOVICH: You'll have open space. We're not
Page 182
January 12, 2016
changing the open space. 60 percent of open space will be met.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right, but we do have a
framework by which we can judge how much open space our
community would require or request in a guiding document called the
Land Development Code. That's what I'm saying.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is guiding, and we're asking for a .35
acre deviation.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, this is your
district. Do you have any comments on that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I understand what
Commissioner Taylor is saying. But each incident is different. And if
you take a look at -- this is not green space, this is preserve. And it's
adjacent to I-75. All it is is buffering I-75. Preserves are -- I don't
know what native species would want to be near I-75 except for a
homeless person. That's it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Except for what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A homeless person. I mean,
that's -- you're not going to find a panther, you're not going to find a
black bear.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But you'll find birds and things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you know, I go down -- I
live right on -- right by there. There's no birds in the woods.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, well, anyway --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you want to be next to
I-75?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, that's why I wanted the preserves
there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And interestingly enough, there are
so many residential communities that abut 75. You know, I believe
there are a number of Divosta communities, like Village Walk which is
right on 75 and doesn't have a buffer and the people who live in those
Page 183
January 12, 2016
homes are quality people and are fine with the location they live in.
You know, this notion that you can't abut a major road or highway is
flawed. It exists all throughout. I mean, we've got even retirement
homes that abut these kinds of roads.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, I just want to make one little
comment.
I think there's a very important distinction that we need to make
going forward in our communities regarding open space and green
space and preserves. When I look at that map and I see that little .4
acre down there that's titled preserve, I want to tell you, ladies and
gentlemen, as a preserve that has absolutely zero value. .4 acre is a
wet spot that's going to breed mosquitoes and it's not going to support
anything. It could be classified as green space, it could be classified as
a buffer. But as a preserve, if we're creating preserves like that we are
fooling ourselves and leaving ourselves to error. I would much rather
see that .4 acres added to our holdings out in the east where there is a
critical mass of area that is actually a valuable environment and
ecological entity.
That .4 acres there is wasted. If we have 100 of those in our
inventory and we think we have 40 acres of preserve, I'm sorry, but
we're just fooling ourselves.
So, you know, I don't mind making thoughtful adjustments. You
know, the preserve up there next to 75, I agree with Commissioner
Henning, I don't think it's going to have a lot of value, but at least it's
got six acres of contiguous area and it does have certainly more value
than a whole bunch of little bitty what I just call wet -- they're just wet
spots, they're drainage ditches as far as I'm concerned. They're not
really anything of any value. They're nothing to be proud of in Collier
County relative to the other 78 percent, 1.4 million acres that we have
that's quality, quality preservation and protection from development.
Page 184
January 12, 2016
So I'm just saying, we need to think seriously about what we're
doing, and encourage -- if developers wants to add to our holdings in
the east, we need to seriously listen to their offers, because those are
going to be significant preserves for our community in perpetuity and
they're not going to be little wet spots.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I agree, but you know what? As
we're building out we need to have green space here in the rural area.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am, we need green space
but we don't need wet holes that nobody can do anything with.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, that one's pretty small, I agree.
So the motion is on the floor.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
MR. REISCHL: Madam Chair, if I could just reiterate the other
changes that are required if this motion goes through?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Would be a deviation for noncontiguous
preserves, if that's how you decide to go. And there are several
changes to Section 2.11 of the PUD in addition to the interconnection
language that was discussed previously.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, so let me see if I understood
what you actually just said, okay? Because I'm a little slow when it
comes to that.
Okay, so what he said was yes, the motion was okay, to keep
those preserves as we've said and yet give them 1.35 off-site. Not that
I'm nuts about that, by the way. I would have said none, but I'm being
Donna nice guy here.
The second thing is we have sidewalks on both sides of the
streets, and the third thing is we have interconnectivity. That's what
my motion says. And I make a motion to approve that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And noncontiguous preserve,
right? Yes.
Page 185
January 12, 2016
MR. OCHS: This small preserve, it is not contiguous to other
preserves, so it just needs deviation language to allow --
MR. REISCHL: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So I need to put that in my motion
too?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. That little piece of wet
spot is also -- okay, do I have a sec-- I had a second in Penny Taylor.
Do I still have that second?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You do.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine, I have the second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And deviations from Section
2.13 of the ordinance.
What else?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: They stand as written.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They stand as written?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. ARNOLD: I think what -- I'm sorry, for the record, Wayne
Arnold.
I think what Mr. Reischl was referring to, there's some cleanup
language that we need to put in the preserve section of the PUD
document to reflect the off-site preserve of 1.35 acres. It's some
language cleanup to make it consistent with your motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good. If there's any melaleuca
or anything, you have to take that out of the preserve, right?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I mean, I know that that's standard,
but I thought I'd just mention it anyway.
Page 186
January 12, 2016
Okay, very good. So the motion is on the floor, the second is
agreeing. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So that's a 5-0. Thank you very
much.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Fiala, I just want to
make a comment.
I'm really concerned. You know, the point of having the right to
petition the Board for deviations is essential. We will never be able to
write a code that in every instance is going to apply fairly to every
landowner that comes before us. It is absolutely essential that we be
practical and pragmatic in how we look at the code and look at each
individual petitioner. I mean, it's not a one size fits all.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, but the rest of the deviations we
approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the double sidewalk is not
what is intended by complete streets. And to say that it's in the code
and therefore we must do it and unless we change the code that's how
we should apply it doesn't make sense. I've been studying this --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, but you live in a very exclusive
neighborhood and things are different in your neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My neighborhood was the working
class neighborhood of unincorporated Collier County. That is where
Collier's workers lived.
Page 187
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The value of the properties today is
not reflective, but that's not the issue. The issue is, is that we have to
be flexible on complete streets. We can't sit there and require every
development, notwithstanding the traffic --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We need to get going because it's
4:08.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to have two sidewalks.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, now on to the next one. I'm
sorry, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a waste.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- we could beat this horse to death
even more, but that's silly.
So on to 11.A?
Item #11A
THE PROPOSED PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION FEE
POLICY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE
FEES FOR SERVICES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. That is a recommendation to accept
and approve the proposed Parks and Recreation Division fee policy in
order to establish guidance for future fees for services.
Mr. Williams, your Parks and Recreation Division Director, will
present.
MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
Just wanted to start by saying that what we have in front of you is
not a request to raise or lower fees. What we're looking for, and we've
worked with a consultant, Public Resources Management Group, and I
Page 188
January 12, 2016
have Thierry Boveri here with us who has a presentation that he can go
through.
But what we're looking for today is a recommendation to you to
adopt a philosophy of how we bring fees forward in the future. And
part of the discussion that we've had over the years, we bring the fee
policy to you from time to time. On average our cost recovery or the
amount of money of our operating budget that's captured by user fees
is roughly 37 percent.
So we will bring you recommendations from time to time, we'll
look at the cost of the service and we'll also make recommendations on
what we think the cost recovery should be. But we don't really have a
framework to operate from.
And so what we've done in this consultant's work is looked
around the country at Parks and Rec divisions and how they've
approached this. And I hope what you see in your backup
documentation is information that's consistent with how your current
fee policy has been devised.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You're way ahead of Lee County in
cost recovery, way ahead of Palm Beach County. I don't know about
the City of Naples or Marco Island, but you've done pretty well there.
But yeah, it's good that you I think -- I think, anyway -- that you take a
good look at it and then share with us what your conclusions are.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am.
And the importance of that has been the recession. And the
recession, if you have a cost recovery that's low, you're vulnerable to a
reduction in service. So you're able to ride kind of the waves of the
business cycles that our community goes through when you have a
fairly healthy robust fee policy.
But again, what we wanted to do today was to introduce you to
Thierry Boveri. He does have a presentation we wanted him to walk
through with you, if that would be okay.
Page 189
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, let me turn it over to Thierry.
MR. BOVERI: Good afternoon, members of the Commission.
My name is Thierry Boveri. I'm with Public Resource Management
Group and I have a very brief presentation to discuss the cost recovery
policy.
A little bit -- I think under a year ago we were here to discuss the
findings of a rate study that we were commissioned to perform for the
Parks and Recreation Department which identified some of what was
discussed with respect to the cost recovery of all the existing fees.
What we find is, is that the majority of parks and recreational
departments across the country typically under-recover with respect to
the fees that they charge relative to the services that they provide. This
is common. That's because a lot of the services that may be offered,
there may not be an exchange-based transaction to which you can
recover a particular fee, and therefore for the existing fees that we do
charge, we try to evaluate and develop a methodology for assigning
and developing a fee.
A lot of times this can be an arbitrary process trying to assign and
particular fee at a particular level of cost recovery. What we seek to
try to do today with the proposal of a cost recovery policy is to develop
a methodology that brings forward a formula to identify how you
would go about setting a particular fee and recover a certain level of
cost.
As a result of the 2014 fee study that was developed last year and
then presented was a recommendation to develop this cost recovery
policy, which we're here today, and also include an index provision for
existing fees to keep pace with inflation as the cost of services goes up
annually.
The policy goals associated -- that kind of guided how it was
developed included that it should be practical to where staff can
Page 190
January 12, 2016
calculate the individual fees, it needs to be transparent, and the end
result needs to be reasonable. And ultimately needs to reflect the
county's values and strategic initiatives.
So in development of the policy, we tried to incorporate certain
elements of that, which I'll discuss when I explain how this fee formula
works on the cost recovery percentage.
So as you see here on this breakout of the formula, the first
element of the policy would seek, in terms of the methodology, would
seek to identify the particular cost of service, which includes the fixed
cost and indirect cost. It doesn't include any of the capital costs as an
outcome of the last year's study, strictly the operating costs that we're
looking at.
Once the direct costs have been identified, we try to compare that
service relative to a series of five different criteria that range from how
much the service might benefit the community, so in other words if a
particular service affected a greater number of the population within
the community, that that service would receive a more preferential
reduction in the cost recovery in design of the fee than another fee that
would be very individualistic.
So, for example, if you had a swim class that's being offered to
the population at all the different various pools versus a very
specialized highly advanced training class in karate, for example,
you're going to provide a greater reduction to the required cost
recovery for the swim class than you would for the karate class.
And that allows you a methodology for assigning how you want
to divvy up the monies that aren't being generated from the user fees
relative to the monies that you receive from the general fund in order
to provide all the services that you provide now.
Other elements within the criteria for the cost recovery policy: In
addition to the community benefit relate to -- excuse me. Relate to
youth and senior benefits, how it provides benefits to the youth or
Page 191
January 12, 2016
senior. If there's a benefit to the disabled or the disadvantaged and
whether it provides a safety or educational benefit. And all those are
laid out in detail within the policy.
So once we identify the cost service then we apply this cost
recovery factor, based on the type of service. We divide it by the
number of identified billing units to come up with a rate for the
associated service that we may be offering. And then there is
consideration that's listed here as a market factor.
What that is, is if a particular service that you're providing has
high participation but staff identifies that the cost recovery is very low
and it meets all these other criteria and maybe the fee is reasonable up
until the point where we consider a market factor, we might decide at
that point utilizing this market factor to raise the fee, because we can.
And the reason why we would want to do that is because we have high
participation, we can increase the revenue to the system. That means
that we can either have a lower pull from the general fund or we can
increase the services, and that would be at the discretion of the Board
and the division.
So the policy tries to seek to make consideration for market
factors which can sometimes be complicated.
And that's essentially how the methodology for the fee policy
holds.
There are some other principal provisions to the policy that I
think we need to mention. The fee methodology that you would run
through, that formula that you would run through, the way it would
work is it would be applied only to new fees that we would be
calculating and bringing forward, not any existing fees. Or if we
wanted to change the existing fees in the formal process that I think the
Parks and Recreation Department goes through the budget process, as I
understand bringing forward fees with that upcoming budget cycle
would be the typical time where fees would be changed or presented.
Page 192
January 12, 2016
And so you wouldn't -- this methodology wouldn't provide a tax on
your staff right now to go back and look at every single fee and have to
recalculate every fee, because we have over 300 fees.
So what this proposal would do is that as you change fees, you
would then look at each fee as you were to change them or as you were
to initiate a new fee.
The other element of the provision that I need to mention is that
there's a maximum limitation to the fees that can be implemented
associated with the policy at 10 percent. And the existing fee -- the
next provision, the existing fees may be indexed to inflation on an
annual basis.
And finally, under very unique circumstances, in the case of an
absence of the Board, and there might be a need for a fee to be
established, because let's say you have a traveling speaker coming in to
the county and you need to initiate a fee, there would be a policy to
provide for an interim fee established that would then be brought
forward at the next board meeting. But the fee would be established
on an interim basis by the division director.
So that was a very brief overview of the policy. And for your
consideration we'd recommend the adoption of the cost recovery
policy and also recommend that there would be a periodic review to
the policy, recognizing it is a new policy, and that as you live with it
there's going to obviously be things that you may want to change or
improve upon over time. And so for that reason we also recommend
looking at it periodically.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We have the poorest of poor and the
wealthiest of wealthy in this community. And does that affect your
methodology in that? Because some parks are -- you know, will have
to have the fees changed according to who can pay. Or, you know,
they would probably go unused if kids can't pay to get in there. So will
that all be part of your methodology?
Page 193
January 12, 2016
MR. BOVERI: Yes, ma'am, it would be. I think that the policy
as laid out has a few different provisions to deal with those
circumstances.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good.
MR. BOVERI: One of the ones I mentioned before, the market
adjustment factor, can help with that, as well as the criteria
mechanisms, the five different criteria with which you determine the
cost recovery for a particular service. If it's a benefit of a
disadvantaged community, they would receive the benefit in reduced
fee under the --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We're doing pretty good with these
cost recoveries. I mean, to figure that we recovered already 37
percent, compared to other places, that's wonderful.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. And just to answer, or to
reiterate, there is a provision that takes into consideration -- and again,
if you think of this, there's the cost of service and then the population
served and there are some of these vulnerable populations, there's a
mechanism to reduce the expectation for cost recovery. That becomes
a guidance that we use to bring fee recommendations forward to you.
But you also have in the fee policy itself, existing one, a provision
that helps deal with people with low income. There is a provision for
scholarships, in granting scholarships so that that's taken care of.
So again, it's just meant to give us guidance as we bring
recommendations forward to you in terms of how we characterize a fee
recommendation. So it's a fairly straightforward process.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let's see, I have three people. I don't
know who was first.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Henning was first.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, yeah, it really needs to be
analysis on cost of service or cost efficiencies, or how can you be
Page 194
January 12, 2016
efficient, cost containment, before you pass it on to the user.
I mean, I know that it's a choice to have staff maintain the
grounds over there instead of using outside contractors. That's a costly
endeavor. That's a policy decision by the Board of Commissioners.
And I'm not sure -- I don't think it's appropriate to pass that on there. I
would imagine other parks farm that out.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, it's a very good point. A
couple of points come to mind when you say that.
You know, for the most part we outsource quite a bit within the
parks division. A lot our recreational services are outsourced, our
concessionaires are outsourced, you know, so we do attempt to
outsource as much as we can.
What we've found in parks, maintaining athletics fields, it's a
different thing for mow and go kind of outsource arrangements. We
do have some outsource mow and go arrangements that we have taken
advantage of, but maintaining athletics fields, working with the
recreation staff, working with sports tourism in particular, you just
need that interconnection that's difficult.
A lot of the parks divisions, those are the kind of things that they
maintain but they do outsource some of those mow and go operations.
Now, it is a good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the maintenance of
painting, things like that? Is that outside?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, painting is dealt with through facilities
management so I'm not really, you know, able to talk to that one. But --
and I do believe a lot of the painting is outsourced sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you missed a spot in the
Vineyards.
MR. OCHS: I'm writing that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I sent that to both of you. I
Page 195
January 12, 2016
haven't heard anything.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor -- or
Commissioner Nance, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, I think having these
methodologies as a means to develop your fees and change them is
going to take Parks and Rec to a very good professional level. It won't
be arbitrary, you won't get in constant fights and you'll have a means to
discuss the fees rationally and make the changes as the Board provides
you with guidance. So that having been said, I congratulate you on
doing this and I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I have a motion and a second.
Any discussion on that?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I've got two people that wanted to
speak, but if everybody wants to just vote, we can move on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, let's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to talk about one thing.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, you don't want to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I was just -- as an aside, I
was pleased to note that there is a process for less disadvantaged -- or
more disadvantaged children and families to be able to use our park
system. Because indeed, those are the folks that need this, you know.
So I'm delighted to hear that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, the only change really that I
see from what's going on now is the market factor. Otherwise
essentially it's exactly the same. Because otherwise the formula is no
-- like I said, there's no difference.
And the market factor is going to be determined by staff?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, staff would bring recommendations to
Page 196
January 12, 2016
the Board. Ultimately it would be the Board's decision in terms of our
characterization of marker factors and how our fees are set.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I just think you're going to
have to be really, really careful. Because we have disadvantaged
children throughout the entire county, and while there may be
concentrations in one neighborhood over another, I think if you start
saying that one park is going to have a factor to consider
disadvantaged and then in another park -- like I assure you that in
North Collier there are children from low income families who are
visiting the water park. Now, we may be located in North Collier. So
are you going to say that you're going to have higher rates in North
Collier and that, you know, if you come from a lower income family
that you go to a park somewhere else?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, ma'am, the fee --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How are you going to do it?
MR. WILLIAMS: The fee schedule applies to all constituents in
Collier County the same way --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would hope so.
MR. WILLIAMS: -- so there's not a differentiation.
If you had a service -- and the water park is a good example, I
guess. If you had a service -- and currently, for example, use sports. If
you were to apply this methodology there would be considerable
discounts because you're serving youth, perhaps disadvantaged youth.
So you'd have considerable --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how would you define
disadvantaged youth?
MR. WILLIAMS: Disadvantaged youth --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, you made the point that
everybody has to be charged the same and now you're saying we're
going to have a program that targets --
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me change that a little bit, I guess. I think
Page 197
January 12, 2016
what we're trying to do is to keep youth out of trouble and so let me
not use the term disadvantaged youth. I think all youth have
advantages. We're trying to involve them in activities that will keep
them from doing things we'd rather them not.
So -- but your fee policy, my point is that it applies throughout the
county the same. So what you would want to do is to give a -- not
capture totally the expense of that service for youth sports. You would
want to provide a bigger discount for that. This policy would give us
the guidance to bring forth those requests to you to make that
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So charge more for adult sports
and less for youth sports.
MR. WILLIAMS: Perhaps.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But not to suggest oh, we're
charging less for someone from --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right, that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That needs to be clarified, because
that's not the way it's being presented.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: They said that in the backup material.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, but that's not how it was
presented here for the public to hear. What's being presented before us
today to vote on is not that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And I want to tell you, you guys are
doing so great with this pickle ball stuff. It is amazing how you've just
reacted to the need. I mean, quickly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I finish what I was saying?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, I'll finish mine then.
And I think it's just amazing. And as you all know, CBS Sports is
coming on down to see it happen. They're going to be filming that
whole tournament.
And I just want to say, our staff has been quick to respond to that
Page 198
January 12, 2016
going on. So I'm just giving kudos.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But here's the reality. The reality
is that the cost and the proper management of the cost is the real issue.
Because that's what you're looking to recover. And if you would
manage the cost more effectively and efficiently then you wouldn't
have to worry so much about what to discount because that issue
wouldn't be there in the first place because the cost wouldn't be as high
that you're looking to pass on and we wouldn't have these absorption
issues that we're facing.
So I think what needs to be done is, you know, if you have a
consultant, go back and look at how you are managing the costs in
Parks and Recs. Just like Commissioner Henning said. Because I've
had the same issues.
