BCC Minutes 06/23/2009 R
June 23, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 23, 2009
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 district as has 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: Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
June 23, 2009
9:00 AM
Donna Fiala, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
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."
June 23, 2009
Page 1
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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 and
summary agenda.)
B. May 26,2009 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation supporting the initiative of Basik Development to display a
retired Space Shuttle Orbiter at the Naples Big Cypress Marketplace. To be
accepted by Keith Basik.
B. Proclamation designating July, 2009 as Collier County Parks and Recreation
Month. To be accepted by Barry Williams, Tona Nelson, Kerry Runyon,
Sidney Kittila, Tony Ruberto, Ilonka Washburn, Murdo Smith, Shari
June 23, 2009
Page 2
Ferguson, Annie Alvarez and Jenny Morris.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation recognizing State Representative Matt Hudson, District 101,
who will be receiving the Florida Association of Counties annual "County
Champion Award" for sponsoring House Bill 701 Relating to Notices of
Proposed Property Taxes, also known as the Truth in Millage (TRIM) notice
bill, which was passed and signed by Governor Charlie Crist during the 2009
Legislative Session.
B. Distinguished Budget Presentation A ward for the current fiscal year (22nd)
from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the
Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by John Yonkosky,
Director, Office of Management and Budget.
C. Recommendation to recognize Christal Segura, Environmental Specialist,
Facilities Management, as Employee of the Month for June, 2009.
D. Presentation to recognize Ed Torroni, Parks and Recreation Athletic
Supervisor, for his outstanding support of the United Way's Southwest
Florida Softball Challenge conducted at North Collier Regional Park, June
13-14,2009. Presented by Ernie Bretzmann, Executive Director, United
Way of Collier County.
E. Presentation by Jon R. Ahlschwede of Stanley Consultants, Inc. to Collier
County, Florida recognizing receipt of the National Engineering Excellence
Award from the American Council of Engineering Companies for the
Golden Gate Parkway Overpass project. The award will be accepted by
Transportation Services Division Administrator, Norman Feder and
Principal Project Manager, Gary Putaansu. It should also be noted that the
Golden Gate Parkway Overpass is to receive the Grand Award from the
Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers at an F .I.C.E. Meeting in August.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Bill Klohn to discuss Arrowhead Project PUD
requirements.
June 23, 2009
Page 3
B. Public petition request by Gina Downs to discuss delay in letting contract to
begin construction on Oil Well Road.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 v.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item was continued from the June 9. 2009 BCC Meetine:. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. Petition: SV-2009-AR-14140 Red
Roof Inn, represented by Brent Forte of Site Enhancement Services, Inc. is
requesting four Sign Variances from LDC Section 5.06.04. The first
variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.I. which requires a minimum
separation of 1,000-foot between signs to allow 262 feet between signs. The
second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.I.a. which allows a 15-foot
high sign to allow a 23-foot high sign. The third variance is from Subsection
5.06.04 C.l.c. which allows a sign area of 80 square feet to allow a sign area
of96 square feet. The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 CA which
permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign. The subject property
is located at 1925 Davis Boulevard, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: V A-2009-AR-
14139, (NG) Hussein Wafapoor represented by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell,
Hall and Associates, Inc., is requesting a variance from Section 5.03.06 E.6.
to reduce a required side yard setback of 7.5 feet for a dock facility to 4.5
feet (along the northwest riparian line) and to 0 feet (along the southwest
riparian line). The subject property is located at 140 Conner's Avenue,
Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :30 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approves an ordinance creating a mandatory code
inspection of foreclosed and abandoned homes, which requires owners of
abandoned residential property who have acquired title through foreclosure
or through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to obtain an inspection report and
certificate of inspection relating to the subject property's compliance with
June 23, 2009
Page 4
current Collier County Ordinances, including building codes and permitting
and zoning regulations, and to disclose the report prior to subsequent sale,
consistent with the Board of County Commissioners' previous direction.
(Companion to Items lOA and lOB.)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of Commissioners and citizen members to serve on the Value
Adjustment Board.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
C. Appointment of members to the Public School Concurrency Citizen
Advisory Group.
D. Appointment of members to the Industrial Development Authority.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard after Item #8A. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approves a resolution establishing the Foreclosed
and Abandoned Home Code Inspection Program Administrative Policy
Manual providing definitions and applicability, and establishing regulatory
guidelines and requirements consistent with the Mandatory Code Inspection
of Foreclosed and Abandoned Homes Ordinance. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, CDES) (Companion to Items 8A and lOB.)
B. This item to be heard after Item #8A. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, adopts a Resolution
amending Resolution No. 2009-101, known as the Collier County
Community Development and Environmental Services Fee Schedule, by
adding a Paragraph YY, pertaining to fees for the Mandatory Code
Inspection of Foreclosed and Abandoned Homes Ordinance, Ordinance
2009- . (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, CDES) (Companion to
Items #8A and #10A.)
c. Request approval of the Board of County Commissioners to memorialize the
schedule for the Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) Growth Management
Plan Amendment Cycle (Thomas Greenwood, Principal Planner and David
June 23, 2009
Page 5
Weeks, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning, CDES)
D. Continued from the Mav 26. 2009 and June 9. 2009 BCC Meetine:.
Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners to install
navigational markers in Outer Clam Bay for USACE permit compliance and
recommendation to move forward with permitting and installation. (Gary
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management)
E. Recommendation to conduct the Conservation Collier Annual Public
Meeting to provide the Board of County Commissioners and public with an
update on the programs past activities and to obtain direction on solicitation
of proposals for the current acquisition cycle. (Alex Sulecki, Conservation
Collier)
F. Report to the Board concerning the results and impacts of the Local Vendor
Preference Policy and recommendations regarding the use of location in the
evaluation of CCNA contracts. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the Mav 26. 2009 BCC Meetine:. Status Report
to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the 2003 Agreement and
promises made by the South Florida Water Management District with
respect to the County's vacating approximately 287 miles of roads in the
Southern Golden Gate Estates.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
accept a response to RFP #09-5177R from Fifth Third Bank for a
$13,500,000 term loan; authorize the CRA Chairman to sign the proposal
and all other documents in connection therewith; direct the Executive
Director to prepare all required enabling documents/resolutions to pledge
CRA Tax Increment Funds as the loan repayment source and return for
June 23, 2009
Page 6
Board approval; and authorize all necessary budget amendments. (David
Jackson, Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves and
authorizes its Chairman to execute the attached First Amendment to the
Collier County Airport Authority's Executive Directors Employment
Agreement, extending the agreement three (3) years starting on October 1,
2009 and providing a salary adjustment.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Classic Plantation, Phase 3.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Mission Hills Shopping Center.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Polaris Center (a.k.a. 1265 Creekside Parkway).
4) Request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approves a
proposed assignment agreement between the County and the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of
Florida for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) relating to thirty-four (34) parcels owned by Estates at Twin
Eagles, Ltd., to allow for the issuance of conveyance bonus credits
specified by the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Sub-District of the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and Sections
2.03.07.DA and 2.03.08 of the Land Development Code.
June 23, 2009
Page 7
5) This item continued from the April 14. 2009 BCC Meetine:.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners endorse
recommended amendments to the Code Enforcement Boards Rules
and Regulations.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water, sewer and
irrigation utility facilities for Treviso Bay Boulevard.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Classic Plantation Estates, Phase 4.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Hibiscus Clubhouse.
9) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for Code Enforcement actions.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
Change Order No.1 to Contract #08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh
& Jernigan for a Phase 2 cost of$1,303,397.38 to develop Watershed
Management Plans required by the Growth Management Plan.
11) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Ave Maria Unit 16, Ellington
Park, approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
12) Notification of intent to approve a land use as a comparable and
compatible use in the C-5 zoning district, pursuant to a pending Land
Development Code amendment, allowing Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Code 3842 or portions thereof in the Heavy
Commercial, C-5 Commercial Zoning District.
13) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Runaway Bay at Fiddler's Creek, Parcel 31.
June 23, 2009
Page 8
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Vacation of Easement for a portion of
a drainage easement (Parcell 03DE2) acquired for the Davis
Boulevard Project. (Project No. 60073.) Estimated Fiscal Impact:
$30.00.
2) Recommendation to award RFP #09-5197, Annual Contract for
Roadway Contractors, to the following contractors: AP AC Southeast,
Inc., Better Roads, Inc., Bonness Inc., and Quality Enterprises USA,
Inc. (Estimated annual amount $1,750,000).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
an alternative road impact fee calculation and resulting rate of$7,4l6
per bay for the proposed Loves Car Wash to be located at 4712
Golden Gate Parkway and the County Manager or his designee to
conduct further review and analysis of the appropriate rate applicable
to car wash facilities.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement for Naples Parrot Head
Club with two (2) roadway recognition signs at a total cost of
$150.00.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners directs the
County Manager, or his designee, and the County Attorney to prepare
the necessary amendments to Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance, to provide for the incorporation of a new Road
Impact Fee land use category and impact fee rate for mines, consistent
with previous direction, for future consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at an advertised public hearing.
6) Recommendation to add installation of native landscape materials for
a hedge as part of the Palm River Estates Unit 5 N-S Stormwater
Improvement Project, Project No. 51030.1 in the amount of
$13,062.50.
June 23, 2009
Page 9
7) Recommendation to approve and execute a contract amendment
between Collier County and the Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged for the Progress Payments and Disbursement Schedule
of Funds for the provision of transportation services for qualified
Medicaid recipients.
8) Recommendation to approve the Contract Supplemental Agreement to
Contract No. 06-3931 in the amount of $573,302 with Stanley
Consultants, Inc., for the re-design of Golden Gate Boulevard from
Wilson Boulevard to Desoto Boulevard, Project No. 60040.
9) Recommendation to terminate the contract awarded to Amera- Tech,
Inc., for Bid #09-5194 Collier County Right-of-Way (ROW) and
Median Mowing and Maintenance Annual Contract in the amount of
$43,000.00.
10) Recommendation to approve a declaration setting aside county-owned
property for Collier Boulevard roadway, sidewalk, bike path, drainage
and utility facilities. Project No. 6000 I. Estimated Fiscal Impact:
$20.00.
11) Award a contract for Bid #09-5164, Collier Area Transit (CAT) Bus
Shelters and Related Items, to RCP Shelters Inc., DUO-Gard
Industries, Inc., Wausau Tile Inc., Brasco Enterprises, Inc., and
Swartz Associates, Inc. in the estimated annual amount of$100,000.
12) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement allowing
former owners of a property purchased by Collier County due to its
location on the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project (Parcel 133)
the option to further extend their post-closing occupancy of the
property for an additional six month period. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal
Impact: Revenue in the amount of up to $9,000 which would be
credited to the gas tax and/or impact fee accounts).
13) Recommendation the Board of County Commissioners provide after-
the- fact approval for the Eastern Collier County Wetland Management
and Restoration Project application submitted to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) for a Region 04 Wetland
June 23, 2009
Page 10
Program Development Grant in the amount of $450,000.
14) Request for authorization for the County Manager or his designee to
bring to the Board a proposed Ordinance to create the Radio Road
East of Santa Barbara Boulevard to Davis Boulevard Municipal
Service Taxing Unit (MSTU).
c. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 and
1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special
Assessment. Fiscal impact is $38.00 to record the Satisfactions of
Lien.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
deductive change order in the amount of $57,622.94 to a work order
to Mitchell & Stark Construction Company, Inc. for construction of
the water main replacement necessary to accommodate the
replacement of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge over the Cocohatchee
River, Project No. 70045.
3) Recommendation to (1) grant the Solid Waste Management
Department the authority to pursue an amendment to Ordinance 05-46
to rezone Bembridge PUD Tract A from Residential PUD to
Community Facility PUD to be processed by CDES on an expedited
or fast track basis, (2) contingent upon the rezone approval, approve a
transfer of 5.11 acres, Bembridge PUD Tract A, from the Collier
County Emergency Management Services Department (EMS) to the
Solid Waste Management Department for the relocation of the Naples
Recycling Center, at a cost not to exceed $450,000 and (3) approve a
budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of $500,000 from
the Collier County Solid Waste Management Fund (474), Reserve for
Capital Contingencies, to a new Project No. 70013, Naples Recycling
Center at Santa Barbara.
4) Recommendation to approve acquisition of a Utility Easement from
the Community School of Naples, Inc., for an electrical service lateral,
June 23, 2009
Page 11
associated electrical conduit, and for access on, over and across the
Community School of Naples, Inc. property at an estimated cost not to
exceed $1,360, Project No.74033.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, one (1) Owner Occupied lien
agreement for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an
owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling unit located in Collier
County.
2) Present the Board of County Commissioners a summary of the Impact
Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY09,
including total number of Agreements approved, total dollar amount
deferred and balance remaining for additional deferrals in FY09.
3) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a contract renewal for the Master Agreement with the Area Agency on
Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc., relating to grants awarded to the
Services for Senior's Program, authorize the Chairman to sign the
renewal, and authorize the continued payment of grant expenditures.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign an agreement with Florida
Department of Transportation and a supporting resolution for the
maintenance of the North Fishing Pier constructed in conjunction with
the Marco Island Bridge (Jolley Bridge) replacement.
5) Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners to
provide peer review from Turrell-Hall and Associates, Humiston and
Moore, Coastal Planning and Engineering and Dr. Dean from the
University of Florida to the PBS&J Clam Bay Water Quality
Monitoring, Data Collection, Circulation/Sediment Model and Natural
Resource Characterization Study. The cost for this peer review is
expected not to exceed $50,000.
6) Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners of a
Work Order for Water Quality Monitoring, Data Collection,
June 23, 2009
Page 12
Circulation/Sediment Model and Natural Resource Characterization
Study of the Clam Bay Estuary as outlined in the PBS&J proposal for
a time and materials, not to exceed price of$265,012 and authorize
the County Manager or his designee to execute the Work Order after
approval by County Attorney.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides
after-the-fact approval for the submission of the Community
Development Block Grant-Recovery (CDBG-R) substantial
amendment to the 2008-2009 Collier County Action Plan which was
submitted to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of2009
(ARRA) funding in the amount of $631 ,283.00.
8) Recommendation to approve and sign a Memorandum of Agreement
between the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department
(Sponsor) and the District School Board of Collier County for the
purpose of preparing and delivering meals to summer camp children
living in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the County Manager or his designee to execute Change
Order # 1 to Contract #08-5134 for the Caxambas Boat Dock
Expansion Project #80057.1 in the amount of $28,394.00 for the
installation of a boat lift for the City of Marco Island Fire
Departments Rescue Vessel. Also, approve the necessary budget
amendment to recognize $42,155.85 in reimbursement revenue from
the City of Marco Island to cover a portion of the improvement cost.
The net contractual value of services will total $160,534.00.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accepts
Staffs report on activities related to the relocation of the modular
home from Sudgen Regional Park.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
resolution authorizing the sale of alcoholic beverages (beer) at the
Formula 1 Champboat Grand Prix Event on November 7-8,2009 at
Sugden Regional Park.
June 23, 2009
Page 13
12) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute Change
Order #2 Contract #08-5028 for the Golden Gate Community Park
Boat Ramp Project (#80031.1) in the amount of $17,080.00 for the
installation of mooring pilings. The net contractual value of services
will total $206,620.40.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment for the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Fund (172) to adequately
appropriate funds for an escrow in the amount of $250,000 as
stipulated by the purchase agreement for Pepper Ranch.
2) Recommendation to Award Bid #09-5237, Underground Storage Fuel
Tank Removal and Replacement, to Surge Solutions Group, Inc., in
the amount of $447,884.00, authorize the Chairman to sign the
contract, and to approve the necessary Budget Amendments.
3) Recommendation to approve the ICMA-RC recommended default
amendments to Collier County's current agreement with ICMA-
Retirement Corporation (ICMA-RC) that provides a deferred
compensation plan to County employees.
4) Recommendation to approve award of Bid #09-5211, Parts for Fleet,
in two categories as follows: Heavy Trucks/Heavy Equipment/Buses
award to Genuine Parts Co. d/b/a NAP A Auto Parts as primary vendor
and to Naples Truck Parts as secondary vendor; Automobiles/Light
Trucks award to Parts Depot, Inc., as primary vendor and to Genuine
Parts Co. d/b/a NAPA Auto Parts and Merusa Auto, Inc. d/b/a
CARQUEST of North Naples as secondary vendors. Expenditures on
this contract are estimated to be $300,000 annually.
5) Recommendation to award Bid #09-5208, Filters for Fleet Vehicles
and Equipment, to Parts Depot, Inc. as primary vendor and to Genuine
Parts Company d/b/a NAP A Auto Parts, Merusa Auto, Inc. d/b/a
CARQUEST of North Naples and Glade & Grove Supply Co., Inc. as
secondary vendors. Expenditures are estimated at $70,000 annually.
June 23, 2009
Page 14
6) Recommendation to award Bid #09-5210, Fasteners and Wheel
Weights for Fleet, to Parts Associates, Inc. as primary vendor and
Lawson Products, Inc. as secondary vendor. Expenditures on this
contract are estimated to be $70,000 annually.
7) Recommendation to approve Wallace International Trucks as a sole
source vendor with FY 2009 expenditures estimated at $80,000 for
fleet parts, repairs and services.
8) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to increase
appropriations by $46,800 and recognize revenues from
reimbursements of prior year expenditures, insurance company
refunds, and from scrap metal and waste oil sales in the amount of
$46,800 in Fleet Management Fund (521).
9) Recommendation to authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to allow the Conservation Collier Starnes property to become a
certified Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gopher
Tortoise recipient site.
10) Recommendation to award the Invitation to Qualify (ITQ) #09-5227
to vendors for the delivery of various services to seniors in Collier
County and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract
documents.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Triangle Licensing Corporation, for 29.33 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $295,000.
12) Recommendation to waive the competitive process and approve a
contract with Penitus Solutions, Inc. for the implementation of
extensions to SAP for grants management, authorize the purchase of
additional end-user licenses from SAP Public Services, Inc., and
authorize the Chairman to sign the contracts. The total project cost
will not exceed $160,000.
13) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing carry
forward amounts from FY 2008 for the Conservation Collier Land
June 23, 2009
Page 15
Acquisition Fund (172) in the amount of$1,713,300.
14) Recommendation to approve the continued utilization ofNa1co
Company, which will exceed the fifty thousand dollar competitive
bidding threshold per Collier County's Purchasing Policy, to allow for
continued water treatment services and associated materials for the
chiller plants on the Government Complex.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a grant application for the
Employed Worker Training Program funded by the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) through Workforce Florida, Inc. and
administered by the Southwest Florida Workforce Development
Board, Inc. in the amount of$57,800.
16) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 04 to the Agreement
with Collier County District School Board for the Driver Education
Program.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution fixing the date, time and place for the Public Hearing for
approving the Special Assessment (Non-ad valorem Assessment) to
be levied against the properties within the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit for maintenance of the water
management system, beautification of recreational facilities and
median areas and maintenance of conservation or preserve areas, and
establishment of Capital Reserve Funds for ambient noise
management, maintenance of conservation or preserve areas,
including the restoration of the mangrove forest, U.S. 41 berm, street
signage replacements within the median areas and landscaping
improvements to U.S. 41 entrances, all within the Pelican Bay
Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit Unit.
June 23, 2009
Page 16
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides
after-the-fact approval for the attached Assistance to Firefighter's
Grant application that was submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency for the purchase of a Pumper ALS Transport
Vehicle for Emergency Medical Services/Fire in the amount of
$380,000.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
budget amendment in the amount of $14,000 from the Court
Administration Fund (681) to the Teen Court Fund (171).
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
budget amendment in the amount of $483,773, and approves payment
for detention services provided by the Florida Department of Juvenile
Justice (DJJ).
6) Approve budget amendments.
7) Recommendation to award contract for management services for
Pelican Bay Services Division pursuant to RFP #09-5174 to Dorrill
Management Group, LLC in the estimated amount of $56,400.00.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve Local Advisory Board members and CRA staff attendance at
the Florida Redevelopment Association's 2009 Annual Conference;
authorize payment of attendee registration, lodging, travel and per
diem from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Trust Fund (Fund 187)
travel budget; and declare the training received as serving a valid
public purpose.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Immokalee Regional Airport Master Plan Update, approved by the
Federal Aviation Administration on April 15, 2009 in compliance
with the Airport Authority's Administrative Code.
June 23, 2009
Page 17
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Marco Island Executive Airport Master Plan Update, approved by
the Federal Aviation Administration on April 15, 2009 in compliance
with the Airport Authority's Administrative Code.
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve the termination of the real estate contract executed on
April 28, 2009 to purchase an assemblage of commercial property
located in the center of the Gateway mini-triangle; and authorize the
Executive Director to negotiate new contracts to secure and facilitate
the purchase of the properties and return to the CRA Board for
approval. (Jean Jourdan, CRA Proj ect Manager)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
to attend a function serving a Valid Public Purpose. He attended
CBIA's Local Impact of Home Building in Collier County on June 11,
2009 at 12:00 p.m. at The Hilton of Naples, Florida. $20.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coyle requests reimbursement for attending a function
serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner is traveling to Bangor,
Maine, June 25th through June 27th, to visit with officials of Jackson
Labs and tour their facility. Total of$1,047.72 will be paid from
Commissioner Coyle's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the Official Fiscal Year 2009 Applicant and Program Point-
of-Contact for the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Standard Program, accept the Grant when awarded, approve
applicable budget amendments, and approve the Collier County
Sheriffs Office (CCSO) to receive and expend payment of the 2009
June 23, 2009
Page 18
JAG Standard Grant Funds.
2) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the use
of Confiscated Trust Funds for equipment and staff support to assist in
the recovery of missing/abducted children.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of May 30,
2009 through June 5, 2009 and for submission into the official records
of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of June 6,
2009 through June 12, 2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
5) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments totaling $144,000
that will provide funding for various agencies within the Courts
System to cover Article V revenue shortfall for the balance of FY09.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2008-
AR-12804, Avow Hospice Inc., represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, of
Davidson Engineering Inc., requesting a PUD Rezone from Community
Facility (CF) and Agricultural (A) Zoning Districts with a ST/W-4 Well field
June 23, 2009
Page 19
Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone to a Community Facility
Planned Use Development (CFPUD) Zoning District with a ST/W-4
Well field Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zone for a project to
be known as Avow Hospice CFPUD. The 15.25 acres subject property is for
the expansion of the existing Hospice use. The subject property is south of
Pine Ridge Road at 1095 Whippoorwill Lane, in Section 18, Township 49
South and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. CTS
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts 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. 2009-24 to correct a scrivener's error in the Correctional
Facilities Impact Fee Rate Schedule.
c. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
June 23, 2009
Page 20
June 23, 2009
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning. So glad that you will join
us this morning. Welcome to the county commission meeting for June
23rd. And with that, I'm going to ask you all to please rise. Jim Mudd
will lead us in the prayer, and then we'll say the Pledge of Allegiance
led by Tom Henning.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray. Oh, Heavenly Father, we ask your
blessings on these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask
special blessing on this Board of County Commissioners, guide them
in their deliberations, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the
trials of this day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
Your will be done, amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning, would you
lead us in the Pledge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, County Manager Mudd,
would you please -- would you please talk to us about this agenda.
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, January (sic) 23, 2009.
First issue is to move Item l6AlO to lOG. It's a recommendation
Page 2
June 23, 2009
that the Board of County Commissioners approves change order
number 1 to contract number 08-5122 with Post, Buckley, and--
Schuh & Jernigan for a Phase II cost of$I,303,397.38 to develop
Watershed Management Plans required by the Growth Management
Plan. The item is being moved at the request of Commissioner
Henning.
The next item is to move Item 16G -- excuse me -- 16C3 to 10H.
It's a recommendation to, one, grant the Solid Waste Management
Department the authority to pursue an amendment to Ordinance 05-46
to rezone Bembridge PUD, Tract A, from residential PUD to
community facility PUD, to be processed by Community
Development's Environmental Services on an expedited or fast-track
basis; number two, contingent upon the rezone approval, approve a
transfer of 5.11 acres, Bembridge PUD, Tract A, from the Collier
County Emergency Management Services Department, EMS, to the
Solid Waste Management Department for the relocation of the Naples
Recycling Center at a cost not to exceed $450,000; and, three, to
approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of
$500,000 from the Collier County Solid Waste Management Fund
(474) Reserve for Capital Contingencies, to a new project, which is
number 70013, the Naples Recycling Center at Santa Barbara. This
item is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is to move Item 16D5 to 10!. It's to recommend
approval from the Board of County Commissioners to provide peer
review -- peer review from Turrell, Hall & Associates, Humiston and
Moore, Coastal Planning and Engineering, and Dr. Dean from the
University of Florida to the PBS&J Clam Bay Water Quality
Monitoring, Data Collection, and Circulation/Sediment Model and
Natural Resource Characterization Study.
The cost of this peer review is expected not to exceed $50,000.
The item is being moved at the request of Commissioner Henning.