In fact, one of the issues I was going to bring to the County
Manager's attention is the fact that we're staffed, as I understand, to
provide early learning services. Why are we doing that? Why aren't
we outsourcing? I mean, there are agencies that, you know, are -- you
know, that are efficiently and effectively managing I'm sure at a lower
cost than we are personnel that can teach, you know, very, very young
children. Why do we have that kind of staff?
I mean, I'm going to the issue of outsourcing. We outsource the
management of our boat docks and that has proven to be better than
when we had our own staff doing that. I think you have to begin by
looking at the cost and then go to a policy to adjust the cost relative to
the issues that you raise here. But, you know, cost management is the
first issue.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, I don't disagree. And that's
something that we do every day as we look at all the services that we
provide and try to determine if somebody else can do them. The early
learning services that you mentioned are subsidized from the State of
Page 199
January 12, 2016
Florida. We have community centers centrally located in communities
where people that work and, you know, need to take care of their
children, we're just the right spot. We don't compete with nonprofits to
do the same work. We're just a resource in the community for that, so
-- and it's subsidized by the state, it's not subsidized by the local
taxpayer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's still all taxes. And it
should be viewed the same way. I mean, there's no difference who
pays it, whether it's federal money or state money or local money,
they're all taxes. And, you know, whether we contract that out and get
supported by a grant or do it in-house, if we can get more teachers if
we contract out, that's what we should do.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, before you had
said something about, you know, call for the question and so we are,
and that's -- we have a motion to approve and a second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, 4-1 is the vote. Thank you very
much.
And Leo, I want to deviate from our schedule just a little bit. This
gentleman has sat here all day long and I finally said I don't even know
who he is or what (sic) he's from. I thought maybe he was here to be
entertained, but he isn't. He has actually something on his agenda. I
don't even --
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: What a boring life that would be.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: He's been entertained all right.
Page 200
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah, I guess he has.
That's what, number 13.A, I believe, right? So could we address
13.A first, please, Leo?
Item #13A
TO PROVIDE THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS INFORMATION REGARDING A PORTION
OF AN OUTSTANDING INVOICE RECEIVED BY COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON OR
ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 FROM GILLIG, LLC PURSUANT
TO THE INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY
(IDIQ) CONTRACT #14-009 DATED DECEMBER 5, 2013; AND
INFORM THE BOARD OF OTHER MATTERS REGARDING
THIS CONTRACT — DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Certainly. 13.A is your other constitutional officers.
An item to provide the Board information regarding a portion of an
outstanding invoice received by the Board on or about September 11th,
2015 from Gillig, LLC pursuant to the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite
Quantity Contract dated December 5th, 2013.
The Clerk's finance department put this on the agenda, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. So would you like to talk,
Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
For the record, Crystal Kinzel with the Clerk's Office.
We have some outstanding invoices in relationship to the Gillig
contract, which was the purchase of a 428,000 plus dollar bus. We
have made a partial payment towards the purchase of that bus based on
the items that we were able to validate according to the original
contract.
Page 201
January 12, 2016
There were about seven items that were either substitution items
or additional items amended to the agreement by staff that we've been
unable to validate the cost. We had requested from the vendor
documentation on some of those substitutions. We do not have that.
So we just wanted to bring to the Board's attention, based on Mr.
Sibley's letter to the Board and copied to the Clerk's Office, that those
items are outstanding.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo, do you want our staff or can we
hear from the gentleman that's here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to hear what Mr. Ochs
has to say.
MR. OCHS: Well, Commissioners, again, as I have provided
some supplemental information, there was a reference in the summary
about authorization to enter into this. And I had a discussion with Ms.
Kinzel a little earlier in the afternoon, it's the staffs opinion and
supported by legal opinion by the County Attorney's Office that the
procurement services director had the authority to make those
substitutions pursuant both to the contract and to your procurement
ordinance.
So with regard to the authority to make those modifications, I was
simply providing that information to the staff. And I think what Ms.
Kinzel has just presented is something maybe a little bit different than
the authority question. Has to do more with I'm hearing some
documentation concerns. And maybe this gentleman could speak to
that more directly.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you like to?
MR. SIBLEY: I sure would.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SIBLEY: Thank you very much. Butch Sibley with Gillig,
LLC.
No, there really is no difference from what this gentleman's
Page 202
January 12, 2016
speaking and this lady is speaking about. I'm caught in the middle.
This is a catch-22 for me. I did nothing wrong here. All's I want is my
money.
What it comes down to is the Board entered into a contract with
Gillig. The Board's staff issued a purchase order to me. We accepted
the purchase order, built the bus in good faith, expecting to be paid for
it. We built the bus exactly like the staff wanted it. Exactly. Delivered
it on time. The bus is in revenue service out there making money right
now for Collier County.
The question became whether or not the BCC's staff had the
authority to make certain changes or purchase certain options within
the scope of this contract that was approved by the Board to build this
bus. Each bus is custom built.
The BCC staff and the Manager believes that the staff has the
right to do that. The Clerk believes that they had to come back to the
Board. So for these insignificant little changes that added up to
$22,000, you know, they weren't big changes on the bus, there was no
cardinal changes on the bus, it's not like they changed the engine or
something, they just added little features and things that made it a little
different, you know.
So the BCC said no, it's within our ordinance -- I guess you guys
have some kind of ordinance here that allows Board staff to make
specific changes. And the Clerk's Office says oh, no, no, no, any
changes has to go back to the Board for approval.
Look, I don't care whether she's right or whether he's right. I'm
stuck in the middle. I provided -- on November 25th I provided the
information that the Board's staff asked me to in relationship to the
cost justification on these seven components. Gave it to them.
The Clerk may have asked for additional information. The
Board's staff said no, no, no, no, no you don't need anything more and
we're not taking this to the Board. The Clerk says, oh, they've got to
Page 203
January 12, 2016
take that to the Board. I'm saying wait a minute, you two guys can't
fight nice in the sandbox is not my problem. Ails I want is my money,
$22,002. I'm asking this board to please help me get paid for my bus.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What -- can you explain anything
about this or -- you had told me about it in my office so I think it
would be a great explanation if-- the necessary changes which had to
be made?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We changed or modified seven
specifications, most to promote additional safety for the passengers on
the bus and the motoring public that motor in and around the buses.
The result of the changes is actually a reduction in the overall
price of the bus as originally quoted. Examples like tires that were
spec from a manufacturer who didn't make that size tire anymore, we
substituted a different manufacturer that made that size tire. An
information rack, we modified the dimension of that by two or three
inches so it would accommodate the materials that we had produced to
put in there. Some safety lights that were originally spec'd to be
triangular in shape, we asked for a round shape with a beveled cover
because it was more visible by the motoring public.
So we think we made minor changes. We went to the County
Attorney's Office and asked them to look at your ordinance to confirm
that in our opinion that those minor changes could be made by your
procurement services director, were indeed authorized by your
ordinance, and they came back and affirmed that for us, in their
opinion, anyhow.
So we didn't really feel that we were compelled to come again to
the Board for authorization based on that analysis.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Unless we do, then this gentleman
Page 204
January 12, 2016
doesn't get paid; is that right? What can we do about getting him paid?
It's not his fault and he's been held hostage.
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure what additional payment information. I
would leave that to Ms. Kinzel.
MS. KINZEL: And Commissioner Fiala, I can comment on that.
It was not necessarily the fact that the staff had approved the
changes. That is an element. But if it was just based on Board
approval we could have brought it to the Board for just Board
approval.
What we're looking for is the differential between the cost
elements of what was originally on the price line item. And when Leo
speaks to the tires, we had asked for -- the price of the tires was about
$707 each; there's six of them. The difference between the Michelins
and the other Firestone tires, we wanted a cost estimate from Gillig to
indicate the difference between those tires so we could verify that there
in fact was a cost difference.
Another example is $30,000. The Board had approved a
budgetary placeholder of$30,000 for an Avail system. When we
received the invoice, it was $12,272 for a prewiring for a system. We
have no way to substantiate the cost differential between what you had
budgeted if the description on those items isn't the same.
So what we had asked of the vendor and of the department was to
get to us the cost difference between the items that they did change so
that we could validate those costs to what we were paying. Okay?
I believe Mr. Sibley was willing to do that but county staff
indicated to him not to provide that to the Clerk.
MS. ARNOLD: That's not true.
MS. KINZEL: Okay, that's what he indicate do me, Michele, so I
-- you know, you and I worked very well I thought on this. We had
expected that staff was bringing this to the Board on December 8th so
the gentleman could be paid. It did not occur. So we put it on the
Page 205
January 12, 2016
agenda in hopes to get him paid.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, I hope we end here today so he
does get paid.
So tell me, is there -- I know I have two commissioners waiting,
but I have to hear the rest of the story.
Go ahead, Michele.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, what occurred was -- for the record,
Michele Arnold, Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement
Director.
What occurred was the request to have us put an item on the
Board agenda to explain that we had made some ministerial changes to
the contract. And Mr. Ochs had pointed out several of the changes.
I wanted to point out that the one particular item with regard to
our ITS, our Avail system, as Crystal pointed out, it is a budgeted item.
There are 20 some odd other jurisdictions that are a party to this
contract. There is no way that Gillig can, as a part of their proposal,
can identify what that cost is, because everybody else has a different
ITS system.
When we asked for the bus, when we ordered the bus, we
specified what our specific ITS system was. It's with Avail. Gillig
meets with that particular vendor who provides us our system and they
get a quote, and that is provided as part of the purchase order estimate.
And that's what we've asked for. So we didn't ask for $30,000, which
is the limit that the contract requires, or specifies, we asked for our
$12,000 system and that's what we got.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Did you tell the gentleman not to give
the information?
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely not. What happened was there was
some discussion about him coming down to meet with the Clerk's staff
to provide further verification because it's proprietary information. I
forwarded him our opinion from the County Attorney's Office and he
Page 206
January 12, 2016
sent a response back saying I don't need to provide any further
information. This is the opinion from your County Attorney and they
are saying that what staff has done is within their right, so you all need
to pay me. Why should I drive down there to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You know, we're never going to have
any vendors left if we don't find a way to solve these things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve. And the
Board finds that the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- $22,200 of invoices serves a
valid public purpose.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just make one other point? That we have
two other vehicles that are on order that have been moved out of the
schedule because of this whole issue that I'm not sure just approving
this item will resolve. Because I'm not really understanding, I thought
the reason why this was put on the agenda was because of the question
of whether or not we had the authority to make those ministerial
changes. And just approving it I'm not sure is going to clarify.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You have your button on first.
Georgia is first, then Commissioner Taylor, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a very significant issue. It
goes to exactly what you said and that is the right of staff to engage in
the execution of ministerial tasks.
This is a ministerial series of actions. You were within the budget.
In fact, the overall cost of that bus purchase was reduced. This is not
22,000 over budget. The budget for that bus cost went down. You
executed administrative tasks. You did not make discretionary
decisions. There is no Board action required. And there is no approval
by this Board to authorize payment when what the Clerk is saying is
Page 207
January 12, 2016
that he needs additional documentation and it doesn't go to Board
approval.
So the issue of what documentation the Clerk is alleging is still
necessary to be paid is the issue, and that is not a vote by this Board. If
the Clerk feels that there is underlying evidence that needs to be
presented, that's an issue separate from authorization of the Board and
whether or not you engaged in an administrative act. And that's the
issue.
So what is the documentation that the Clerk needs? Because the
motion here is not relevant to the issue, according to what Ms. Kinzel
just said and what was just discussed before us. Because clearly there
was no Board approval required to make the 22,000 and change that
this man is owed. What did the Clerk want?
MR. SIBLEY: Here's the justification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, that's not my question.
What did the Clerk want from you? Can you get to the podium,
please.
Let me just ask: What documents did the Clerk ask of you? And
actually, don't answer that, let me just ask -- let me say, I would like
the Clerk's Office to tell me, what documents have you asked of this
vendor that he has not provided?
MS. KINZEL: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, thank you very
much, because you've hit right on exactly. It is the documentation to
validate the charges that have been received against the contracted
items. That is exactly the point of why we brought it forward. So I
appreciate that.
We have asked about -- there are about seven items, they've been
articulated several times, including in the County Attorney's response,
on what changes can be made or not made.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor's mic is right
in front of you, I can't see you. Sorry.
Page 208
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: We have several items that were changed. Some
are very small, I agree, including on the magazine rack, those prices
and the basis of those prices.
The major items are -- well, and let me do all of them, because it's
all important, regardless of the dollar value. We have a passenger
information station. We wanted to see the quote. That was only $414.
We had the profile antenna that was changed and that's $125.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What specific documentation do
you want for these items?
MS. KINZEL: The cost estimates from Mr. Sibley. In other
words, what's his cost relationship, the differential between that was
substituted versus what was on your list, we would like to see
substantial documentation. Because when --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The documenta--
MS. KINZEL: Can I finish? I want to see what he paid. But you
didn't provide a receipt, an invoice or what --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You --
MS. KINZEL: -- what detailed information. For example, on the
Avail system, okay, everyone's assuming it's a savings because the
budgetary placeholder was 30,000 and he only charged you 12,272.
Now, for example, on that one, again I say, it was a system versus the
invoice description that came to us was prewiring. That's totally
different than a system.
Additionally, we started to review this a little more when it did
not come before the Board and found that Fleet I think in fact has
charged about $1,800 to finish the wiring of the Avail system on the
bus because that is not what was received. So these are the types of
issues that we were trying to resolve with some documentation from
Gillig.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, on all the other items in the
construction of this bus, did you get their underlying invoices of what
Page 209
January 12, 2016
they paid for --
MR. SIBLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Please, hang on a second.
They put sheet metal on the bus. Let's say it's a steel bus. Do you
get the underlying invoice from them on how much they paid for the
steel for that particular bus?
MS. KINZEL: I will tell you, we did not on that case because the
remainder of the items matched the price listing that the Board had
originally approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So because they charged less than
what was budgeted within the purchase order, you want backup?
MS. KINZEL: It's not necessarily less. It is a substitution or a
deviation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you think --
MS. KINZEL: -- from what was solicited as the item that you
accepted and approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So was staff--
MS. KINZEL: What came in was different than what you
ordered.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So staff was able to satisfy
the same requirement with a lesser product and therefore you need
validation that it's okay --
MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioners, really --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- from that?
MS. KINZEL: -- only the Board can determine that the
substitutions --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but --
MS. KINZEL: -- are equal to what you got. But we're trying to
validate the pricing differential from what was originally solicited with
the Gillig product.
And I had one other question, Mr. Sibley, because you mentioned
Page 210
January 12, 2016
the contract was with the Board of County Commissioners, but I
understood that you were working through the LYNX Consortium and
that in fact we paid a fee to LYNX for you to work with them as the
contractor.
MR. SIBLEY: So what's your question?
MS. KINZEL: Is your contract in your mind with the Board of
County Commissioners or is it with the LYNX Consortium?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or maybe it's with the Board of
Commissioners and the Clerk of Courts who refuses to pay --
MR. SIBLEY: Maybe it's -- yeah, it's certainly not with the
Clerk, I know that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, believe it or not, it is.
MR. SIBLEY: However, we have a contract with the LYNX
Florida Consortium, and Collier County is named on that contract as
an authorized purchaser. At some point I believe it was. I can tell you
the dates.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're third-party beneficiaries?
MR. SIBLEY: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are we?
MR. SIBLEY: Michele brought that -- here it is right here.
Michele brought before this Board an agenda item to purchase buses
off of that LYNX contract, which was approved by this Board. I don't
know if these are the exact people, but by this Board.
MS. KINZEL: It was, but the price listing that was presented to
this Board is not in accordance with what you then build. And that
was the deviation that we were trying to validate, what is the deviation
in what the Board had approved to be purchased versus what you
provided as the materials on those items that was different from the
original contract.
MR. SIBLEY: Not necessarily. Not necessarily, because each
bus is custom built. So the contract has a base bus, but then there are
Page 211
January 12, 2016
14 different pages of optional equipment that can be used in place of
the base.
For example, you brought up the Avail system. Each property
has a different type of ITS system ranging from Miami to $56,000 to
maybe Lake County with $5,000 or so. Some people do full-blown
systems, some people do prewiring, you know. We don't know what
the specific components of that build are until we get to the
preproduction meeting.
So what we did is we put a $30,000 placeholder in there which
allows the transit agency to take some amount of money to their Board
for approval. Knowing that the average system is about 20 to 25,000,
we put a $30,000 placeholder, they can take it to their Board and get
approval so that they don't have to come back to their Board to get
more money later.
Once we understand what the cost is, after we understand what
their specifications is, the price is adjusted. If I charged you $30,000
for that Avail ITS system, you would have never questioned it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And which is unbelievable.
MR. SIBLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you know the most amazing
thing about it? That would have been fraud.
MR. SIBLEY: Yeah, unbelievable. Blows me away.
MS. KINZEL: That is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is absolutely correct.
MR. SIBLEY: I just want my $22,002. You guys can fight this
out later. Just tell me what to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So essentially the way the contract
is structured is the budget allows -- like an individual line item allows
for a configuration of the product up to that budgetary amount, and
then staff does the -- makes the ministerial decision-making of what
suits that particular bus. And as an example, where you have a
Page 212
January 12, 2016
$30,000 budget, we use 12,000 of it because we only needed the
prewiring component and that's all we wanted to purchase for that
particular bus.
MR. SIBLEY: And ma'am, I explained all that in this November
25th letter that I spent time myself drafting about all the seven issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, here's the bottom line --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What happened with that letter?
MR. SIBLEY: I gave it to Michelle's staff who I believe gave it
to Crystal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you get that letter, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Yes, I did. It does not have the backup and
supporting information. What it says --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So --
MS. KINZEL: Can I finish my answer? Thanks.
What it says is exactly what Mr. Sibley has indicated. It is a
generic answer which says each property has different requirements.
Oftentimes the specific requirements are not known or change orders
placed. Gillig use this as a placeholder. Once the preproduction
meeting is held, the ITS systems are defined.
Now, here's the other thing that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So --
MS. KINZEL: -- is ironic here, if I can finish the answer.
They bring to the Board the estimate of those cooperatives or
consortium agreements. The Board is actually approving obviously
more money than may even be necessary. Once the purchase order is
determined and a definitive amount of the expectation of county staff
is available, all they needed to do was bring that information back to
the Board, either on consent or another manner that they -- what you
were actually approving.
MR. SIBLEY: So see, I don't need any more documentation. All
she wanted was them to come back to the Board.
Page 213
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's completely unnecessary
because it's --
MR. SIBLEY: Why am I even here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- immaterial because --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm going to just quiet it down for just
a minute. We've got three other -- and I would love to hear you go on
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't finish my statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, Madam Chair --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I've got three other people here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I have a motion. I'm calling
the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't support it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm calling the motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It cannot be supported.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Talk to the motion and let's
move on. This jibber jabber --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I understand that, but I'm trying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I pulled my motion --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- to give a couple other people an
opportunity to talk.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: My talk was to second that
motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't support this.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this goes to the lawsuit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 100 percent.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: This goes to the what, please?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I want to tell you something --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 100 percent to the lawsuit. And
Page 214
January 12, 2016
here's the reason --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But this gentleman has to get paid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And he needs to --
MR. OCHS: The Clerk can pay him. The Clerk can pay him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Clerk can pay him. This is an
issue about the Clerk's failure to accept what this man says. And this
man is right.
In fact, the irony of this situation is the point you made. If they
purchase 100,000 in steel and that's the budget and in fact you only pay
60,000 for the steel, we're paying 100,000, she's not validating the
underlining information related to that budgetary item because there's a
match. But there's a difference that's like what, $18,000 less, and
because we didn't use the full budgetary amount she wants to validate
the lesser amount and doesn't validate every line item in that budget?
I've never heard anything so stupid in my life.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
The information that Commissioner Hiller's just put forward on
the record is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's absolutely correct.
MS. KINZEL: The Clerk's Office -- excuse me, could I please
answer the questions or at least put on the statement, since it's my turn?
We verify things that match, we verify things that don't match --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't validate anything.
MS. KINZEL: -- we ask for information to substantiate costs.
And a big reason that we do that, if you've all forgotten, the BQ
Concrete where we had exactly the problem with the backup and
differentiation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't validate it. Oh, wow.
MS. KINZEL: Oh, you're right, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, wow.
Page 215
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: So we have gotten better at what we are doing --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you're not.
MS. KINZEL: -- and we continue to try to get supporting
documentation so that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't know what you're doing.
MS. KINZEL: -- we can make payment, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't know how to do your
job, that's the problem.
MS. KINZEL: Okay, and you know -- I'm not even going to
comment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And here's the problem --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning just said he
has a motion on the floor and a second. He said he wanted to call the
question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't support it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You don't have to support it, he just
wanted to put his motion on the floor.
So would you repeat your motion again?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I have something to say.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: When I got elected to office I had
people over and over and over tell me that if I tried to do anything as a
county commissioner I needed to go into Collier County and I needed
to make it so that it was a business friendly environment. The biggest
problem was Collier County was a joke. Nobody wanted to do
business with the county. It was so damn difficult, the process and
administration was awful. Staff wouldn't cooperate with anybody, the
Clerk wouldn't cooperate with anybody, it was a giant quagmire,
everybody was sick of dealing with Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They still are.
MR. SIBLEY: Gillig won't --
Page 216
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, just let me
speak a moment, please, ma'am.
This pettiness coming from the Clerk has no public benefit. This
has been going on now, this is going into my fourth year. I've yet to
see any material fiscal benefit come out of all this bickering from the
Clerk. The Clerk continues to be petty, he wants to bring things like
this up that simply demonstrate that somebody on staff didn't cross an I
or dot a T. And what it amounts to is when you have a bus that's
approaching a half a million dollars that has thousands of features on
it, it does require some management. It requires staff to make
decisions.
This man's got pages and pages and pages of options that people
have to make decisions on. If the Clerk of Courts in Collier County
believes that he has to return to the Board of County Commissioners
because a tire manufacturer was discontinued and somebody had to
make a damn executive decision to choose another tire, then we are
completely out of our freaking minds, okay? There's no public benefit
to this.
This is costing this county a fortune, not only monetarily in staff
time, it is causing so much ill will nobody wants to do business with
the county.
And I want to tell you something, the biggest cost in sourcing
stuff for the county is the fact that nobody wants to be a vendor for
Collier County because the professionals in here are so damn petty.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here here.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And my patience for this is
wearing very thin. It's now before the court. The circuit court's going
to decide if somebody's got the authority on it. These BS agenda items
need to come to an end, we need to pay this man and thank him for
coming down here and doing business with us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we can't --
Page 217
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's what we need to do. We
need to stop thinking of some reason not to pay people and start
thinking of some reason to get our act together and make it happen and
make it easy for them to work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We're torturing each other and
we're torturing our vendors. And it's got to stop. The Clerk is being
petty, it's got no public benefit.
If he can come in and show me where in the hell he saved Collier
County a nickel, I'll eat the nickel, all right? He's spending hundred
dollar bills chasing nickels. It's ridiculous. I'm sick of it.
I'm sorry, I've got to get something to drink.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Just very quickly, when we started this discussion I
said I thought this was about authorization, and Ms. Kinzel said this
was about documentation, backing up certain substitutions on pricing.
And I believe her, now that she said that.
So there is no need that I can see for the Board to have to take any
action to approve an expenditure that the County Attorney has said the
staff is already authorized under your existing ordinance to make. If
she needs -- I don't know what -- whatever she needs from this
gentleman beyond what she's already gotten, the Board doesn't need to
get involved in that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not at all.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So Crystal, then will you pay him?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, exactly. We had tried to
work this out at the staff level and get the documentation. I agree with
the County Manager, if we get the documentation to support the items,
that's what we will have to review to the remainder of the payment.
MR. OCHS: And all I have to say, that is a completely new
Page 218
January 12, 2016
standard, a recent standard, let's put it that way, that the heretofore
vendors like this gentleman have not been subject to. And their own
published price list, I'm not sure that level of backup documentation
and scrutiny has been required currently or in the past. So we can all
dance around this, but I think we know what it is.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So in other words, we do not need to
vote on this, this can just be handled and this guy can get his --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not going to get paid. She won't pay him
unless you say pretty please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what's going on here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Until he gives her what she wants,
which is completely unjustified and unnecessary.
MR. KLATZKOW: She's wants -- she's asking you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To do the Clerk's job?
MR. KLATZKOW: She's asking you to approve this item so he
can get paid.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No --
MR. SIBLEY: So approve it so I can get my money.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's saying that it doesn't have to get done
that way.
MR. SIBLEY: Just approve it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Our approval --
MR. SIBLEY: All she got to do is say approved.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Our approval doesn't eliminate the
underlying document--
MR. SIBLEY: But she'll still pay for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't waive the Clerk's
documentary evidentiary standard. That's not our jurisdiction. We are
not the Clerk of Courts. If he wants those documents, it's his liability,
he needs to get it. And if that means he has to sue you to get it in order
Page 219
January 12, 2016
to pay you, that's what he has to do. The fight is with the Clerk. The
Board doesn't have the legal authority to waive a documentary
requirement that the Clerk has --
MR. SIBLEY: But my contract, my purchase order, came from
this Board.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He is a party to that contract.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we approved the purchase --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's the Clerk to the Board --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Georgia.
MR. OCHS: We approved the purchase, the Clerk does the
preaudit and then the Board approves the ultimate expenditure of the
funds.
MR. SIBLEY: That's fine.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. SIBLEY: So where are we at?
MS. KINZEL: Could I make it real easy?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'd like to hear that.
MS. KINZEL: If we can agree to get the documentation, we'll
work with Mr. Sibley to finish up the documentation and ask the Board
to approve the 22. We've covered both ends of the approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't need to approve
anything. You get the documentation, get your satisfaction with your
preaudit and send it to us for our general approval before prepayment
like we do on every single expenditure.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Why do you need an approval? If he
produces all of this stuff you've asked, he's produced all the other
things already, and it's less than what we originally planned?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I was trying to make a
mutual agreement. Your County Attorney says the approval would
cover the bases. I was just trying to make it happen on both ends.
Page 220
January 12, 2016
The Board needs to take your action and then the Clerk's Office
will take theirs. And thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let's hear the --
MR. KLATZKOW: The executive summary says that one of the
problems here is that there's no BC approval of the funding authority.
So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's what it says. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But here's the way --
MR. KLATZKOW: So it's really two things: It's documentation
and it's approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here's the way it works. She
finishes her preaudit and she puts it on the dispersal approvement (sic)
list, just like every other expenditure. We're not giving any separate
authorization to a ministerial act engaged in by staff legally. We will
approve for disbursement subsequent to preaudit as required by our
ordinance in every instance. This is not going to be an exception to the
rule. It is not any different than any other payment.
The dispute is over the documentation between the two of them
and they need to resolve it independent of us. This is the Clerk's
preaudit underlined documentary requirement. The fact that they don't
know how to properly do a preaudit and don't understand what they
should be looking at --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not what the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- versus not looking at is not our
issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- executive summary --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't care what his summary
says.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I can't get her to quiet down. I'm
sorry, I've tried.
Page 221
January 12, 2016
So we approved 30,000 for this, it's less money than what we
approved for. So we've already approved that. She needs
documentation to prove that it's less money and then she can pay it.
We --
MR. SIBLEY: I don't think that's correct, ma'am. I don't think
that's correct coming from her. I don't think so. I think that after any
subsequent documentation that I give her, she's still going to require
Board approval to pay it. Aren't you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Gillig, or Mr. whatever --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Are you, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, we need to see the
information that he has as a base of the contract. That's where we
started our request for --
MR. SIBLEY: Doesn't end there.
MS. KINZEL: -- the supporting documentation.
Let me explain exactly what happened, okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, that's --
MS. KINZEL: When --
MR. KLATZKOW: Crystal.
MS. KINZEL: -- the item --
MR. KLATZKOW: Crystal, that's not what your
recommendation says.
MS. ARNOLD: Crystal, I have a question, what --
MS. KINZEL: You know what? Take action whatever you think
appropriate.
MS. ARNOLD: Will you approve his payment if he gives you
that additional documentation?
MS. KINZEL: I haven't seen the documentation yet --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But would you --
MS. KINZEL: -- I don't know.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- approve it, Crystal, is her question.
Page 222
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: If-- we have to be able to validate the
documentation. I can't say we will approve it based on documentation
until I've seen and audited the documentation, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's the --
MS. KINZEL: And let me explain -- can I please finish a
sentence?
Commissioner Fiala, part of the issue with this agreement was
once we discovered that there were differences we have then found
other items that we have mentioned at the bottom of this executive
summary, concerns, and we have mentioned that perhaps you want to
look at some of the solicitation and bidding issues with the LYNX
contract. That was discovered after the preliminary request for the
information and the supporting documentation, okay. That was
included in executive summary.
And let me explain the difference between this and the 273 report
for Board approval. We had agreed to bring on this 273 report items
that had passed the Clerk's preaudit other than Board of County
Commissioner approval and determination of a valid public purpose.
This item did not pass the Clerk's preaudit. That's why we had asked
staff to get us additional information --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is the lawsuit. This is all the
lawsuit.
MS. KINZEL: No, it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is a total game. In is a game
to no end.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Please, stop interrupting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't know how to read the
law. We have an ordinance and you need to read --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Please stop interrupting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Excuse me, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Page 223
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: Thank you.
That's the difference between this item and an item that merely
requires Board approval. We had discrepancies in our audit function.
We returned these items to the department, rejecting them for a lack of
that documentation. That's what started the item that -- we asked the
department to please bring forward that information, okay? That was
issue number one.
Once that documentation was not forthcoming and based on legal
opinions and other information that we've gotten regarding this
contract and the procurement, including the items that were attached
where the difference between single source, sole source and the
procurement nuances from the entire LYNX contract, we added a
clause to this that the Board of County Commissioners may want to
have someone review those compliance issues, okay. That's why at
this point in time, not having seen the documentation, I cannot make a
blanket statement that yes, the Clerk will approve this. He --
MR. KLATZKOW: Then your recommendation is wrong.
MS. KINZEL: -- needs to have --
MR. KLATZKOW: Read your recommendation to the Board on
your executive summary.
MS. KINZEL: My recommendation, Jeff, is just to review it.
MR. KLATZKOW: If it determines appropriate, authorize the
expenditure of funds.
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an action item. Now you're changing it.
Now you're saying even if they approve it you may not pay it. You've
changed this.
MS. KINZEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my God. I mean --
MS. KINZEL: Jeff, are there other lines to that recommendation
that also say they should look at the additional items for compliance
Page 224
January 12, 2016
based on the documentation.
MR. KLATZKOW: It says you'll pay it if they approve it and
now you're saying you won't.
MS. KINZEL: Jeff, I'm saying I need the documentation to
validate. I've asked for both the documentation and the amount.
MR. SIBLEY: That's not what it says in this. It says if you
approve it --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: People are never going to want to do
business with us anymore.
MR. SIBLEY: -- she'll pay it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I don't blame them.
MR. SIBLEY: It says if you approve it, she would pay it. That's
what her executive summary says.
MS. KINZEL: No, I don't believe --
MR. SIBLEY: And I've already given her the documentation.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Henning, you
wanted to say something, and then Commissioner Nance again.
MR. SIBLEY: See, I'm put in the middle. I'm a vendor. And I
hope all the other vendors in this county and everywhere are watching
this, because I am a vendor fighting for my money. On one side is the
Board and on the other side is the Clerk. And guess who's in the
middle? The vendor.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Innocent.
MR. SIBLEY: And -- yes, and I'm innocent. I did nothing wrong.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't. And the problem is the
Clerk will not complete his preaudit. We legally can't pay until he
finishes his preaudit. Once he finishes his preaudit after getting
whatever he feels he needs to satisfy his requirements, he gives it to us
and we approve it for payment. She won't approve the document you
gave.
And let me read some of the examples, just for the public's
Page 225
January 12, 2016
information, on what's in dispute and what she is disputing.
Question: Low pro-- this is Crystal's -- or the Clerk's question to
the vendor. Low Profile 800 megahertz antenna ASP-931. Page 8 of
Gillig price sheet said ASP 930-T. Why the difference?
Answer: The ASP-931 and ASP 930-T are identical except for
the cable connector. One uses a male and one uses a female. The type
radio used determines which one we use. Both are the same price.
She finds that unacceptable.
MR. SIBLEY: They're the same price.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now she's not verifying $100,000
in steel, but she's debating when one's a male and one's a female
connector and wants the underlying evidence for that.
I mean, if we have fraud and procurement it's because they're
looking at this shit instead of the other stuff.
So yeah, the point you made that they're not auditing like if you
had sold us a system for 30,000 and because the budget was 30 and
they're not auditing the underlining invoice for that but they're looking
at it as suddenly there's a change and it's 12,000 instead of 30,000 is
the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
MR. SIBLEY: But Michele and her staff all do this audit.
They're the ones that -- you know, I don't make this stuff up just say
hey, you need to buy this. They require this stuff from us, and I work
with them to get them what they want. And she audits all this stuff.
She just doesn't -- you know, she doesn't pass this paper.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal is --
MR. SIBLEY: I'm talking about Michele. She's already done all
this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal has to audit.
MR. SIBLEY: Well sure, she can audit it too. And I gave her
that documentation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: She has to.
Page 226
January 12, 2016
And, you know, here's another example where --
MR. SIBLEY: I mean, how wrong is what I gave her?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- at no difference in cost, but she
wants to see the underlying invoice when the exact same tires were
switched out because one vendor couldn't supply the size so they went
to the other vendor that had the same size. But suddenly you need an
invoice for that, but you don't need the invoice for $100,000 in steel.
MR. SIBLEY: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Michele and Ms. Markiewicz,
you've been involved in the specifications, the purchase of these buses.
This vendor has kindly worked with us and supplied us with units
previously, I believe. In fact, aren't they one of our sole source
suppliers that we have to conduct business with and so on and so forth?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are you two satisfied that we have
received a product that meets the specifications for what we requested
and what we bid on and that we have received, the item for which we
have bartered?
MS. ARNOLD: Absolutely.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So as far, Mr. Ochs, as county staff
is concerned, county staff has received what we have bid on, we have
bid through our process, we have made corrections and adjustments to
the situation as dictated by the situation?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, we have received what we've specified.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And we have submitted the bill to
the Clerk to pay because we are signing off on it and we say it's good
to go.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So what does the Board need to do
Page 227
January 12, 2016
now?
MR. OCHS: I don't think you need to do anything, unfortunately.
And I feel horrible for this gentleman. But look it, you've got a job,
I've got a job, the Clerk's got a job. I think we performed ours under
your ordinance and the County Attorney's opinion the Board is --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, we're satisfied that we have
received it and we have indicated that the Clerk should pay it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't.
MR. SIBLEY: Yeah, but she hasn't paid it. So I come to you
because you issued the purchase order. This Board, through the
procurement director, issued this purchase order to me. So my
recourse is with you. I have the contract with you. I have the purchase
order with you. I don't have it with her.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you do, because they are part
of us. He is Clerk to the Board. And here's the problem: We cannot
authorize disbursement until the Clerk has concluded his preaudit. He
has refused to conclude his preaudit because even though he didn't
look at the under-- this was a $500,000 bus and he didn't look at the
underlying documentation for 480,000, but now for the balance of
22,000 he wants underlying documentation and will not make approval
to us that he has preaudited.
He has the first line of lability. We rely on his preaudit to limit
our liability. We don't assume liability 'til he does his preaudit and he
gets it done, then he gives it to us and we approve for disbursement.
MR. SIBLEY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And he refuses to do it. That's the
problem.
Our problem is we are not the Clerk of Courts. They are coming
up with this underlying document requirement. And like I said, they
did not look at 480,000 in invoices but they are looking at like these
22. And they won't pay this 22 --
Page 228
January 12, 2016
MR. SIBLEY: But the executive summary that Crystal presented
today --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is wrong.
MR. SIBLEY: -- at the bottom says if you approve it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not --
MR. SIBLEY: -- she would pay it. That's what it said.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we are not going to do
that because we are not going to assume full liability. It is her
responsibility to get it done.
MR. SIBLEY: So I'm back in the middle again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, she has stat--
MR. SIBLEY: Still.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- statutory liability --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- we have a separate level of
liability.
MR. SIBLEY: I just hope --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We rely on her --
MR. SIBLEY: -- all vendors are watching this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We need to conclude it.
MR. SIBLEY: I just really hope all vendors are watching this,
because if this is what doing business in Collier County's like, then it
certainly sends a message to other vendors. Myself included. Because
I have a purchase order right now for two more buses on hold because
of this. I had to stop production of those buses and kind of put them
aside because it was wait a minute, am I going to be right back here
arguing this same thing again? So I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's 100 percent the Clerk's fault.
100 percent. It's his legal duty and he's failing to do, or choosing not to
do or feeling he can't do, whatever the reason is doesn't matter. It's --
MR. SIBLEY: Should I send that purchase order back?
Page 229
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. SIBLEY: Am I -- should I send that purchase order back?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let me ask the Clerk's Office.
MR. SIBLEY: I don't know what to do.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What did you say, Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I just want to put on the
record that, you know, Commissioner Hiller continues at each and
every item that we try to bring back to the Board for resolution to
make accusations, to make statements that are not validated, and I don't
want to continue the argument or the engagement. I think we are to the
point --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But we do have a problem, Crystal.
MS. KINZEL: Well, I believe that Commissioner Henning called
the question. And I will tell you, if the Board does what the Board
chooses to do and the Clerk's Office will do our preaudit function as
we see --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's impossible.
MS. KINZEL: -- appropriate. Okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely legally impossible. It
cannot be done from an audit --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Excuse me, do you want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- perspective --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- say something, Commissioner
Nance? You're done?
MR. SIBLEY: So what do I do?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I am so sorry --
MR. SIBLEY: Am I going to get my money?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: There is nothing we can do.
MR. SIBLEY: Nobody's paying my money.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Like Crystal said, if we don't do --
MR. SIBLEY: So I don't get paid my money for the bus that's
Page 230
January 12, 2016
operating in revenue service right now in Collier County? That I built
in good faith based on the purchase order that I received from Board
staff.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I have a funny feeling we're not
getting any more buses, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the recourse is for you to sue
the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. County Attorney, I would
like to hear from our legal adviser.
MR. KLATZKOW: Hey, you've got -- you had an item here
where I'm being told by Crystal that the recommendation isn't really
the recommendation. So I don't know what to make of this executive
summary. I don't know why this wasn't paid. I don't, okay. But I also
don't know why this executive summary has been brought to the
Board, because it's not an action item. Because even if you took
action, she wasn't going to pay anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct. She can't. And we can't
take action --
MR. KLATZKOW: I am absolutely flummoxed on this
executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't take action unless she
completes the preaudit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Is that the case from the
perspective of the Clerk at this moment?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Crystal?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: If we took action on this item can
we get --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We can't.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, Commissioner Hiller,
we have been listening to you for 45 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good. Maybe --
Page 231
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You have said everything that
you need to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Please allow other people up here
and give them the courtesy of being able to speak without being
interrupted.