The next item is to move Item 16D6 to 10J. It's to recommend
Page 3
June 23, 2009
approval from the Board of County Commissioners of a work order
for Water Quality Monitoring, Data Collection, Circulation and
Sediment Model and Natural Resource Characterization Study of the
Clam Bay Estuary as outlined in the attached PBS&J proposal for a
time and materials not-to-exceed price of$265,012, and authorize the
County Manager or his designee to execute the work order upon
approval by the County Attorney. This item is being moved at
Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is Item 16F2. Correction to Page 6 of the
resolution. The third line down should read: total assessment for these
capital reserve funds is $158,300 rather than $158,200, which equates
to $20.78 rather than $20.77. That clarification is at staffs request.
The next item is to move Item 16J5 to 13A. It's a
recommendation to authorize budget amendments totaling $144,000,
which will provide funding for various agencies within the court
system to cover Article IV, revenue shortfall, for the balance of FY
2009. This item is being moved at Commissioner Henning's request.
You have two time-certain items on your agenda today,
Commissioners. The first is Item 8A to be heard at 1 :30 p.m. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an
ordinance creating a mandatory code inspection for foreclosed and
abandoned homes which requires owners of abandoned residential
property who have acquired title through foreclosure or through a
deed in lieu of foreclosure to obtain an inspection report and
certificate of inspection relating to the subject property compliance
with current Collier County ordinances, including building codes and
permitting and zoning regulations, and to disclose the report prior to
subsequent sale consistent with the Board of County Commissioners'
previous direction. This is a companion to items 10A and 10B.
Item 10C is to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a request for approval of
the Board of County Commissioners to memorialize a schedule for the
Immokalee Area Master Plan, which is the lAMP, Growth
Page 4
June 23, 2009
Management Plan during the amendment cycle.
That's all the changes I have on this agenda, Madam Chair,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, County Manager
Mudd.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'd like to ask the audience, by the
way, anybody who has a cell phone, would you please turn it off or
put it on silence. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Now, secondly, do we have any speakers on this -- on the consent
or summary agendas?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, I have one speaker. Jessica Stubbs,
for 16E9.
MS. STUBBS: Good morning, Commissioners. Jessica Stubbs
with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
This is in reference to Item 16E9 on the consent agenda.
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, representing our over
6,000 members, comes before you this morning to raise a few of our
concerns regarding the Conservation Collier/Starnes Property
becoming an FWC certified Gopher Tortoise relocation site.
It is widely recognized that there is an immense need for Gopher
Tortoise relocation sites that meet new FWC guidelines within the
county, and we recommend that Conservation Collier facilitate this
issue; however, we ask that it be in the board's recommendation to
only allow Gopher Tortoise relocation from other public lands and
county projects.
The Conservancy believes that by allowing private developers to
perform mitigation on public lands, the public will essentially
subsidize private development, as the true costs of maintaining the
Starnes parcel for Gopher Tortoises into perpetuity is difficult to
estimate.e
Page 5
June 23, 2009
One of the main objectives of FWC's 2009 Gopher Tortoise
Management Plan is to increase protected Gopher Tortoise habitat.
While we would like to see the Gopher Tortoise population become
stable in Collier County and believe that the relocation of Gopher
Tortoises from county projects could begin a viable population on the
Starnes property, we are concerned that by providing a mitigation
option for private sector Gopher Tortoises, there will be a net loss of
Gopher Tortoise habitat in the region.
It is also important to note that FWC provides landowner
assistant programs for appropriate privately own uplands for Gopher
Tortoise conservation. Financial assistance is available for several
habitat management activities, such as prescribed burning and
vegetation management which further incentivizes private landowners
to utilize their property as certified recipient sites. This opportunity
should be allowed to come to fruition before the county results in
accepting Gopher Tortoises from the private sector.
So, therefore, the Conservancy urges that the private sector
should remain responsible for establishing private Gopher Tortoise
recipient sites in order to further facilitate the recovery of the species
and its habitat. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, would you want to pull
this off the consent agenda and put it on the regular agenda or not?
I'm looking to you for guidance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't heard anybody saying
that they want to pull it off the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, she did, didn't she?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I heard a statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Opposition, but not asking to
pull it off the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's what their purpose is.
Commissioners, anybody want to do that?
Page 6
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. With silence up here, it will stay
on the consent agenda.
And let's see. Next, Commissioners, do you have any ex parte to
declare on the consent or the summary agendas? Let's start with
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I have no further
changes to the agenda, I have no disclosures for the consent agenda,
and for Item number 1 7 A under the summary agenda, I have received
correspondence and I have reviewed the Planning Commission staff
report.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Chair.
I have nothing on the consent agenda. The only item I have on
the summary agenda is 1 7 A, and that is in regards to correspondence
and also had some correspondence with staff on this. Other than that,
that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Madam Chair. No changes
to the agenda. Nothing to declare on the consent summary. The
summary agenda, 17 A, I have received correspondence.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further changes to
today's agenda, and I do have correspondence on 17 A from staff and
emails from petitioner's representative.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I have nothing to
declare on the consent agenda. I, too, have received some
correspondence on 1 7 A.
I have no further changes to the agenda itself, but I do want to
advise everybody, as far as our staff members go and the other county
Page 7
June 23,2009
commissioners, that my plan is to convene this meeting, to close this
meeting, excuse me, by five o'clock because we have a Florida
Association of Counties meeting on Marco Island, and I want us all to
be there to welcome the people to Marco Island. A few of us must
leave here by 5: 15, no later than 5: 15. So that doesn't mean that you
have to cut short everything you're saying, but it would be
appreciated.
So I just wanted to let everybody know, we're going to try and
keep this meeting very concise.
Okay. With that, do I hear a motion to approve the agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve as amended.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 23, 2009
Move Item 16A10 to 10G: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
Change Order 1 to Contract #08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan for a Phase 2 cost of
$1,303,397.38 to develop Watershed Management Plans required by the Growth Management
Plan. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Move Item 16C3 to 10H: Recommendation to (1) grant the Solid Waste Management Department
the authority to pursue an amendment to Ordinance 05-46 to rezone Bembridge PUD Tract A from
Residential PUD to Community Facility PUD to be processed by CDES on an expedited or fast
track basis; (2) contingent upon the rezone approval, approve a transfer of 5.11 acres, Bembridge
PUD Tract A, from the Collier County Emergency Management Services Department (EMS) to the
Solid Waste Management Department for the relocation of the Naples Recycling Center, at a cost
not to exceed $450,000; and, (3) approve a budget amendment to transfer funds in the amount of
$500,000 from the Collier County Solid Waste Management Fund (474), Reserve for Capital
Contingencies, to a new Project 70013, Naples Recycling Center at Santa Barbara.
(Commissioner Henning's request.)
Move 1605 to 101: Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners to provide
Peer Review from Turrell-Hall and Associates, Humiston and Moore, Coastal Planning and
Engineering and Dr. Dean from the University of Florida to the PBS&J Clam Bay Water Quality
Monitoring, Data Collection, Circulation/Sediment Model and Natural Resource Characterization
Study. The cost for this peer review is expected not to exceed $50,000. (Commissioner
Henning's request.)
Move 1606 to 10J: Recommend approval from the Board of County Commissioners of a Work
Order for Water Quality Monitoring, Data Collection, Circulation/Sediment Model and Natural
Resource Characterization Study of the Clam Bay Estuary as outlined in the attached PBS&J
proposal for a time and materials, not to exceed price of $265,012 and authorize the County
Manager or his designee to execute the Work Order after approval by County Attorney.
(Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16F2: Correction to page 6 of the Resolution, the third line down should read, " . . . total
assessment for these Capital Reserve Funds is $158,300 (rather than $158,200), which equates to
$20.78" (rather than $20.77). (Staffs request.)
Move 16J5 to 13A: Recommendation to authorize budget amendments totaling $144,000 that will
provide funding for various agencies within the Courts System to cover Article V revenue
shortfall for the balance of FY 2009. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item SA to be heard at 1 :30 !l.m. Recommendation that the BCC approves an ordinance creating a
mandatory code inspection of foreclosed and abandoned homes, which requires owners of abandoned
residential property who have acquired title through foreclosure or through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to
obtain an inspection report and certificate of inspection relating to the subject property's compliance with
current Collier County Ordinances, including building codes and permitting and zoning regulations, and to
disclose the report prior to subsequent sale, consistent with the Board of County Commissioners' previous
direction. (Companion to items 10A and 10B.)
Item 10C to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Request approval of the Board of County Commissioners to memorialize
the schedule for the Immokalee Area Master Plan (lAMP) Growth Management Plan Amendment Cycle.
6/23/2009 8:41 AM
June 23, 2009
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE MAY 26, 2009 BCC/REGULAR MEETING
- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve May 26,2008 (sic), BCC meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second.
All those in favor, signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We move on to proclamations.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE INITIATIVE OF BASIK
DEVELOPMENT TO DISPLAY A RETIRED SPACE SHUTTLE
ORBITER AT THE NAPLES BIG CYPRESS MARKETPLACE.
ACCEPTED BY KEITH BASIK - ADOPTED; ONE MOTION
WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT BOTH PROCLAMATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The first proclamation is supporting
the initiative of Basik Development to display a retired Space Shuttle
Orbiter at the Naples Big Cypress Marketplace, to be accepted by
Keith Basik.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Come on up.
MR. BASIK: Is that how we do it?
Page 9
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You get to receive this first, and then you
can say a few words if you would like.
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Keith, photo.
MR. MUDD: Keith, let's get a photo.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can hold your proclamation in front
of you, if you'd like. There you go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then if you bring the picture
back, Commissioner Coletta will autograph it for $5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not worth $5.
MR. BASIK: I'll try to make this quick. I know everybody's
kind of scratching their head, what do we mean by Space Orbiter.
Actually, the Redeemer was actually a space shuttle. They're retiring
some of the space shuttles in 2010. I'll try to make this quick.
In 2010 NASA's retiring a number of space shuttles, and they're
looking for recipients of it or someone to take hold of them and
display them.
We sent in an application on March 15, the request that we'd like
to have it here. And the thought is is that really -- from a couple
different standpoints. One is from -- you know, looking at it,
especially where we're at, we're out on the East Trail. In looking at it,
and the benefit, first of all, from a county standpoint for having a
space shuttle, an actual space shuttle here, would be significant not
only to Collier County for tourism, for educational purposes, but also
for Southwest Florida and also, I think, from -- and I've already talked
to the superintendents of the national -- the Everglades National Park
and also the Big Cypress National Park, and just -- there's a
relationship between the future of the space program and the future of
our environment, and we want to make that connection.
And we're -- we thought, no better place to do it than the gateway
to the Everglades and to all the four national parks and three state
parks, that they will benefit from just the -- by having the space shuttle
Page 10
June 23, 2009
down there, having the awareness -- they're getting a lot of awareness
and promotional benefits for having it and driving people into those
areas but also to explain what the shuttle did in the past in terms of
zero-gravity types of experiments and environmental experiments that
they've done.
So we think it's a great opportunity for the -- for the county, for--
and also for the environment and also for Southwest Florida. It's a big
deal, it really is. And we have an opportunity, and I think a legitimate
opportunity, to get it here.
The only other thing I would say is that I'm a little guy. It's Basik
Development. We're a small business, development business. We
have an entrepreneurial, I think, outlook on things, but we need help
from the community. We have some exceptional people here with a
lot of means and capabilities and talents, and we're -- we call -- this is
a call order to them and say, you know what, we need help. We need
help. It's not only just us. But if we could get additional help and
reach out to those people that find this of interest, please contact us.
So I thank you again. Thank you very much for passing this, and
we'll see how things go.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Keith, wait just a minute. Commissioner
Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question.
MR. BASIK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Obviously this is a bid to get the --
one of the expendable space shuttles --
MR. BASIK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- once the program is over with, is
that correct, or is it a done deal?
MR. BASIK: Oh, no. It's not a done deal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. It's a bid; is that correct?
MR. BASIK: Yeah. In fact, there are three space shuttles that
are going out throughout the U.S. The goal is to keep it in Florida.
Page 11
June 23, 2009
You already have the space shuttle or the space center that's up in --
the Kennedy Space Center. Our goal is to get it down further here,
you know, so more people could -- more people could be exposed to
it. We have a lot of tourists, we have a lot of -- from an educational
standpoint, a lot of students could see it rather than going up for five
hours up north, and I think it will help really not only a lot of different
things -- ancillary things happen with this in terms of educational
opportunities, working with Florida Gulf Coast Community, working
with the EDC, from this opportunity, space tends to generate -- or the
space program could generate a lot of other opportunities that we
haven't seen.
But to answer your question, there's three out there, one went to
-- went to DC and two of them they're looking for. And I know that
everyone wants to keep one of the space shuttles here locally in the
u.s.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Keith, let me ask you, your cry for help,
more or less, in telling people to contact you, what kind of help are
you talking about? Are you saying you need letters of support, or are
you talking financial help?
MR. BASIK: We need a little bit of both. Right now what we
need is -- there are a lot of people with good connections here in town,
and we've been starting -- the ground roots effort is, you start off by
getting letters of support, and this helps. This definitely helps, and we
could reach out to the -- to the CVB, we could reach out to the EDC,
we've reached out to the Florida Gulf Coast Community state
representatives, also state senator -- senators.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, let me stop you again and say, that
guy sitting there right next to you.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: We've already talked.
MR. BASIK: We've already talked, we've already talked. And I
was very impressed with him, and I thought, he's definitely a guy that
could get us to the next level.
Page 12
June 23,2009
So as we get more support -- and also there's a lot of people here
locally that just have great connections. I mean, there's, you know,
ex-CEOs or people that have dealt with NASA before and have
relationships with representatives that are even further up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, thank you so much. We really
appreciate you being here today.
MR. BASIK: Okay. Well, I--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're glad to hear that you're working so
hard at trying to bring that back here closer to Collier.
MR. BASIK: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Next?
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JULY, 2009 AS COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH. ACCEPTED BY
BARRY WILLIAMS, TONA NELSON, KERRY RUNYON,
SIDNEY KITTILA, TONY RUBERTO, ILONKA WASHBURN,
MURDO SMITH, SHARI FERGUSON, ANNIE ALVAREZ AND
JENNY MORRIS - ADOPTED; ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO
ADOPT BOTH PROCLAMATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation, which is designating July, 2009, as Collier County
Parks and Recreation Month, to be accepted by Barry Williams, Tona
Nelson, Kerry Runyon, Sidney Kittila, Tony Roberto, Ilonka
Washburn, Murdo Smith, Shari Ferguson, Annie Alvarez, and Jenny
Morris. Did I miss anybody?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Barry, let me give you this.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me shake your hand.
Page 13
June 23, 2009
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A fine group of people here, right?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, could we say a few words?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, absolutely.
MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Barry
Williams, Parks and Recreation Director.
First of all, I wanted to let you know that we had a few more
people here today than what was read, and we wanted to let you know
who those folks were. We don't want to steal Ernie Bretzmann's
thunder, but we are very pleased to have participated in a fundraising
effort for United Way the last couple of weeks. It was a softball
tournament at North Collier Regional Park.
And I wanted to present to you the champions of the Corporate
Softball Challenge, our very own Parks and Rec Department, so we're
very proud of that group.
(Applause.)
MR. WILLIAMS: I just want to say, it was a very dramatic,
exciting finish. They were down six runs and came back and won the
game, and it's really exciting for our department, so we're very pleased
with them.
But Commissioners, just -- I wanted to say, I'm pleased to present
Collier County Parks, and we wish to raise public awareness that
parks and recreation programs create healthy communities, reduce
crime, attract business, raise economic levels, and encourage tourism.
We encourage citizens to get outside, pack a picnic, play on a
playground, compete in a sport, come to one of our aquatic facilities,
enjoy the beach. Spending a day at the park is not only great for your
wallet, it's great for your health, too. And frequently going to a park
and being active can reduce stress, improve health, help keeps the
pounds off, and increase feelings of well-being. And we encourage
everyone, not only July, but every month, to visit their nearest parks.
And Commissioners, thank you for the proclamation.
Page 14
June 23, 2009
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I need a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve today's
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION RECOGNIZING STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MATT HUDSON, DISTRICT 101, WHO WILL RECEIVE THE
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES ANNUAL "COUNTY
CHAMPION AWARD" FOR SPONSORING HOUSE BILL 701
RELATING TO NOTICES OF PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES,
ALSO KNOWN AS THE TRUTH IN MILLAGE (TRIM) NOTICE
BILL, PASSED AND SIGNED BY GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST
DURING THE 2009 LEGISLATIVE SESSION - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our first
presentation, and that's recognizing State Representative Matt Hudson,
District 1 0 1, who will be receiving the Florida Association of
Counties' Annual County Champion Award for sponsoring House Bill
701 relating to notices of proposed property taxes, also known as the
Page 15
June 23, 2009
Truth in Millage (TRIM) Notice Bill which was passed and signed by
Governor Charlie Crist during the 2009 legislative session, and I
believe John Wayne Smith from the Florida Association of Counties is
here to present an award to Representative Hudson.
MR. SMITH: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hi. Good to see you again. Thank you
for being here.
MR. SMITH: For the record, my name is John Wayne Smith.
I'm with the Florida Association of Counties. We're out of
Tallahassee. I don't know if you need my street address for the record,
but it's 1534 Bellawood Drive in Tallahassee, Florida.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. We are having our
conference just down the road, so we're going to have a lot of county
commissioners and the county staff in this area for the next few days.
It's a pleasure to be here.
One of the things that we will be doing on Friday is we have a
legislative workshop, and we're going to have a panel of some of the
legislators who are going to participate on that to talk about lobbying
and advocacy and those things, so we were going to be recognizing
Representative Hudson on Friday, since we were in his district. It was
a great opportunity to just come before you and the folks in his district
so they could learn a little bit more about what some of the
representatives and senators do.
One of our main obj ectives in this last legislative session, after
coming out of the property tax reform for the last two years, is go back
and look at what we call the Truth in Millage Notice. And for folks in
the audience that don't understand all these governmental terms, there
is a document that goes out usually in August to explain your property
tax bill.
And with all of the new exemptions and the caps and other things
that we have done to change property taxes in the state, one of the
things that we felt needed to be done was to go back and make sure
Page 16
June 23, 2009
that the information that the property taxpayer receives or the
homeowner or the business owner receives is better and more
information without that account for all of those changes.
This year Senator Richter, who is the senate sponsor, and
Representative Hudson, who is the house sponsor, worked through
House Bill 701 to get that passed.
Now, having said that, it is always a good thing to provide more
information. The test is, are we going to confuse everyone. Our hope,
we believe, is always from an accountability standpoint to provide the
best information as we can. We wanted to take this opportunity to
recognize Representative Hudson, because it's one thing to sponsor a
bill, but it's another one to get one passed. In the progress in
Tallahassee, that is very difficult, as we very well know, and they
didn't pass a lot of bills this year.
So I would ask you to join with me in recognizing Representative
Hudson for the passage of House Bill 701. What we have put together
as recognition is a picture of the old capitol of Russell Grace photo.
It's a picture of the old a capitol with the accompanying Appalachees
Parkway in the evening and the lights, and this will be something,
hopefully, that you can display in your office and remember all the
hard work that you did on the TRIM bill. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get a picture up here,
Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that'd be great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He'll pay your $5 to sign it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want Jim Coletta to sign that,
too?
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Page 17
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I just want to share
with you some of the things I've heard about Representative Matt
Hudson, particularly this year. A very difficult budget year. Matt was
able to pass many a bills; 3,000 introduced, only 200 were adopted by
the legislators. And, Matt, how many -- how many did you get,
Representative Hudson?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Passed four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Passed four out of all the
legislation delegation -- or not the delegation, all the legislators. I
mean, if you divide that up, wow. Besides the fact that, you know, he
gets there before seven o'clock in the morning and is the last one to
leave. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Representative Hudson, you have comments, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Thanks. First of all, thank you
very much to the Florida Association of Counties for making the
presentation and recognizing what, to me, just seemed like a very
good common-sense bill.
It was a pleasure as representative to get to work with one of
your other delegation colleagues. And so to work with Senator Richter
to put this together really was a sign of the strength of our delegation.
Our delegation makes up a whopping 4 percent of the legislature. It's
not like we have a huge block of voting -- voting going on there;
however, we were fortunate enough to work together, really come
together and pass 8 percent of the bills.
So I think we were effective because we worked together, we
recognized the issues that were important. I'm very pleased
personally, obviously, to have passed this, but I filed one of the
county's priority items this year dealing with the FGOA in Golden
Gate, and that will certainly come back because that's very important.
I think there's a number of good things that we did. There's
certainly going to be things that people disagree with us on, and that's
Page 18
June 23, 2009
okay. It's important that we can agree to disagree without being
disagreeable. And we'll never agree all the time, but it's important that
we do that.
And I do want to mention one other thing that got passed that
probably fell under the radar screen that most people aren't aware of,
but I passed a bill that will help provide access to dentistry in our rural
communities. It will certainly affect Immokalee, and it will affect
many of the other counties throughout the state.
We have 20 counties in the state that don't have dentists. And so
to provide that opportunity for more rural dentistry is very, very
important, especially in my community of Immokalee that I represent.
So thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today,
and have a great day. Have a good meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas had a comment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Matt, I really appreciate all
your hard work up there in Tallahassee. I would hope that in this
upcoming legislative session that you'll go back and look at Growth
Management Bill 360, see if there's some ways that we can correct
some of the deficiencies, not only for Collier County, but for all the
counties in the State of Florida.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: I think that historically when
the State of Florida has embarked upon growth management
legislation -- and mind you, we really didn't have any to speak of until
in the early '70s and really didn't have anything until 1985, subsequent
years after the passage of those large bills always found that there was
a little tweaking and fiddling to do, which is -- which is often the case,
so I'm sure that measures will be brought up to fine-tune some of those
Issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Page 19
June 23,2009
Item #5B
THE DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD
FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR (22ND) FROM THE
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION (GFOA)
PRESENTED TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET. ACCEPTED BY JOHN YONKOSKY, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, the next
presentation is the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the
current fiscal year. It's the 22nd from the Government Finance
Officers Association, the GFOA, presented to the Office of
Management and Budget, to be accepted by John Y onkosky, Director
of Office of Management and Budget. If we can get all of the OMB
staff to come on up here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. But first, first, I'm pleased to
announce that the Government Finance Officers Association of the
United -- United States and Canada has again, for the 23rd
consecutive year, selected Collier County, Florida, to receive the
GFOA's -- which is the Government Finance Officers Association--
GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for its 2009 budget
adopted by Collier County on September 18,2008.
This award represents a significant achievement by the budget
office and was developed under the skillful guidance, and may I tell
you also, not only skillful guidance, but just full heart, John -- our own
John Yonkosky. He deals with everything with such a big heart. It
reflects the commitment of the governing board and staff to meeting
the highest principles of governmental budgeting.
In order to receive the budget award, the budget office had to
satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget
Page 20
June 23, 2009
presentation. These guidelines are designed to assess how well an
entity's budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an
operations guide, and a communications device. Budget documents
must be rated proficient in all four categories and the 14 mandatory
criteria within those categories to receive the award.
When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to
an entity, a Certificate of Recognition for Budget Presentation is also
presented to the individual or department design as being primarily
responsible for its having achieved the awards.
I'm so proud of you.
This has been presented to the Collier County's Office of
Management and Budget. Award recipients have pioneered efforts to
improve the quality of budgeting and provide an excellent example for
other governments throughout North America.
The GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards Program
is the only national awards program in governmental budgeting.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: John, we love you.
MR. YONKOSKY: I love you, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hey, John, go Gators.
MR. YONKOSKY: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We want to take a picture of you all.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: John, did you want to say a couple
words?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, I do. John Yonkosky, your budget
director.
I just want to say real quick, this is the, as it said, the 22nd year
in a row that Collier County has received this distinguished award.
We will not get the budget next year because the funding for this,
which is significant, is not in the budget. It's $800, and it's not in the
budget for next year. I just wanted to let you know that, if --
Page 21
June 23, 2009
MR. MUDD: We're starting our workshop early.
MR. YONKOSKY: I want to say thank you to everybody in the
budget office staff. The dedicated work that they put forth has made
this award an annual award, and I can't say enough about the
dedication, the number of long hours that they work, you know,
without overtime -- except for one person actually received overtime.
But everybody worked very hard, long hours, and then with a lot of
changes.
As you will recall, for this particular budget year that we're in, at
the very conclusion of the first day's workshop, there was a change in
direction, and so we were here until 11 or 12 o'clock that night
retooling that budget, and that seems to be a -- something that happens
quite a bit, retooling in the budget office. We're the last ones that have
the opportunity, or actually the need, to make changes.
So -- but thank you very much, Commissioners. This award, if
you want to come down and see it hang, it will hang in the Hall of
Fame with the rest of them that we've received over the years. And
again, I want to thank the staff in the budget office. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, staff.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING CHRISTAL SEGURA, ENVIRONMENTAL
SPECIALIST, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE MONTH FOR JUNE. 2009 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next presentation is a
recommendation to recognize Christal Segura, the Environmental
Specialist from Facilities Management as Employee of the Month of
June of 2009.