Madam -- Crystal, Assistant Clerk, can you please tell us if we
took action on this, would that mean this gentleman would get paid?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Taylor, I have to have the
underlining documentation to validate all --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, assuming --
MR. KLATZKOW: Then why did we bring the item?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Impossible.
MS. KINZEL: Because, Jeff, I wanted to move it off of the dime
when I wasn't getting a reaction from county staff even regarding
getting the documentation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Honest to God --
MS. KINZEL: I brought it forward --
MR. KLATZKOW: This is wrong.
MS. KINZEL: -- to try to get resolution of the documentation
and the process and procedures. This had nothing to do with actually
the approval. It had to do with getting the documentation to support an
expenditure that was presented to the Board.
MR. KLATZKOW: Then you need to --
MS. KINZEL: I did not --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- rewrite the executive summary.
MS. KINZEL: Wait a minute. I did not need to even bring this
forward. We rejected this to the department and the department can
resubmit it, and when it's complete and when it can be validated we
will address it and pay it. And that's the bottom line. I was trying to
facilitate getting him paid. I actually called.
Page 232
January 12, 2016
This could have been brought forward when they did the purchase
order and changed the items.
And yes, we do validate all the items. We actually went out with
Michele's staff and validated the bus and the receiving of the items of
the bus because of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Look at the underlying --
MS. KINZEL: -- magnitude of this purchase.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you look at the underlying
invoices for the other 400 --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, our audit process we
differentiate, depending on the circumstances that we see when we
review the expenditure, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so it's audited by exception.
MS. KINZEL: No, it is not. And I've said that again --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What a joke.
MS. KINZEL: -- and, you know, I'm just not going to argue
anymore.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The public is at risk.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Maybe it's time we took a break. Our
court stenographer is going to pass out.
MR. SIBLEY: What am I supposed to do with this existing
purchase order? I know there's $22,000 that I'll probably never see
from Collier County, but what am I supposed to do with this existing
purchase order? Should I send it back to you?
MR. OCHS: Sir, if you have some whatever documentation the
Clerk's Office is asking for, I would ask you respectfully to get it to
them.
MR. SIBLEY: Okay. Well, that may or may not get me paid on
this $22,000. I'm not really sure. Because there's still going to be a
question of whether Crystal is going to require additional Board
approval even after I give her this documentation. And then you're not
Page 233
January 12, 2016
going to approve it.
MS. KINZEL: Let me explain. If every other element of our
audit process is validated it will go on the 273 report pursuant to our
agreement and the Board will bless it at that time. That is not a
problem.
So to continue to argue amongst ourselves with the vendor and
the Board and the Clerk I think is nonproductive.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's another month or month and a
half.
MR. SIBLEY: Yeah. Oh yeah, at least. At least. So --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I'm not the one that delayed
requesting this stuff for two months. We had begged for this to be on
the Board agenda December 8th and the matter might be resolved by
today.
MR. OCHS: What did you want on the agenda?
MR. SIBLEY: I gave you the November 25th document.
MR. OCHS: Authorization to approve the expenditure? We
were not --
MS. KINZEL: No, direction to staff to procure the backup
documentation that we were requiring to approve the expenditure.
MR. OCHS: That's not what this --
MR. SIBLEY: So -- but I do have one final question that is still
out there. There's another two buses that we have a purchase order for
that have these exact specifications, so they have these exact issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's going to be the same.
MR. SIBLEY: Am I going to be here again next year? I mean, I
like this Board and all and, you know, it was a very entertaining day
sitting here for seven hours, but I don't need this.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, let me give you a little
perspective, okay? The Clerk won't pay the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement and the FBI either.
Page 234
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it's like unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So if that --
MR. SIBLEY: So why should I expect to get paid?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah. I don't know what the heck
you're thinking.
MR. SIBLEY: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The FBI can't get paid, okay,
because --
MR. SIBLEY: I'm here today, aren't I?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, it's like we can't even
get fingerprints done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We're going to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's such a joke.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- take a break for 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my gosh.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I know I don't have an answer for
you. I just don't know what to do. I don't know what to tell you.
Get the information to Crystal and I guess just be prepared to wait
for a while until -- because she has to validate it, then if she finds
anything that she needs to question and so forth, then it has to come
back to us, has to wait until it goes through the County Manager's
Office.
MR. SIBLEY: He's not going to bring it back to you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What?
MR. SIBLEY: He just told me he's not bringing it back to you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, that's not what he said. We
automatically get everything for approval prior to disbursement, after
they conclude their preaudit.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So it's just going to be a while but --
MR. SIBLEY: -- but it has nothing to do with approving the
Page 235
January 12, 2016
changes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- it can be done if you get whatever
backup documentation she's been talking about. Prove that it costs less
than what we had approved it for, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mike, what is he supposed to do,
go to his supplier and say I have to have an invoice in order so I can
get paid? Oh, my God.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let's take a 10-minute break right
now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not for the --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm so sorry, Cherie'.
(Recess.)
(Commissioner Henning is not present.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seat.
Madam Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But I don't know if we can conduct
the meeting yet.
MR. OCHS: You don't have a quorum.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We're missing a couple of people.
MR. OCHS: You have a quorum now, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. With the
reporter -- the reporter that's just going to sit down? Ma'am, I have
something to show you later on about that same subject, so I hope you
will talk to me. All right, thank you.
Okay, very good, we're back in session.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you want to -- this is part of the
record, you know, the last item.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We'll pass it over, don't worry about it
now.
Okay, Leo, I know we didn't get that resolved, so we should go
back to what, 11.D?
Page 236
January 12, 2016
Item #11D
RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CONTRACT
#14-6280, FENCING INSTALLATION AND REPAIR FOR "LUMP
SUM" QUOTED PROJECTS TO CARTER FENCE COMPANY
AND BUE, INC. D/B/A/ GATEKEEPERS/GATESWORK AND
INFORM THE BOARD OF TERMINATION NOTICES RECEIVED
FROM BOTH CONTRACTORS — MOTION TO
RETROACTIVELY APPROVE MODIFICATIONS TO ALL
CONTRACTS AND USE THE BOARD DIRECTION PROVIDED
GOING FORWARD — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. 11.D was previously 16.E.5, and that
was a recommendation to retroactively authorize the use of Contract
14-6280, fencing installation and repair for lump sum quote projects to
Carter Fence Company and BUE, Incorporated, doing business as
Gatekeepers Gate Work, and inform the Board of termination notices
received from both contractors.
That item was moved off consent agenda by both Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Fiala.
So Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Henning's not present on
the dais right now, so we're happy to present or --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes, why don't you start that.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Which one is it, Leo?
MR. OCHS: 11.D was previously 16.E.5.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: 16.E.5?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I have to have all these big books. I'm
Page 237
January 12, 2016
one of these archaic people who marks up her books and puts little tabs
in and everything.
Thank you. Go ahead, Joanne.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Joanne Markiewicz, Director of
Procurement Services for the County.
I'm not quite sure why Commissioner Henning pulled this item.
We had a contract for fencing and there's some ambiguous language
between lump sum and time and material pricing.
The old contract was held by Carter Fencing, and clearly in that
contract it reflected both lump sum pricing and time and material
pricing. Carter and Gatesworth both were awarded 14-6280, fencing
installation repair, and for the first several months there were quotes
issued under lump sum quoting.
The Board staff approved those quotes and purchase orders, and
then subsequently a number of those invoices, those lump sum
invoices, were paid. And then sometime four, five, six months later
those lump sum invoices stopped being paid.
We took a look at the contract, we inquired with the Clerk of
Courts, and I'm here to say this contract is very ambiguous. Our
recommendation to you is that -- well, actually the contractors tendered
a termination notice. It was too difficult for them to use as a time and
materials contract. They were being asked for backup invoices per the
contract. And so I think it's in the county's best interest to go ahead,
we'll terminate this contract.
You're going to hear a second item in a few minutes about time
and material and lump sum. And what we'd like to do is put that
language in our contracts going forward.
MR. OCHS: One more item I believe, Commissioners, and
Joanne, correct me if I'm wrong, the request to apply this lump sum
payment methodology retroactively is because there's still some
pending invoices for lump sum projects that apparently won't get paid
Page 238
January 12, 2016
unless that's done.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: That's correct. So we're asking you to
retroactively allow us to use this contract as a lump sum contract. And
there's about, between the two vendors, about $20,000 involved.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I speak?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in effect what we're looking at
is a contract modification, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the action required by the Board
and the vendor obviously is in agreement and that is that we are going
to modify the terms of this agreement to change time and materials to
lump sum, and --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: We want to retroactively change the terms,
but both of the vendors would prefer to terminate the contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we are going to terminate the
contract. We're going to -- by mutual agreement the -- first the
contract is going to be modified to allow for retroactive payment so
that the term lump sum is used as of a specific date.
And then the second is by mutual agreement we will terminate
this agreement as it exists and then just rebid the project.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right? Is that okay, County
Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's a contract modification.
So I'll make a motion to modify the contract. Do you want to -- is
there any specific --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's all you need, Joanne?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes.
Page 239
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is there any specific wording you
need for the contract modification?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a motion that we
modify the contract --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second that. I want to see this
go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, there's no problem
doing that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If the term of the agreement is
changing, you know, in terms of how it's being paid. And clearly the
Clerk didn't have a problem with the lump sum. He had paid a whole
bunch so he was satisfied with it. Nor did staff. So it seems both
parties are satisfied and this will solve that issue.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Now are these the two contractors that
said they didn't want to do business with us anymore?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So actually we're up to three
contractors who don't want to do business with us because --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: There's more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of the Clerk.
I know we're going to get to more, but at least within the last hour
we've got Gillig and these two. And I understand.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, we've got this one solved.
Good. Thank you very much.
So I have a motion on the floor and a second, right?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying
Page 240
January 12, 2016
aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
And so just to -- the next steps will be the contract modification
will be brought to the Board for signature. And then once it's signed
by the Board then the vendors will -- you'll advance the lump sum
invoices to the Clerk for payment, the Clerk will validate those lump
sum invoices however he does his audit. Once he concludes his
preaudit on those invoices that will come to us for approval for
disbursement and we will approve it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: What are we going to do for fencing
by the way? Do we have other vendors we can use or do they charge a
higher price now or what?
MR. OCHS: Well, we'll get individual quotes each time we need
some fence repair done until we can get a new agreement in place
pursuant and in accordance with your procurement ordinance.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, okay.
Item #11E
REAFFIRMING THE CONTINUED USE OF THE INDUSTRY'S
BEST PRACTICES OF UTILIZING "LUMP SUM," "TIME AND
MATERIALS," A COMBINATION OF BOTH PRICE
METHODOLOGIES, AND "UNIT PRICE" FOR COUNTY
PURCHASE ORDERS AND PROJECTS — MOTION TO APPROVE
AND APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO ALL CONTRACTS —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us -- thank you,
Page 241
January 12, 2016
Commissioners.
That takes us to 11.E, which was previously 16.E.4. And that is a
recommendation to reaffirm the continued use of the industry's best
practices of utilizing lump sum, time and materials, a combination of
both price methodologies and unit price for county purchase orders and
projects.
And Commissioner Taylor moved this to the regular agenda, and
Mr. Casalanguida has done some work on this item that he'd like to
speak to the Board about after we take whatever questions
Commissioner Taylor may have. Or if you'd like to go first, ma'am?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I'd like to hear from Mr.
Casalanguida.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Mr. County Manager.
Good evening, Board Members.
At the request of the County Manager, as we've been going
through this suit with the Clerk, he's purposely asked me to stay out of
that and work as the operating officer with both the Clerk's Office and
the procurement staff and just deal with any issues I see in terms of
contracts.
So I've worked with Joanne, County Attorney's Office. And these
items actually were flipped. And in essence this one was first.
So I'll basically take you through the different procurement
options that you have and contracts and make sure that you understand
them and how they're applied and in any contracts where there's
ambiguity we'd like to have this included in those contracts where
needed.
So the first one and the easiest one, I'll start from the bottom up, is
unit price. It's where the county agrees to pay for a total price for a
unit. So if we go out and we solicit quotes to replace light poles in the
county and four vendors put in and we pick the lowest vendor, and
Page 242
January 12, 2016
then that vendor says for $10 a pole I will replace that one light, every
time that light's replaced, the Clerk would pay them $10. And that's
inclusive of everything, their labor, their materials all included. There
is no post-audit other than the work was done. And that's very
important.
Your second most effective one is lump sum where people come
in, we get multiple quotes. They say they're going to replace the
ceiling, four vendors come in, they don't break down the individual
cost; they say based on the specifications we've given you three quotes,
we take the lowest quotes, lump sum. When the county staff says
based on the specifications the work was done, the Clerk would say the
work was done, we pay the bill.
The hardest part is time and materials. Obviously you'd be
between county staff and the Clerk, when you do the post-audit, to
verify who was there, what materials were used to go into a ceiling to
verify that.
There are times where time and materials make sense. So we
have all of these definitions in the contract.
In terms of the procurement order, the purchase order issuing the
work would identify which one we would be using during each time.
So if we said rip into the ceiling, maybe repair the air duct, go in there
and look and the contractor has a fixed rate of$20 per hour or
whatever that number is, plus materials, and then the work's done,
supervised. He gives you a breakout of the hours used and the
materials used and the markup that's allowed, and that's how you
would audit to the invoice.
So hopefully our goal is by having these clarified for both the
Clerk's purposes and our purposes included in each contract and then
the purchase order would identify what we use and ob--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about master
contracts.
Page 243
January 12, 2016
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Master contracts, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're talking about all contracts?
Any and all contracts?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Master contracts, ma'am. So in other
words, when we use a vendor repeatedly over and over again. So
plumbing supply house, repair company, general --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like the conflict we have right
now with the general contractor who's not being paid and why the
special ops ceiling won't get repaired, because we can't get any GC to
bid on it because the Clerk won't pay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly where it would come
into play, ma'am. So you would have a general contract with a
purchase order to repair the ceiling, it would say lump sum. You
would get three quotes from three different contractors and we would
take the lowest price, and when the work was done to the
specifications we would submit that to the Clerk's Office.
So what we're asking you to do is approve these terms and us to
include them in these contracts that we have so that hopefully Crystal
will have less of an issue and it will give her some comfort level as
well too.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, so I asked for it to be
pulled and I appreciate your clarification of the three areas. It's just
that it just seems to me, and I may be wrong about this, that a vendor
that comes in can change midway and said wait a minute, I'm not
going to do time and materials, this is lump sum because of the way
the contract was written before.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I appreciate your going back and
clarifying it and not mixing it up. But I'm just saying, the contract
seems to be, you know, which gun do you want me to shoot, which
way do you want me to bid on this. And I need some clarification on
Page 244
January 12, 2016
that. Because that's what it appears to me from what I've read here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, if-- the general contractor's
contract is a great example. If the specifications are clean and we get
three bids, it's lump sum. If the specifications are to repair that ceiling
and go into that ceiling and we say to them we want to do this time and
materials, they have an hourly rate that they can apply, plus a markup.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So the county makes that
decision.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county would make that decision
during the issuance of the purchase order.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And then upfront the Clerk knows
what it is. It's either time and materials or lump sum. And more
importantly, the vendor knows what it is. So they know what they
have to do the work too.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. But it says that -- here it
says that on the contract it was sometimes on a lump sum contract you
had an area that talked about time and materials. So there could be
some confusion. So the contracts, the original contracts themselves
were not clear.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly as your purchasing
director pointed out. As part of the audit process that Crystal conducts
it talks about providing backup to what they had done.
Now, there's obviously a challenge to that when they're doing
these lump sum because --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- did they use some nails out of a
different job that's in their pouch as --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- they're nailing it in? Was some
flashing left over? When was the flashing from? It's all these little
Page 245
January 12, 2016
nuances that a contractor looks at us and goes you really want me to
track where I bought my nails from for this job?
And when we ask for time and materials, they'll know up front
because the P.O. that we have and the notice to proceed will say time
and materials, provide all the backup with it. Or it will say this is a
lump sum job, all you have to do is perform to the specifications.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And there won't be any section
for time and materials on that; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's -- sometimes time and
materials make sense.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, if it's a lump sum
contract there's not going to be any time and materials --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- requirement on it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That purchase order will be --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I would like to use this
as an example to the public watching, the public that may watch and
the public who have left us, that this is an example of a cooperation
between the County Manager's Office and the Clerk's Office to get
some clarity in what could have been a little bit muddy. And it is very
an adult way of doing it and thank you very much. And I move
approval.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And I will second it.
Nick? Excuse me, Mr. Casalanguida, when I saw this item on the
consent agenda, I was absolutely delighted. It's absolutely the way to
go. It's going to clear all this up.
Time and materials is often the most costly way you can do
something, because you don't know how long the item's going to take
and you don't know what's necessary. Well, let's suppose you got a
leak in the wall and you go to a contractor and you go hey, you know,
Page 246
January 12, 2016
I've got a problem in this wall, what do you bid to fix it? He's going to
go, I don't know, I've got to break a hole in the wall, maybe there's a
gold-plated pipe in there, I'm not going to tell you, but this is how
much I charge per hour and this is how much I charge for a gold-plated
pipe and we'll use what we need to do and we'll get together on it.
And then typically if you have a time and materials contract and it
exceeds a certain amount of money, everybody circles back together
and goes, now wait a minute, we've got to get approval for this.
Because the guy may come in and go hey, you know, you thought you
were going to spend $5,000 and it's going to cost you 100. That's
when everybody needs to come back together.
So on your time and materials, you can specify what happens if
there's unexpected --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, like a limit.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Like a stop loss or a limit or
something.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No questions. Like a mechanic opens
up your car and --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Perfect.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- says I opened it up and I found all
this extra work that I need to do, do I have authorization to do so.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: As the way to go. I believe the
Clerk will be more than satisfied with that. It will solve a lot of
problems.
Thank you, I'm ready to approve that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So the motion is on the floor and a
second. All in --
MR. OCHS: Madam Chairman, I think you have some speakers.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, Leo, I was getting there.
We have three registered public speakers for this item. Your first
speaker is Henry Fernandez, and he'll be followed by Terry Kelly.
Page 247
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And they all get gold stars for
staying with us for so long.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, they've been sitting here all day
too?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All day.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I was going to say good morning, but it's
good afternoon.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It's good evening.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good evening.
MR. FERNANDEZ: For the record, my name is Henry
Fernandez, I'm a project manager for Brandanna, Incorporated. We're
a general contractor that provides general contracting services for the
county.
We have been providing services for the county for
approximately over the last 20 years. And what was just discussed in
definition and clarification, let me say, for the wording in these
contracts for lump sum versus time and material is something that we
were hoping that would be approved.
We've had recently certain invoices that were being requested
after the fact, then when we submitted them as a lump sum needing
some backup information. So we just wanted it to be clarified if that
was going to be the norm on all of our lump sum estimates or
proposals that we were issued work orders or purchase orders for, and
now that the verbiage that's been proposed to be changed is something
that we agree to and would like to see happen.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I address the speaker?
I understand what your concern is, because now what's happened
is if the master contract says, you know, that staff has the option and
then you enter into an agreement through the purchase order with staff
on whatever methodology is used, that still doesn't stop the Clerk in
Page 248
January 12, 2016
terms of what kind of documentation they feel they need to satisfy
themselves on that preaudit requirement.
So just because it says lump sum doesn't mean that the Clerk
somehow isn't going to come back and say I want to look at something.
Now what that is, I don't know. I don't know how the Clerk is going to
decide to preaudit lump sum contracts. But what I'm suggesting to you
is that if you think the word lump sum is in there and that somehow the
Clerk as a result is not going to conduct a preaudit to the extent they
feel necessary, I don't think that's going to be the case. I don't think
that this is an effort at cooperation, because I don't know what they do.
I mean, I don't understand what they do. Their methodology of
auditing is unique and different. So I'm just telling you --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We can be hopeful, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what I'm telling you is we need
clarification on that now. Because if we're going into this -- and quite
frankly, this is an issue for the County Attorney, this is not about
cooperation between the staff and Clerk, this is about the County
Attorney ensuring that our contracts, our master contracts with vendors
where master contracts are the way we deal, has to be clear to avoid
issues that create ambiguity where the Clerk can create controversy, as
he has.
So my question to the Clerk's Office is how are you going to
preaudit a lump sum contract?
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: These vendors should have the
right to know. They should know what their --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You asked the question, let her
answer it, okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead, what documents will
you need?
MS. KINZEL: First of all, your indication that we create the
Page 249
January 12, 2016
confusion, the Clerk's Office does not write your contracts, nor does
the Clerk's Office determine the type of contract that is let. We merely
audit to what the contract says. If you let a contract that is time and
materials and it says that the vendor is constrained to a 25 percent
markup, how would I audit if I do not know what in fact they pay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't ask that question.
MS. KINZEL: No, wait, excuse me --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just go to lump sum.
MS. KINZEL: Wait. No, you don't understand. You just said on
the record that you have no idea what we do, and I find that accurate
for today, okay, you have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no idea because you audited
MS. KINZEL: But this issue in a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- 22,000 but not 480.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you please stop talking at the
same time? She cannot type fast enough to get both of you. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted to know how you
audit a lump sum.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: You don't ever stop.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, I'm not going to answer the
question because of what's transpired here.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to know. I have a -- and
this vendor has a right to know.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I just have one question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The public has a right to know.
MR. FERNANDEZ: On the -- I guess can the.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because you can't answer it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The contract -- well, I'm reading the
executive summary that was presented under this agenda item. There's
Page 250
January 12, 2016
one verbiage that I thought was unique on the unit price that possibly
could be added to the lump sum, and that's just my opinion, but it says
-- and it says -- I'm just going to paraphrase the last sentence in the unit
price: This invoice must identify the unit price and the number of units
received. No contract or inventory or cost verification required.
So can we have that clause added to the lump sum as no contract
or inventory or cost verification required?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I like what you're saying. And
here's what needs to be in the contract, County Attorney. If we have
this in there that staff will decide what methodology is being used, it
should also provide in the contract that the vendor knows what the
documentary requirements are for preaudit. So if it's time and
materials, that the vendor knows he has to produce time cards and, you
know, underlying invoices from suppliers for the materials that he
applied to the job. If it's a lump sum, I don't know what Crystal wants
to do for a lump sum. You know, if it's a unit price, it's pretty
straightforward.
But I think the underlying documentation that is expected of the
vendor that he understands what his documentary audit requirements
are should be in the contract so there is no ambiguity on anybody's part
as to what he has to produce.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So maybe what we can do is we can
ask the Clerk's Office what they will be looking for in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And put it in the contract.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- and that our people can put it in the
contract. But at least we know what the Clerk's Office will look for so
our people can match whatever they're looking for and the vendor will
know what materials they need to give and we won't go through all of
this stuff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And normally --
MR. FERNANDEZ: The industry standard in our business for a
Page 251
January 12, 2016
lump sum contract is to provide you a price, we agree to that price --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, and you're done.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and we're done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And you pay the bill.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep. Yeah, but who knows what
the Clerk will want.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I'm just saying, we'd like to follow
industry standard, if we can. And it's very simple. I mean, time and
materials is very clear. I think that's what the documentation is for and
that's what you need.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And unit price is very clear.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Unit price is very clear, but lump sum just
needs to be one price.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Lump sum, right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Commissioners, Joanne will read
into the record, it's in there in the sentence.
Joanne, if you want to read it in there?
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Yes, under lump sum it says: No hourly
or material invoices presented. Rather there's an agreement in price
and then what we do is validate that the work is according to the
specification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the Clerk agrees with that,
right? You said this was a matter of cooperation and agreement and
everybody has kumbaya together and the Clerk says that's fine, right?
I want that on the record. Right?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, let -- Crystal will tell you.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Fiala, on this agenda item the
Clerk's Office was not consulted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so members of the public,
there is no Kumbaya.
Page 252
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: But this is a -- I appreciate what Nick has
outlined. And I want to repeat, the Clerk's Office does not create your
contracts, the Clerk's Office does not create your methodology for
purchasing. That is a county staff event. We audit to what you have
approved based on the specifications in the contract agreement. If we
can audit to your contract as you've articulated in your contract, that's
how we perform your audit on any item. We don't create the contract,
we don't create how you go about procuring, we audit to what you
have defined.
And in many of these contracts the problem has been you issue a
contract that says time and materials with a markup and an hourly and
then everybody balks at providing the backup documentation. I didn't
create the rule or the request, that was part of your contractual
construct. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we're talking about subcontracts
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So if we're talking about -- would you
let me please talk?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So if we have a lump sum contract
with these people and they perform their duties and our people who go
out and inspect and make sure that it's done and they meet those things,
do you need anything more than that?
MS. KINZEL: We would audit to the construct of your contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not an answer.
MS. KINZEL: Yes, it is. I haven't seen a contract yet, so I can't
say oh, we don't need anything for this agreement until I see what you
prepare.
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Commissioners, what we're asking you to
do is retroactively insert this in all of the lump sum and time and
material contracts.
Page 253
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, except --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: So for the general contractors we're asking
you to retroactiv--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which is fine except we still
haven't gotten an answer from the Clerk's Office as to whether or not
that's going to have some kind of, you know, evidentiary requirement
for purposes of their audit. And the Clerk refuses to answer that.
MS. KINZEL: I have not re--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So these vendors are in as much of
a -- these vendors are at as much risk today with this change. In fact,
you know, Commissioner Taylor said oh, we all -- this is cooperation
and everyone's like getting along, and Crystal says I didn't even see
this; we didn't even approve it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, when we meet -- for
clarification, we met with the contractors in a room, and one of the
biggest issues was the issue of lump sum and time and materials. And
the Clerk was in that meeting; the Clerk's Office was represented in
that meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Crystal, you did know about
it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not the agenda item. She knew about
the issue between time and materials --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did she sit in on your meeting --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Georgia, let people talk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- ahead of the production?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: She does, ma'am.
If these are inserted in the contract, then it's part of the contract
that she audits to. And when staff issues the purchase order to Surety
or one of these vendors, it will say: This purchase order is lump sum.
Which a purchase order is a contract.
So if our meeting holds up to the discussion, then what she would
Page 254
January 12, 2016
audit to is that it's a lump sum payment --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What documentation would she
need for that audit?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Would you let him finish?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's exactly the way it reads, ma'am.
The documentation would be a certification by staff that the work was
done according to the specifications. And then if she wanted to audit,
the audit would be she could go look at the wall and see that the wall
was done. So no different than a fixed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And that's it, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that correct, Crystal? Is that
how you would audit a lump sum? I mean, these vendors need to
know. And they have the right to know.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Hiller, I'm not going to continue to
argue with you at this meeting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're not answering the public's
question.
MS. KINZEL: That is not true. We've answered every question.
I've indicated exactly what our audit process is, that is we audit to
the document that you prepare and that you agree on or you solicit or
you construct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then construct is --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- not requiring underlying
documentation for anything.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, enough.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow, if we put a catchall
in the contract which says if the vendor provides the documentary
requirements as delineated and satisfies the terms of the description of
the work and it is validated by staff that it is sufficient basis for
Page 255
January 12, 2016
payment from the Board of County Commissioners, is that going to be
of any help in this at all, or not necessarily?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have no idea.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's an honest answer. Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, that's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Any other speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. Terry Kelly will be followed by
Bart -- is it Zino?
MR. ZINO: Yes.
MR. KELLY: Good evening, everybody. Thank you very much.
Terry Kelly, Surety Construction Company.
To the point of looking at this executive summary, I mean, I think
this clears up all the issues I've had. And since Joanne has mentioned
it would be retroactive, that's important to our company as well as
these other guys sitting out here.
I've got three projects right now that are completed and my
payments are held up on a lump sum contract because the Clerk is
asking for backup, which I feel like there's absolutely no sense in
having to do. Please let me finish.
I've been working here at the county doing county work for 24
years. The procurement department asks for a price. We give them a
price, we're the low bidder, they give us a contract -- we already have a
contract. They give us a P.O. They give us notice to proceed. We go
to work, we finish the job. The people that are in charge, be it CSO or
facilities or whatever, they come in, inspect the work, tell everybody
they're done, I send an invoice in and I get a check in the mail. It's
worked that way for 24 -- 22 and a half years, let's say, because in the
last while all of a sudden we've been scrutinized on lump sum dollar
Page 256
January 12, 2016
amounts.
We understand time and material backup is mandatory. No
question about it, Crystal. We don't have that argument. It's part of the
deal in this building or anywhere we work.
But when we work out in the other sector and it's lump sum, do
the work, send the bill, get a check. Simple as that.
Now, the point is I've got three projects being held up, I've got
three more I'm getting ready to bill by the end of the month, and I've
got a $140,000 job that we have on hold because I don't know if I'm
getting paid how I'm getting paid. And these are all lump sum
projects.
So the importance of this document -- and Joanne I think has
done an excellent job at delineating what's necessary for lump sum
billing, time and material billing and unit pricing. I applaud her
efforts.
And the only condition is this needs to be retroactive. We've got
Brandanna represented here, we've got PBS, we've got myself. There's
two other vendors that are on this contract who are out of Lee County,
and they apparently don't do enough work to be concerned about it.
They're not here that I know of, okay.
So my question has got to be to Crystal is that if this executive
summary saying lump sum says no invoice is required, no backup
required, are you going to have a problem with that?
MS. KINZEL: Let me -- you know we've had this discussion
about the issue of the procurement and the conflict in the current
agreement that you have. And that's what mandated that we require
the backup. It wasn't a general lump sum agreement. That agreement
specifies time and materials and other items. Then the departments
were going out and saying we're just lump summing this. We had to
validate to the contract agreement.
Now, this executive summary seems to say they're going
Page 257
January 12, 2016
retroactive. I was also going to ask is it limited to only the five general
contractor vendors that you're speaking about doing an amendment to
their contract. Because this was solicited one way and issued another
way. And --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: Excuse me, Commissioners, that's not
correct. In fact, I have the general contract sitting here right in front of
me. In each summary of the work the owner reserves the right to
specify the completion and whether time and materials or lump sum.
There's another section, same thing, time and material or lump
sum. There's a rate schedule included in the contract that is to be
applied only for time and material. It was applied for time and
material for a good number of months. Recently it's been applied to
lump sum projects.
MR. OCHS: In other words, lump sum P.O.'s were being paid
under this contract for some time in the past and then it stopped.
MR. KELLY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, I mean, your question has no
answer.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Kelly, I'd like to ask you a
question, sir.
You said that you had several projects and several invoices that
had been held up. Would you please confirm with me, sir, is this a
problem with purchasing on the county staff side or is this a problem
with the Clerk's approval?
MR. KELLY: Problem with the Clerk's.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And they're all lump sum?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All of them are that way, sir?
MR. KELLY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: How long has this been going on?
MR. KELLY: I'm going to say since back in September there's
Page 258
January 12, 2016
been questions.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right, sir.
MR. KELLY: Perhaps October.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So why -- Crystal, can you tell me
why you're not paying on a lump sum?
MS. KINZEL: Well, Commissioner, because quite frankly this
hasn't been brought up to us by this contractor or other contractors.
We sat in a meeting -- and Nick is right, we talked about the backup
and the documentation. There is a requirement in the contract that says
you refer to the rate schedule. So there are conflicting clauses in the
agreements that refer back to the time and materials clauses. That's
why they're bringing forward a clarification and trying to go
retroactive to that.
We talked about how the procurements had changed over time,
did we not, that said that the ability -- because we have not had this
problem with our vendors previously in paying under whatever you
provide the backup --
MR. KELLY: I think what Joanne just read said lump sum or
time and material. And I would have to refer back to the P.O., the
specific P.O. But there's a box for them to check, lump sum, time and
material, unit price.
And I'm guessing that the jobs that I'm talking about, Joanne, do
not have time and material checked. They are lump sum. Because
that's how they were asked to be procured and that's how my response
would have been. Because I could tell you, if it was lump sum, I'm all
in. When it's time and material, I'm not interested. It's too much BS. I
mean, the bottom line. I'm not interested in time and material.
MS. KINZEL: And Nick, what we had discussed is that
regarding the lump sum, if was no competition to the lump sum, there
should be some validation of that. For example, you issue the
Page 259
January 12, 2016
specifications out, then multiple vendors were required to put forward
a bid or a quote on that lump sum so that you would have validation
across the contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That has nothing to do --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: They're our master group that we've
already approved, right? So --
MR. KELLY: Commissioner, we have a contract that when they
write the P.O., that actually is the dollar amount. The meat and
potatoes is in here, and then the P.O. says go do the Sheriffs Office for
$27,000 over on Horseshoe Drive. And that's what the P.O. says. And
then we get a notice to proceed which says go. And that purchase
order is the one that delineates lump sum, time and material, unit price.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly.
MR. KELLY: And I don't believe I have any time and materials
signed up. The only one we did is when we did the fire station out
there in Golden Gate with the termites. That was a T&M -- I take that
back. That was a lump sum and then the extra work was done on a
T&M basis, the additional work.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So in other words, all of your
contracts are lump sum.
And Crystal, if they're all lump sum, you would just pay them,
right?
MS. KINZEL: He only has one contract. And the problem and
the confusion has come in because the contract says lump sum and/or
time and materials. Now, as we talked about with Nick, if you're
looking for a lump sum procurement, you would routinely have the
specifications go out to the multiple contractors. Those contractors
would bid a lump sum and county staff would theoretically take the
lowest bid for it to be economical.
If in fact you're only going to that same vendor and you're just
saying give me a lump sum, you have no control whatsoever on the
Page 260
January 12, 2016
pricing. So routinely --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That has nothing to do with it at
all.
MS. KINZEL: -- if you're using a vendor you would have either
a unit pricing or a time and materials in using an overall vendor. And
that was kind of the differentiation we had talked about in my office.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So he doesn't get paid -- let me just
make sure I understand what you just said. He doesn't get paid
because his contract first says time and material or lump sum, he chose
lump sum, but you're saying that we didn't, we the county, didn't go out
and get other people's prices so you're not paying him?
MS. KINZEL: No. Commissioner Fiala, I have no idea what is
pending for Surety Construction at this time. This was not brought up
to us that there were items that he was missing.
You have my phone number, give me a call. We'll go look at it.
MR. KELLY: The bottom line is you're asking for backup,
backup, backup, and we feel no backup required on lump sum.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is easy to clarify.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, good. Listen to it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Because if you say today, and Crystal's
here, Surety's here, if the invoice comes in and says lump sum and
we've retroactively said the purchase order governs and we've
identified these terms in the contract, then Crystal should audit to lump
sum.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Define what audit to lump sum is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Performance based, ma'am. In other
words, what the product --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no documentation from
this gentleman.
Page 261
January 12, 2016
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No documentation --
MR. KELLY: An invoice.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And specification is delivered per the
specs that we've quoted. That's it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, the documentation from
the vendor, as Nick describes it and as this vendor is willing to provide
an invoice that says lump sum, here it is, are you going to pay on that?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ma'am, stop asking that question,
because I don't think we're going to get an answer to it. Sony to
interrupt you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But then --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sony to interrupt you.
MR. KELLY: I've asked that question, Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir?
MR. KELLY: I asked that question. If I've got a lump sum
contract and I send in a separate invoice for that same dollar amount,
somebody in the county staff obviously has to validate it, be it Claude
or one of your project managers has to validate it. And then it goes to
you, it's validated by Claude or Robert Fuentes, whomever, then you
should pay it.
And the question is, is that the case? Are you going to pay it when
they sign off on my invoice after completion?
MS. KINZEL: The Clerk has an independent responsibility to
audit the invoices to the contract. I can't predetermine that we will
approve every one of your requests based on county staff saying yes,
okay? That's where I'm avoiding the predetermination.
But what we have talked about in clarifying these contracts will
certainly go a long way in a lack of confusion on what supporting
documentation will be required.
Page 262
January 12, 2016
So I agree with clarifying the agreements. I was a bit ambiguous
as to how far this retroactive on all contracts. Now I understand it's
limited simply to these five general contractors that are on the existing
agreement --
MS. MARKIEWICZ: No, no, no.
MS. KINZEL: -- is that correct?
MR. KELLY: No, ma'am.
MS. KINZEL: No? Okay. So it's to all contracts for all things
that have been let previously --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All contracts that have been let
previously where there's ambiguity in the section where there's an
hourly rate that you're auditing to. So if the P.O. says lump sum, then
you audit to lump sum.
MS. KINZEL: Will I be getting a list of the contracts that you are
having the Board approve -- that's not included in the agenda item,
correct? So which vendors are we now changing --
MR. KLATZKOW: All contracts.
MS. KINZEL: -- their contracts?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's all contracts.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's all contracts. You don't need a list. It's
every single contract. Every single contract that you think there's an
ambiguity, poof, no more ambiguity. You'll be auditing to lump sum.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: How many are you holding up?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All of them.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yeah, but how many? Are we talking
five?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All of them. You just heard her
say all of them.
MS. KINZEL: No, that's not true, Commissioner Nance. We're
paying 90 percent of the invoices. So, you know --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I appreciate
Page 263
January 12, 2016
you persevering today.
MR. KELLY: All right, thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you sincerely.
MR. KELLY: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Kelly. We appreciate
you bringing it. And I hope you'll stay working with us. We don't
want to lose you; you're a good, good company.
MR. KELLY: I would like to, but obviously this has got to get
cleared up.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, I understand that. And I'm
hoping that we'll get to that point.
MR. MILLER: Last public speaker, ma'am, is Bart Zino.
MR. ZINO: Good evening. I'm Bart Zino with PBS Contractors.
I'm the president there and I've been there 17 years working for the
county -- I'm not sure if my contract is 12 or 15 years in duration, but
it's been a pretty successful relationship.
I'm obviously in favor of the language change. I'm most
interested in the lump sum part of the language change. There isn't
anything that could induce me to work for Collier County under a time
and material or a unit price. There's absolutely nothing. Too open to
interpretation.
I've got two invoices in with the county now that I had to provide
a full audit documentation of how I arrived at my price after I did the
work; I've got two work orders right now that I refuse to start until this
gets straightened out; and the one invoice I got paid under this contract
I had to provide full documentation according to the time and materials
schedule, even though it's a lump sum contract. There's no ambiguity
as to whether or not -- I was pre-audited on a time and material basis
with full documentation providing every vendor invoice and showing
the Clerk that I only made five percent on that project.
I'm afraid that if I accidentally make more than five percent on a
Page 264
January 12, 2016
project I'm going to be required to refund the county money on a lump
sum deal. Because why ask the question if it's not open to an answer.
I don't get it. I'm so afraid to provide any information, not knowing
where it's going to go.
If the county wants to be my partner and wants to guarantee me
five whole percent on everything I do, then make sure on the jobs that I
lose my behind on you guarantee me five percent. And then I'll take
the five percent beating on a job that I might make six percent on.