Page 22
June 23, 2009
Christal, if you could come forward, please. Christal Segura is
the environmental specialist. She's been nominated for Employee of
the Month of June, 2009. Christal is a tremendous asset to the
Conservation Collier program. She is currently responsible for
managing the county's most recent acquisition, the Pepper Ranch
Preserve. This assignment gives her responsibilities above those
normally required. These include monitoring oil extraction
operations, follow-up for significant environmental cleanup, and
coordination with the USDA for hog trapping and cattle grazing best
management plans.
In addition to these new duties, Christal manages a number of
other preserves. She uses innovative ideas to save the county money
like utilizing the sheriffs weekender crews. She also worked to secure
a $92,000 grant from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission for
land management at the preserves.
Christal is incredibly dependable and dedicated to her profession.
She makes the time to attend trainings and seminars and has taken the
initiative to become fire certified. This certification allows her to
work closely with the Department of Forestry on the development of
fire management plans for the preserves.
In addition to her exceptional fieldwork, Christal portrays a
professional attitude and appearance at all county meetings. She
works well with the public and is considered around Southwest
Florida region as a professional and knowledgeable land manager who
always strives to do what is best.
Christal is an exceptional employee who is truly deserving of this
award.
Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioners, may I present to you
Christal Segura, Environmental Specialist, Employee of the Month for
June, 2009.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A check. We wish it could be huge, but it
Page 23
June 23, 2009
isn't, and a plaque for your wall.
MS. SEGURA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much for all you're doing
for Collier County and our citizens. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hog trapper, huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Christal, thank you.
MS. SEGURA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Christal. Thank you so much --
MS. SEGURA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- for your dedicated service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, Christal. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We want to take a picture with you.
(Applause.)
Item #5D
RECOGNIZING ED TORRONI, PARKS AND RECREATION
ATHLETIC SUPERVISOR, FOR HIS OUTSTANDING SUPPORT
OF THE UNITED WAY'S SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SOFTBALL
CHALLENGE HELD AT THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL
PARK, JUNE 13-14,2009. PRESENTED BY ERNIE
BRETZMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED WAY OF
COLLIER COUNTY - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to our next
presentation, which is to recognize Ed Torroni -- and I pronounced it
right this time, Ed -- Parks and Recreation Athletic Supervisor, for his
outstanding support of the United Way's Southwest Florida Soft
Challenge, conducted at North Collier Regional Park on June 13th
through the 14th of2009, and the presentation will be by Ernie
Bretzmann, Executive Director of United Way of Collier County.
Page 24
June 23, 2009
Ernie, Ed, if you could come forward.
MR. BRETZMANN: If I could use this side.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. BRETZMANN: Good morning. I'm Ernie Bretzmann with
the United Way of Collier County.
Collier County Parks and Recs A Team, Go Team. Those shirts
are going to be collectibles. Hang on to those babies.
Before we acknowledge Ed and the fantastic job he's done
working with us, I'd like to introduce Craig Bamberg, who is the
chairman of our special events committee, to share a little bit with you
regarding the relationship between Collier County Parks and Rec
Department and United Way of Collier County.
Craig?
MR. BAMBERG: As the Pittsburgh Steelers get to go to the
White House after winning the Super Bowl, the Collier County
champion softball team gets to come to visit the county
commissioners. How apropos.
I'd like to thank Collier County and, of course, its Parks and
Recreation Department for all of its support of the 28 agencies that
make Collier County a better place to live via United Way. We've
been involved with you for the better part of four years now, starting
off with our Walk for the Way, which is the final Saturday in
September right at the North Collier Regional Park, and we feel that
we were one of the first kind of community events that kind of grand
opened that park back when it opened up about four years ago. We're
so proud to consider that, and we continue that, of course, in the final
September of 2009 as well.
That continued into our second annual softball challenge and, of
course, in our second year we've reached successes this year that, of
course, we didn't reach last year. It just seems to grow like a flight of
stairs, and we couldn't do it without the support of people like Ed
T orroni and Nancy Olson, Barry, and the entire crew over at Parks and
Page 25
June 23, 2009
Recreation, and we really do appreciate your support of United Way
of Collier County.
Thank you so much.
MR. BRETZMANN: Ed, if you could come forward, please.
This is presented to Ed Torroni in appreciation of your tireless efforts
to ensure the success of the United Way of Southwest Florida Softball
Challenge, 2009.
And I'm pretty sure Ed lives and sleeps at the park, so he's
making one of his rare appearances down here. But Ed, thanks so
much. It's a pleasure working with you.
(Applause.)
Item #5E
PRESENTATION BY JON R. AHLSCHWEDE OF STANLEY
CONSULTANTS, INC. TO COLLIER COUNTY, RECOGNIZING
RECEIPT OF THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE
AWARD FROM THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING
COMPANIES FOR THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
OVERPASS PROJECT. ACCEPTED BY TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, NORMAN FEDER
AND PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER, GARY PUTAANSU.
THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY OVERPASS PROJECT WILL
RECEIVE THE GRAND AWARD FROM THE FLORIDA
INSTITUTE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS AT AN F.I.C.E.
MEETING IN AUGUST - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next presentation is by John
R. Ahlschwede of Stanley Consultants, Inc., to Collier County,
Florida, recognizing the receipt of the National Engineering
Excellence Award for the American Council of Engineering
Companies for the Golden Gate Parkway Overpass Project. The
Page 26
June 23, 2009
award will be accepted by Transportation Services Division
Administrator, Norman Feder, and Principal Project Manager, Gary
Putaansuu.
It should also be noted that the Golden Gate Parkway Overpass is
to receive the Grand Award from the Florida Institute of Consulting
Engineers at an FICE meeting in August.
Gary, if you could come forward along with Norm and John, if
you'd come up.
MR. AHLSCHWEDE: Thank you, and good morning. My name
is John Ahlschwede. I'm with Stanley Consultants. I'm the
Operations Manager here in the office in Southwest Florida. Thank
you for this opportunity. I will keep it very brief.
Earlier this year, the grade separated overpass at Golden Gate
Parkway and Airport-Pulling Road earned a Grand Award as it was
judged by the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers to be one of
the three outstanding transportation projects in the State of Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow.
MR. AHLSCHWEDE: It was also recognized as one of the 168
national finalists by the American Council of Engineering Companies
for overall engineering accomplishments in 2009.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I hate to interrupt you, but I just have to
say, if you don't mind. We all thought it was a beautiful overpass, but
now this proves it. Oh, that's wonderful.
MR. AHLSCHWEDE: It's rare that you get overpasses judged,
I'll tell you. They're usually pretty pedestrian.
In that vein, the overpass is truly a statement of the vision of
Collier County's transportation system. Stanley Consultants, in
association with our partners, R W A, is proud to have been part of
making the overpass a reality.
On behalf of Stanley Consultants, I am pleased to present this
trophy as a reminder of the -- of this accomplishment through Gary
Putaansuu, Norm Feder, and Jay Ahmad.
Page 27
June 23, 2009
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Get a picture, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to say something now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to say that on behalf of
all the citizens of Collier County, obviously everybody remembers the
fight that we had in regards to putting this overpass in. Everybody
was concerned about how this overpass was going to look and if it was
going to be a degradation to the neighborhoods around the
surrounding area. Obviously if you've been out through that area, you
realize that this is a real piece of work, and it's a part of art here in
Collier County, and I think even the mayor is surprised how well it
turned out.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, guys.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- okay. Do you
want the podium?
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, Norman Feder for the record, and
I'll be extremely brief. But I did want to take this opportunity just to
recognize not only this board that went through the rather long and
arduous task of getting this project going, but also, for that matter,
former Mayor Bonnie McKenzie, the City Council, Grey Oaks
Estuary, Bears Paw, who actually made sure that, in fact, this was
fully evaluated and that we provided a quality product.
And I think it's important that not only did we go in with a vision,
we implemented that vision. And I'll be very brief with some slides to
illustrate that. What we had out there, basically cars. The
visualization was to make that a little bit more efficient. And as you
can see the afterwards, pretty much like we visualized.
And that's the case again. Here you are basically going
eastbound. That was always the one-and-a-half mile backup every
evening. We thought we could reduce some of that with an overpass
Page 28
June 23,2009
and some at grade. And, in fact, that has happened.
Again, on your northbound getting in the right turn lane, dressing
the area, and it's been done very nicely_
Again, on the top, the feeling that you'd be able to see everything
and yet all you see is the treetops. And then, of course, extensive,
very extensive landscaping and the commitment that was made
throughout on this proj ect, and I appreciate all your support. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Norm, I'd just like to say, I think we've--
over the years, we've become known throughout not only the State of
Florida but through the United States of America for the beauty and
ambiance of our -- of our county, and this is just in keeping that
beauty .
Yes, it takes a little bit more money. Sometimes we can't build
things right away because we want to do it right. But in the end, it
draws people to live here, and the people who do live here are proud
to live here. And thanks to you guys for making -- making this
overpass what we had all hoped and expected it to be. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, appreciate that.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY BILL KLOHN TO DISCUSS
THE ARROWHEAD PROJECT PUD REQUIREMENTS -
TO BE BROUGHT BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM AT
A FUTURE BCC MEETING - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us now to the public
petition section of your agenda.
First public petition is a request by Bill Klohn to discuss the
Arrowhead Project PUD requirements.
Page 29
June 23, 2009
MR. KLOHN: Good morning, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity.
The Arrowhead Project is a -- about an eight-year-old, six-year,
seven-year-old PUD. Some brief history on this affordable housing
community is that transportation commitments in our very first PUD
were tied to a certain percentage of completion of rooftops or dwelling
units. That particular percentage was 50 percent.
When times were robust in the affordable housing business, we
renegotiated our transportation commitments with staff, and it then
became unwound whereby the tied-to-off-site-transportation
commitments were not tied to a percentage but rather a date certain.
So during those renegotiations times were robust, and now they're, for
the most part, dead, or the proj ect is stalled.
So my request before you today is to extend those transportation
commitments for a period of three years. As part of my discussions
with staff, it was recommended that I meet with the CRA in
Immokalee and gain their support. In your packet, there's a letter from
the CRA addressed to Mr. Schmitt that gives their blessing, if you
will, on the extension. That's the -- that's the request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I was wondering if we
could have Joe Schmitt come up. And this is -- this isn't an unusual
request in this day and age, and we've honored several requests like
this in the past, and I'd like to see this commission direct staff to go
forward and bring it back for our approval to be able to put off until a
three-year period to allow them to be able to -- we've got nothing to
gain by forcing this issue.
Code Enforcement will have to come in, try to get money from
an organization that's right down on their luck now, and they're not
going to be able to come up with it. It's going to force the community
into a more desperate situation than exists now. And I'm sure Joe
could give us a better picture of what we're up against.
Page 30
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before we hear from Joe, did you -- what
you were suggesting was to bring it back as a regular agenda item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your community
development administrator. Any questions in regards -- you called me
up, but I'm not sure what you were asking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The alternatives to what--
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, the alternative is -- there was an
amendment to the PUD which required that the work be done by July,
2009. And that, in fact, is not going to happen. My only alternative
would be to proceed through code enforcement action to enforce the
provisions of the PUD.
Legally the PUD should be amended to change the commitments
in the PUD, but it's -- I would turn to the Board and to the County
Attorney to determine whether you can summarily just extend this.
But we'll bring it back on a regular scheduled item and address the
issues so you have a full understanding of what took place and what
your legal parameters are in regards to dealing with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Klatzkow, anything you
need to add?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We'll come back with you on the
executive summary, and we'll give the board the options, and the
board can at that point make its decision. We'll have a staff
recommendation as well.
MR. MUDD: Do I have three nods to have this item come back?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
Item #6B
Page 31
June 23, 2009
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GINA DOWNS TO DISCUSS
DELAY IN LETTING CONTRACT TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
ON OIL WELL ROAD - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: The next item is a public petition request by Gina
Downs to discuss a delay in letting a contract to begin construction on
Oil Well Road. Ms. Downs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. And before she begins, we've had a
couple people request to speak on this subject. We never hear
speakers on any of these public petitions, so I just want to let you
know I'm not overlooking you. That is just not a practice that we
participant in. And what we do is, if we feel that we want to hear
more about the subject and hear from the public, we'll bring it back to
a regular agenda as you just saw in the last public petition to be
advertised at an open -- an open meeting and notified -- the residents
may be notified in advance so that anybody who would want to speak
on a subj ect can.
And so with that, we may move forward.
MS. DOWNS: Good morning. Thank you, Commissioners, for
hearing me today.
I'm talking about the expansion of Oil Well Road from
Immokalee to Camp Keais. This is a photo of the first leg of that.
From Oil Well to the canal is about two miles.
You can see up in the upper corner, the first community is
Waterways with about 420 homes. As we continue down Oil Well
Road, here is Corkscrew Elementary, about a hundred -- I mean, I'm
sorry, about a thousand students.
This is Palmetto Ridge with an enrollment of about 2,000, and
the last community before you hit the canal is Orange Blossom.
Across the street from Orange Blossom, only 20 homes there, 100 lots,
is the south side of Orange Blossom.
Down the street, Valencia, 500 -- 350 homes built, 150 lots.
Page 32
June 23, 2009
Now, that development does go through and connects to Randall
Road, so they do have two access points. And back to Immokalee
Road, there is Orangetree built out with 250 homes.
So what you have in that 1.3-mile corridor is 1,100 existing
homes, room for about 400 more, two public schools with an
enrollment of 3,000.
We pick up at the canal and go toward Everglades Boulevard.
That's about a one-mile section. As you can see on either side of Oil
Well Road, there is not much there. There are no developments, a
couple of homes. That's about it.
Pick up at Everglades Boulevard and go to DeSoto. Not much
there again. It's mostly rural.
We have to pan out a bit to go the rest of the leg from DeSoto to
Camp Keais. That's about a five-mile stretch. Again, essentially rural
roads, only interrupted by the slough there in the middle, some of the
most environmentally sensitive lands in Collier County.
Now, in 2004 Oil Well Road wasn't even on the radar. There
were no road improvements planned. You can see Oil Well right up
there in the upper corner after Immokalee makes its turn. Suddenly,
Oil Well Road is catapulted to the top of the needs list. It's not just the
need. It's the Rolls Royce of roadways instead of a rural road. I wish
they'd call it something else.
Yes, there was a DCA, Developer Contribution Agreement, in
May of'05. They also passed the DRI requirements. There is -- there
was a three-year extension on DRIs. I don't know where that stands. It
was projected to be a two, five-year phase between 2006 and 16.
Here's your list of what you were expected to receive in Ave
Maria. And where are we now? We're not very close. Instead, four
years later, we have fewer than 250 residential units, a handful of
retail and office space and, of course, a Publix.
Nobody has a crystal ball. Who knew we would be facing what
Alan Greenspan has called an economic tsunami? The county didn't
Page 33
June 23, 2009
and neither did Ave Maria.
On the DCA on Page 5, there is a clause that says, within six
months of receiving your permits for this road, assuming no bid
protests and absent force majeure, you have to move ahead with the
proj ect.
On the same page, a little further down, another paragraph that
stipulates, subj ect to road impact fees, structure remaining intact, and
receipt of sufficient road impact fees. Delays may be considered --
these delays may be caused by force majeure.
Now, I am not an attorney, and I've never aspired to be one, but I
can tell you force majeure is being used more and more in court cases.
Business Week magazine in 2009 reported several economic force
majeure cases. Dow Chemical voided an agreement with Rohm &
Haas based on force majeure. The Donald has argued force majeure
effectively against Dutch Bank, and the last one to cite is Who's your
Energy in Indiana, changed the terms of their contract with John
Hancock citing force majeure.
Now, the Heuser case has gone through the District Court. The
Court found in favor of the Heuser case. It will be appealed, so
obviously I can't tell you that force majeure is the remedy.
Back to your DCA on Page 2 of 8, one of your famous whereas
clauses says that the developer will be paying in excess of $60 million
in road impact fees. On your executive summary of 2005 in April,
they gave an impact fee schedule. Projected between 2005 and '9 was
about 21-and-a-half million dollars. What you have actually received
in those four years is 43 percent of that, or $9,400,000.
Now, if we collect $53 million in the next seven years, we'll be
back on course with this proj ect, but my crystal ball says that doesn't
look too promising.
These are earmarked funds for Oil Well Road. Fund 331 impact
fees are from North Naples. Fund 338 is Golden Gate Estates. Fund
339 is Immokalee. That's a lot of earmarking, a lot of foregone
Page 34
June 23, 2009
proj ects in those areas of the county.
Are there no other pressing needs in the county where those
earmarked could be put to better use? Maybe for the bridges east of
951. Maybe to complete the LASIP project whose permit is due to
expIre soon.
I truly understand wanting to get more bang for your buck, I
really do, but the cost savings for capital projects surely can be applied
to projects in more heavily populated areas, areas whose projects
never seem to make it to the top of the list.
A big expansion of Oil Well Road will probably be needed some
day. I will support it when the need is there, but today is not that day.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gina?
MS. DOWNS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was this brought up to the
Productivity or Productivity Committee Subcommittee?
MS. DOWNS: It was, but the funds were really from last year,
that's why we have not addressed it this year. The contract, the $10
million that I saw on the budget from last year has not been let yet, so
that's actually 2000 -- fiscal year '09's funding, not this current year's.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You were a part of those
discussions?
MS. DOWNS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it stated about the -- here's
my understanding about the impact fees. You know, impact fees, we
adopted a policy that neighboring impact fees can use it, just like we
did Vanderbilt Beach Road. Those impact fees from Commissioner
Coletta's district went to Vanderbilt Beach extension. Those impact
fees from North Naples and Golden Gate Estates went to other areas,
and now they're going to go to a proj ect on Oil Well Road. Is that
your understanding also?
Page 35
June 23, 2009
MS. DOWNS: Sure, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So did the Productivity
Committee make any recommendations based upon that knowledge of
this issue?
MS. DOWNS: No. This was last year's budget, and I'm not
speaking for Productivity today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You are a part of the
Productivity Committee; is that correct?
MS. DOWNS: I am, but it's my own opinion, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So they didn't take an
issue on this, but you're taking --
MS. DOWNS: It's not this year's budget.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're taking an issue on it?
MS. DOWNS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When's the last time you've
been to Oil Well Road?
MS. DOWNS: Sunday.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you ever been there
during season between six a.m. and 8: 15 a.m.?
MS. DOWNS: I'm nowhere between six a.m. and 8:15.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I thought. This has
got to be the stupidest idea I've heard yet this year, taking it from --
just because it's not on the coastal area doesn't mean the citizens in
that area deserve (sic) what the coastal region has received in the past.
We are a county of one. We're not a county of five different
districts, and I will not support any stupid idea like this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To be honest with you, I'm
going to -- I'm very disappointed that you came up with this scenario
of events that's based upon a one-sided direction. The rural part of
Collier County has waited its turn many years now to be able to be
served. Immokalee Road was the first big improvement we've had in
Page 36
June 23, 2009
a long time, and it increased the livability of that area tremendously.
This is the next step.
The amount of road that they're going to build has been seriously
cut back because of the budget constraints that are there. We're
talking about a section one -- about a mile from Immokalee Road to
Everglades to be able to serve a very populated area and schools that
have all sorts of problems with the two-lane road. It's a health, safety,
and welfare issue.
If we're going to get to the point that you want to wait till they
reach the density of the coast, then the idea of rural living is
completely out the door and it will never exist.
Our density does not -- our rules and regulations on density do
not allow for something like that.
Mr. Feder, I need to bring you up, because this is something --
and I appreciate Commissioner Henning's remarks on this, very much
so.
MS. DOWNS: And then I'd like to respond to your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She's finished, isn't she?
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. This is very disturbing to
see something like this come up that's so one-sided on this here. Can
you fill in the rest of the facts that are missing from here? How did we
arrive at the fact that we are going to do one road over another, and
about the impact fees, do they belong to one geographic area, or have
they been transferred back and forth on a regular basis?
MR. FEDER: Okay. First of all, let me respond to a couple of
things that were raised here, I think, that get at that, and then I'll make
sure I fully answer your question, Commissioner.
First of all, what was identified for you and we have provided to
Gina was a 2004 AUIR. Obviously that's before we had the Developer
Contribution Agreement, and in many respects, before the time that
Page 37
June 23, 2009
the Ave Maria project itself was, in essence, an issue for this board
and for this community.
I think it's important to note that even in that 2000 (sic) AUIR,
we had design programmed in 2006, right-of-way phase in 2009,
being the fifth year of that 2004 AUIR. It's already moving in that
direction.
The issue at hand is, we've spent considerable dollars widening
Immokalee Road from U. S. 41 all the way out to Oil Well and then up
to the fairgrounds. The issue was to try and connect all of Immokalee
with the western county.
And so we started looking at our options: Continue on
Immokalee Road, consider Oil Well, all of Oil Well to 29. Oil
Well/Camp Keais became a bigger issue when we had right-of-way
provided for us based on this development as well as fill as well as
retention area, which are also parts to that Developer Contribution
Agreement.
More recently we're looking at Randall opportunities with other
growth in the area to establish a more direct route for that connection,
the Immokalee having environmental constraints and other issues
associated with it. So it's an issue that's been around for a while. It
was here at the 2004 AUIR. It is not something brand new.
As far as impact fees, they are collected within the district.
Ideally we use them within that district, but we also recognize that
there's benefit gained by improvements in other areas.
Also, we have looked at what we're planning on letting. And
what you have in your current budget for this year -- which was not
addressed by Productivity. They went 2010, the new fifth year and on
-- the new first year, excuse me, and on. Basically that budget is 47
million for construction for both the west end and the shortened east
end of the project.
The west end is a four-lane project. I think Gina's done a very
good job of showing you what you have in that area both in
Page 38
June 23, 2009
development and the schools and the demand for that to go four lane, I
think Commissioner Henning was referring to in the early morning,
and for that matter, throughout the day.
Further out east we haven't seen the development that I think was
anticipated when we went into the Developer Contribution
Agreement, but the developer has paid eight million already in the
design, which we have in hand and the permits in hand. They have
generated as well about nine million in impact fees less than was
anticipated. But the two together, about 17 million already committed
to the project as well as the fill, retention, and the right-of-way that I
previously noted.
This gives us an opportunity as a network improvement. It is not
simply about, I have a section that is failing always, although we've
been doing an awful lot of that work trying to catch up from the past.
It's also establishing that network commitment. You have other
growth in the area that we're looking at, a still-needed product. It's our
recommendation to you that we move forward.
Those impact fees that were collected at 47 million are within the
two districts that basically are structured in this DCA. We haven't
added money to that. Now you see some distribution of other funds.
In that time from the agreement from April of 2005 until today when
we have all the permits in hand, the developer's finished with the
design, we utilized those funds from that district, not just sat there on
them, but utilized them on other proj ects, 951 north, as well as
sections of Immokalee, as well as Vanderbilt. Now we're bringing
that money back.
A major part of that gas tax that you see is six million in state trip
funds, which are put into our gas tax, by our accounting, and shown as
gas tax monies. So we have this basically coming back to a
commitment of 47, which is total collection since the DCA, and the
funds can only be used on capacity. I can't use them on LASIP. I
can't use them for my maintenance, I can't use them simply for bridges
Page 39
June 23, 2009
or repairs or maintenance. They have to be used for capacity
improvements. This is the project they were slated for, and this is the
only project right now that's viable for us to move forward on, at a
time we expect very, very good bids, and we're hoping that will
materialize. If it does, we should be able to get both ends, both the
western end and this eastern end.
And the last thing is, a major part of that eastern end is
improvement to the water flow of the slough which, as was noted, is
very important, and today is being cut off some by the existing Oil
Well Road as is structured.
So I would tell you we need to move on this project. I don't think
this is a time to delay. The opportunity's here with the cost. And we'll
find out when the bids come in if we can do the full proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Feder.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Halas? I just wanted
to make sure he was done first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for the County Attorney.
We assigned a developer's agreement some time ago, and the
developer has lived up to his commitment basically, right, whereby
they gave us the necessary right-of-way, and they're also going to
make sure that the fill that we use for building that road is going to be
basically at their cost; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: To my knowledge the developer has lived
up to each and every single obligation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so really we can't
really renege on this? What's your feeling?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would like to see the project proceed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I think the other thing
is, is that if the project does proceed, hopefully we can put some
people that have construction companies in this county back to work.
MR. KLATZKOW: Be a good thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
Page 40
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I know some
people who just moved down here from up north, not realizing
Immokalee Road was supposed to go all the way to Immokalee and a
big environmental impact with Corkscrew Swamp -- when the
community of Ave Maria was being thought out, a shorter distance is
down Oil Well Road and Camp Keais. Gets the citizens from
Immokalee to the coast to do work for people on the coast much
quicker.
So, you know, I don't know any reason why we should even be
discussing this issue anymore. I'm disappointed a member of our
Productivity Committee has taken a position, not the position of the
full committee. Hopefully this won't happen in the future.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Gina.
MS. DOWNS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Commissioner Coyle. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't think it behooves this
body to disparage a member of the public who comes forward with a
personal recommendation.
MS. DOWNS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I also don't agree that it should be
postponed. But Ms. Downs has, on many occasions in the past, done
good research and made good recommendations that helped this
county, and she continues to do so on the Productivity Committee.
She made it very clear she was speaking on her own behalf
today, and I don't think we should disparage her from that -- for that.
We can disagree that it's not something we want to do.
But I -- I think it's unfortunate that her motives have been
questioned because I know from experience that she does a good job
on the Productivity Committee, and her work is very valuable to that
body. I do not agree with postponing this capital project, however.
So we will disagree on that, but I do think that she performs a
Page 41
June 23, 2009
valuable function for Collier County on the Productivity Committee,
and thank you.
MS. DOWNS: And I'd just like to say, I thought I was clear. I'm
not recommending this whole proj ect be postponed. I thought I
clearly showed there is population and needs within the first 1.3 miles,
perhaps up to Everglades Boulevard.
I am simply suggesting that $46 million boxed up and saved for a
road to a development that has not occurred might best be spent
elsewhere.
Now, the first section, I don't know what the road counts are
there. Obviously it must be heavily traveled, especially on work
hours. That probably is valid and makes perfect sense to me.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just one more. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gina, I want to thank you very
much for coming forward. And I feel the same way that
Commissioner Coyle does, that -- when somebody from the dais talks
down at you or talks down to any citizen that comes forth with a
proposal, I feel that you have equal say, and that's part of the
government here in Collier County, and I would hope that this does
not cause any problems whereby other people that want to say or
speak their piece are afraid to come here because they'll be talked
down it.
So thank you very much for your dedication and your work on
the Productivity Committee. And I realize that you came forth on
your own and not as a representative of the Productivity Committee.
Thank you very much.
MS. DOWNS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, as long as everybody's weighing in
-- I'm supposed to just preside, but I'll probably just say, you've
brought us so much valuable information, you know, over the past few
years, and I'm just -- I'm glad that you are able to voice your opinion.
Page 42
June 23, 2009
We encourage everybody, whether we agree with them or not, to
voice their opinion. I don't care what subject it is. We have people
lined up in the halls sometimes to voice their opinion, and you should
also be allowed to do the same. Thank you.
MS. DOWNS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Moving on to 9.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2009-164: APPOINTING COMMISSIONER
HENNING AND COMMISSIONER FIALA TO SERVE ON THE
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD - ADOPTED; MOTION
APPOINTING THREE REMAINING COMMISSIONERS AS
AL TERNA TE MEMBERS - ADOPTED; MOTION APPOINTING
CLYDE C. QUINBY AS REGULAR CITIZEN MEMBER - FAILS;
MOTION APPOINTING DAVID H. FARMER AS REGULAR
CITIZEN MEMBER - ADOPTED; MOTION APPOINTING
BRUCE S. PREBLE AS ALTERNATE CITIZEN MEMBER -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, Commissioner, that's where we're going, 9A.
Appointment of commissioners and citizen members to serve on the
Value Adjustment Board, and this could be a very rigorous assignment
this year, since we have a legislative change that talks about who has
the -- who has the right to prove how much your property is worth.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And one thing, as far as commission goes,
we're going to have to have two commissioners represented on that
commission or on that committee. And I see that two have already
volunteered, Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to -- Commissioner
Fiala, I was going to say I've served the last seven of eight years on it,
Page 43
June 23, 2009
and I was going to ask if I could have one year reprieve and be a
backup.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, is that what you were doing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I was going to be.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I thought that was a volunteer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'd like to volunteer
Commissioner Coyle because he's just absolutely excellent. I seen
him in action on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was there last year and the year
before that and the year before that. I think we need some new blood.
I think Commissioner Henning is a great defender of lower
taxation in Collier County. I think he would be perfect for a regular
member, and Commissioner Fiala would--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Fiala is not going to be
here, so I won't even be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You won't be here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I won't be here in July and -- at all, I'm
sorry, and I'm chairing this board, so I'm going to nominate you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, we already picked you. I
seconded. It's been seconded. You can have somebody sit in for you
then in July.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, you?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I won't be here in August already.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A motion's been made and a
second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in the same place that you
are. I'm not going to be available. But, you know, I would ask the
motion maker to provide alternates for the V AB, and then after that I
Page 44
June 23, 2009
would like to make a recommendation for citizens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of us are going to have to serve
on this either as an alternate or as a primary, but we need to find -- we
need to have two regular members, and we have one --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me -- let me just jump in for just a
second --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and say Commissioner Coletta has a
good point. He's served seven years, and you're running for
reelection, and I don't think you have the time either, to be honest with
you. I mean, I'm just throwing that in now to deal with that. The
three of us that are left, we should be -- we should hash over that and
see who can do that, and -- because I don't think you guys --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be glad as an alternate to
cover for whoever's missing. I really would. I don't have a problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Isn't there a motion made and a
second?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, there was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the motion was to corral Donna Fiala
and Tom Henning into doing this whether they like it or not, and it
was seconded. I think that was the motion, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Aye.
Page 45
June 23, 2009
But it looks like that's not going to weigh in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there are three alternates who
will fill in if you're not there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the rest of us are going to be
alternates.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I make that motion that the
MS. FILSON: Did that vote include the other three as alternates?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not yet. I'm making the motion
that the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- remaining three commissioners
be appointed as alternates.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning has a light
on here. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'll wait till we vote on this
one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And we have a second on that as
well ?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
All the those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right, very good.
Page 46
June 23, 2009
Now, I wonder if I need to come before the Value Adjustment
Board, I can't be on it then, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You should be trying to pay more
taxes to help us cover our expenses here. You shouldn't be trying to
reduce your taxes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, that was a legitimate question,
okay.
Now, Commissioner Henning has his light on to nominate
citizens. We have one citizen and one alternate citizen. The School
Board also will appoint a member and they will appoint a citizen as
well, and that citizen that the School Board mentions must own a
business occupying commercial space located within the school
district. So -- but that is something we can't do, is that correct, or is
the School Board here?
MS. FILSON: Correct, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I notice we have a representative from the
School Board here, should --
MS. FILSON: I sent a letter to the School Board, and they
haven't gotten back with me. They will appoint the School Board
member and the citizen member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But Amy's here. Did you want to say
something?
MS. TAYLOR: I wasn't here for this reason, for this purpose.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MS. TAYLOR: And I haven't received -- I don't know of anyone
else. I haven't received anything.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Then Sue already has
notified them. We'll just wait to hear from them on the other two
appointments.
And so Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Clyde Quimby and
informed him of the tasks and the challenges that will probably come
Page 47
June 23, 2009
up in the next V AB, so I make a motion -- and he had no problem with
that, so I make a motion that we appoint Clyde Quimby, citizen
member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll second that.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And is he the regular member, not the
alternate?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The regular member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll second that. Any further -- I'm
going to call on you next. Did you want to make a comment before
we vote on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It's just that I -- I'd like to
give consideration to David Farmer. His involvement in the
community recently has been quite remarkable. And Clyde Quimby's
a tremendous individual, but you haven't seen him for a long time.
David Farmer has been involved with the Estates Land Trust for
years, the Horizon Study, the Rural Land Stewardship Committee,
Clam Bay Advisory, he also heads up the Land Institute and very
involved in many other parts, plus he's involved in the real estate
industry. So here we've got a young, energetic person that's already
totally involved. If this motion fails, I'd like to give consideration to
David Farmer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor,
and there is a second, for Clyde Quimby to be the appointment for the
citizen as a regular member of the Value Adjustment Board.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 48
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
I got my light on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Just a minute. Commissioner
Coyle, I didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I was opposed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So that's a 3-2 vote. That
fails.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta. I know you're anxious. I saw
your button.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, okay. I'd like to
recommend David Farmer for the alternate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For the alternate or for the -- for the
member?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the member. I'm sorry,
what was it? How was it worded?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The other one failed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that, but there's also
one citizen regular member and one citizen as an alternate member,
and I'd like to make David -- recommend David Farmer as the
alternate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, as the -- not as the regular member?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Regular? I thought you wanted --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there still room for another
regular member? I just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, that one just
failed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I thought Coyle voted
for it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hello.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, forgive me. David
Page 49
June 23, 2009
Farmer, I'd like to recommend David Farmer. My sound's off here, so
I can't hear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Turn that sound on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They tried.
MR.OCHS: They tried, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not working.
MR. MUDD: It's on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Okay. So I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coletta
to nominate David Farmer as the regular member to the Value
Adjustment Board, the second is by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning, you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a comment. Mr. Farmer has
been, like Commissioner Coletta says, on the Rural Stewardship
Committee, he's also on the Clam Bay Committee. I know that many
of these other people are not on committees, and I hope we can try to
get more input in the future. And I'm going to still support the motion,
but I just think more public involvement is better than having the
same.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I actually had the same -- I think the
world and all of David Farmer. He's already on four committees, and
none of these other people are on anything except one has one
committee involvement, and I'd just love to encourage other people to
participate. I picked out some names myself, people they don't know,
but I read their background and I thought, gee, it would be wonderful
to encourage them.
But I won't turn my back on your request. I would just like to see
other people participate more rather than one person loaded all up.
That's just -- when we have a couple other people, let's do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment on that. I
think it's absolutely remarkable that we have so many people
interested in this particular committee because this is not going to be
Page 50
June 23, 2009
an easy committee to serve on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's going to be an awful committee to
serve on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. God bless them for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's why I saved you, by the way.
Okay. We have a motion -- oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'll wait till after you take the --
I just want to make another motion for an alternate member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. We have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Coletta to nominate David Farmer as the
regular member to the Value Adjustment Board, the second was by
Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 5-0. And now
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would nominate Bruce Preble as
the alternate member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm going to second that motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 51
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. So we have Bruce Preble as
the alternate member, and we have David Farmer as the regular
member. The School Board will get back to us as far as their member
and their --
MS. FILSON: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the School Board member as well as
their citizen member, and the people -- the commissioners that are
forced to work on this, I mean, are chosen to work on this, are Donna
Fiala and Tom Henning.
Yes, sir.
MS. FILSON: I just got an e-mail that Jim Scollen is the School
Board member, just so that you know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, Jim Scollen?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is a School Board member?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's the School Board member?
MS. FILSON: That's what it says. Jim Scollen is the School
Board member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He's not a School Board member.
MS. FILSON: Well, maybe he's the citizen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He must be the appointee by the School
Board, okay. E-mail them back and ask who the School Board
member is.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: I'm sure they're listening.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2009-165: APPOINTING LIEUTENANT MIKE
JONES (FULFILLING REMAINDER OF A VACANT TERM
Page 52
June 23, 2009
EXPIRING NOVEMBER 5, 2009) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
CITIZENS CORPS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item
under 9, which is 9B, appointment of a member to the Collier County
Citizens Corps.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
we appoint Lieutenant Mike Jones.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion on the floor and a second
to nominate Mike Jones.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: 5-0?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0, thank you.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2009-166: APPOINTING TIMOTHY LEE
HANCOCK AND EDWARD WHITE TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
CONCURRENCY CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to our next item, which is 9C,
appointment of members to the Public School Concurrency Citizens
Advisory Group.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
Page 53
June 23, 2009
that we appoint Timothy Hancock.
MS. FILSON: There's two vacancies, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Ed White.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second for
Tim Hancock and Ed White.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Break.
MR. MUDD: That carries 5-0. The next item --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're going to finish this last 9.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2009-167: REAPPOINTING JOHN AGNELLI AND
ROSS P. OBLEY W/TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 12, 2013 TO THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: 9D, appointment of members to the Industrial
Development Authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we appoint John Agnelli and Ross Obley.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I hear a second, okay.
Page 54
June 23, 2009
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we are going to take a break
for -- we'll be back here at 10:40.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Just a little
reminder, if we can, Commissioners and audience and staff, we're
going to try and get through this agenda. We're going to try and move
it through kind of efficiently and rapidly, and -- because we have a lot
to do by five clock.
Item #10D
RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO INSTALL NAVIGATIONAL MARKERS
IN OUTER CLAM BAY FOR USACE PERMIT COMPLIANCE
AND RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH
PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION - MOTION TO ACCEPT
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10D. This was
continued from the May 26, 2009 and June 9, 2009, BCC Meetings.
It's to recommend approval for the Board of County
Commissioners to install navigational markers in Outer Clam Bay for
Page 55
June 23, 2009
the United States Army Corps of Engineers permit compliance and
recommendation to move forward with permitting and installation.
Mr. Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director, will
present. I believe you have 15 speakers on this particular item; is that
correct, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: You're on 10D. I have two additional, so I have
17.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We'll take no more new speakers,
by the way. We're done once the subject is up. Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record,
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
At the May 26 meeting, you directed us to work with the Pelican
Bay and the Seagate neighborhoods to try to reach resolution on the
navigational markers that are required by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers permit in Clam Bay.
We held a workshop. Mr. Klatzkow chaired that workshop. A
proposal was forwarded by Pelican Bay, a counterproposal was
forwarded by the Seagate community. Both these proposals are far
apart. No agreement was reached.
Since that time, Madam Chair, we have received two documents
from the Corps, one on 5/26 and one on 6/17, which indicated that
they were not willing to change the conditions of the permit and that
we needed to comply with the navigational markers.
We also received one letter from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers this week which basically identified that Clam Bay was a
navigable waterway of the U.S., and there was some concern whether
it was a navigable waterway.
This item was approved by your two advisory boards. The Clam
Bay Advisory Board approved this item to move forward with the
navigational markers, as is in your package, 7-2. This is -- if you
remember, this is a non-partisan board made up of members of the
Page 56
June 23, 2009
entire community, and the Coastal Advisory Committee recommended
6-0 to approve this item.
Weare moving -- we -- at this point in time we would -- we're
requesting your approval to move forward with the permitting and
installation as identified in your package.
And Madam Chair, I believe Jim Carroll, the Chairman of the
Coastal -- the Clam Bay Advisory Committee, would like to say a few
words.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. How did we get to 10D when we
didn't do lOA, Band C?
MR. MUDD: Okay. lOA and B come after 8A, which happens
at one o'clock.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And C is an 11 a.m. time certain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: No problem, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Hi, Jim.
MR. CARROLL: My name is Jim Carroll. I'm sure we've all
met before. I just want to take a moment to comment on the role of
our committee as we move along and as you commissioners approve
the recommendations that we make.
We have been spending our time on these items and making
these recommendations, but as you approve them, we move on to
more or less an oversight role. In other words, the permits are --
particularly the Clam Pass permit is being submitted by staff. Our
committee will have some role in overseeing what is done to be
certain that it is producing what we want.
The channel markers, which is the one before you today, is
obviously a big item of high interest, shall we say. I think that we --
our committee can participate in helping where these markers are
going to be located. I think that the Seagate folks in particular have a
Page 57
June 23, 2009
great interest in where these markers are going to be located because
they're the ones with the boats that move out to the Gulf.
Seagate folks have also expressed a real concern for the safety at
the pass where you have the interface between the boaters and the
swimmers on both sides of the pass. And so the location of those is
important. We need input from Pelican Bay people, from Seagate
people and, of course, from our committee.
So that -- that's -- as I see it, our role is changing. We have our
next regular meeting in July, and certainly at that time we'll be able to
reflect on what you folks do today and to move on from there.
So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Gary, did you want to say a few
comments, or should I just start calling the speakers?
MR. McALPIN: Madam Chair, unless you have any comments
about the packet or what's in the packet, we have nothing else to
present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, thank you. We'll just move
on to the speakers then.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I'll call two persons' names, and if they
want to come up and stand at the podium.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have 17 speakers?
MS. FILSON: Seventeen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Garrett Beyrent. He'll be followed by Robert
Rogers.
MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name is Garrett F.X.
Beyrent. I've been a developer in Collier County for 38 years. I have
to -- I have to advise you that I've been advised by the county
prosecutor, Lisa Meade, that if I appear in front of you, I have to not
lose my temper, not intimidate you in any form or fashion, not
aggravate you by sending you scary faxes or emails, or she'll put me
back in jail for another two years under Homeland Security. That's--
Page 58
June 23, 2009
so is anybody bothered by my presence?
(No response.)
MR. BEYRENT: Good, okay. There's one. In any case, the
other reason -- I'm wearing my rattlesnake boots because I didn't plan
to be here. I was going to Magnolia Pond, one of my projects,
catching rattlesnakes that are close to the Mike Davis Elementary
School. So when they cleared Golden Gate High School, all the
snakes came over to me. That's the end of that. That explains my
clothing.
Now in 1986, the Seagate -- the Ken America (phonetic) Seagate
Corporation started to build a hotel that used to be known as the
Registry Resort Hotel. It's since been renamed the Grand Inn.
Well, the hotel builders decided that in order for them to get to
the beach, they needed to build a boardwalk twice the length of the
city pier, right across the end of my dock. I have a house on the point.
My children now own that house along with three other lots and two
houses in the Seagate subdivision.
So my argument, of course, was, they're going to block my view
of the bay, couldn't get my sailboat out, yada, yada.
And so I filed a lawsuit against the county, the Ken American
Seagate Corporation, Army Corps of Engineers, Westinghouse
Corporation -- this is one lawsuit, one that had a lot of parties in it --
Department of Environmental Regulation, Westinghouse Corporation,
and the Coast Guard.
And very short, I won and they lost. Oh, God. Okay, anyhow, to
wrap it up. I won, they lost; they didn't get to build the boardwalk
across the seagrass beds. Instead, they opted for a design plan I had
through the mangroves across the narrow point of the channel with a
drawbridge, and everybody's happy, at least they were since 1986.
So in any case, that's what happened. So we have an alternate
plan. And as far as the seagrass beds go, the pilings that they're
putting in are just -- the Coast Guard's basically mandated we do this
Page 59
June 23, 2009
because I put in the plastic pipes in '86, which was how we would
mark the channel in accordance with the Coast Guard's desires. Now,
they want real markers. So give them real markers, okay.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Rogers. He'll be
followed by Jeff Fridkin.
MR. ROGERS: Robert Rogers, 5164 Seahorse Avenue in
Seagate. I think I'll only take about a minute. I'm on the committee
with Mr. Carroll. I just want to point out, on that committee there's
three representatives from Pelican Bay on that committee, the
committee that voted 7-2 to go forward with the markers. We hope
you put them in. We do think it's a safety issue. I personally believe
that if you do vote to put them in, you'll see a much more rhetoric tone
from both sides, and there may even be some compromises following
your decision to put them in. But hopefully you will vote to put them
in, come in compliance with the permit, and we'll go forward from
there.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jeff Fridkin. He'll be followed by Bruce Conley.
MR. FRIDKIN: Good morning. For the record, Jeff Fridkin.
I'm a Seagate resident.
Just very quickly, this does not seem like a difficult issue. This is
actually pretty simple and straightforward. You have the safety issue
in Clam Pass where you have a park where you invite the public and
visitors to come to enjoy the beach and to swim. They swim in a pass
where people boat. They have rights on one of them to go in and out
of that pass. The signage is not adequate to warn the public nor to
protect the boaters from the interaction that happens.
You have issues as a county and stewardship of your park to
protect both the people that you invite to the park and your citizens
that use the boats. So the known way to do that is to use
Coast-Guard-approved navigational guides, and I think that's your
Page 60
June 23, 2009
number one priority for consideration here today.
I don't think it's a complex issue. It seems quite straightforward
and quite simple, and then on top of that you have a legal requirement
under the permit to put in these guides.
And so I'm somewhat surprised that this is as controversial as it
apparently is. The only issue here is safety and compliance with the
permit which gave the county the right to do the environmental tidal
flushing dredging that's been permitted. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Conley. He'll be followed by Rich
Y ovanovich.
MR. CONLEY: Good morning. I'm Bruce Conley. I live in
Seagate, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. But
my words have all been taken, so I'm not sure they can up it, other
than I know and I expect that you'll hear a lot of things that are just
distractions, just noise.
The reality is, to me, who lives in Seagate, there is an issue at the
channel. The channel coming in and out is made dangerous by the
presence of swimmers primarily, and without any particular warning.
But more than that -- more than that I think the idea of having a
marked area well defined through the waterways goes a long way to
preserving what we all want to preserve there.
I was afraid I was going to hear a lot of collateral issues when I
came here before I spoke, issues like 50-foot yachts and 4- foot water
and all sorts of other things. The issue is really simple. It's just
markers. It's markers that have been mandated or requested or
approved by every citizens' group that's looked at this issue with the
exception of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
And so I ask that you approve the installation of these markers.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich. He'll be followed by Jim
Hoppensteadt.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Madam Chair, there are actually five
Page 61
June 23, 2009
people that have signed up and have asked me to speak on their
behalf, which -- I don't need the full 15 minutes, but if you'll allow me
to speak on it for about seven, eight minutes on behalf of the
foundation, you'll probably save yourself some time in the long run.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I didn't see those notes on here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There are. They're later, Sue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It's Jim Hoppensteadt,
Keith Dallas, Patricia Bush, Noreen Murray. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's it. Okay, fine. Thank you, Rich.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, thank you. Good morning. For
the record, my name is Rich Y ovanovich, and I'm here on behalf of
the Pelican Bay Foundation.
As you know, at the last meeting there was a suggestion by
Commissioner Coyle and the remaining commissioners that the
stakeholders get together and arrange to meet to try to reach an
agreement on the types of sign and water-depth issues that related to
not only Clam Pass but also Outer Clam Bay.
Three days later after that meeting, we did get together. Your
staff in the interim did a depth analysis of what is the existing
conditions of Outer Clam Bay. And the purpose of that meeting was
to discuss maintaining Seagate's current use of Outer Clam Bay,
ultimately get to -- to get to the Gulf of Mexico.
At that meeting, the foundation said we were -- we're not trying
to interfere with Seagate's existing use of Outer Clam Bay, that we
were fine with the existing water depths and coming to an agreement
to -- that Seagate can rely on and continue to have those existing water
depths.
Our concerns were the navigational markers and what might
result from having those navigational markers installed from basically
the Gulf of Mexico all the way to the Seagate development.
We were assured that really all Seagate really wanted to do is
keep what they have, what they currently have, and they were
Page 62
June 23, 2009
concerned that if the markers didn't go in, they would somehow lose
what they currently had.
So we -- they were -- we were requested to make a written
proposal to the Seagate community, which we did. Two or three days
later we made a written proposal that basically attached the types of
signs we would like to see, and I'll put them up in a minute, because
we still would like to see those types of signs, and they will address
Mr. Fridkin's safety concerns and assurance that the foundation would
not interfere with Seagate's efforts to maintain the water depths as they
currently exist.
We made that proposal, a couple of weeks later we got a
counterproposal. I don't know if the commission has seen the
counterproposal, but basically the counterproposal did two things. I
think one of them was unintentional, and I think one -- one was
intentional.
The first was it kept the navigational signs that we had said we
did not want to see happen because of the concerns of the Coast Guard
signs leading to future dredging. I think that was unintentional. I
think they intended that we could try to get the non- -- the signs we
had originally proposed, and if we run successful, then those other
signs would go in.
But the second and more important thing is, it included a
requirement that the county would start the permitting process for a
dredge in Outer Clam Bay, and it referred to cut four in the current
dredging permit. And that cut four dredge depth is four feet. And
when that happened, it confirmed our fears that there was a
longer-term goal of having a dredge occur in Outer Clam Bay that
would result in larger boats. It may not have ever gotten through the
permitting process, but the goal of Seagate -- because they did, if you
want to see the effort -- if you want to see the counterproposal, it
required the county to start the permitting process for this 4- foot
dredge.
Page 63
June 23, 2009
Needless to say, we were far apart. We -- we would never
support a dredge 4 foot in Outer Clam Bay . We don't think any of the
committees would support a dredge in Outer Clam Bay, and we,
frankly, don't think the commission would support a dredge to that
depth in Outer Clam Bay. So we figured there was no reason to go
back with a counterproposal, so we did not make a counterproposal.
The permit you have in front of you today is -- we actually have
a joint permit that was issued by FDEP, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Army Corps of Engineers. I know
you'll come as -- it will come as a surprise to you that the Corps and
FDEP do not agree on whether or not these signs are required.
And what I'd like to put on the visualizer real quickly is a memo
from FDEP issued a little over a year ago, and the bottom paragraph is
the operative paragraph. It basically says that signage is not required
as far as FDEP is concerned, that their concern was information, not
navigation-type signage.
So you have two permitting agencies that seem to be saying two
different things under a permit. We've looked at the permit, and we've
read the permit, and as you know, the foundation is the successor to
WCI's interest in the -- under the deed that conveyed this property to
the county as well as the deed restrictions and declaration restrictions
that apply to the property.
So it's really the foundation's job under the quitclaim deed to
enforce the restrictions that are on the property as it currently exists,
and the foundation takes that seriously. The foundation has always
said their concern is with the environment of Outer Clam Bay. Outer
Clam Bay is an NRP A.
So their concerns are well founded, and they want to make sure
whatever happens in there will not affect the health -- affect the health
of that estuary.