Can't have it both ways. It's one way or the other. I've had a long
relationship with the county. Watching the guy with the bus go
through what he went through today is exactly why everything I've got
is on hold. I really don't want to work for the county very much
anymore until this gets straightened out. And it's really a shame
because it's been a great relationship.
I've got two more issues. I've got a little bit of time.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Excuse me, I'm going to interrupt
you one second.
Do we have a limitation that these people can only make five
percent on a job?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Where is that coming from?
MR. ZINO: Your contract.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Time and materials section, sir.
MR. ZINO: But not when it's cross-referenced to lump sum.
And that's the issue. If it's an either/or, the Clerk always interprets to
the strictest stringent (sic) interpretation that's possible.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Now wait a minute --
MR. ZINO: Because if the Clerk wanted to interpret either/or as
or, we would be audited to the "or", wouldn't we? We wouldn't be
audited to the "and".
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Now you mean to tell me if we
Page 265
January 12, 2016
have a time and materials --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Charges an hourly rate, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That we have a five percent limit
on the job?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You --
MR. ZINO: It goes even further. It tells us what our subs are
allowed to make on the job.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Why are we doing that?
MR. ZINO: Well, we don't want to --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's your contract.
MR. ZINO: I can't answer that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That goes to the question of when you
don't know what the job is. And it's very rarely used. Most of your
quotes are going to be lump sum.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, no, I know that.
MR. ZINO: It's being applied now.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm just trying to figure out what
the thinking is on -- that doesn't even encourage anybody to come
work on a difficult time and materials job.
Wait one second.
What is done --
MR. ZINO: Let me give you a --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, in the private sector tell me
what your private sector customers do when you have a time and
materials warranted situation. And I'm sure you've done dozens of
jobs. How do you work with them.
MR. ZINO: Let me tell you how this is all began. There was a
period of time when the county -- the Board felt that change orders
were out of control on general contracting services. And so in order to
limit the exposure to the county and in order to limit apparently our
greed for change orders, our general contractor greed for change
Page 266
January 12, 2016
orders, they started changing the contract to limit our markup on
change orders.
And I get that. I get it in -- I didn't like the terms, but I get it.
Because in the private sector very often change order terms are
negotiated as part of the initial contract so there's no fights later.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. ZINO: Treated as cost plus.
That interpretation was integrated into the newest contract and
implied and written in such a way that there is interpretation to the
audit of the contract that says we have to provide that information as
part of getting paid for our preaudit on lump sum.
It's an evolution is how it began, with a good intent and it really
went down the road. And so as I said, in either/or we're being audited
even on lump sums. For markup, for costs, for the rate schedule, for
backup invoices. I mean, I've had to provide the documentation. I'm
not making it up.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You understand it's all going to
change now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not.
MR. ZINO: I would like to see it change. I've got two other
concerns that are related to all of this. I'm still not sure, because the
Clerk and I have written to the Clerk and gotten a no response -- I'm
sorry, I got a response that was useless for Mr. Perez.
Does my contract, our general contract for ongoing services
which allows for work under $50,000, do these $50,000 deals need to
be approved before the Board of County Commissioners or is that
approval implicit in the contract that we've agreed to?
So if you give me a work order for $12,000 and it doesn't go
before the Board because it's under this contract, is that approval
implicit or do I need to go back before the Board before a purchase
order is issued and their office will pay?
Page 267
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That is what is in dispute currently,
sir, with the Clerk of Courts.
MR. ZINO: But I have a contract that says I can do work under
$50,000. Is that the approval?
See, if that's the case, I'm not doing your work under $50,000.
Period. I'm not putting the money at risk.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's where we're at.
MR. ZINO: And I'm afraid that after we resolve this hurdle, that
will be the next hurdle. And you know what? I work too hard for my
five percent, my whole five percent.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, that is not part of the
dispute right now.
MR. ZINO: I'm sorry.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm just -- Bart, just so you know, right
now if there's a valid Board contract and it's a procurement under
$50,000, right now that's not a dispute between the county staff and the
Clerk's Office. It is established in a contract under $50,000. So --
MR. ZINO: I just want to get it on the record so that I've got
something to go back to later when I'm here in a couple more months.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Got it.
MR. ZINO: Okay, the other issue is I heard a reference to three
bids. When the county can't get three bids on a lump sum purchase,
did I hear that then that lump sum -- did I misinterpret it that that lump
sum is now subject to a preaudit verification? Did I hear that right or
did I just like zone out for a minute?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm glad you brought that up. For
clarification it says, we will endeavor to get quotes. And if we put out
five and we get two and we go with the lowest bidder, that is still the
lowest quote and we intend to honor that.
MR. ZINO: As a lump sum.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a lump sum.
Page 268
January 12, 2016
MR. ZINO: You're not my partner.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If the purchase order says lump sum,
which is what we intend to issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the issue is not you. The issue
is whether the Clerk will accept that. Because the Clerk will say you
didn't try hard enough to get five. And therefore it's invalid and they
won't pay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We don't know that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I haven't heard that one yet, but --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We don't know that.
MR. ZINO: But I heard a reference earlier and I just want to
make sure I didn't hear it wrong.
MS. KINZEL: Bart, what I was explaining was Nick and my
discussion previously regarding other contracts, okay? And what I'm
hearing from you goes back to again the construct of your contract.
The Clerk audits to the contract you've been issued. The five percent
you keep bringing up, I'm not aware of any limitation the Clerk is
placing on any five percent. So --
MR. ZINO: Oh, then your staff needs to be retrained.
MS. KINZEL: No, the markup -- of a limit to a markup on a time
and material we certainly --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Subcontract is five percent.
MS. KINZEL: Correct.
MR. BARTON: I disagree vehemently.
MS. KINZEL: Well, the subcontractor rule is in your contract.
And if your contract says you can't use more than 50 percent of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much are --
MS. KINZEL: -- subcontractors, we --
MR. ZINO: When you asked for a boat dock --
MS. KINZEL: I didn't write the contract, Bart.
MR. ZINO: -- do you think I have on my payroll?
Page 269
January 12, 2016
MS. KINZEL: I didn't write the contract. I'm only auditing to
what --
MR. ZINO: Call me when you've got a way to get paid.
MS. KINZEL: -- Board's staff has written.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Zino, sir, thank you for
persevering.
MR. ZINO: It's been a long day. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, no, I -- sir, you saw me
misbehave. You've been a gentleman of the highest order. I thank you
for your perseverance. And I want to let you know, you and Mr. Kelly
are being very helpful --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And you guys too.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- in helping us do that. Thank
you. Good night.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Somebody was talking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Kelly, can you come back up?
Because I do want to talk to you. And because I heard what Mr. Zino
said.
And Mr. Zino, can you stand at the other podium? Because I
want to just -- and let me share with you why. Because you are both
making my point. And the point that I have repeatedly been asking for
clarification on the record is what underlying documentation is the
Clerk going to go ask for when you enter into a lump sum contract
with the county and they refuse to provide that response. So you have
no idea what documentation will be asked of you.
And to the point that you just made, Bart, when you said that even
though you -- and it's not about clarifying the wording in the contract,
because you both have contracts that provide lump sum or time and
materials. And the county opted to go with lump sum.
And notwithstanding, you just said on the record that the Clerk is
auditing your lump sum using the time and material standards,
Page 270
January 12, 2016
meaning we're not looking at a lump sum, and what you said --
MR. KELLY: That's our argument, right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Mr. Kelly, was that if it's time
and materials, it's obviously a requirement to produce the time and the
materials --
MR. KELLY: No argument.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- by way of documentary
evidence. And if it's a lump sum you get an invoice that to the county
MR. KELLY: Then we're done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that says you agreed to 12,000
for the fence, we provided the fence, it's been verified independently
the fence is there and you pay me 12,000 and no other documentary
presence is required other that the invoice that conforms to the lump
sum agreement.
MR. KELLY: And clearly that's what we're asking for.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: The original contract is written that
says either/or --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it doesn't matter.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: No, I'm asking that question.
And are we going to change that contract now to just read --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Just read -- okay. So that's what we're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that doesn't solve --
THE COURT REPORTER: Please.
MR. ZINO: My issue with it all --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I know, I'm sorry.
MR. ZINO: I'm sorry.
Is you say you fulfill the contract or you read the contract. I
interpret the contract differently than it's currently being interpreted
Page 271
January 12, 2016
and enforced on me. When I signed it I thought I signed A.
Apparently I signed B. And that's what I'm trying to avoid --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not --
MR. ZINO: -- when I get to C.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Let him talk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not -- let me -- but here's the
issue, Bart. The issue is that the interpretation of the contract is the
Board of County Commissioners because we're the other side to the
party. The meeting of the minds is between you and us, not the Clerk's
interpretation of what we're thinking or what you're thinking.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But that is the fact here.
MR. ZINO: Except it's our money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. But it's the public's
money that we're looking to pay you for the services you've rendered,
and the Clerk is --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- applying his own independent
interpretation of what we think --
MR. ZINO: I can't comment on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and that's the problem.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So there's a motion on the floor --
MR. ZINO: -- what your relationship is with the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- we have nothing.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- to accept this new way of writing
up --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it doesn't --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Excuse me. We have a motion on the
floor to accept the new way of writing this contract so it's clearly stated
either one or the other but not both; is that correct?
MR. KELLY: This is going to be retroactive?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes.
Page 272
January 12, 2016
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And to be retroactive.
And anybody else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a comment, and that if that
contract provides that the only documentation required by the
contractor in a lump sum agreement is the underlying invoice with
staff independently confirming that the job is done, that the Clerk will
accept that. I mean, he can go and independently physically verify, but
from a payment standpoint there is nothing further the Clerk has to
validate other than the invoice that matches the purchase order for the
lump sum.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's what we stated before, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, but the Clerk has to agree
to that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let's vote.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Call the question.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We can't make the Clerk -- we're
asking the Clerk to do this, we're passing this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They're all --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- and we're -- excuse me, you can't
talk at the same time.
Geez, you have diarrhea of the mouth today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There are big issues here.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor and
a second.
Everybody in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I just would like --
Page 273
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: There's no opposition, so that's a 4-0
vote.
Then at least they have their marching orders. Our guys are --
you know, you guys are wonderful. I'm sorry that there's so many
problems. It's embarrassing to us up here. We really wish it was
better. And maybe this will make it better. I'm sorry you've had to go
through all that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you so much your
patience.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, gentlemen. Apologize.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You know, we believe that you
are one of the most important parts of Collier County government and
we value what you do for us.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thanks for sitting here all day through
all of this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Absolutely.
MR. KELLY: Leo, you said late morning? It's late night.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, well I miscalculated.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You need a time certain.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, we move on now to -- what is
it, 13.B?
Item #13B
TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION OUTSTANDING
INVOICES RELATED TO PROCUREMENT OF BACKGROUND
CHECKS AND FINGERPRINTING BY THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION DUE TO NEW STATUTORY
Page 274
January 12, 2016
REQUIREMENTS FOR A SHARED CLEARINGHOUSE
AMONGST AGENCIES ESTABLISHED BY FLORIDA STATUTE
943.053 — MOTION DIRECTING THE CLERK TO PAY
OUTSTANDING INVOICES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 13.B. Yes, ma'am. And this is an item from the
Clerk's Office to bring to the Board's attention outstanding invoices
related to the procurement of background checks and fingerprinting by
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, due to new statutory requirements for a shared
clearinghouse amongst agencies established by Florida statute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, can you explain it?
MR. OCHS: Well, again, Commissioners, we have a statutory
responsibility to do certain fingerprinting and background checks
through these two agencies. Their rate schedules are statutorily
defined. The Board approved these agreements a couple years ago.
As part of the executive summary staff indicated in the summary
that the prices would change over time. They have changed slightly.
I consulted with Mr. Klatzkow's Office who opined that there's no
need for Board approval of those changes, given the fact that the Board
has no discretion, they're defined and determined by statute. So I
signed the form to pay the rates and the payments have been withheld
to the service providers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the FDLE and the FBI can sue
the Clerk for payment.
MR. OCHS: And again, just like the bus contract, I think it's
important that the Board does not take an action to approve a payment
that the County Attorney says the Board needs to take no action on.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't say no. 'That's why I tell the
County Manager's Office don't bring it to the Board, because they can't
say no. The statute requires you do fingerprints. The statute requires
Page 275
January 12, 2016
that you do the FDLE and then the prices are set. There is no
discretion. You can't say no. It's the very definition of ministerial.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: How can the Clerk say no?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, he does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Clerk is the Clerk.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, I'm going to demonstrate in
this executive summary how easy this is, okay. Executive summary,
it's a nice executive summary, it goes down, and the second paragraph
under considerations it says this: On April 12th, 2011 the Board of
County Commissioners approved item 16.E.2 at the specific rate of
$43.25 per person. Okay? So that specific rate was approved on the
consent agenda.
The last line on the item under consideration it says: If, quote,
statutory rates rather than a flat rate that is subject to change order
approved by the Board, this agreement and related change rates can be
audited by the Clerk for payment.
So here's how difficult it was to fix this item. If the Clerk would
have just had the courtesy to come to Mr. Ochs and say Mr. Ochs,
look, you just need to put on the consent agenda change the language
there to statutory rates and just fly it through on the next agenda we
won't have any problem, we'll just keep this thing going, no sweat. It
would have been done, nobody would have even noticed it and it
would have been fixed.
But no, what did we do? We stopped paying the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement and the FBI. That's what action the
Clerk took.
MS. KINZEL: No, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No, that's what happened, ma'am.
You stopped paying them, and now they say they're not going to work
for us. It's just that simple. And it's less money than we talked about to
Page 276
January 12, 2016
begin with.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So nobody made a good faith effort
to fix the problem because we had to make it an issue to whine about.
MS. KINZEL: No, we did --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's what's happening.
MS. KINZEL: -- take it to your staff and they refused to put it on
the consent agenda. That is the exact solution that the Clerk's Office
proposed over a month ago.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So why didn't you put it on the
consent agenda?
MS. KINZEL: Your staff-- at this point we just put it under
where we are with the Clerk's agency.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You're in the executive summary
writing business, just send it on through.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wait a minute, wait a minute,
wait a minute.
MS. KINZEL: That's what --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Wait a minute. Apparently there
was a delay in the response of the County Manager. And I'm being
very generous in my remarks. So let's get this done and go forward.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: There was no delay on my part. I did not respond
because there was no need to come to the Board to get authorization to
make the payment to the service provider, given the fact that these are
statutorily set rates. There is no discretion as --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no discretion.
MR. OCHS: -- Mr. Klatzkow just said.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have to do the fingerprints.
MR. OCHS: Plus when you approved this action two years ago
Page 277
January 12, 2016
the executive summary said right in it that the rates will change over
time --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, then there's no issue at all.
MR. OCHS: -- and the Board approved that with that stipulation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There is no --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, then I stand correct, Mr.
Ochs. Thank you for correcting me on that.
MR. OCHS: That's why I didn't bring it forward.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay, all right. I apologize, I stand
corrected.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, in the item you
approved in 2011 in 68-2, the last sentence in consideration says:
These prices for the services will fluctuate from year to year. So you
approved that knowing that statutorily they're set and they fluctuate
year to year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I mean, the legislature is
setting the price.
MR. OCHS: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't approve paying recording fees.
Why? Because they're statutory. I mean, it's -- you've got no
discretion. We don't take stuff to you that you have no discretion on
because you could do the wrong thing and say no. I mean, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the issue is not us. The issue is
the Clerk, Jeff. You don't need to tell us what we know. We know we
don't have do anything. The Clerk is insisting we do something that
we are not required to do. The Clerk doesn't understand that this is a
ministerial issue. The Clerk doesn't understand that it's statutorily
required. The Clerk doesn't understand that it's a statutorily set rate.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: So what can we do about
straightening this out?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think if we don't pay -- somehow
Page 278
January 12, 2016
if the Clerk doesn't pay them, they're going to quit providing service.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And then we're in violation.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Isn't that what they've indicated?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: They sent us correspondence and
indicating that's the case? They've indicated that's the case, they're
going to stop doing business because we won't pay them?
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the penalty to us under the
statute for not fingerprinting? Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, I have no idea. You're required to -- for
certain positions you are required to do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So my question is what is
the punishment where we are in breach of statute?
MR. OCHS: I mean, we can't hire the people if we can't get the
background check. We'll have to shut the programs down.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what do we have to do, sue the
Clerk to compel him to pay because, I mean, it will put our hiring
practices at a standstill?
MR. OCHS: Perhaps.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Crystal, would you just pay this?
Being that we have no control over this.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can make a motion that the Clerk pays
the bills, okay?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Make a motion that the Clerk pays these
bills.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Second.
Page 279
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Any discu--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But wait a minute. How can we
make a motion to direct him to do something he refuses to do because
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's all right.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's asking you to take action. That's the
recommendation. He's asking you to take action. So I would suggest
your action is to direct the Clerk to pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ask him to pay the bills.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, or direct him --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: There's a motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or direct him to recognize --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Call the question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make the motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, there's a motion --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I already made it.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We're calling the question.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So to direct the Clerk to pay the
bill.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Easy peasy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not to authorize it but to direct him
to get it done.
Page 280
January 12, 2016
Item #13C
TO PROVIDE THE BOARD INFORMATION REGARDING
OUTSTANDING INVOICES RECEIVED AFTER EXPIRATION
OF FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC. CONTRACT #11-5715 ON
9/12/15, AND BEFORE THE EXECUTION OF FERGUSON
ENTERPRISES, INC. CONTRACT #15-6475R ON 12/8/15 —
MOTION DIRECTING THE CLERK TO PAY OUTSTANDING
INVOICES — APPROVED
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We've got another one? I'll make
the same motion on 13.C, to direct the Clerk to pay the bill. Is there a
second?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: But that's what we're -- that the Board
take action regarding the listed invoices totaling $52,000, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Direct the Clerk to pay the bill.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's my motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, all in favor --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Manager?
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you go and you tell the Clerk to
pay it?
Page 281
January 12, 2016
MR. OCHS: He can read the minutes, but I'll send him a copy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, send him a memo and say
the Board said pay it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: He's watching.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By now he's not.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I think that takes us to Item 15,
staff and commission communications. I don't have anything else on
the balance of the agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good. And Leo, do you have
anything to talk to us about today?
MR. OCHS: I have a couple of things, Commissioners, if I
might, just briefly.
The first one is that I received an email from Commissioner Fiala
who you all know is very interested in the subject of workforce and
affordable housing. She is going to be at the FAC conference on
February 2nd, which was the date that we had earmarked for our Board
workshop. I'd like with your permission to just move that to the
February workshop date, which would be March 1st --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. OCHS: -- instead of February 2nd.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to be with Commissioner
Fiala anyway, so whatever she wants.
MR. OCHS: I didn't figure the Board would have --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: We're going to move it to March?
Page 282
January 12, 2016
MR. OCHS: Yes, you have a reserved spot the first Tuesday of
every month, so I thought we would just move it to the first Tuesday in
March, Commissioner Fiala, if that --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's great.
MR. OCHS: Okay, great.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is that okay with you, Commissioner
Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, you've got four nods. I think
that's good.
All right.
MR. OCHS: Thank you very much.
The other thing is another schedule issue I want to make you
aware of. As you know, there's some meetings set with the North
Collier Fire Control District to have a conflict resolution meeting. And
when we agreed to those meetings dates, which are January 13, 14 and
15, the District agreed to go ahead and post the required notice to the --
or advertisement.
They also apparently also noticed the ensuing meeting of the
public bodies in the event that the conflict assessment meetings proved
unsuccessful. And they've noticed that for January 25th at 10:00 a.m.
at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church. I never agreed to that time
or date or place. I don't know that Mr. Klatzkow did.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MR. OCHS: That is the day before your next scheduled Board
meeting. It's usually your one-on-one days. They're anxious I suppose
to have this meeting in advance of your next meeting.