So what we've been seeking and requesting is that you go amend
the Corps permit to eliminate the signage requirement altogether.
Page 64
June 23, 2009
That's met a tremendous amount of resistance. We accept that. We
don't think that's ever going to happen.
So we've looked at the permit itself, and what does the permit
require? Well, the permit talks about two separate types of signs and
markings. And if you need me to, I'll put it on the visualizer. But it
talks about -- and I'm going to put this up. What the permit talks
about, it talks about the main channel. And the main channel as
defined in the permit is the area that the dredging is going to occur in.
Okay. And then it talks about other types of signage.
So in the main channel, which is essentially from this boardwalk
and bridge that Mr. Beyrent was speaking about earlier, the dredge
occurs northward and out to the Gulf of Mexico.
So the permit says, in the main channel, there will be Coast
Guard-approved signs, in the main channel. Then it talks about what's
to occur down in here, which is Outer Clam Bay. And in Outer Clam
Bay it talks about informational signs; not Coast Guard-approved
signs. It talks about informational signs.
So if you want to take the permit in its current condition and
what it talks about when it's referring to U.S. Coast Guard signs, it's
talking about internal where the dredging is occurring up to essentially
the bridge, is where the Coast Guard-approved signs need to be
located.
So what the foundation's proposing to keep this thing moving and
to avoid further delays and further expenses -- and we've had some
discussions with your staff, and I think they agreed that we can do this
under the current permit -- is that there will be Coast Guard signs
basically north of the bridge; there would be informational signs -- and
I'll take you through the text of those informational signs -- in Outer
Clam Bay and where these black marks are, which is where the
swimmers interact with the boaters.
And if you'll bear with me, the sign that would be at the -- on the
pass info sign, which is where my finger is, would read, Clam Pass is
Page 65
June 23, 2009
a shallow waterway prone to rapid channels. Local knowledge
required. Beware of swimmers and waders.
There would also be a sign on the beach itself that would say, it's
a caution to the boaters, and it would be both on the county's park side
of the beach as well as Pelican Bay Foundation's northern portion of
the beach, there would be a big caution sign that would say -- that
would caution swimmers, boats have the right-of-way.
So the notice requirements that Mr. Fridkin spoke to would be
both out in the Gulf warning boaters that are coming in, it's shallow
water, you need local knowledge, and on the beach itself, it would
warn swimmers that boaters are going to be print and the boaters have
the right-of-way. So those informational issues would be addressed
and those safety concerns would be addressed by our signs that we're
proposIng.
And then you would have the Coast Guard signs internal, which
is what the permit talked about, the main channel, and then the permit
talks about informational signs in Outer Clam Bay. And again, you
would have informational signs about the shallowness of the water,
you would have idle speed, local knowledge required, and that would
all be within Outer Clam Bay itself, and that is what the permit calls
for if you're not willing to go forward and amend it today to eliminate
signage altogether.
So the proposal from Pelican Bay would be as I just explained it.
We would -- we would not oppose -- and so the board is, you know,
fully aware, there's been an application made to start putting the signs
in to FDEP. FDEP has come back with a notice basically to the
county requesting additional information. And the request -- the
additional information that FDEP has requested is the burden of proof
on the county to prove that the quitclaim deed requirements don't
apply.
So FDEP has basically said, until the county can prove that those
quitclaim requirements don't apply, which means you've got to get the
Page 66
June 23, 2009
foundation's approval, DEP is not going to go forward and issue the
permit.
What we'd like to see happen is what I've just proposed. We
think that is what the permit calls for literally, and we're willing to
allow that to go forward and give the approval that's required under
the quitclaim deed for that to occur.
I think -- again, we've talked to staff, and I think they think that's
a reasonable interpretation of what the permit requires. And that, I
think, is under my 15 minutes, and I'm happy to answer any questions
you may have regarding the foundation's petition -- position on this
matter and what we would like to see happen and go forward at this
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Linda Roth. She'll be
followed by Meredith Dee.
MS. ROTH: My name is Linda Roth. I'm a Collier resident
living in Pelican Bay.
I think it's important that you see these petitions for yourself.
The 2,108 signatures were collected over a short period of time by
part-time volunteers. As you can see, they are signed by a wide
cross-section of people, not just Pelican Bay people.
As you also can see from the text of the petition, it is clear that
the general public values the Clam Bay Estuary in its most natural
state. They not interested in altering the Clam Bay/Clam Pass Nature
Preserve for more motorboats and their necessary projects. They are
against the installation of channel markers and dredging for
navigation.
The petitioners at Clam Pass Park said, the reasons they like the
park are, its pristine nature preserve quality and the fun they can have
in the natural pass. They said that no other pass along the coast offers
such enjoyment. They can swim, drift, wade, and tube in the pass.
They can fish in the shallows of the bay and clam shells (sic).
Page 67
June 23, 2009
It is pretty clear that other than a few dozen motorboat owners in
Seagate, people are not in favor of construction and dredging activities
in Clam Bay and Clam Pass.
Please listen to the voice of the people and vote against the red
and green markers and dredging in Clam Bay and Clam Pass for
navigation.
Thank you for listening.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Meredith Dee. She'll be followed
by --
MS. ROTH: I also have a few papers from Sierra Club and
Audubon Society, and they all urge to not do the channel markers.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Meredith Dee. She'll be
followed by Ernest Wu.
MS. DEE: Hi, again. I'm Meredith Dee. I'm a 32-year resident
of the City of Naples and 12-and-a-halfyears in Seagate. I'm also on
the Seagate Homeowners Association Board.
Again, despite the things that you might hear about us wanting
big boats, we do not. It's not possible to have. We're not desirous of
that.
Weare here because we have small vessels. We have a lot of
personal experience regarding safety issues, especially in Clam Pass.
We're here to protect our boating rights; we're here to protect the
safety of the environment, the seagrasses; we're here to maintain safe
swimming for the people who do enjoy the Pass, and they are there
and they are there in force.
And I assure you that from personal experience, and my
neighbors will say the same, it is a very dangerous pass. There are a
lot of swimmers. The don't yield to the boats. We really need
markers. The permit is long overdue to come into compliance.
So we're requesting that you approve the installation of Coast
Guard markers.
Thank you for your time.
Page 68
June 23, 2009
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Ernest Wu. He'll be followed
by Michael Seef.
MR. WU: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Ernest Wu, long-time Seagate resident, president of the Seagate
Property Owners Association.
I'm just going to show a picture here. The -- whoops. Up-side
down. That will work just -- let's see. Let's turn it just like that.
That's perfect.
I'm just going to show you where -- Seagate canals are going to
be over here. Out to the Clam Pass is over here. I just want to put --
bury -- and bury the idea that Seagate is ever going to be having any
large boats in this area.
You could dredge 100- foot-wide, 100- foot-deep pass in here, and
the fact of the matter is, there's a draw span here. There's one, two,
three, four sets of pilings. The center set of pilings has a criss-cross
support structure. The only way through here is through the far -- if
you're approaching this way, the far right and the second to the right
pilings. At most you will ever get is a -- somewhere in the maybe mid
20-foot-length boat through that beam. That beam will not support
anything wider than that.
The notion of having large yachts in there -- you can see for
yourself. Good luck. You're just going to crash your boat into that
draw span. That issue just needs to be put to rest. That's just plain
fear mongering and really has no merit, and this physical structure
simply speaks for itself.
Again, thank you for your time on this issue. It's taken an
enormous amount of time on everyone's part. Again, we fully support
the markers, and it's really, for us, is a safety issue and to protect the
seagrasses. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Michael Seef. He'll be followed by Kathy
Worley.
MR. SEEF: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Seef. I
Page 69
June 23, 2009
live in North Naples.
MS. FILSON: Sorry.
MR. SEEF: And I want to say that I am not part of Pelican Bay.
I'm not part of Seagate, although my son does own a house in Seagate.
But basically I'm requesting that we leave Clam Bay, Outer Clam Bay,
Clam Pass, and the space in between as natural a state as possible. In
the heart of this dense county area, it's a refuge.
We talk about boaters and safety issues, and I understand those
and I agree with those; however, let's also be aware that we have fish
and fishermen, we have birds that live on the fish, and we have lots of
people who are not in Pelican Bay and who are not in Seagate,
although my son is, who agree with me, that we would like to see that
area left in it's natural state. So let's consider the environment and
people outside of Pelican Bay and Seagate as well.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Kathy Worley. She'll be followed by Sarah Wu.
MS. WORLEY: Hi, Commissioners. I first would like to
apologize for any of the lateness that I had on my missive to you
yesterday, which was quite cumbersome probably to read. I hope you
all got it and read it.
The following is sort of a minority opinion that, as one of the two
technical appointees that were on the Clam Bay Subcommittee, both
voted no, and this is just my opinion on this application.
Since -- Clam Bay is a very natural and dynamic pass. It changes
location quite frequently. And from an environmental perspective, I
have a problem with marker number one, the one that's in the Gulf.
This marker -- because it's in its nature of being a navigational marker,
by the very nature, it will invite boaters in, especially during
inclement weather. When someone wants to get out of the way of the
weather, they'll go into this pass and -- if there's a navigational marker
there.
And what I'd like to say is, this could erroneously end up guiding
Page 70
June 23, 2009
unfamiliar boaters into the area and could have problems in seriously
hurting the ebb shoal.
I have a picture here -- and I don't know if it will come out -- of
-- I don't know if you can see it, but this is -- this is the ex --
MR.OCHS: Grab the portable mike. Is it on?
MS. WORLEY: I don't know. This is the -- looking straight out
of the pass here, and this was taken last week. And you can see these
two areas here. You can see it's really, really shallow.
And I have concerns that boats might, you know, unintentionally
ground on these things. And this is not only a problem for the boater
and the safety of the boater, but it's also a problem for the ebb shoals
and the environment.
One thing I did hear today, which I was kind of glad to hear, was
Pelican Bay's Foundation, they did have a pretty good compromise. I
would like to see some signage on the Pelican Bay side to prevent
swimmers from being, you know, hit by boats and to care for the
safety of the actual boaters. There are no signs there right now.
One thing I'd just like to wrap up with is to say that, you know,
from an environmental point of view, you really don't want to see
anything in there; however, the foundation does have a good
compromise. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Sarah Wu. She'll be followed by
John Domenie, and he'll be followed by Gin Sullivan, who is your last
speaker.
MS. WU: Good morning. My name is Sarah Wu, and I'm a
Seagate resident. I'm sure that you've probably already decided and
made up your mind on how you're going to vote on this issue, but
nonetheless, I'd like to urge you to vote yes.
I'd also like to thank you, because a year ago you did the right
thing when you formed the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. Under
the leadership of Mr. Carroll, this group that contained three Pelican
Bay representatives and one Seagate representative along with some
Page 71
June 23, 2009
other people from the county, responsibly looked at all the facts and
came up with the proposal that's in front of you today.
This proposal was also voted unanimously by the Coastal
Advisory Committee. They responsibly looked at all the facts and
through all the misinformation that has been given to the community.
If you may recall, the original proposal was 28 pole markers. It
is now down to three pole markers and eight buoys. This is a
compromise that the Seagate community fully supports. Seagate is
looking forward to a resolution on this issue. It has always been about
the safety of our community, the safety of beach goers, and the
protection of underwater resources.
Seagate is a small community who simply wants to maintain their
boating lifestyle and being able to boat safely through a properly
marked channel with markers that are the safety standard of the U.S.
Coast Guard.
Please don't be intimidated by the antics of Pelican Bay. Seagate
is not interested. Believe me, we are not interested in turning our
community into a community of 70- foot yachts. We just want to boat
through the bay and pass in a safe manner.
Thank you, and please vote yes on this proposal.
MS. FILSON: John Domenie. He'll be followed by Jean (sic)
Sullivan.
MR. DOMENIE: Good morning, good morning. My name is
John Domenie. I live at 749 Bent Water Circle. I'm not going to
comment on the legal aspects or dredging. I have that -- leave that to
others more knowledgeable.
I am opposed to the placement of any aids to navigation, as these
are misleading, inappropriate, and may cause -- pose a danger to those
who would rely on them.
It is difficult for me to believe that knowledgeable people from
Collier County, Tallahassee, or elsewhere, have approved these
recommendations. Have any of them actually canoed, kayaked, or
Page 72
June 23, 2009
motored through Clam Pass and into these three bay systems?
I have owned four sailboats, I've sailed Long Island up to New
England, raced to Bermuda, six times sailed in the Virgins out to the
Dry Tortugas and crossed across Lake Okeechobee three times.
I've seen ocean-going buoys, small plastic tetrahedral, and here in
Florida I've seen poles with red or green up-side down coffee cans on
them.
In the process, I have explored coastlines and inlets with a
five-horsepower dingy. But in my experience, the proposed aids in
Clam Bays are inappropriate.
This Clam Pass channel moves every time it's dredged. Where
the deepest water was the last time it was dredged is now the widest
part of the Clam Pass Park. Residents of Seagate are aware as the
channel moves. This is known as local knowledge. Are you going to
move the marker every six months or risk someone running aground?
The most amazing positioning I encounter is as I enter out to
Clam Bay, I pass under the bridge leading to Clam Pass Park, and I
leave green marker green -- nine to port. I am then faced with two red
markers, 10 and 12. These make absolutely no sense to me, as they
will lead you straight onto this shoal.
The deepest water here is along the western shore of Outer Clam
Bay, and the vessels should hover that shore until it reaches red 10,
but instead green 11 -- leave green 11 to port, and make a 90 degree to
port to reach 12. That is the safest way to reach Seagate.
Next, as to buoys, a buoy is a floating device which can move
with the tide. It is anchored to the bottom by a chain tied to some
solid object.
End? All right. Do not permit the placement of any aids to
navigation in this sensitive NRP A. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Ms. Chairman, is Jean (sic)
Sullivan.
MS. SULLIVAN: Good morning. I'm Jen Sullivan, live in
Page 73
June 23, 2009
Seagate, and I'm just here this morning to please ask you to vote for
the markers. We do have very small boats. We have children that
we're just trying to get to enjoy the water, and it seems every time we
go out there's a confrontation with swimmers.
And we want to share the waterway with them. We don't want to
argue with them. We don't want to confront anybody. We just want
to share it and appreciate the environment as well. We're out there on
our boats and we see the mess and the trash, honestly, that are there as
well and help clean it up.
So we please ask you to support us and help us keep our rights as
long as -- as well as enjoy with everybody else. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's all of our speakers.
Okay.
So, Commissioners -- first of all, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. McAlpin, previous when
this was on the agenda, there's an idea about dredging the bay. Is that
gone?
MR. McALPIN: I believe the -- all the dredging is gone, Mr.
Chair (sic). I believe what we're looking at -- or Commissioner
Henning, I believe what we're looking at right now is just navigational
markers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the difference between
what you're proposing and what was just proposed by Pelican Bay
through Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. McALPIN: What was proposed by Mr. Yovanovich is the
first time we've seen that proposal. I'm not saying that that proposal
will not work. I think that the county's position would be that if we
could reach closure with the permitting agencies on that proposal, that
would be acceptable to the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my fear is, two things.
Well -- and another question. I think Mr. Y ovanovich's proposal was
the outer marker, was a warning sign, beware of -- local knowledge,
Page 74
June 23, 2009
beware of swimmers. But further in you say, swimmers, boaters have
the right-of-way.
MR. McALPIN: Both those informational signs, and one on the
outside of the pass and one on the inside of the pass, what the
language -- the way the county would look at it is, that language as
what is being proposed right now --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: -- that language has to be approved by FWC in
Tallahassee. Ultimately, they will tell us what to put on those
informational signs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. McALPIN: So we could propose something to them right
now, but ultimately it's FWC's decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is our goal? Is it --
obviously to be harmonious with swimmers and boaters.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, just from a staff perspective, I could
answer that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Our primary goal throughout this whole process is
to make sure that we have a signage plan that's submitted to the
permitting agencies that satisfies the conditions of that permit so that
we can close that permit and move on with the tidal flushing permit
application that the board just recently approved that would take us
forward into the next ten-year permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But in the meantime, we
have some conflicts with residents who utilize Clam Pass --
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- whether it be a swimmer or
boater. So sometime I think that we need to give direction of who
takes precedence of going through that pass.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, and we'll certainly take that direction from
this board.
Page 75
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next thing is, I guess a
concern that I have, what about if we discover there are some scorings
within the bay, and boaters are not -- because of shifting sand or
whatever, is there -- could there be opportunities to put more
informational markers in?
MR. McALPIN: I think if we find that we need additional
information markers, Commissioner, we could always petition the
regulatory agencies to add those. If we believe that it's going to
protect the natural resources, certainly I think that that is something
that we can do and move -- and move forward with at a later point in
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Dr. Wu sat down and showed
me the horrendous curve that they needed to make in that shoaling
area by the bridge and what has been proposed. I'm not sure if -- you
know, if you have any shifting, you start to lose some of that natural
resource.
MR. McALPIN: That shoal has been relatively stable for a
period of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: We believe it has grown. Certainly, if it is the
desire of this board to put -- and the permitting agencies -- to put
informational signs south of the bridge, we could certainly do that in
such a way that we could add signs at a later point in time, which
would direct traffic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I believe that's true too.
The -- and my last question, are we going to comply to the ordinance
and mark the bay that it's no wake --
MR. McALPIN : We--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- mark the system? I think it's
supposed to be from the pass to --
MR. McALPIN: We will comply with all the ordinances. We
believe that it is marked, but if it is not, we will mark it and we will
Page 76
June 23, 2009
put that in the request with the informational signs to FWC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then I guess for my
colleagues my concern is, if it's challenged by Pelican Bay through the
covenants, I'm not sure how long -- how far it will be before we go
through that challenge and actually start marking the waterway for
informational and navigational; therefore, I'm more inclined to accept
Pelican Bay's proposal and monitor it from there, and if we have
further problems, is revisit it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I'll just make a comment. I'm
surprised that since 1998 when they -- when we were required to put
signs in that we've never done anything and nobody's ever sued us. I
mean, I'm surprised the state hasn't, or the feds, haven't taken us to
court or something because we haven't complied with their
requirements. That amazes me.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I guess the bottom line is,
whatever this board desires to do in regards to marking the channels
there, whether it complies with the Coast Guard, our main objective
here is to close out this permit so, therefore, we can come up with
some kind of a system, and it's up to the Army Corps of Engineers,
then they have the last say.
So, therefore, what I say is that -- what I suggest is that maybe
we go along with what Pelican Bay desires, but that may not be the
end result, and that with -- the Corps comes back or the U.S. Coast
Guard comes back and says, this does not conform to the orders that
was directed ten years ago, actually 11 years ago, then there's no other
recourse then to mark those -- that channel as according to the U.S.
Coast Guard or what the requirements are by the U.S. Coast Guard
and the Army Corps in regards to that permit, because we're the ones
that have ownership to that particular Corps permit.
And so we can go forward. And if the end result is -- they say it's
not right, then the end result is, it's going to be marked in accordance
Page 77
June 23, 2009
with the U.S. Corps -- Army Corps of Engineers or the U.S. Coast
Guard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did I understand you correctly
when you said that these informational signs will be placed at the pass
regardless of which alternative was chosen?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct, Commissioner Coyle. I think
we would want informational signs there from a safety perspective.
We would work both with the Pelican Bay and the Seagate
community and FWC to get the right informational signs there from a
safety point of view.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, here's my problem. I
still believe that the two communities have some say here, and they
had time to reach a compromise and they could not do that. Coming
in here at the last minute and showing us an additional alternative, in
my opinion, is not the right way to get a compromise for a new
proposal.
The staff and the advisory committee have recommended Coast
Guard markers for the entire length from Seagate to the pass. That
was what was on our agenda the last time. We agreed to postpone that
decision to permit people to reach a compromise. No compromise
was reached and no counterproposal of any kind was provided to this
board for consideration and for advertisement. We get it today during
the meeting.
It might have its merits, but how do we really know? Because
what's on the agenda is what's been on the agenda for a long time.
Secondly, I am reluctant to accept a compromise on these
markers unless there is a legally binding agreement that people will
stop suing and objecting to what goes on here, and I don't see that
happening. I think that's going to have to be decided in court.
So I will make a motion that we accept and approve the Clam
Bay Advisory Committee's recommendations and the staffs
Page 78
June 23, 2009
recommendations, that we put Coast Guard approved navigational
markers in here as specified to include those information markers at
the pass.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So explain to me what your
understanding, what the motion is.
MR. McALPIN: The motion would be that we install the staffs
original proposal to place the navigational markers -- to place the
informational markers at the pass. And what we would have here
would be a navigational pull. We would come through here with
navigational buoys. We would have an informational sign here. We
would have a navigational and informational sign here.
This would be the proposal that we would -- this is the proposal
that's on the table right now from staff.
What Mr. Yovanovich has recommended is that this be an
informational sign and not a navigational sign and that from the bridge
further south that -- from the bridge further south that they be
informational signs directing boaters as opposed to green and red
navigational signs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm reluctant to
support the motion because if it's challenged, you're not going to get
any markings until it goes through the courts. And I do believe if we
do have some problems with boats wandering, that ever-moving
channel -- we always have a time to revisit that to put some other aids
to navigation or informational markers to direct boats. That's my
thoughts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a question also.
The motion as it stands, I'm just concerned about safety for
human beings. That's all I'm concerned about, safety for human
Page 79
June 23, 2009
beings. The motion, as it stands, will it then protect people in that -- in
that channel, in that pass?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am, it will. It will install--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: -- navigational -- excuse me. It will install
informational markers in the pass to protect people; however, what has
been said and what has -- Mr. Y ovanovich has said is that the burden
of proof is on the county at this point in time to tell -- to show DEP
that the restrictive covenants are -- that Pelican -- Pelican Bay
Foundation has mentioned will not control.
So to my extent and to my information, it's an issue of timing.
We can go through with the proposal that we have proposed right
now, but it would be a while before this is installed, because obviously
the foundation is going to object to it, and then we're going to have to
show -- have a burden of proof on that. So I just want the board to be
aware of that at this point in time.
I believe that we can work with -- through the Clam Bay
Advisory Committee, Madam Chair, and that, through the Clam Bay
Advisory Committee, work out the differences between what was --
the foundation proposed and what Seagate will buy, and I also believe
that we can take that to the permitting agencies and have them
approve that, and we can move this forward. We could move this item
forward, satisfy the permit and close it out and have a safer pass if we
took that approach.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But being that it's continued to be stalled,
no matter what comes up, then there's a new thing that comes up, do
you honestly feel that this would move forward if we -- if we obliged
the suggestion from Pelican Bay, or would they then change it again?
MR. McALPIN: I don't know if they're going to change it again,
Madam Chair, but I think that we would install whatever the
permitting agencies would authorize, and also, the way -- and that --
we would not -- the burden of proof would then -- if they withdraw
Page 80
June 23, 2009
their obj ection to the -- to the restrictive covenants, then that would
allow DEP to issue the permit.
So I think that that might be a part of it that we have to consider.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. There's a letter that I have in
my packet, and I'm sure the rest of the commissioners have, that's
dated March 2, 2009. And in that letter it says, it's come to the -- it has
come to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' attention that navigational
markers have not yet been installed. Installation of these markers is
indeed a requirement of the Department of Army's permit.
In addition, the markers must meet U.S. Coast Guard standards
for signs. It is requested you provide the Corps with a drawing
showing the placement of these markers and a time frame when you
expect the signs to be in place.
Now, has there been any change?
MR. McALPIN: There has not been any change. That is what
the Corps is directing us to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And basically the Corps tells us
that they gave us one year leeway in order to address this issue to get
it taken care of, is that correct, to close this permit out?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what happens if the permit's
not closed out?
MR. McALPIN: The permit will expire and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will not take any action.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They won't take any action?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then--
MR. McALPIN: There will not be a fine. There will not be a
fine imposed on the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why is that?
Page 81
June 23, 2009
MR. McALPIN : We asked that specific question with them. I
believe it is because the county is making efforts to resolve this issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So today we're here to
resolve the issue, and if we don't resolve the issue, then what's the --
what's the ramifications?
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair (sic), we -- if we have two -- we have
an unsafe pass at this point in time that has -- does not have
navigational markers for the Seagate residents. We still have two
communities at war.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The item is not whether we have a
war with two communities, the item is that we have a responsibility to
close out the Corps permit. Am I right or wrong?
MR. OCHS: Sir, you're right. We do have that responsibility to
close out the permit, and we don't want to be found in noncompliance
because we don't want to incur the penalties for that. Even if the
Corps tells us in the short term they're not going to impose financial
penalties, we do have another tidal flushing permit in process, and it's
not good form to be applying for a permit when you're out of
compliance with another.
So regardless of whether we have an immediate financial penalty,
we want to comply with all of the conditions of that permit, and that's
been our overriding concern and our motivation right from the start.
So I would say to you, ifby chance a majority of the board were
interested in pursuing this alternative plan, I would ask the board, if
that were the case, that we not have to bring this issue back if the
regulatory agencies would not be in favor of that and immediately be
able to submit the plan that the staff brought to you today and still
support immediately upon finding that the regulatory agencies
wouldn't favor this alternative plan. That's the way to keep it moving,
not have to bring it back again. And again, that's only if there's
majority support for this alternative proposal.
Page 82
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll remove my second, and
hopefully the motion maker can come up with another -- I want to get
this thing taken care of and off the books. And so if we come up with
a compromise and the regulatory agency says no, you've got to find --
you've got to go by that, then that automatically tells us that that's null
and void, and we're going to put in the necessary markers that's
required; is that correct?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. What I'm suggesting to you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- is that we would immediately submit the plan
that's in front of you that staff submitted three meetings ago and not
come back for additional discussion or negotiation. Just simply say
that if the board was inclined to submit this alternate plan for
consideration by the regulatory agencies and they're not in favor of it,
then we would submit immediately this original plan to keep that
process movIng.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, then
Coletta, then Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have never heard so much
circular logic in my entire life. Almost nothing that you have said
makes sense.
You guys have been after us to close out this permit for a long
time. The effort to do that and your proposals to close it out have
angered residents in Pelican Bay and stirred up a hornets nest, and
now you say it doesn't make any difference if we close it out. That's--
it's irresponsible, but --
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want to -- I don't want to
hear your interpretations of the legal position. I'll ask the County
Attorney for that, okay.
Now, what is absent in all of these assumptions is that you -- if
you accept this compromise, all of the legal disagreements are going
Page 83
June 23, 2009
to be solved. Do you have a piece of paper which says that?
MR. McALPIN: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes or no?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, you do not. You have no idea
which legal objections are going to be resolved by this compromise
and which ones are not.
County Attorney, can you tell us?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. There is no binding document here.
This is a proposal made to the board by Mr. Y ovanovich and the
public. There is no agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what you really have to do is, if
you want to accept this position is, you have to postpone this meeting,
you have to have another negotiation to reach an agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm tired of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. I am too. And
you have been after us to close out this thing for a long time, and
we've been working hard to try to do that in a way that's acceptable to
this community. And it greatly upsets me that we get to this point and
you start making all sorts of assumptions about how many legal issues
are going to be solved if we accept a compromise that we haven't even
had a chance to explore, that hasn't been properly advertised, and it is
-- it is ludicrous.
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR.OCHS: If I might just comment to Commissioner Coyle's
point. That proposal -- or the alternative proposal was not a staff
proposal. We still have recommended the item in front of you.
All I was simply trying to communicate was if there was a
majority of the board interested in that alternative, how the staff might
proceed under that direction. Staff recommendation is still the staff
recommendation.
Page 84
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the staff recommendation is
the recommendation that I recommended approval.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then you turned right around
and you said, but if we accept this compromise, all the legal issues are
going to go away.
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what you said.
MR. OCHS: I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gary said that.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I will make my motion --
my motion still stands, and hopefully we'll have a second to it and get
this thing done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll re-establish my second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm tired of this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, two things. One, I
received two packets since the meeting started that I want to make
sure for the record that it's realized that we did receive them during the
meeting and it's been impossible to read them. So if anything does
come up where we get into some sort of legal dispute in the future,
they don't say those records were before us. Yeah, they're before us,
but there was no way to be able to read them.
This particular item is the only one that hasn't been opened. It
was marketed to my attention.
Okay. Is the motion staff's recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the motion.
Page 85
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one thing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Just -- Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't know why
we have to badger staff for making a very logical recommendation to
solve this issue to get markers in the bay. It was, I thought, well
thought out. And, you know, the motion is going to bring some
challenges, and you're not going to get any navigational markers on it
and it's going to have to come back.
So Mr. Ochs, thank you for your suggestion. I'm ready to move
on. I'm ready to vote no on the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
accept staff's recommendation, and I have a second on that motion.
We have discussion? No further discussion.
All these in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1 vote.
(Applause.)
Item #10C
REQUEST APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO MEMORIALIZE THE SCHEDULE FOR
THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN (IAMP) GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT CYCLE - MOTION TO
ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, your next item is a -- was a time
Page 86
June 23, 2009
certain, and I apologize, was an 11 a.m. time certain, so we're
obviously running late. It's Item 10C. That's a request of approval of
the Board of County Commissioners to memorialize the schedule for
the Immokalee Area Master Plan Growth Management Plan
Amendment Cycle.
Tom Greenwood, Principal Planner; David Weeks, Planning
Manager for Comprehensive Plan, and Joe Schmitt, will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, Leo, if we're not able to
complete this item in the next, say, 15 minutes, are we -- should we
then go to lunch and come back and do it, or try and complete it, or if
it looks like it's going to drag out -- how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Eight.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eight speakers.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, I would say, you have a 1 :30 time certain.
Other than that, if you can get through this, you know, by 12: 15 or so,
we could still have an hour for lunch and be back for your time
certain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three times eight is 21, so that already
takes us --
MR. OCHS : Joe will -- Joe will be quick.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Joe Schmitt, your Administrator of Community Development &
Environmental Services.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Twenty-four, excuse me.
MR. SCHMITT: This is -- members of my staff are with me to
answer your questions.
This is an easy one. All we're doing is coming to you and asking
you to approve a special cycle to move forward the Immokalee Area
Master Plan for review through the public hearing process as part of a
Growth Management Plan amendment special cycle review, and that's
basically all this executive summary is asking of you.
Page 87
June 23, 2009
There was information brought up at a previous meeting
regarding the Immokalee Area Master Plan and its ability to move
through staffing and review. In your packet also was included a
sufficiency review of the Immokalee Area Master Plan where we've
outlined what we find are corrections and modifications in addition to
the Immokalee Area Master Plan so we could move it through the
public hearing process.
Mr. Mulhere has that, as does the CRA, and they, my
understanding, are moving forward to submit -- resubmit the data and
analysis that we've asked for in the sufficiency review. What we're
asking for you to do is simply approve the schedule.
And subject to your questions, that pretty much concludes what I
have to present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And other issues on the plan itself and the
schedule.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think we can move this
along quite quick.
Mr. Mulhere, would you come up next to Mr. Schmitt and we'll
MR. MULHERE: Why certainly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Listen, this has been something
that's been on our plate now for what, over five years? We're finally
getting to the point that we can bring it to a conclusion, and we've got
impediments out there that, if we don't keep it on schedule, we're
going to run into everything -- all sorts of other objects out there that
are going to delay it even further.
We now have the deficiencies that are within the plan. You've
seen that list. Are they doable? Can you get them done within a
30-day time period?
MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob -- am I -- for the record,
Page 88
June 23, 2009
Bob Mulhere. I just have to say this. We have it, we're preparing a
response to those -- to the sufficiency comments. It doesn't mean that
we or that the Immokalee Area Master Committee is going to agree
with every deficiency that's been raised. Ultimately you're going to be
arbitrator on some of those things --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Gotcha.
MR. MULHERE: -- because we don't necessarily agree with
every comment that's in that sufficiency report. I just want to make
that clear. But many of them sub- -- are legitimate and we're going to
address those. We can get those done quickly . We're going to ask for
a 30-day extension to the 30-day re-submittal time frame so that we
can get back to the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Joe and I talked. We don't see where that would in any way
affect the schedule as long as we hold to that 60 days. That, you
know, 30 days plus the 30-day extension, we should be fine. I've also
mentioned that the -- to represent to Penny and other representatives
of the Immokalee Area Master Planning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Instead of going through my 20
different questions, let's shorten this up a bit, because there's some
demands on the commissioners' time today, and I want to try to keep it
to a point where we can bring this to a conclusion.
Is there anything that's problematic to be able to reach the
objectives we're trying to do and the time frame we're trying to do? Is
there anything that you want to know or ask at this time or that we
should be concerned of as a commission?
MR. SCHMITT: Nothing from my perspective. The ball is
basically in Bob's court. He asked for an additional 30 days. As long
as we get it by the first of September, that way we can move this
forward, finalize it, and then get it to your advisory panels.
Has to go to the EAC and then follow on through the Planning
Commission and ultimately to you. So I don't see anything other than
time as the factor, and Bob working with the CRA and providing the
Page 89
June 23, 2009
data and analysis and some of the corrections we're asking, and we'll
move this forward through the public petition process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, Bob, you as the agent,
now, can you tell me that you can make this schedule?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, we can. We'll make the schedule, and
any issues that we can't come to agreement with the staff with respect
to revisions, we'll identify those. I think they'll be very few.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'll tell you right now, I'm
going to try to make every one of these meetings, and if anybody
starts to throw a monkey wrench into this, I'm going to be all over
them.
MR. MULHERE: We'll get it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is five years in the making.
There's absolutely no reason for us to be this late in trying to get this
done, and this has got to be completed within the time frame that's
here. If it isn't, then the county's got every right to move it off into
some distant point in the future.
So the ball's back in your court. You said you can do it. I got all
the confidence in the world --
MR. MULHERE: I accept that challenge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Is there anything with
this executive summary that raises any concerns for you, as a member
of the -- as a representative of the CRA Master Plan group?
MR. MULHERE: No. I don't think there's anything that raises
any concerns.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make a motion
for approval.
MR. SCHMITT: I have one issue --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You want to talk me out of it?
MR. SCHMITT: This executive summary does recognize that
we may be coming to Penny for additional funding from Fund 186,
which is, of course, the CRA funding, because this Immokalee Master
Page 90
June 23, 2009
Plan is so much more than a traditional GMP amendment that my staff
has paid for out of Fund 111, which is the general fund, the compo
planning; however --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: -- we think because of the breadth and depth
and -- I may have to work with Penny --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we work on this real quick?
Come on up here now so we can address this question. This is a
concern as far as the budget items that you have in there and the cost
and the lack of clarity that's with it.
Penny, do you want to comment on that so maybe we can clear
up any kind of misconceptions that exist on the cost comp?
MS. PHILLIPI: I think there were a couple of questions on the
cost. One was, you know, what part of the 16,700 that we already
paid is included in there? Is there any duplication? That was one of
the questions. And one of them -- one line item, C, I believe, has lots
of question marks behind it, so that didn't give us a real clear idea
where it ends.
So I think the advisory board specifically was looking for a more
not-to-exceed dollar sign. We realize it's a special cycle. We realize
there's extra work involved, and we're okay with that, but we would
specifically like some real clarity on the cost that's involved above and
beyond the 16,700 that was already paid, which is the typical fee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We provide a breakdown in the fiscal
analysis of the cost and, frankly, the sufficiency review, given the staff
time involved in that, we spent a significant portion of that already.
And, again, that's your Fund 111. That's the Fund 111 dollars,
and I -- but I think the CRA should supplement or subsidize that so it's
not all basically on the general fund.
But we outline about $91,000 fiscal impact, and that -- that
includes all the public hearings, copies, all the other activities
Page 91
June 23, 2009
associated with this. Naturally some of that will be picked up by the
staff under Fund 111, but we would request that the board approve for
me to work with Penny and decide -- or we figure out -- and we may
have to come back to the board as to what additional funding we
would be asking for from the CRA.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but the problem is, we
meet once in July, and then we won't meet again till September. Is
this going to throw us into --
MR. SCHMITT: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a tailspin? Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: That will not do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Penny, any other comments on
this?
MS. PHILLIPI: Not on the dollar issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: I need to get back to my office and start
working.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
I make a motion to approve staff recommendations, and the fact
that Penny will be working directly with Joe Schmitt regarding the
cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
We have eight speakers, but I would love to see those eight
speakers tell us they'd like to waive now that this is going to be
passed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No way. Just a minute.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're not even called yet, Fred. Wait till
you're called. We want to see everybody waive.
MS. FILSON: Bob Mulhere?
MR. MULHERE: Waive.
Page 92
June 23, 2009
MS. FILSON: Christy Bentacourt?
MS. BENTACOURT: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Pam Brown?
MS. BROWN: I want to speak.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Penny Phillipi.
MS. PHILLIPI: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Sheryl Thomas.
MS. THOMAS: Waive my time to Fred Thomas.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Carrie Williams.
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll speak.
MS. FILSON: Okay, go ahead.
MS. BROWN: Good morning. For the record, I'm Pam Brown.
I'm the commissioner with the Immokalee Fire Control District, and
I'm on the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee. And I
want to let you all know we appreciate you listening to us.
And I have been a lifelong resident of Immokalee, and I'm so
excited that we're at this point here with Penny Phillipi as our director.
And I encourage you all to please help us move forward to get this
expedited as quickly as possible.
MS. FILSON: Carrie Williams. She'll be followed by Rick
Heers.
MR. HEERS: I waive.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Reverend Jean Paul.
REVEREND PAUL: I waive.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Fred Thomas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Go ahead.
MS. WILLIAMS: For the record, I'm Carrie Williams. And,
again, I'm on the IMPVC Board, and I just want to say thank you and
help keep us moving forward, please, for this Immokalee Master Plan.
MS. FILSON: Fred Thomas?
MR. THOMAS: I want to also say thank you, and I want to
Page 93
June 23, 2009
remind everybody of what we learned in project innovation. It's no
longer about cities and states. It's about mega regions. If you look at
any map and the road network, Immokalee is in the center of the so-
flow mega region, the center of the so flow where we can have great
things happening to bring a lot of industry, a lot of tax money back to
our county, but we have to compete. We have to compete with some
of the nearby counties as it relates to development services. That's
why we're working so hard to get this Land Development Code and
things like that.
I'm going to tell you a funny story because I called Hendry
County just a couple days ago to find out how long does it take to get
a permit and what have you. They have an enterprise zone just like
we have a state enterprise zone.
So I called them and said, well, if you've got a piece of land that's
presently zoned agriculture in your enterprise zone and you've got an
industry you want to bring to it, how long would it take you to get it
zoned? Rezoned to industrial.
You know what he said -- she said, rather? We have a little bit of
a problem because we only have a weekly newspaper. I'm trying to
figure out how that made any sense.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fred, are you addressing this issue?
MR. THOMAS: It's this issue, it's this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. THOMAS: It's this issue, because we're talking about Land
Development Code and Master Plan and all that that allows us to
move and be competitive with a place like Hendry County.
And she said, you know, we only had a weekly newspaper. We
could get our rezone done in 30 days, but because of the time lag in
getting the thing in the paper and the advertising, it takes us three
months.
Thank you very much, Joe Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That's our last speaker?
Page 94
June 23, 2009
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we have Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I questioned the fiscal impact.
G it says, public utilities, $3,500 charge, but they -- there's a private
utility out there.
MR. SCHMITT: It will not go to our public utilities. That--
basically that is incorrect. I mean, there will be no review by public
utilities. Ifit goes to any utility, it will go to Immokalee; and if they
charge us, they'll charge us for the time to review it if they have any
reVIew.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The legal advertising above the
normal, you know, meetings and GMP amendments --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- would that be the special
cycle for the $7,500?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me turn to David on advertising. Go
ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning
Department, Planning Manager.
On the first question, if I may back up, Commissioner Henning,
in regards to public utilities, you're correct that there's a private -- or
separate governmental entity, but Public Utilities Division also
includes solid waste management and drainage. They would have
some review still of this project. Certainly not to the extent as they
would for other types of petitions because water and sewer is not
under their jurisdiction, but they would have some review. But I
would agree with Joe that the amount probably should be less than
listed here.
Your second issue about the legal advertising. Weare required
by state law to provide six legal ads, and they must be one-quarter
page in size, and that $1,254 is the amount per ad.
Page 95
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much of that was included
in the $16,000 that has already been paid?
MR. WEEKS: By my rough estimate, we've spent all of that
$16,700 on the sufficiency review. That's approximately 350 staff
hours. I'll stress the point that Joe made. This is not the typical plan
amendment for a 5-, 10-, 15-acre project and two paragraphs to be
added to our GMP. This is a rewrite of the entire Immokalee Area
Master Plan. It is a major project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understood it was 38 pages. Is
that wrong?
MR. WEEKS: The actual portion to be adopted right now is
about 30 pages. The support document is about 50 pages. I think it
will be more when they're done. Certainly the support document
needs to be a lot more than that. That's one of the items we've
identified as insufficient.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we don't charge enough
for reviewing our agenda item. But, anyways. Enough said.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. It's a 5-0. We're breaking for
bunch. We'll see you back here at 12:05; I mean 1 :05, excuse me.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
Page 96
June 23, 2009
MR.OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for
joining us this afternoon. We had to come back after lunch, so you get
to see us again today.
And here we go. What is our next item?
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2009-168: SV-2009-AR-14140 RED ROOF INN,
REPRESENTED BY BRENT FORTE OF SITE ENHANCEMENT
SERVICES, INC. REQUESTING FOUR SIGN VARIANCES
FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.04. THE FIRST VARIANCE IS FROM
SUBSECTION 5.06.04 C.1. WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM
SEPARATION OF 1,000-FOOT BETWEEN SIGNS TO ALLOW
262 FEET BETWEEN SIGNS. THE SECOND VARIANCE IS
FROM SUBSECTION 5.06.04 C.I.A. WHICH ALLOWS A 15-
FOOT HIGH SIGN TO ALLOW A 23-FOOT HIGH SIGN. THE
THIRD VARIANCE IS FROM SUBSECTION 5.06.04 C.1.C.
WHICH ALLOWS A SIGN AREA OF 80 SQUARE FEET TO
ALLOW A SIGN AREA OF 96 SQUARE FEET. THE FOURTH
VARIANCE IS FROM SUBSECTION 5.06.04 C.4 WHICH
PERMITS ONE WALL SIGN TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL
WALL SIGN. SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1925 DAVIS
BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
APPROVE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Your next items are your advertised
public hearings. The first item is 7 A. This item was continued from
the June 9, 2009, BCC meeting. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Page 97
June 23,2009
commission members.
It's petition SV-2009-AR-14140, Red Roof Inn represented by
Brent Forte of Site Enhancement Services, Inc., is requesting four sign
variances from the LDC Section 5.06.04. The first variance is from
Subsection 5.06.04 C.1, which requires a minimum separation of
1,000 feet between signs to allow 262 feet between signs.
Second variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.1.A, which allows
a 15-foot-high sign to allow a 23-foot-high sign.
The third variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.1.C, which
allows a sign area of 80 square feet to allow a sign area of 96 squares
feet.
The fourth variance is from Subsection 5.06.04 C.4, which
permits one wall sign to allow an additional wall sign.
Subj ect property is located at 1925 Davis Boulevard in Section 2,
Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Staff member? Is there -- oh, we have to
swear them in. Thank you, Susan. Bless her heart.
Okay. Would you all please rise? Everybody who is going to be
testifying or commenting in any way on this particular subject, we
need to swear you in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioners, any
declarations, any ex parte? We'll start with you, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. I
have received correspondence, and I have reviewed the Planning
Commission staff report.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Also I've had some
correspondence on this, and I've had discussions with staff, and I've
also talked with Donna Caron from the Planning Commission in
regards to this particular item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I, too, have had correspondence on this
Page 98
June 23, 2009
item, I've gone to see the property, and I've spoken with staff.
Commissioner Hal -- Henning. Sorry. Starts with an H.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, starts with an H. The--
yeah, I received staff correspondence, Planning Commission's agenda
item, that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have had
correspondence, I met Mark Strain two different times and we talked
about this issue, and I've talked to staff about it a couple times.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Okay. Let us begin.
MR. HAUSER: Madam Chairman, members of the board, thank
you very much for hearing this petition.
My name is Peter Houser with Site Enhancement Services here
representing the request for 1925 Davis Boulevard. If I may approach
the board, I have a few handouts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can just give them to the County
Manager.
Did you say you're Site Improvement Projects?
MR. HAUSER: Site Enhancement Services.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
MR. HAUSER: We're a zoning consulting firm focusing on
brand identity.
This request comes to you with a unanimous approval from the
Planning Commission. And if it would please the board, I would be
more than happy to reiterate the eight criteria required for a sign
approval that we presented in front of the Planning Commission or, if
the board would choose, I can skip that portion of the Planning
Commission's decision, if sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in our packet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's in our packet. We've all read our
packets, so I don't think you have to do that.
Page 99
June 23, 2009
MR. HAUSER: Okay. Well, the request is a -- it's a request to
rebrand this inn. This is an existing inn that has been, originally Days
Inn, converted in 1995 to a Red Roof Inn. The existing signage is
from that conversion.
And what we're requesting is a reduction in the existing signage.
There are two wall signs, one non-illuminated facing Davis, and then
sign B, which is perpendicular to Davis that is eliminated, and then an
existing free-standing sign.
The request is to simply rebrand to the new logo look of the Red
Roof Inn which would result in a significant reduction in the wall
signage and a reface of the existing free-standing sign.
The current existing signage is 364.95 square feet, and the
requested signage is 226.44 square feet.
Now, the new request for the entire request comes under code for
the entire request. Currently code would allow 200 square feet of wall
signage and 80 square feet of free-standing signage, but the current
reduction would result in just 226 square feet.
Also, the lighting of the signage would be with LED, which is --
would improve the energy efficiency, but it also isn't as, I guess,
present and glaring as the existing open-face neon letters on the
free-standing sign.
So the overall request is a reduction of existing signage. It will
significantly clean up the appearance of the inn, and it will result in
less light bleed onto other properties or in the area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad you said improve the appearance
of the inn, because it sure looks bad. And, you know, it pains me, to
be honest with you, to approve anything when it's left in such a
rundown looking condition.
So I'm just going to make that comment right now as we begin
this. Is that the end of your presentation?
MR. HAUSER: Yes, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 100
June 23, 2009
MR. HAUSER: -- and I absolutely apologize for the condition of
the inn. It is the last inn in the country to have this old signage, and
part of the reason is, if we can seek this relief, we're able to re-skin
that existing structure. It will significantly improve the aesthetic value
of this property. Because of the spacing requirements, it would be
impossible to place any sign on this property.
So a reduction in the existing non-conforming, the re-look is
something that would be a significant improvement to this property.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Staff member?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Department of Land Development
Review.
And as the applicant previously stated, this petition was
approved by the CCPC back in October -- I'm sorry, April, and staff is
in agreement with two of the four requested variances. The two
variances that we are in agreement with are for the wall signs and for
the separation distance between the two pole signs.
Now, the two pole signs are the signs out by the street for the
IHOP and for the Red Roof Inn. Weare not in agreement with the
refacing of the Red Roof Inn sign, and that is because the sign is not in
conformance with the size -- with the sign area prescribed by code,
which is 80 square feet, it's currently at 96 square feet; and the height,
which is at 23 feet, and the code-prescribed size is 15 feet.
And, Commissioners, it's important to note that this sign is
located in the Bayshore Triangle Redevelopment District, and as such,
when properties are improved, it's very important that they come into
compliance with the code.
And I have some examples --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nancy, let me -- would somebody turn
their phone off, please? And I ask everybody else in the audience, if
you've got a phone on you, put it on silent. Thank you.
Page 101
June 23, 2009-
MS. GUNDLACH: I'll be as quick as I can here, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I didn't want to make you nervous,
Nancy. That's okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We're showing each of the
neighboring signs in the district that have complied with our code
when the sites were improved. That's Capital Palm right next door.
The next sign is Enterprise right up the street. And also up the street
from Red Roof Inn, Oaks Farms.
So as you can see, Commissioner, we've had previous history
with properties in the district that have come into compliance with
their signs. And we ask that the Red Roof Inn do the same.
I've got another photo that shows the benefits of bringing the Red
Roof Inn sign into compliance. Now, if you look very closely at that
photo, I took that photo as I was heading east on Davis Boulevard, and
you can see how, because the sign's so tall, it is up in the tree canopy.
Now, if you just lower that sign a bit, the letters would be down below
the tree canopy and would be visible as one approaches the site from
the west.
So, Commissioners, we ask that you support staff's conclusion to
support the two variances for the wall and the separation and to
support our request to bring the pole sign into minimum sign code
compliance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. I have two commissioners
waiting to ask questions, but I'd -- we have two speakers. I'd like to
get the speakers first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MS. FILSON: I believe the presenter was Peter Hauser. He's
one of the registered speakers, and Dawn Hughes.
MR. HAUSER: Dawn is the manager of the Red Roof Inn, and
she's available here for questions also. We wanted to make sure that
we were in the system and available for questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you very
Page 102
June 23, 2009
much. And then Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My only question is, is obviously
this has been well vetted by the Planning Commission. They made a
few recommendations, and that's in our packet. And there was only
one objection, letter of objection. Is that person -- did that person sign
up today to speak in behalf of this? Then obviously --
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval with
the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta is -- had a
question. He'll be back in a moment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Didn't get a second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's getting tough today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I know it.
Commissioner Coletta, did you want to make a comment or a
question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Well, basically I was in
agreement with what Commissioner Halas just said. The Planning
Commission did vet this, and they are asking for a variance, and that's
what this is all about.
Did the other signs that you gave examples of, did they come
forward and ask for variances, or they just went with the sign code?
MS. GUNDLACH: They don't have to ask for variances when
they comply with the sign code, so they didn't ask for variances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, exactly. So I mean, they
found that the sign code met their needs, but Red Roof Inn is asking
for a variance because their needs are slightly different, and that's one
of the reasons why this commission sits up here to be able to weigh
variances against the public good.