But I just wanted to let you know that if we hold to this date we're
going to have to either move one-to-ones to the prior Friday --
MR. KLATZKOW: Their concern --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to make --
Page 283
January 12, 2016
MR. KLATZKOW: Their concern is that you extended the
certificate. Their concern, it's going to expire.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'm going to make a motion to
allow Mr. Ochs to discuss the date of the subsequent meeting during
the first meeting.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So when you conclude your
activities or perhaps the second meeting is not necessary, you can all
come to agreement between yourselves in your best judgment at that
time.
MR. OCHS: Very good.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's my motion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Being that you never vote, I'm
just figuring that it's aye, right? You would say no if you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I agree with Commissioner
Fiala, even though I'm interrupting, she thinks it's perfectly acceptable.
I just want everybody to notice that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Now wait a second, with
Commissioner Hiller the default vote might be nay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, one more quick item.
Page 284
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You better rethink that.
MR. OCHS: One more quick item.
Again, this is in the same arena of fire and EMS. And normally I
don't know that I would talk to you in session about this, but because
of the high profile of this issue I thought I should.
And that's just to let you know that on January 20th
Commissioner Taylor has invited members of our staff, including
myself, to attend with her a meeting with the editorial board to talk
about this issue of fire and EMS and ALS response. I'm pleased to go
with her and other members of the staff.
There is one issue related to that. Your contract with your
medical director, Dr. Tober, who works directly for you but I have the
pleasure of administering the contract on your behalf, there's a section
in the contract on Page 9 (P) that says: The Medical Director shall
receive prior approval from the County Manager or designee preceding
any county communication with the media.
I believe that Dr. Tober has been invited by Commissioner Taylor
to join.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's correct.
MR. OCHS: You know, under the circumstances, I'd rather have
some Board authorization for him to engage with the editorial board
than just me giving that authorization. You know, we're kind of in the
middle of this whole mediation re--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't have a problem with that, as
long as there's a court reporter present to transcribe the whole
discussion and it becomes a public document so everyone hears
exactly what staff and Commissioner Taylor is saying. Because I'm
certainly not going to allow Commissioner Taylor and staff to
represent this Board and their opinions as if it's this Board and the
Board's opinions.
So, you know, transcribe everything, have a court reporter in
Page 285
January 12, 2016
there, make it public and let everybody read what you have told the
editorial board? Fine, make it happen. But I want a full transcript.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Does the City want to be a part of
this, by the way?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, it's not the City, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in fact, I wouldn't mind
attending to listen, to be part of the audience. I don't want to speak but
I'd be happy there to be a participant. You know, that way we wouldn't
have a Sunshine violation, I'll just sit in the room and watch.
What's the date? I'll be there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Very respectfully, we have been
given I think very wise counsel by the County Attorney to not be
discussing this item under litigation. Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I never even thought of that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner, I respectfully ask
that you delay any discussions with the media until after these
negotiations have been allowed to be conducted. I think it is very, very
bad form to engage the Naples Daily News because they are the media.
And we are not supposed to be discussing it. We've been advised as
such by our legal counsel that us as Commissioners should not have
anything to say.
I have personally declined requests to meet with fire
commissioners and discuss this issue because of this counsel. And I
believe it is very longstanding precedent and good guidance. I don't
think we should be having public discussions about this while we are
sued and -- while we're being sued. I think it's a very, very bad idea.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: It was stated very clearly today to the
point where they could even remove you from office if you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Tom Henning said that, but I don't
know if that's true.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will give Commissioner Taylor
Page 286
January 12, 2016
high marks for her desire to bring this to a conclusion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, that's not the issue.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But I do -- no, no, I know you're
anxious to resolve it --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, that's not the issue.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- and I give you all the credit in
the world.
But I just -- I'm fearful that our media representatives in our
community are -- will just make the situation -- I don't think they will
help us resolve our conflicts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's not about resolving anything.
This was strictly a conversation that I had with the editorial board that
why doesn't the county come and talk to us. We have asked them to
come to talk to us. This is years going on. Why haven't they talked to
us? Why isn't Dr. Tober in here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why do they need to talk -- let me
ask you a question.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything is a matter of public
record. We're not going to go and talk to the newspaper in a closed
room so the public can't hear. Whatever we say should be on the
record in front of the public for the world to know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: North Collier did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't care what they do. That's
not us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: North Collier --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Please let her finish.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When North Collier -- when this
whole thing erupted last year, North Collier came in and right away
had an editorial board. What happened to the county? So I said why
not. So we established it.
Page 287
January 12, 2016
But I will bow to the County Attorney, if you think I'm walking
on thin ice. And if this May stray into a litigation issue, then I
certainly do not -- I understand the concerns and the limitations of this.
MR. KLATZKOW: Listening to the majority of the Board, I
would suggest we maybe not do this.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'm sure the editorial board will
understand. And once it's finished --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Then yeah. Okay, that's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: This is going to keep yourself from
being in hot water. That was good of you to mention that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, you want all the discussions
to be productive. And honestly --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You can always say --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- I'm hopeful that our discussions
and our deliberations are based on facts and information and not on
emotion. And respectfully, the media is not always best at that. And
so, you know, I think discretion is the better part of valor. I think if we
just take a deep breath and hopefully we can resolve our differences
amicably and go forward and then we can discuss it. I think it would
be -- but that's just my opinion. You know, you all have an opinion.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: We appreciate your opinion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And respectfully I disagree with
your opinion and your assessment of the media.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Leo?
MR. OCHS: That's all I had, Commissioners.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's plenty.
Georgia, I don't know whether to call on you first so we can get
rid of that or what. Do you have anything to say?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
Page 288
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We had a closed session and after
the closed session normally what has to happen is we have to take a
vote on, you know, the course of action that should next be taken. And
there was no subsequent action taken by this Board after the closed
session. And I think that's a problem.
And so County Attorney, I don't know what you want to do but,
you know, staff has not been given direction by way of a public vote
and they need to be.
MR. KLATZKOW: You gave them direction during the meeting,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we didn't. We can't have a
closed vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We didn't come to a conclusion.
We had a discussion about the direction and a motion has to be made
in front of the public and it has to be voted on.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I'm not getting into this with you. I
think the procedure was done accurately and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Really? Well, it's never been done
that way before. I can go back to all the minutes and show you that
after closed sessions we have a public vote.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Depends on the subject, you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not a discretion. I mean, that's
how we've always done it. I assumed that we were following the law
and --
MR. KLATZKOW: We are following the law, ma'am. But if
you would read the law you would understand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, tell me.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- that there are alternatives. The law is
286.0118. You're welcome to look at it. It was done in a proper
Page 289
January 12, 2016
manner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, so no vote is required?
MR. KLATZKOW: And I'm not going to talk anymore about it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the section? Can you pass
me the --
MR. KLATZKOW: It is 286.018.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, that's all for you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I have such a good thing.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, good. We need something.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have something that will cause
you to think about other things.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So Troy -- oh, I am a member of
the Florida --
(Video was played.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So I am a member of the Florida
Humanities Council on the board, and this is a project that they've
undertaken. And they're based -- their home is in Tampa/St.
Petersburg. And they have brought this project to the Tampa/St.
Petersburg and it's gone up into the Panhandle.
So I am seeing if there's any interest on this Commission -- there
is a cost involved but I would like to see if you would like me to go
forward and get some information.
What I'm envisioning, and I'm envisioning maybe even a
partnership between Lee County and Collier County to produce
something like this. It doesn't last long, it's a set period of time. But I
think it would -- they bring down a director or a director comes from --
that has worked with this and has developed this in Tampa. And they
work with the veterans. And there's a whole process involved. And if
Page 290
January 12, 2016
you're interested --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Will you be involved in the Wounded
Warrior thing next week? Maybe that's a -- I don't know what they're
doing, but I think that they're working towards something like that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: This is specifically something that
PBS and Tampa has run it also. But this is the Telling Project from
Florida Humanities Council.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. This is something that
they're doing right here in Collier County, Wounded Warrior. And if
you'd like, I'll get that information for you, because that may be a place
to begin talking to people about it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, it's going to need funding.
So what I need to know is if there's interest here, then I would bring
down the people to talk to this Commission and talk about this. And
I'm not suggesting we do it next month, I'm thinking it's a year from
now.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Can you get us of the basic
information --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I can.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- about what sort -- what
magnitude of commitment is required?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I can.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And find out if somebody's already
working on that. Because there are a few things going on right now.
And you just want to make sure you don't duplicate any efforts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would be glad to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Good. And maybe I can even help
with a couple of the names --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- and have you check into it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
Page 291
January 12, 2016
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I think it's a beautiful idea, you know.
And there's some Wounded Warriors right here that that's what I'm
saying, they just might already be working on it. But it's a beautiful
thought.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Anything else from you?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I just want to thank you for all your
courtesy during my year as your chairman. I really enjoyed it. I've
been chair of different efforts in the past and I did put my full effort
into it. I tried to do my very best to conduct the business of the people
in the best way possible. And I appreciate your understanding of my
various mistakes from time to time and your courtesy in helping me
craft my way through it.
I look forward to the next year. I think there's an absolute -- a lot
of things that have been initiated in the past several years that are on a
good track. Very, very important decisions in the next few years. I
look forward to having a great final year on the Board with you and
continue to work in the community after that as a citizen again as I did
before.
So I just wanted to say thank you to everybody that allowed me
this opportunity. It's not over yet. I'll try to control myself in
subsequent meetings a little better than I did today. I came off the rails
a little bit. But sometimes -- most of the time self-control gets the
better of me but sometimes not always. So we'll do my very best. My
thanks to you all.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Just in response to you, and before I
make my own statement, I just want to tell you what a joy you have
been. You've been a great leader. Not just a good one, a great leader.
And always respectful. Always respectful. Never interrupting, always
Page 292
January 12, 2016
encouraging. And I've just enjoyed working with you immensely.
And I'm speaking for others.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You're very kind. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, I'm very honest.
Georgia, did you -- I mean Commissioner Hiller, did you have
something else to say?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. County Attorney, was any
decision made in our meeting? You said a vote was taken.
MR. KLATZKOW: It wasn't a decision. There was direction
given with respect to the settlement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So no decision was made.
MR. KLATZKOW: So for example, let's say you had a lawsuit
and you wanted to offer $100,000. You would come out of session
and then direct me for the $100,000. This was just direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So if$100,000 were offered
then a vote would have to be taken?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, you would have taken the vote after.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But otherwise, since there was no
specific decision made, no vote is required?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was general direction by the Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And limited strictly to --
MR. KLATZKOW: Settlement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So not a closed meeting that
covered a wide range of political and policy issues not connected to --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- settlement, pending litigation
regarding --
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the issue?
MR. KLATZKOW: I told you, okay, we discussed settlement. If
you want to make more of it, make more of it. That's fine.
Page 293
January 12, 2016
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The record will speak for itself
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And my final -- it's the worst meeting
I've been in in years. And I've never --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we give Commissioner Nance
back his chair?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Ma'am, I promise you, I'm going to
speak to the Chair about this.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I might just let him, because maybe
he can control you better than I can, I don't know. I tried to be really
nice and then it didn't work and then I'd have to be firm like I talk to
my kids.
And I would hope that next time you'll be a little bit more
respectful and easier to work with. Maybe today was a bad day.
Maybe you had a bad day. Maybe you were chewing on nails before
you came here or something.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's that energy drink, ma'am. I
warned you about that.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is that what it is?
But I hope the next meeting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me --
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- I apologize to everybody. I hope
the next meeting will be a lot nicer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: These issues are very serious
issues.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, but you always interrupt and so
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you always cut me off and
don't allow me to finish what is important to say. And it's very
disturbing when we ask questions and those questions are not
answered.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Commissioner, a lot of times you talk
Page 294
January 12, 2016
right while the speaker is speaking or somebody here is. And I would
be happy to give you your time if you'd let them finish what they're
trying to tell us and then you could have your time. I think we could
all just wait. And it's certainly good for Cherie'. She would love it if
we would each speak individually.
So I want to talk to you about another thing. Another thing that's
coming that I'm seeing crop up around our community and that is golf
courses being converted. And I live in Lakewood, and one of our golf
courses has just been bought and another one's up for sale, and I
understand another one might be up for sale in Riviera and another one
is in Golden Gate City, and we don't have any policy here to protect
the surrounding neighbors, we have nothing to go by. And so I would
like to ask staff to work on a status report on golf course conversion
and then to -- and what we have to do to be able to process this and to
deal with it. And also, that might take a while to put together a plan.
We should put a moratorium in place before it overtakes us.
And I was just wondering if-- Nick, can I do something like that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I don't think a moratorium
would be appropriate. Your Growth Management Plan and Land
Development Code dictate what the underlying land can be. So if a
piece of property has essentially enough space on it to meet whatever
the requirements are, the Land Development Code or the Comp. Plan,
somebody could come in and ask you or request to redevelop that.
Now, I think a status report might be appropriate, and staff could
easily do that and let you know what's going on, give you a little
guidance, but I wouldn't suggest a moratorium. Because I think even
looking at the County Attorney, it might be hard to justify why.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure -- there are communities that
have been doing that and they've been declaring moratoriums while
they've gotten their Land Development Code straightened out for this
issue.
Page 295
January 12, 2016
But what I do think is, though, an issue that staff should look at
and then come back possibly with a recommendation. The
recommendation may not be for a moratorium.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Right. And I think if we could at least
right now stay it before the horse gets too far down the road and then
we can't catch it, and so that's why I was suggesting that.
Can I ask you to come back at the next meeting and give me some
information, some status report on it or what to do about moratorium
or whatever? Because we've got neighborhoods here, like look what
happened with Riviera the last time, and luckily we were able to stop
that before it destroyed their community. But we've got things com--
that other one that's going in in Golden Gate City, you know, we need
to do something.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, if you're requesting information
individually, we're happy to provide it. If you're asking to bring an
item back on the agenda, I'd like to get some consensus.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Yes, how about --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yeah, I think that's very
important.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think it needs to be investigated
carefully. I will tell you honestly, you know, sports come in and out of
fashion. I have been told by numerous people that there aren't nearly
the number of people playing golf in many communities as there has
been in the past. Which means very large parcels are repurposed.
Now, if you can look -- I don't know how many golf courses we have
in the county, 100?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: A lot.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: 50, somewhere in there.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: 150 or so.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: A whole lot. So, you know, it's
Page 296
January 12, 2016
significant what can happen.
MR. OCHS: I have three nods to do some staff analysis and
bring a report back to the Board --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Check it out and see what's
happening.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And would you work with the County
Attorney too about --
MR. OCHS: I'd being happy to, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Who among us in this room believe
that the golf course at the Beach Club is going to remain a golf course
very much longer? I see no hands going up.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I would hope it would.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: As long as it's in the family.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, it will.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: The value of that property is
extraordinary. And I guarantee you it's going to be repurposed. And it
won't be long.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: I'll tell you something --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That's my prediction.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: -- about the Beach Club. There's only
two hotels in the whole State of Florida that have the water -- ocean or
whatever you want to call it, this is our Gulf but it's the ocean on the
other coast -- and a golf course on their property. Only two. And I
mean, that to me is the most valuable property you could ever get
ahold of. So you're right about that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's a very, very expensive property.
And, you know, families have generational love and respect for the
land but sometimes a later generation starts looking at numbers and
they look at the opportunity cost of that money and they find it very,
Page 297
January 12, 2016
very hard to justify keeping it as a golf course because the golf course
just can't produce that kind of revenue, you know, so it produces a
result like you get with The Ritz-Carlton where you have the Ritz on
the coast and you have the only Ritz-Carlton in Florida that's not on the
water at Tiburon, and they have the golf course and of course they use
Uber or whoever to carry people back and forth between the two.
Oops.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay, with that, folks --
MR. OCHS: Motion to adjourn, ma'am, would be in order.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Oh, I was just going to plain 'ol
adjourn it.
I'll take that motion. Adjourned.
*****
**** Commissioner Hiller moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,280 POSTED AS A DEVELOPMENT
GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK AUTHORIZATION
(EWA) (PL20150002294) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
SAINT PETER THE APOSTLE CATHOLIC CHURCH — THE
DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED COMMITMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SECURITY FOR WORK AT THIS CHURCH
LOCATED AT 5130 RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Page 298
January 12, 2016
Item #16A2
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF AN IRREVOCABLE
STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
POSTED AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT
NUMBER 60. 110 (PL20130002033) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH THE SIENNA RESERVE — THE DEVELOPER HAS
FULFILLED COMMITMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS
SECURITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF DEL WEBB NAPLES
PARCELS 203-204, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150001882)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — LOCATED
WITHIN THE AVE MARIA SRA
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ESPLANADE AT
HACIENDA LAKES PHASE 2A, (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20150002005) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
Page 299
January 12, 2016
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF WINDING CYPRESS
PHASE 2, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140002533)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY — A PROJECT
LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD AND US 41/TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK
MARSH COVE - PHASE 2, (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20150001903) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF LAKOYA LOT 341,
APPLICATION NUMBER PL20150002534 — LOCATED WITHIN
LELY RESORT
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF MOCKINGBIRD
CROSSING - PHASE 2, APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20150002144 — A DEVELOPMENT LOCATED OFF COLLIER
BOULEVARD BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD
Page 300
January 12, 2016
Item #16A9
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF GOLF CLUB OF
THE EVERGLADES AMENITY CENTER, APPLICATION
NUMBER PL20150002440 — A PROJECT OFF OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD ON VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD
Item #16A10
RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $252,750 FOR PAYMENT OF $500, IN
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. RONNIE G. AND BEVERLY
BISHOP, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO.
CESD20110017156, RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1329 SAINT CLAIR SHORES ROAD, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA — FOR VIOLATIONS RELATED TO CONVERTING
A GARAGE INTO A GUEST HOUSE WITHOUT REQUIRED
PERMITS ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS PURCHASED BY
A NEW OWNER IN APRIL, 2015 AND BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
Item #16A11
RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $3,363.33 FOR PAYMENT OF $513.33,
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. KEVIN P. MCCORMICK
AND KATHY MCCORMICK, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. CELU20140016371, RELATING TO PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3575 3RD AVENUE NW, COLLIER COUNTY,
Page 301
January 12, 2016
FLORIDA — FOR VIOLATIONS SURROUNDING PROHIBITED
OUTSIDE STORAGE ON PROPERTY THAT THE OWNER
DILIGENTLY WORKED TO ABATE AND BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2015
Item #16Al2
RELEASING TWO (2) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A
COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $196,707.09 FOR
PAYMENT OF $757.09, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
V. JEFFREY M. STONE AND MARDI S. MOORMAN, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20120004892 AND
CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO.
CENA20130011451, RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
5741 PAINTED LEAF LANE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
FOR VIOLATIONS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
MULTIPLE STRUCTURES WITHOUT THE REQUIRED
PERMITS AND GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS
PURCHASED SEPTEMBER 8, 2015 AND HAS BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE BY A NEW OWNER
Item #16A13
RELEASING TWO (2) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A
COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $29,273.91 FOR PAYMENT
OF $4,223.91, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. ROGER
DALE MOONEYHAM AND ROXIE MOONEYHAM, CODE
ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO.
CEPM20110004770 AND CEROW20120000549, RELATING TO
Page 302
January 12, 2016
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4998 23RD CT. SW, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR VARIOUS CODE VIOLATIONS ON
THE PROPERTY THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE
AND ACQUIRED BY 4998 GGC, LLC., VIA SPECIAL
WARRANTY DEED ON JUNE 9, 2015
Item #16A14
RELEASING THREE (3) CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS WITH A
COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $74,631.03 FOR PAYMENT
OF $2,831.03, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. CHAD
A. AND CRYSTAL M. SHANNON, CODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NOS. CEPM20100002536,
CEPM20110011548 AND CEPM20140011736, RELATED TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6654 CASTLELAWN PL, COLLIER
COUNTY — REPEAT VIOLATIONS SURROUNDING AN
UNMAINTAINED POOL THAT WAS BROUGHT INTO
COMPLIANCE AND FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE ACQUIRED
BY DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ET AL.,
VIA CERTIFICATE OF TITLE RECORDED JULY 24, 2015
Item #16A15
RELEASING A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $48,250 FOR PAYMENT OF $1,000, IN
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. KIMBERLY M. HARRINGTON
AND JAMES W. HARRINGTON, CODE ENFORCEMENT
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE NO. CEPM20140020881,
RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1103 WISCONSIN
Page 303
January 12, 2016
DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — FOR VIOLATIONS
SURROUNDING AN UNSECURED VACANT DWELLING
WITH A DAMAGED ROOF ON PROPERTY ACQUIRED VIA
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE RECORDED AUGUST 25, 2015 AND
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE BY THE NEW OWNER
NOVEMBER 12, 2015
Item #16A16
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, PHASE B
AND R2, PL20140000380, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — UPON FINAL INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY STAFF
OCTOBER 29, 2015 THE FACILITIES WERE DETERMINED TO
BE ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A17
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR NORTH NAPLES RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK
STORAGE SUITES, PL20140000267, ACCEPTING
UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF OFF-SITE UTILITIES,
AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $5,454.24 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL
Page 304
January 12, 2016
INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF JUNE 23, 2015
AND THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND SATISFACTORY
Item #16A18
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, PHASE
Cl AND C2, PL20140000985 AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION CONDUCTED
BY STAFF NOVEMBER 12, 2015 DETERMINED THE
FACILITIES WERE ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A19
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, PHASE
Al, PL20140000060, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — A FINAL INSPECTION TO DISCOVER DEFECTS
WAS CONDUCTED BY STAFF ON OCTOBER 29, 2015 AND
THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY
Item #16A20
Page 305
January 12, 2016
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, SDP #1,
PL20140000054, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED
AGENT — UPON A FINAL INSPECTION NOVEMBER 12, 2015
BY STAFF THE FACILITIES WERE FOUND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A21
AN ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE
ROADWAY SEGMENT OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO LIVINGSTON ROAD, WITH
TWO (2) RECOGNITION SIGNS AND TWO (2) ADOPT-A-
ROAD LOGO SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $200 WITH THE
VOLUNTEER GROUP, ORACLE AMERICA, INC. — THE
GROUP WILL REMOVE LITTER ON THIS SEGMENT OF
ROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY INSTRUCTIONS
Item #16A22
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND CITY OF NAPLES SETTING FORTH FUTURE
OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
SANDPIPER STREET, SOUTH OF MARLIN DRIVE AND A
QUIT CLAIM DEED CONVEYING THE ROAD TO THE CITY.
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $60,000 (PROJECT NO. 60131) —
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 306
January 12, 2016
Item #16A23
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT
NO. 14C01 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF BEACHES
AND COASTAL SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR COLLIER COUNTY BEACH
RENOURISHMENT AND MAKING A FINDING THAT THIS
ITEM PROMOTES TOURISM — AN AMENDMENT THAT WILL
PRIMARILY PROVIDE FUNDING FOR RENOURISHMENT
WORK ALREADY COMPLETED, HOTSPOT REPAIR, DESIGN,
AND FOR MONITORING WORK CURRENTLY UNDERWAY
OR THAT WILL BE PERFORMED IN THE NEAR FUTURE
Item #16A24
FEE-SIMPLE CONVEYANCE OF OAK DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO COLLIER COUNTY, AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF THE
WARRANTY DEED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS, AND
ACCEPTING MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY— LOCATED
IN THE RIVERWOOD ESTATES COMMUNITY LOCATED OFF
OF MANATEE ROAD AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOA
Item #16A25
A UTILITY FACILITIES QUIT-CLAIM DEED AND BILL OF
SALE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE WENTWORTH
ESTATES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD),
RECONVEYING ALL IRRIGATION UTILITY FACILITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH TREVISO BAY PROJECT PL2004080032
THAT WERE ERRONEOUSLY CONVEYED TO THE COUNTY
Page 307
January 12, 2016
BACK TO THE CDD — RECONVEYANCE WILL ALLOW
WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE
PROJECT TO GO TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL
AND ACCEPTANCE AT A FUTURE MEETING
Item #16A26
THE NAMING A COLLIER COUNTY ARTIFICIAL REEF SITE
PURSUANT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
WITH COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF COLLIER COUNTY
AND ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING A DONATION OF
$98,000 FOR ARTIFICIAL REEF DONATIONS PROJECT NO.
44038 — THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED AT THE DECEMBER 8,
2015 MEETING AND PROPOSES RENAMING "COLLIER 1
ARTIFICIAL REEF" THE "TOD SIROD" REEF
Item #16A27
A SHORT-LIST OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS PURSUANT TO RFP #15-6456, CEI SERVICES
FOR LAP FUNDED PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZE ENTERING
INTO NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND AIM
ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. FOR "CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI) SERVICES FOR LAP
FUNDED PROJECTS" (GMD GRANT FUND 711) — FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAS AGREED WITH
THE SELECTION OF AIM ENGINEERING & SURVEYING AND
FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS STAFF WILL RETURN TO THE
BOARD FOR CONTRACT APPROVAL
Item #16A28
Page 308
January 12, 2016
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
EVERGLADES AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR UTILITY WORK
IN THE AMOUNT OF $264,124. 14 AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
THE CHOKOLOSKEE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT;
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 66066 — ESTABLISHING TERMS FOR
THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF AN (EXISTING)
EVERGLADES CITY 10" POTABLE WATER MAIN THAT
CONFLICTS WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF CHOKOLOSKEE
BAY BRIDGE #030161 ON CR29
Item #16A29
RESOLUTION 2016-01 : APPROVING A SPECIAL TREATMENT
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
BOAT DOCK AND DOCK ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY STANDARD PACIFIC OF FLORIDA
WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF RMF-6(3) AND SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA (COMPANION TO ITEM #17D)
Item #16B1
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTING AS
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
EXECUTE A BARE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND NAPLES
AUTO DONATION CENTER, INC. ON PROPERTY AT 1965
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS
FOR VEHICLE STORAGE — AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 309
January 12, 2016
Item #16B2
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY'S APPROVAL OF AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF SALE
LISTING AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE CONSULTANTS, LLC TO MARKET AND SELL
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4265 AND 4315 BAYSHORE DRIVE
CONSISTING OF 17.89 ACRES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTES 163.380 AND AS OUTLINED IN THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ANY AND
ALL OFFERS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD — A PREVIOUS
AGREEMENT (#13-6099) WITH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
CONSULTANTS, LLC EXPIRED IN 2015
Item #16C1
CONTRACT #15-6365, "DISASTER DEBRIS MANAGEMENT,
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL SERVICES" AWARDED TO
MULTIPLE FIRMS — AWARDED TO ASHBRITT INC. D/B/A
ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL (PRIMARY); CROWDER-GULF
JOINT VENTURE, INC. (SECONDARY) AND CERES
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. (TERTIARY) THAT WILL
BE UNDER AN "ON CALL" CONTRACT FOR A 5-YEAR
PERIOD OF TIME WITH AN OPTION TO EXTEND FIVE (5)
ADDITIONAL 1-YEAR TERMS
Item #16D1
AMENDMENT #4 TO THE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY,
Page 310
January 12, 2016
INC., TO SHIFT REMAINING PROJECT FUNDS BETWEEN
LINE ITEMS IN ORDER TO FULLY EXPEND THE REMAINING
FUNDS AWARDED ON INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
(NET FISCAL IMPACT: NONE) — FOR FUNDS AWARDED
UNDER CDBG GRANT #B-13-UC-12-0016 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$500,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FAITH LANDING
DEVELOPMENT IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D2
DONATION OF $23,263.40 AS OFFSITE PRESERVATION FOR
ST. PETER THE APOSTLE CHURCH (SDPA-PL-20150000903)
TO SATISFY THE NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION
REQUIREMENT — A DONATION TO THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER PROGRAM TO MEET A 0. 1 ACRE VEGETATION
REQUIREMENT RELATED TO PETITION CU-PL20140001335,
A CONDITIONAL USE, APPROVED BY COLLIER COUNTY'S
HEARING EXAMINER, FOR A RECTORY AND PARKING ON
A 3.31 ACRE PARCEL ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND USED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE ST. PETER CHURCH PUD ON
RATTLE-SNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 2016-02 (SECTION 5310); RESOLUTION 2016-03
(SECTION 5311) AND RESOLUTION 2016-04 (SECTION 5339):
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTIONS 5310, 5311 AND 5339-RURAL
FY2015/2016 GRANT APPLICATIONS AND APPLICABLE
DOCUMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION THAT INCLUDES A FEDERAL SHARE
Page 311
January 12, 2016
OF $568,446.08, STATE SHARE OF $608,155.76 AND A LOCAL
MATCH OF $557,555.76 (ANTICIPATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$1,734,157.60)
Item #16D4
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER
CONTRACT AND ATTESTATION STATEMENT WITH AREA
AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR
FEDERAL AND STATE-FUNDED SERVICES FOR SENIORS
PROGRAMS (FISCAL IMPACT: $0) — CONTRACT #HM203. 14
AMENDMENT NO. 2
Item #16D5
AN AFTER-THE-FACT AMENDMENT AND ATTESTATION
STATEMENT WITH AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. FOR SERVICES FOR SENIORS
OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III-E GRANDPARENT
PROGRAM AND BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ENSURE
CONTINUOUS FUNDING FOR FY15 (FISCAL IMPACT: $7,000)
— CONTRACT #OAA203.15 AMENDMENT NO. 3
Item #16D6
AN AFTER-THE-FACT CONTRACT AMENDMENT AND
ATTESTATION STATEMENT BETWEEN THE AREA AGENCY
ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND COLLIER
COUNTY FOR SERVICES FOR SENIORS TO EXTEND THE
GRANT PERIOD THROUGH FEBRUARY 29, 2016 FOR THE
OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAMS AND ALLOW FOR
Page 312
January 12, 2016
ADDITIONAL IN-HOME REIMBURSEMENT RATES (FISCAL
IMPACT: $0) — CONTRACT #OAA203. 15 AMENDMENT NO. 4
Item #16D7
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
THAT HAS SATISFIED THE TERMS OF ASSISTANCE OF
COLLIER COUNTY STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM
— SATISFYING A 1995 SECOND MORTGAGE ON PROPERTY
AT 2396 BAYSIDE STREET IN NAPLES FOR REFINANCING
PURPOSES
Item #16D8
CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 2015 BCC MEETING
THE FY 15-16 CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY'S HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,378,200 AND ALLOCATING ADDITIONAL
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $249,220 TO FILL A FUNDING
GAP DUE TO THE STATE (NOT) FUNDING ACHA MEDICAID
MATCH PROGRAMS — EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2015
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
Item #16D9
A LONG-TERM COMMUNITY MARKET AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN COLLIER COUNTY
TO PROVIDE A COMMUNITY MARKET AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER (FISCAL IMPACT: $0.) — A
Page 313
January 12, 2016
MARKET HELD 11 A.M. TO 2 P.M. EVERY FRIDAY (EXCEPT
HOLIDAYS) IN THE TAMIAMI TRAIL E PARKING GARAGE
Item #16E1
RESOLUTION 2016-05: AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF
2015 TAXES UPON A FEE-SIMPLE INTEREST IN LAND THE
COUNTY ACQUIRED BY WARRANTY DEED FOR
CONSERVATION COLLIER WITHOUT MONETARY
COMPENSATION (ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC SERVICES
DEPARTMENT) — LOCATED WITHIN THE WINCHESTER
HEAD PARCEL IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16E2
TERMINATING A FACILITY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY FOR
LEASED PROPERTY IN IMMOKALEE ON BEHALF OF
TRANSPORTATION/GMD — A LEASE FOR 31,250 SQUARE
FEET OF VACANT LAND AT THE ROAD AND BRIDGE
FACILITY ON STOCKADE ROAD IN IMMOKALEE THAT'S
BEEN USED BY THE DISTRICT FOR BUS PARKING AND
MAINTENANCE SINCE 1989: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 12, 2016
Item #16E3
THE SALE & DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY THROUGH
AN ON-LINE AUCTION(S) IN COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA
STATUTES AND RESOLUTION 2013-095 AND AUTHORIZING
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO SIGN FOR THE
TRANSFER OF VEHICLE TITLES — AS DETAILED IN THE
Page 314
January 12, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E4 — Moved to Item #11E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E5 — Moved to Item #11D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E6
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT
SERVICES DIVISION FOR MODIFICATIONS TO WORK
ORDERS, CHANGE ORDERS, SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
OTHER IDENTIFIED ITEMS — COVERING THE PERIOD
NOVEMBER 13 — DECEMBER 16, 2015 AND A SURPLUS
DISPOSAL AND REVENUE REPORT THAT COVERS THE
PERIOD OF NOVEMBER 14 — DECEMBER 15, 2015
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2015-06: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F2
DETERMINING FERRIS MARKETING OF FLORIDA IS A
QUALIFIED APPLICANT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BASIC
INDUSTRY GROWTH PROMOTION INCENTIVE PROGRAM
AND APPROVING THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT FOR
PROJECT "15-013" — A 4-YEAR AGREEMENT AND PLAN TO
CREATE 12 JOBS BY JANUARY 12, 2017 WITH TOTAL COSTS
RANGING FROM $36,000 NOT EXCEEDING $72,000 THAT
Page 315
January 12, 2016
THE COMPANY WOULD USE TO EXPAND THE WORKFORCE
AT THEIR INTERNATIONAL WHOLESALE OPERATION
LOCATED AT 4720 RADIO ROAD THAT DISTRIBUTES A
VARIETY OF GOODS INCLUDING ELECTRONICS
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2016-07: APPOINTING GEORGE DOUGLAS TO
THE BAYSHORE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO THE REMAINDER OF A TERM EXPIRING MARCH 3, 2017
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2016-08: REAPPOINTING KAYDEE TUFF AND
W. JAMES KLUG, III TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY BOARD WITH TERMS EXPIRING
DECEMBER 31, 2018
Item #16H3
RESOLUTION 2016-09: REAPPOINTING DAN HERRINGTON
TO ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2017
Item #16H4 — Moved to Item #10C (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
Page 316
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
January 12, 2016
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) Heritage Bay Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 10/01/2015
Meeting Minutes 10/01/2015
2) Heritage Greens Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 10/19/2015
Meeting Minutes 10/19/2015
3) Naples Heritage Community Development District:
Meeting Agenda 05/05/2015
Meeting Minutes 05/05/2015
4) Port of the Islands Community Improvement District:
Meeting Agenda 10/16/2015
Meeting Minutes 10/16/2015
C. OTHER:
January 12, 2016
Item #16J1
A REQUEST TO RECORD 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 PERIODS BETWEEN NOVEMBER 26
AND DECEMBER 30, 2015 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 136.06(1)
Item #16K1
RIGHT-OF-ENTRY AGREEMENT WITH LELY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ENSURE THE PROPER
MONITORING OF GROUNDWATER WELL LEVELS — WILL
ALLOW THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT
ACCESS TO GOUNDWATER MONITORING WELL WMW#1,
IN THE EVENT THE CDD DOES NOT REPORT TO THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO
REQUIREMENTS IN SFWMD PERMIT #11-00044-W
Item #161(2
A JOINT MOTION AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $15,000 FOR PARCEL NO. 264RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GANASH RAJARAM, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 15-CA-379 FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
WIDENING PROJECT NO. 60040 (FISCAL IMPACT: $10,105.50)
— A 3,600 SQUARE FOOT PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
NEAR 18TH ST. SE ALONG GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
Page 317
January 12, 2016
Item #16K3
A RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL
SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRM OF KELLEY STIFFLER
PLLC ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION MATTERS — FOR
SERVICES ON AN "AS NEEDED" BASIS PRIMARILY USED
AND PAID FOR BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Item #16K4
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S
INTEREST IN PARCELS 113FEE AND 113TCE AS PART OF US-
41/COLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 60116. (FISCAL IMPACT: $5,040) — BOA IS THE
HOLDER OF A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT OVER
FREEDOM SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER, OWNED BY NEW
PLAN FLORIDA HOLDINGS, OWNER OF THE PARCELS
THAT WERE TAKEN BY EMINENT DOMAIN
Item #16K5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO SATISFY FINAL JUDGMENT IN
THE MATTER STYLED PENNY PHILLIPPI V. COLLIER
COUNTY (SECOND DCA CASE NO. 2D14-5805 AND CIRCUIT
COURT CASE NO. 14-0416CA) AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — A LAWSUIT THAT
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT FILED BY PENNY
PHILLIPPI, THE FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA (CRA)
Item #16K6
Page 318
January 12, 2016
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 212RDUE IN THE CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. EVA BALDRICH, ET AL., CASE
NO. 14-CA-2701, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COLLIER COUNTY, REQUIRED FOR THE
WIDENING OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT NO.
60040 (FISCAL IMPACT: $11,355.50)
Item #16K7
FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 200RDUE IN THE CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BABY BROTHERS ENTERPRISES,
INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 15-CA-0298, NOW PENDING IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, COLLIER COUNTY,
REQUIRED FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD WIDENING
PROJECT NO. 60040 (FISCAL IMPACT: $10,305.50) — A 6,450
SQUARE FOOT ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2016-10: PETITION VAC-PL20150002259, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 10-FOOT UTILITY
EASEMENT, RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1137,
PAGE 638 AND THE 50-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT
RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1401, PAGE 757 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 319
January 12, 2016
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2016-11 : PETITION VAC-PL20150001066,
TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE COUNTY AND
PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 12-FOOT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG THE REAR
BORDER OF LOT 15, BLOCK "C" OF HABITAT VILLAGE, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 37, PAGES 48 THROUGH 51 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2016-01 : AMENDING "SCHEDULE FOUR" OF
"APPENDIX A" OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) BY PROVIDING
FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2015-17 TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITIES IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE AND PROVIDE
FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE CORRECTED
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2016-12: PETITION ADA-PL20150001703,
KATHLEEN RILEY, ET AL. REQUESTS AN APPEAL TO
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF A FINAL
DECISION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE PETITION BDE-PL20150000487
Page 320
January 12, 2016
FOR AN 18-FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE
MAXIMUM 20-FOOT LIMIT ALLOWED BY SECTION 5.03.06
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A TOTAL
PROTRUSION OF 24 TO 38 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE A 26
SLIP MULTI-FAMILY DOCKING FACILITY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF A 15.61 ± ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
HALDEMAN CREEK DOCKS IN SECTIONS 11 AND 14,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA (COMPANION TO ITEM #16A29)
Item #17E
RESOLUTION 2016-13: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FY 2015-16 ADOPTED BUDGET
*****
Page 321
January 12, 2016
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:05 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
1149 it:06.,
DONNA FIALA, Chairwoman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
n�f
B
•
Attest as to Ca "
signature only.
These minutes approved by the Board on ?-141 Ioi
(� ,
as presented ✓ or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 322