Once again, as Commissioner Halas said, there has been little to
Page 103
June 23, 2009
no objections to what takes place. So I -- unless Commissioner Halas
made a motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He made a motion and it died, but if you'd
like to have him remake that motion and you second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll make the second
motion and give it a try from there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we follow
the Planning Commission's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That one dies, too.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just wanted -- that was just a
joke, I think, about him not seconding it. But the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're going to be here for a
while.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only concern I have is
essentially this: The sign is not in compliance with our current code,
and our rules say that when you make a modification to a sign, you are
supposed to bring it up to -- or have it comply with current code; is
that not correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's the problem. And if we
fail to enforce that rule, we're establishing a precedent for other signs
to not be required to conform to the new sign ordinance when they
begin to upgrade their signs or modify them.
I'm happy to see that Red Roof Inn is improving their signage,
but I am worried about the precedent that we establish if we do not
require that they come into compliance with the current code.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, I chime in on your
Page 104
June 23, 2009
thoughts. I've just been having somebody who also has a sign out of
code has been asking me if I would pull some strings so that he can
leave it out of code. I said, no, sir. And he says, well, you know, I
should be grandfathered in. And I said, no, you know what we're
trying to do? We're trying to give our community a better appearance,
and your sign does not help that along.
So I said, we're not going to do that, and so -- anyway, I feel the
same way. I think the signs on the building, the things that the staff
and Planning Commission approved, we're fine. I do not like the sign
that was too far up. As you could see, you can't see it through the
trees anyway. All of the other signs have complied along that street,
so I make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a motion and a second.
Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1 vote. Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2009-169: V A-2009-AR-14139, (NG) HUSSEIN
WAF APOOR REPRESENTED BY JOSHUA MAXWELL OF
TURRELL, HALL AND ASSOCIATES, INC., IS REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.03.06 E.6. TO REDUCE A
Page 105
June 23, 2009
REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET FOR A DOCK
FACILITY TO 4.5 FEET (ALONG THE NORTHWEST RIPARIAN
LINE) AND TO 0 FEET (ALONG THE SOUTHWEST RIPARIAN
LINE). SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 140 CONNER'S
AVENUE, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO APPROVE
WITH CCPC'S ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Next item is 7B. This item also requires all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
Petition V A-2009-AR-14139, (NG) Hussein Wafapoor
represented by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc., is
requesting a variance from Section 5.03.06 E.6 to reduce a required
side yard setback of 7.5 feet for a dock facility to 4.5 feet along the
northwest riparian line and to 0 feet along the southwest riparian line.
The subject property is located at 140 Conner's Avenue, Section
28, Township 48 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. May I have everybody who
wishes to comment on this subject or present please stand and be
sworn In.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You too, Nancy.
MS. GUNDLACH: I do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I forgot to close -- we don't
have to do that.
MS. FILSON: There's no speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speakers? Okay, fine.
And you know what, I forgot to close the last public hearing.
Maybe I'll remember this time. Frank, give me a hint if I forget.
Okay, Commissioners. Let's -- do you have anything to declare
on this item? Start with you.
Page 106
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Start with me again?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence, I
reviewed the Planning Commission staff reports, I have received
emails, and I have had a meeting with Rocky Scofield, who I believe
is the contractor proposing the construction of this particular structure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The only correspondence--
I've had correspondence, and I also talked with staff on this. And,
once again, I also spoke with Donna Caron, and I spoke with one of
the representatives in Vanderbilt Beach in regards to this particular
item, and his name was Bruce Burkhard.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, email, talked to staff, and discussed this with Mark
Strain from the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, everybody's commissioners talk to
them but me -- but mine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What does that tell you?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that tell you something? Oh, boy.
Commissioners Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you probably should do
something about that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with Miles Scofield and
received staff correspondence on this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I've received -- I've had
meetings -- actually a meeting with Rocky Scofield, I've had
correspondence, I've had emails and I've spoken to staff on this
subject, and we have no speakers.
Okay, proceed.
Page 107
June 23, 2009
MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Good afternoon. Rocky Scofield with
Turrell, Hall & Associates, representing Dr. Hussein Wafapoor, the
owner of this petition.
This -- this required a boat dock extension and a variance which
were run together at the Planning Commission. The boat dock
extension was granted for 10 feet for a total of 30 feet out, and the
variances, which we're here today before you, were also approved at
the Planning Commission.
On the overhead map, I highlighted in yellow the lot of Dr.
Wafapoor. This is the only lot besides the one next to it, which is a
little less restrictive, but this is the most restrictive lot in the entire
Vanderbilt Beach area. It only has 50 feet on the water. It's an inside
radius, very limited as to what he -- can be put in here, and that's why
we're here today to ask for a variance so we can put in a boat and boat
lift with an access dock on this property.
This drawing is -- by the way, I'm not the contractor. I'm the --
I'm just the agent for the owner. We do the permitting and design
work for this, so -- that drawing shows you the existing dock in dark
color on this property. In the staff report, on the variance in the
beginning under Section B, I believe it was, they said this dock was
built -- that dock's out to the riparian line.
A variance was never obtained. Back then docks were within 20
feet. They went to permit. They were put in.
Today -- if we were to come in today and try to permit this dock,
the existing dock, which is grandfathered in now, but it would require
a variance because it does go out to the riparian line. And I'll explain
the riparian lines to you real quick because I know they're confusing
on -- it's very simple on straight lots, canals. The riparian lines go out
directly from the property lines.
When you come to a cove like this, the state guidelines, which
the county's adopted for the riparian lines, on an inside radius like that,
what you do is -- what you do is scribe the circle in this area as best
Page 108
June 23, 2009
you can fit it in there. You find the center point of that circle in this
cove area, and then that is like the hub of a wheel, and you draw lines
to the property lines from that hub, and those -- that is how your
riparian lines are determined on these type of lots.
It's very restrictive in this tiny little cove here. Is there any
questions about the riparian lines?
I'll show you. That's just an aerial of the surrounding areas. You
can see the lot -- the petitioner's lot. It's outlined in red there. There's
docks all around the area. They give -- we give their dimensions, and
we show the distances and what we're proposing. It's overlaid on this
aerial.
Thank you. That's a close-up view. That's an overlay. The old
boat dock is down there underneath the new dock which is in white on
the property. The old dock was underneath that. Shows the neighbor
directly to the north, what he has there. That was permitted quite
some time ago. That probably couldn't be permitted today because it
would be called excessive deck area under the boat dock extension
rules. But that's -- that was permitted through an extension quite some
time ago.
On this particular piece of property, we had originally -- we'd
originally put in two docks. The dock on the -- 5- foot wide dock on
the lower side is the one remaining. On the property line or the
riparian line with the neighbor to the north, we had a 3-foot catwalk
going along that riparian line. The neighbors did not object. They
gave us a letter and a waiver saying they -- they're fine with that as
long as it doesn't deviate from these plans.
At the Planning Commission, the one stipulation on this petition,
on both these petitions was that we eliminate that 3-foot catwalk on
the north side, which the owner agreed to do, and the variance and the
boat dock extension was granted.
I'll learn one day to get that right-side up. So this is the drawing
that we are in today to ask for the variances. You see the areas with
Page 109
June 23, 2009
the squiggly lines in there. Those are the areas, seven-and-a-half feet
off each riparian line. Those are -- anything that extends into those
shade areas has to receive a variance.
As you can see, we can't -- we couldn't moor the boat in this area
without a variance. The dock on the south side couldn't be permitted
without a variance, even though that dock is 20 feet away from the
neighbor to the south -- it's 20 feet away from his side yard setback
line, but it's the riparian line out into the water that we're here today
for. So it's just a small little area in there that's not shaded in that
you'd have to fit within if you didn't get an extension or a variance.
The owner -- as I said, the owner agreed to do away with the
3- foot catwalk. We're going to -- so we're left with the boat lift and
this one dock in this area.
The neighbor to the -- to the south, we had talked with him
earlier back when we started this in September of '08, and we asked
him if he would sign a waiver agreeing to this, and I'll read you real
quickly the letter he sent us at that time. And his name was Raleigh
Carpenter.
And he said, as Trustee for the referenced property, I will not be
granting the dock setback waiver at this time. As you know the
property is held in trust and is offered for, sale. Considering the
interest of the beneficiaries and future owner, I feel it is both
appropriate and necessary to leave any decision on the waiver to the
next owner of the property. I hope that your company and Mr.
Wafapoor will understand this deferment of any decision.
Then later on he sent another -- in April of '09 of this year, he
sent a letter to the -- to the planning department here and said, as
Trustee -- you have this letter in your packet -- in your packet, as
Trustee for the property at 123 Conner's, I don't advo- -- I do not
advocate or support a policy of variance or zero-yard setbacks for new
construction. Our property is adjacent to this. Thank you for
considering this comment.
Page 110
June 23, 2009
So what we've determined of Mr. Carpenter is that they're trying
to sell the property. They just -- they're not giving us approval or
denial. They're just staying out of it at this time.
The variances don't affect anybody in this area, view is not
hindered, navigation is not hindered, and we meet pretty much all the
criteria. As I said, the boat dock extension was granted, and also the
variance at the Planning Commission.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speakers?
Okay. Is it now then that I close the public hearing? Okay, then
I will close the public hearing.
MR.OCHS: Staff -- staff, ma'am?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. OCHS: Staff? Do you want to hear from staff?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Yes, I do.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
And staff is in agreement with the CCP (sic) recommendation of
approval. And as the applicant previously mentioned, this variance is
a companion item to a boat dock extension that was approved by them
back in April.
Weare -- the CCPC and staff, we -- agrees with the
recommendations of the CCPC. And if you'd like, I can read them
into the record, although they have been part of all the documents
you've received.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
MS. GUNDLACH: No, okay. And that concludes my staff
report, unless you have questions.
Page 111
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we have Frank Halas, our
commISSIoner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In regards to -- Rocky,
maybe you could help me on this. Was the letter from the landowner
to the south, was that letter brought up for discussion in the Planning
Commission?
MR. SCOFIELD: I believe it was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, it was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay. And that was part of
their evaluation of this particular variance?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so I talked with the
individual that's involved with the zoning or is pretty active in the
zoning with the Vanderbilt Beach organization, and we had a
discussion on the phone -- that was Bruce Burkhard -- and he felt that
what was accomplished in the Planning Commission was adequate for
the residents there in Vanderbilt Beach.
So at that I make a motion that we approve this along with the
three items that the Planning Commission has set forth.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wonderful. All those -- I'm going to give
everybody a piece of candy for being so good. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's payola.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 112
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Just a little levity every once
in a while is needed.
Item #8A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVES AN ORDINANCE CREATING A
MANDATORY CODE INSPECTION OF FORECLOSED AND
ABANDONED HOMES, WHICH REQUIRES OWNERS OF
ABANDONED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHO HAVE
ACQUIRED TITLE THROUGH FORECLOSURE OR THROUGH
A DEED IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE TO OBTAIN AN
INSPECTION REPORT AND CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION
RELATING TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S COMPLIANCE
WITH CURRENT COUNTY ORDINANCES, INCLUDING
BUILDING CODES AND PERMITTING AND ZONING
REGULATIONS AND TO DISCLOSE THE REPORT PRIOR TO
SUBSEQUENT SALE, CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PREVIOUS DIRECTION -
MOTION TO REWRITE ITEMS #8A, #10A AND #10B AND
BRING BACK TO THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER - APPROVED
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVES A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING THE FORECLOSED AND ABANDONED
HOME CODE INSPECTION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE
Page 113
June 23, 2009
POLICY MANUAL PROVIDING DEFINITIONS AND
APPLICABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING REGULATORY
GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE
MANDATORY CODE INSPECTION OF FORECLOSED AND
ABANDONED HOMES ORDINANCE - MOTION TO REWRITE
ITEMS #8A, #10A AND #10B AND BRING BACK TO THE
BOARD IN SEPTEMBER - APPROVED
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTS
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2009-101,
KNOWN AS THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FEE
SCHEDULE, BY ADDING A PARAGRAPH YY, PERTAINING
TO FEES FOR THE MANDATORY CODE INSPECTION OF
FORECLOSED AND ABANDONED HOMES ORDINANCE -
MOTION TO REWRITE ITEMS #8A, #10A AND #10B AND
BRING BACK TO THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to our 1 :30 time
certain. That's item 8A. It's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approves an ordinance creating a mandatory
code inspection of foreclosed and abandoned homes which requires
owners of abandoned residential property who have acquired title
through foreclosure or through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to obtain
an inspection report and Certificate of Inspection relating to the
subject property's compliance with current Collier County ordinances,
including building codes and permitting and zoning regulations, and to
disclose the report prior to subsequent sale consistent with the Board
of County Commissioners' previous direction.
Page 114
June 23, 2009
Mr. Joe Schmitt, Administrator for Community Developmental
& Environmental Services will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Again, for the
record, Joe Schmitt.
I'll be brief. I know there's a lot of folks that want to talk about
this. We're back at your direction from the May 26,2009, BCC.
In your agenda packet is an ordinance, along with that, the
companion items, lOA and lOB; lOA is -- are the implementing
instructions, basically the administrative procedures manual, and lOB
is an amendment to the fee code identifying the fee for the services
that we would provide.
With that, we think we've come back with your guidance. I think
the issue at hand first is the -- talking about the ordinance, but more
specifically the checklist which identifies what items we believe meet
the requirements as requested for health, safety, welfare. Certainly--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Joe, let me interrupt you for a minute.
We have started this subject now. We do not accept any more speaker
slips. Thank you. I just wanted to announce that. I do that -- I try and
do that before -- as we start each thing, just so that everybody
understands.
Excuse me, Joe, please continue.
MR. SCHMITT: So that pretty much -- I'm not going to go
through the executive summary . You read it. I'm open to questions,
both myself and certainly the County Attorney staff and the -- and my
building director and zoning director if you have any specific
questions in regards to the -- how we would implement this ordinance
and how we would assist the community in enforcing this ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Before we continue, Ellie Krier,
did you have something you wanted to say on behalf of some of the
people in the audience?
MS. KRIER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Ellie Krier. I'm
Page 115
June 23, 2009
the Government Affairs Director for the Board of Realtors, and with
permission of the Board of Realtors' Board of Directors who is here
and also Mr. Lykos from CBIA -- Mr. Lykos? And if I misspeak, I
know he will correct me.
Both organizations believe strongly that this ordinance as drafted
has exceeded the limits of what you were attempting to accomplish,
and we have agreed together -- and in fact my board just took a vote in
Representative Rivera's office -- that we, NABOR, who has been
solidly for voluntary, will agree to mandatory on abandoned and
foreclosed on the renovations and additions, and that CBIA will agree
to that as well and that we will scrap all of this and start from scratch
with all the players at the table, NABOR, CBIA, home inspectors,
bank mortgage people, title people, so that everybody's viewpoint is
heard and that everybody's industry is understood correctly, and get
you back a laser-focused solution to a very real problem in Collier
County .
Mr. Lykos?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, when you -- when you say that,
Ellie, did you mean then that you wanted to go and hammer out the
details and come back to us?
MS. KRIER: My preference would be that you do not -- you
vote no on the existing language and that we will come back to you
with a very well-drafted, tightly focused solution to this problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And when did you feel that you could
come back to us?
MS. KRIER: Because of your summer schedule and because, I
think, in part, the 30-day time table to get back to you exacerbated
some of those problems, we would prefer September.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That would probably be better
with us also because we've just got one meeting in the summer. And
I'm sure that people will be on vacation in your industries as well. This
will give everybody a little bit of time to work through it. I mean,
Page 116
June 23, 2009
that's if the other commissioners agree. I shouldn't be just talking for
myself. Okay.
MS. KRIER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Coyle, and Commissioner Halas, and we have 38
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Thirty-six speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thirty-six. And did you say something?
And you're on there, too, okay.
Let's see. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ellie was correct. It's not what I
envisioned coming back. I'd just rather for it not come back,
personall y.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to make a motion
that the board not approve -- no offense.
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know you worked on this a lot.
MR. SCHMITT: It's no problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but it wasn't his idea.
MR. SCHMITT: I worked on it at the board direction. I don't
take this personal, honestly. It was at board direction. We thought we
were in the right direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right. Motion not to
approve 8A, lOA, and lOB.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, not at this time, but that doesn't
mean it dies for good.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle is next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion in support
of Ellie's proposal, that we disapprove this item on the agenda today
Page 11 7
June 23,2009
and give the stakeholders an opportunity to address this problem and
come back to us in September with a proposal which we mayor may
not accept.
You're absolutely right, it has grown beyond our wildest
expectations, but there are some valid issues which have come to light
that were unintended consequences of our attempt to do something to
help the community, help the purchasers, and help the industry;
because if you'll remember, we did have representatives of the
industry present at the time we made this decision last time.
So it has morphed into something quite different for us. And I
think the best way to deal with this is get all the stakeholders together,
and -- you know more about this than we do. And so I would -- I
would be happy to accept your guidance on that. So that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion.
Okay. And Commissioner Halas is next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would hope that we've all learned
something from this in that these code violations, flagrant code
violations, need to be addressed, and that you as the representatives of
these properties will make sure that these are some way going to be
addressed and there's going to be some follow-up in regards to making
sure that they're taken care of.
This has gone on way too long, and I'm talking about where
garages have been converted into bedrooms or an additional home in
regards to putting in bathrooms and if there's been a septic system
that's been put in the home originally and it's only meant for two
bathrooms and a third bathroom has been put into this thing. I hope
that we address that.
And I also think it's a good way to address whereby we have a
multitude of people that are living in a home, and they may be
undocumented citizens. So I think that this is another area that needs
to be looked at as you work through the ordinance so that people who
buy these properties don't feel that they can continue these flagrant
Page 118
June 23, 2009
code violations.
And I'm willing to see what can be brought forth here by this
large community of people who represent the realtors. And so we're
looking forward to hoping that we can establish that properties that are
put up for sale and that somebody buys is not going to be involved in
huge money coming out of their pockets to alleviate these code
violations.
I think that this is something that needs to be addressed not only
on the particular homes that we originally talked about, but maybe in
all of the rest of the homes.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the reason Commissioner Halas said
all of that is, you have no idea how many people come in for just a
variance on something. They have a property that they bought.
They've lived in their property seven years. It's wonderful. They're
going to put a new screen enclosure, and all of a sudden they find out
that the screen enclosure has been built illegally or without any
permits or over the property line, so many things, and they can't
understand what's happened to them because, of course, they didn't
realize at the time that they bought it that the problem was -- and I
don't think Realtors understood it either. I mean -- and so, that's why
Commissioner Halas was saying that we just need to make sure that
people are protected when they're buying a house.
And I'll get you in a minute, Ellie.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. And I don't
think we'd be here today and you people wouldn't willing to work
together like you suggested to come up with a mandatory ordinance
that will level the playing field and make everything fair if it wasn't
for the fact that there was something initiated from the county side to
be able to bring you to this point.
That's one concern though, I got, Commissioner Coyle, is if we
Page 119
June 23, 2009
go ahead and vote this down, does that mean that there's nothing out
there at all for anybody to give consideration to, or is this something
that's held in suspended animation to be modified with suggestions
that we get?
I'm not too sure where we are with this. But we got to the point
we are because of what was put together, even though I wasn't in
agreement with it totally.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I promised Diane that I was
going to blame her for this whole thing anyway. Where is she today?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stand up and take a bow.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: She's hiding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I told you, didn't I?
MS. FLAGG: Commissioner, Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement
Director, for the record.
Let me offer, Commissioner Coletta, there is -- we've been
working with NABOR very closely, and we've developed a
pre-purchase brochure that NABOR's going to be working with the
Realtor, so it's not like --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. FLAGG: -- that people are going to continue to buy homes
and not know. It's a voluntary program. We've done the brochure.
Ellie has it. They're working with the team.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but
the voluntary program is the interim until we get to September,
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. FLAGG: Right, there will be--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to make sure, because I
was in business for 32 years, and I can tell you that I would not be
going way out of my way when my competitor wouldn't be doing it.
The only way you can do it is to have rules and regulations that
everybody has to fall back on to be able to say, this is what you've got
Page 120
June 23, 2009
to do to go forward.
I commend you for working together on this, I really do. I'm
looking forward to see what you can come up with.
But the reason I've been that driving force about making sure
there was something in place is because of Immokalee itself. The last
eight years this commission has worked very hard to remove the
substandard housing from Immokalee, and it wasn't easy and it cost
millions of dollars, and it did cause some hardships along the way, and
that was because Code Enforcement years ago refused to enforce the
code. Even houses were built without even any types of permits being
issued. The situation was unbearable.
Piece by piece we got it just about straightened out. The majority
-- in fact, there's a very small amount of substandard housing still
existing. I want to make sure we don't get to the point where the rest
of the county starts to slide down this particular path because of the
fact that we want to look the other way.
But it looks like you're going in the right direction, you've got the
right ideas. I'll be watching very carefully to what you're coming up
with. And thank you very much for coming up with an alternate to
what we had.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ellie, I'd like to -- oh, I'm sorry. I was
going to ask Ellie if she'd like to speak for all 36.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I was just going to add
clarification to my motion. My motion is only valid if we don't have
to listen to 57 (sic) speakers tell us how dumb we are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll go for that.
MS. KRIER: My comment, Madam Chairwoman, was that
while I cannot vouch for all 37, my guess is the vast majority will
waive their time if it is clear there is a majority vote for the board to
vote no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So if it's clear that there's -- so let
me see how many people like this -- like this --
Page 121
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I like this motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Raise your hands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll vote no for the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we've got four that look like they're
voting. So does that mean our 36 people then would relinquish their
time until September when you bring it back?
Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want to know what we're going to
bring back, so I've got to have a clear clarification from
representatives of NAB OR exactly what you're going -- what you're
proposing to bring back as you work through this.
MS. KRIER: We will bring back the outline of what Mr.
Klatzkow will need for an ordinance for a mandatory inspection for
foreclosed and abandoned properties on unpermitted additions and
renovations with whatever is necessary to do that.
Mr. Lykos? Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All issues dealing with health,
safety, and welfare; you include that wording in there? That's the
main thing I'm concerned with.
MS. KRIER: I understand that. We will-- part of the health,
safety, and welfare issues are handled by the inspection of the buyer
as required by their lender. This is looking at your code enforcement
infractions that also lead to health, safety, and welfare, such as egress
from the garage. And I would prefer not to get into these details at
this point because I think we need our 60 days to hammer out
something that will be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'm not going to
push you for a clear definition of health, safety, and welfare, but just
remember that every document you've seen from here had a reference
to it over and over and over again.
MS. KRIER: We understand that's your concern, Mr.--
Page 122
June 23, 2009
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, my understanding is
neither Joe's shop nor my shop are going to be involved with this.
This is going to be the industry coming forward with their proposal,
and when they come forward with it, at that point in time, we can
comment. But unless the board feels otherwise, we're not going to --
MR. SCHMITT: On, I'll certainly -- at Ellie's invite and Tom's
invite, certainly we'll be involved in this from the standpoint --
MR. KLATZKOW: But it's up to them.
MR. SCHMITT: It's up to them. They want to invite, I'll
certainly be involved. I think we owe it to them at least to help them
understand what we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MS. KRIER: We've already been working with Diane Flagg for
over three months and expect to continue to do so.
MR. SCHMITT: And certainly it will be -- it will be us working
with them, and we'll take their direction. I need clarification. Do you
want something back in September from the industry to give a
presentation, or are you looking for an actual ordinance to be drafted
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Actual ordinance.
MR. SCHMITT: -- based on what we work out?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: An actual ordinance.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, would all 36 speakers--
because now it's a different subject altogether because it's going back.
We don't even know what it's going to be. Would you mind if we just
skipped over the speakers today, let these people who are representing
you go out and put together an ordinance for us and come back, and
then you come back to the same meeting and we'll discuss what the
Page 123
June 23, 2009
new one is now? Anything you would say would be pertaining to
something that isn't even now on the books anymore, it looks like.
You've seen how people are going to vote already. I hope that's okay.
Good. Okay, fine. So then we have -- what?
MR. SCHMITT: One speaker.
MS. FILSON: I've had speakers ask me to read the names.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. If you want to read all of the
name.
MS. DOWNS: I don't waive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Gina.
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Russell Budd.
MR. BUDD: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Did he say waive?
MR.OCHS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Bill Poteet?
MR. POTEET: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Ann Darwish?
MS. DARWISH: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Mike Hughes?
MR. HUGHES: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Yasmine Awad?
MS. AWAD: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Karen--
MS. DAMCSEC: Damcsec.
MS. FILSON: -- Damcsec.
MR. OCHS: She waives.
MS. FILSON: Robert Guididas?
MR. GUIDIDAS: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Jeff Jones?
MR. JONES: Waive.
Page 124
June 23, 2009
MS. FILSON: Kathy Zorn -- Zoom (sic)?
MS. ZORN: Zorn, waive.
MS. FILSON: Zorn. Thomas Budzyn?
MR. BUDZYN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Wes Kunkie (sic)?
MR. KUNKLE: Kunkle, waive.
MS. FILSON: Kunkle. JP--
MR. ANTONMATTER: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Thanks. Jill Shamblee?
MS. SHAMBLEE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: William Vextress?
MR. VEXTRESS: Waive, Vextress.
MS. FILSON: Ellie Krier?
MS. KRIER: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Anita Brown.
MS. BROWN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: John Prete?
MR. PRETE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Robert Vigliotti?
MR. VIGLIOTTI: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Toni Stout?
MS. STOUT: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Michael Dike?
MR. DIKE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Christine Dike?
MS. DIKE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Debra Wine?
MS. WINE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Victoria Nader?
MS. NADER: Waive.
MS. FILSON: David O'Connor?
MR. O'CONNOR: Waive.
Page 125
June 23, 2009
MS. FILSON: Bobbie Dusek?
MS. DUSEK: Waive.
MS. FILSON: William Dukes?
MR. DUKES: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Ginny Blaire (sic)?
MS. BLAINE: Blaine.
MS. FILSON: Blaine, I'm sorry. Brett Brown.
MR. BROWN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Christine Sutherland?
MS. SUTHERLAND: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Dick Shanahan?
MR. SHANAHAN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Terrence Moore?
MR. MOORE: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Oh, wait. I have two more.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I just want to thank all of you for
waiving and --
MS. FILSON: I have three more. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Tom Lykos?
MR. L YKOS: Waive.
MS. FILSON: Gail Bryan?
MS. BRYAN: Waive.
MS. FILSON: And Jeanne Fox.
MS. FOX: Waive--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll finish that by saying, you know,
there, isn't a better ordinance that can be put together than one that's
prepared by the people it's going to affect and bring it to us. You
know, that's the way government should be, isn't it?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you, thank you all.
Okay. Gina?
Page 126
June 23, 2009
MS. DOWNS: Well, if you had allowed me to keep my cell
phone on, John Barlow could have called and said, it's okay, don't read
this. So I'm reading this on behalf of John Barlow; otherwise, I would
have waived.
This is a position paper for HOME, Housing Opportunities Made
for Everyone. We initially brought this problem forward. Our
organization HOME is focused on providing durable and affordable
homes to income-qualified families in Collier. We do so by
rehabilitating foreclosed and abandoned single-family houses.
Because of our first-hand knowledge of properties in the
foreclosure market, we became concerned that unsafe and unhealthy
homes were readily available countywide; hence our request that the
commissioners consider a mandatory inspection for citing illegal and
unsafe conversions of garages and lanais.
The extent of the current draft ordinance seems to exceed the
original direction of the county commissioners. The consequences of
this proposal as written, whether anticipated or not, potentially widen
the scope, making the regulation ominous and less focused than we
intended.
John believes the revisions should include only items covered in
Florida Building Code Section 105. Revised to that extent, he still
supports passing a resolution as soon as possible.
Without a mandate to restore foreclosed and abandoned homes to
safe and healthy living conditions, the fear is, many substandard
dwellings will continue to be impediments to our community.
In 2008, we had the highest number of foreclosures since Collier
County was founded. Foreclosures continue to rise and have increased
another 16 percent this year.
I'm going to skip a couple paragraphs. I hope John won't mind.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please.
MS. DOWNS: Yeah. If you'd let me keep my cell phone on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
Page 127
June 23, 2009
MS. DOWNS: All of the foreclosure banks we have dealt with
are located in distance cities. They are neither familiar with nor
concerned with our local problems. Having their genuine interest in
the projection of our community, these banks will not be proactive.
Only through local regulations can we require these disinterested
parties to address our local health and safety requirements.
Voluntary compliance is ineffective in most businesses, as
Commissioner Coletta pointed out. We are a nation of laws. The most
significant laws safeguard not only our freedoms, but our ability to
keep both our family and our properties safe from -- reasonably safe
from endangerment.
A proper mandatory ordinance addressing health and safety
issues caused by illegal conversions is both necessary and within
reach. We urge you to continue your commitment to protect Collier
County citizens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Gina, stay there for a minute. I want to
tell you what happened.
MS. DOWNS: Tell me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I heard some rumors. I don't believe
there's any validity to them. But rather than let rumors just travel
around, I'm going to tell you right out what they were. I'm going to
ask you the question first. Are you or John Barlow involved in any
way or have a vested interest in any home inspection companies?
MS. DOWNS: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. The rumor was -- and this was
flying around, and I was sad to hear it. And being that I knew that it
wasn't the truth, I stated that to the person that had told me the rumor,
but I said, I'm going to ask you right on the record.
MS. DOWNS: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And sad that people take things and they
blow them out of proportion to a point where they're not even
recognizable.
Page 128
June 23,2009
MS. DOWNS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so I apologize to you for people who
have said that behind your back.
MS. DOWNS: It happens.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't hear that rumor.
MS. DOWNS : You just did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You didn't share it with me
either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I didn't. I'm not allowed to talk to
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Donna, before Gina leaves, I've
got --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yes. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Gina, I wanted you to know I
forgot about Oil Well Road. That's behind me now. I hope that the
two groups, that when you do meet, that you, Gina, within that group
and --
MS. DOWNS: John.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and John, to -- they're the
ones that started this whole thing going forward and I think that their
input would be very valuable to you, rather than just try to keep it just
between yourselves, and also open it up to whatever limited other
participation that may be out there from the community. You know,
make it a true government-type thing.
I mean, you'd be the government in this case. You're going to
come up with something. You want to make sure you don't have some
opposing force showing up here, so bring everybody in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And folks, with that I have a
motion on the floor and a second. And you all know the motion.
Shall I repeat it just to make sure everybody understands?
That CBIA and NABOR and all of the interested parties, all of
the other ones that you mentioned, home inspectors and so forth, are
Page 129
June 23, 2009
going to be meeting together as a group to form an ordinance to bring
back to us by September; is that correct? And I'm not saying which
meeting in September.
MS. KRIER: I don't believe that's the full scope of
Commissioner Coyle's motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. KRIER: Perhaps he would like to restate it. I believe it
includes voting no on the draft on the three items in front of you
today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that you would come back
with a mandatory --
MS. KRIER: Mandatory--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- inspection program --
MS. KRIER: -- foreclosed and abandoned--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- administered by the private
sector, not by government.
MS. KRIER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay, thank you. Thank you
for completing that motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That brings us through lOA and lOB as
well.
Page 130
June 23, 2009
I think we're about ready, Leo.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT CONSERVATION
COLLIER'S ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC
AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRAMS PAST ACTIVITIES AND
OBTAIN DIRECTION ON SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS
FOR THE CURRENT ACQUISITION CYCLE - MOTION TO
SUSPEND SOLICITATION UNTIL JANUARY 2010-
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Thank you, ma'am. That takes us to Item 10E.
That is a recommendation to conduct the Conservation Collier Annual
Public Meeting to provide the Board of County Commissioners and
public with an update on the program's past activities and to obtain
direction on solicitation of proposals for the current acquisition cycle.
Alex Sulecki from Conservation Collier will present. Alex?
MS. SULECKI: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Alex Sulecki. I'm the coordinator for
your Conservation Collier Program.
The picture you see here today is of the Logan Woods Preserve.
This is the third Conservation Collier preserve to be open to the
public. It has a trail, bench, and picnic table with a formal opening
planned for later this year. This small restored preserve is now
providing aesthetically pleasing green infrastructure for the urban
lands.
It's my pleasure to be here today to present Conservation Collier's
Annual Report and to obtain direction on solicitation of proposals and
applications for the current seventh acquisition cycle.
The photo you see here is from the Cypress Strand on the western
Page 131
June 23, 2009
side of the Big Cyp- -- of the Pepper Ranch Preserve.
My objectives today are twofold. To update the board and public
on Conservation Collier activities, and to address the topic of
solicitation of proposals by offering your staff's and advisory
committee's recommendation to suspend the current acquisition cycle
and not accept new proposals until January, 2010.
We've made this recommendation for several reasons, believing
this is the most efficient way to proceed given the current economic
conditions and the most efficient way to use staff resources to achieve
community goals of opening preserves for public access.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and second.
Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have two.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two speakers.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I got one question, or a
couple of questions. I sent you an email and you answered that, but I
want to put it on the record.
We have gotten a lot of properties, and I've got -- actually I've
got two questions. Number one is, do we know what the full impact is
going to be of the properties that we presently have as far as the cost
of caretaking of these properties now and in the future?
MS. SULECKI: Currently we have estimates, but we have
planned on July 13th at our Conservation Collier meeting to hold a
workshop on that very topic to determine what the costs would be,
what the priorities should be, for opening the preserves for public
access.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other one is, in my
particular area, there's the Railhead Scrub Preserve, and obviously it's
Page 132
June 23, 2009
got some tie-ups because of the railroad that cuts through that piece of
property. And the email you sent me basically said that we really
won't have any real access to that until at such time as the veterans
highway is constructed, but I don't think that's a good adequate
answer, and I believe you stated that there's a possibility of finding an
alternate solution -- solution to this get that property open to the
public?
MS. SULECKI: Yes. We are attempting to do that, and the
impediment is not only -- is the railroad and the road opening.
We do have a meeting on site with road and bridge tomorrow to
look at some alternative ways to get people in there in the interim
before we can get that larger and more adequate public access.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying here, in
essence, is that you're working, and hopefully something in the very
near future, you'll have access to that Railhead Scrub; is that correct?
MS. SULECKI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second. I have two speakers. Would you please call them.
MS. FILSON: Jessica Stubbs?
MS. STUBBS: Waive my time.
MS. FILSON: Bill Poteet?
MR. POTEET: No, I'm going to take this moment to speak
because I didn't speak the last time.
I first want to say -- Bill Poteet, for the record. I have the
pleasure of serving as the Chairman of Conservation Collier. And I
want to applaud the staff from Conservation Collier. Alex Sulecki and
Melissa Hennig are just outstanding individuals and just really do a
great job.
You recognized Christal Segura this morning as Employee of the
Month, which any three of them could have been the employee of thet
Page 133
June 23, 2009
month, they're that good. And so they've just done a wonderful job for
our community, providing us the information that we need and
direction in order to provide the citizens.
Last year we spent a lot of money on purchases of land with
Pepper Ranch and pretty much doubled our inventory of conservation
land. As you're well aware the financial constraints this year are upon
us. We're not really looking to buy a lot of properties this year, but
what we're looking to do is try to open more and more preserves. So
we're doing a lot of focusing, a lot of meetings in those areas there.
As for ingress and egress to all of the preserves, that's been one
of the things that we've looked at, one of the directives from the -- one
of our subcommittees has always been to look at properties that are
adjacent to existing preserves in order to try to either enhance them to
give a better ingress and egress, and we'll be looking at that all this
year.
So unless there's any questions for me as chairman, I just want to
thank you for the opportunity to save. I have a great committee. I
mean, the talent on that committee is unbelievable. You've made some
very good appointments and, you know, you're welcome to come and
visit us any time.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Bill.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, 5-0.
Page 134
June 23, 2009
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Alex.
Item #10F
REPORT TO THE BOARD CONCERNING THE RESULTS AND
IMP ACT OF THE LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE POLICY
AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE USE OF
LOCATION IN THE EV ALUA TION OF CCNA CONTRACTS -
MOTION TO ACCEPT OPTION #3 AND DIRECT PURCHASING
TO NOT EXTEND FIXED TERM CONTRACTS AND TO ADD
OTHER PROFESSIONALS TO FIXED TERM CONTRACTS -
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, that takes us to 10F, report to the
board concerning the results and impacts of the local vendor
preference policy and recommendations regarding the use of location
and the evaluation of CCNA contract.
Steve Carnell, your Purchasing and General Services Director,
will present.
MR. CARNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Steve Carnell.
I'd like to really accomplish two things today. When you
adopted your local vendor preference policy a year ago, part of that
policy included an express statement in which staff was directed to
provide you a report at one year, and that's part of what we're
attempting to do today.
Also there was discussion at the last board meeting in the
communications section of your meeting regarding the possible
inclusion of local vendor preference for our art-detection engineers
and other consultants who fall under the Consultants Competitive
Negotiation Act. You may remember that group of services was
Page 135
June 23, 2009
excluded from the policy and presently is.
So what I'd like to do today is talk to you first about what's
happened in the past year briefly and to tell you what our experience
has been operating under the policy that you implemented a year ago.
And I'd like to talk about it in the context of two things, formal
competition and informal competition. The formal competition being
the invitations to bid and the requests for proposals, and then I want --
like to talk about our smaller purchases. Those are purchases of less
than $50,000. They are roughly about 12 percent of our purchasing
activity. These are purchases that do not come to you typically for
approval.
We've had -- attempted to apply the policy there as well, and I'd
like to tell you how we -- what our experience has been.
Now, when we get through with that, I'd like to make some
observations and possible recommendations to you in terms of how
you may wish to proceed with the existing policy, and then I'd like to
have a separate discussion immediately after about the CCNA in terms
of how we might apply that and the concept of local preference for
consideration.
So let's begin with the current policy. And if you'll look on the
PowerPoint screen, you'll see data regarding the bids, our invitation to
bid process. For the last -- just to give you a little bit of a brief
snapshot, for the last three years or since 2006, the number of bidders
who are bidding with us on average per bidding competition has more
than doubled. We used to have about three to three-and-a-halfbidders
on average per contract, and now it's close to seven.
In addition to that, the number of firms from Collier County
actually tendering bids has increased from about 36 percent of that
smaller pie three years ago to 42 percent of a larger pie now. As I
mentioned, the doubling of participation overall in Collier has grown.
The participation rate that Collier has grown, from 36 to 42 percent.
And the awards to Collier County firms have increased from 31
Page 136
June 23, 2009
percent to 40 percent during that time.
Also since 2006 with the requests for proposals, the total number
of proposals has increased by more than 50 percent in that three-year
period. The number of proposals from Collier County has grown as
well from about 25 to almost 39 percent, and the number of awards to
Collier firms, that has been more stable. It's fluctuated between 39
and 34 percent. So, again, just to kind of give you a quick overview
picture of what our experience has been over the last three,
three-and-a-half year.
When we adopted the policy a year ago, or since we've adopted
it, we have issued 96 invitations to bid; 96 separate opportunities for
people to compete in the sealed bidding process. And of those 96
awards, four of them were redirected to Collier County bidders based
on adherence to your policy. And if you'll remember your policy for
bidding, in the case of local preference, if a local bidder falls within 10
percent of the low bidder and the lowest bidder is not local, then we
extend what we call a right to match to the local bidder and give them
an opportunity to match the lowest price. And that happened in four
instances, and in four instances the local bidder did match the price,
and so award was redirected to the Collier bidder.
On the RFP side it's a little different. We don't have a
right-to-match process. It's really not very practicable in the case of
an RFP, so what we do there is, our RFPs, all proposals are scored on
a 100-point scale, and we give ten points for location. And what the
staff did was we looked -- we've issued 32 RFPs since the policy was
implemented, and of those 32, two of them the outcome was altered
because of the location criteria. It resulted in a local firm moving to
the front of the line by having that ten points in the mix. So in that
case, in both instances, the local firm received the award.
Remember, when I talk about RFPs, I'm not talking about CCNA
activity because, again, at the present time, that's excluded.
All right. Now, those were the benefits of the process. We've
Page 137
June 23, 2009
had some unintended consequences occur through the process as well.
Remember I mentioned we have had four ITBs, or invitations to bid,
where the award outcome was altered. In two of those four instances,
the original low bidder actually had more Collier County residents
employed than did the apparent lowest local bidder.
And in among those two, one of them was actually a Collier
County bidder but he failed to submit the required affidavit, which the
policy called for, so they were ineligible even though they were
actually housed here in Collier County with employees here in Collier
County.
We also surveyed -- and this is a matter of routine. We do this on
an ongoing basis. We surveyed people who were not bidding during
this time, and we actually contacted -- attempted to contact more than
200 bidders over the past year and asking them, why are you not
bidding, and we get a variety of responses to that. In this case, a little
over 100 answered us. About half the people we surveyed actually
responded, and of the ones responding, 15 said they were not bidding
because of the local vendor preference policy. It's about 13 percent of
those who elected to step aside.
And then last, I had forwarded you all some email yesterday that
I received from Orange County in which we had a Collier County
construction contractor who lost out on a $2-million bid in Orange
County due to Orange County applying Collier County's local vendor
preference against our bidders.
We had -- Collier County had the two lowest bidders in the
process. This was for the construction of a gymnasium in Orange
County, and Orange County does not have a local vendor preference
policy, but what they have is a, what I call, a retaliatory policy where
they reserve the right to, in the event that bidders from outside the area
are bidding a contract and one of them is the low bidder and that
county has a local preference policy, they reserve the right to invoke
the outside county's policy against the outside county's bidder, and
Page 138
June 23, 2009
that's what they did.
They went to the lowest bidder in Orange County, who was
about 8 percent higher, and offered them the right to match our guy's
bid, and he did, and as a result, our contractor lost a $2-million job.
So those are the, I'll call them, the unintended consequences of our
policy thus far.
Now, the board took some action last fall, you'll remember, to try
to mitigate a little bit of what I just described under the unintended
consequences and -- because what we ran into with the firms who
were having a larger economic impact in Collier, in one case they
were located in Lee County, and right on the border, and they
employed -- that particular bidder employed more Collier County
employees than the competing Collier County bidder did.
And the board took action by entering into an interlocal
agreement with Lee County that enabled us to recognize Lee County's
bidders as being local provided they met all other aspects of our policy
and standard, and we reciprocate by doing the same with bidders from
Collier and Lee County. They do the same for Collier bidders in Lee,
we do it for Lee bidders in Collier, provided they meet the standards
of our policy otherwise.
And so that -- that will mitigate some of the probably, in fact,
probably a good deal of it, because the closest connection you have in
terms of neighboring jurisdiction with competition from other
economic communities is clearly Lee County. Lee County is not
across the pond, it's not Russia. It's right there. We interact daily and
heavily with vendors in Lee and Collier County. A lot of commerce
back and forth all day long.
In that vein, the Bonita Springs City Council earlier this month
voted to adopt a similar agreement. They would like to enter into a
local agreement with this board. We have not brought this to you yet.
We'll be bringing it to you at the next meeting. That, as I said here on
the slide, is scheduled to come to you in July.
Page 139
June 23, 2009
That's an agreement that would appear to benefit us much more
than the City of Bonita, or vendors in the City of Bonita. If you're a
vendor in the City of Bonita Springs right now, you're covered already
by the existing -- or the agreement between Collier and Lee County,
but Collier bidders may not be covered in the City of Bonita Springs if
they attempted to bid there. The City of Bonita could choose to
invoke a local preference, but they are seeking to make peace with us,
if you will, and recognize each other's bidders and not let that be an
issue for our bidders attempting to do business in Bonita.
So with that, let me talk about the smaller purchases. These are
the purchases between 3 and $50,000. They represent about 12
percent, about one in $8 that we spend a year, and these are somewhat
decentralized in that operating departments make the contact with the
vendors, obtain the prices, and then they submit a purchase requisition
to the purchasing department and we approve it or disapprove it. It's
different than in the competitive bidding process where we handle
everything pretty much start to finish, and it's all very centrally
controlled by purchasing.
One of our concerns with this policy was we thought it was going
to be very difficult to implement local preference when you have 35
different departments and umpteen different staff members in each
department handling the process.
And what we -- what we did was, we went through and we
trained staff in the departments on how to use -- we have an electronic
procurement system -- trained them how to use that, trained them how
to locate local sources to try to get them directed to local businesses as
often as possible. We showed them the signed affidavit form that your
policy requires that anybody execute if they wish to claim local
preference, and gave that to them and asked them to pass that to the
bidders, the vendors that they were getting quotes from, and then we
told them to contact local sources to the greatest degree possible.
And what we've experienced thus far is, frankly, a very
Page 140
June 23, 2009
inefficient, ineffective process. It's very time consuming for the
departments who are used to being able to make three phone calls, get
a price confirmed within a day, get a purchase order same day, next
day and go. It's now taking more time because they're having to chase
the vendors to get the affidavit form back from them. Some cases -- a
lot of cases they're not getting them. And it's very difficult,
particularly -- I think you know that we've got about a quarter of our
workforce, of your workforce frozen -- the positions are frozen right
now. And so we've got a lot of departments working a little short
handed, and they're finding it very difficult to do this.
As I said, it slows down the procurement process. And maybe
the most disappointing part of it is that the vendors aren't participating.
We're just not getting the forms back, unlike the sealed bidding
process where we control it, we put the form in front of their face, we
get it back from them. They're used to the sealed bidding process,
filling out the forms, and you have one central department riding herd
on it. This is not the case with the smaller purchases.
We have had one award based on local preference to a local
vendor through this process, but it was actually an informal quote that
the purchasing department issued.
So with that, I'd like to give you some initial thoughts about --
strictly speaking about the policy to date in terms of how it's
implemented. I think you have three basic options.
You could continue the policy as is. And let me say, we have--
while we don't have any great successes in a large scale here, for the
bidding and RFP side, I don't think you've had any big disasters either.
I think right now it's kind of holding its own. You're giving your
bidders an opportunity to claim something advantageous to them from
our local community. It's a good-faith attempt by this board to reach
out to the local business community.
And so you might want to choose to continue the process as is for
the ITBs and the RFPs. You have a two-year life on this thing. We're
Page 141
June 23, 2009
one year into it. It's scheduled to sunset a year from now unless you
elect to extend it beyond that. So that's one option.
The second option would be to sunset the program, henceforth,
based on the fact that you can see from the data we haven't really had
a whole powerful set of responses here or a great deal of success with
it in the first year.
Or a third option would be -- this is the one I would advocate to
you -- to continue the policy for the ITBs and the RFPs but
discontinue it for the smaller purchases because you -- really you have
nothing to show for the smaller purchases and it's just not a good
process.
There's not a good quality-control method, and there's not a good,
clean way to make sure that the vendors see the forms, submit them
back to us, and if -- the only way I could think to do that would be to
have the purchasing department start handling all those transactions,
and that's about 2,000 transactions a year. And if you figure the
average transaction takes about four hours to do in terms of writing up
your specifications, identifying your vendors, getting the stuff out to
them, getting responses back, evaluating them, that takes four hours.
That's four full-time people.
So really you'd need to staff up the purchasing department if you
really wanted to do this right, and I would not recommend you do that
in these times.
So let me leave that with you for the moment. Would you like to
stop and discuss this, or would you like me to go ahead and proceed
with the CCNA portion of the discussion?
Ms. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You want to just continue?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, you want to discuss this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
Page 142
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Carnell, you know, to
make changes to the smaller ones, I personally would like to have
some more information. Where are the products coming from prior to
the local preference? Was it -- was it locally? And also the -- I just
can't believe that we're not getting participation from the local vendors
in Collier County.
MR. CARNELL: Let me clarify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's tough all over.
MR. CARNELL: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And let me tell you, I seen from
somebody who did a -- I would imagine it's a professional bid, request
for proposal. On that scoring, they had location. Some of the ranker's
ranked -- gave ten to even firms that were outside of Collier County.
So I don't know if we're really getting to our staff what this board
wants. Maybe there's a different agenda out there. I don't know. I'm
not trying to -- maybe they just don't understand -- well, how I feel is,
this is important right now. This is important to keep the tax dollars
here in Collier County because the businesses are hurting out there.
So I -- you know, to say let's discontinue the 3,000 to 50,000, I
would like to have more evidence; but more frankly, I would like to
have more cooperation, and I would like to see that cooperation --
well, maybe the word's not cooperation, but more evidence that the
staff members are reaching out to local. And I'll be glad to help, our
office, personally contact some of these local vendors. That's how
important I think it is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I totally agree. I had some questions. Is
it more expensive to operate a business in Collier County than it is --
thus, of course, making it more difficult to bid?
MR. CARNELL: I'm not aware of any significant difference in
the cost of operation here. In the good ole days of robust property
values, we all knew it was more difficult to buy and own property, and
that would include -- that would apply to commercial businesses as
Page 143
June 23, 2009
well as residential. But I don't know of any other factor that -- the cost
of labor may be a little higher here sometimes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, that's what I'm worried about. And
I'm thinking that just because people choose to live here and we want
to keep them working, it might be difficult for them to bid because we
also have a little higher cost of living. And I'm hoping that the ten
points kind of make up for some of that. I don't know.
Do we require all bidders to hire legal employees?
MR. CARNELL: Yes. We require them to attest to that as part
of their bid submission, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that work on our jobs. And is there
some kind of check and balance to make sure that they do that?
MR. CARNELL: Well, only to the extent that the law will
permit us. We require them to sign an attestation, a waiver, that they
are in full compliance with the immigration laws and the employment
laws of this country.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: That's as far as we can go typically.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
You have given me reason to be concerned, you know. There's
two obj ectives we're trying to come up with here. One is to be able to
make sure that the local dollars stay local, and the other one is to try to
get the very best value we can for the taxpayers we represent. And
somewhere between the two we're trying to find some happy medium.
And some of the things you just told us regarding companies that
are outside the county that employ Collier County workers, that don't
quite fit into the -- mesh into what the rules and regulations are. I'm
very disturbed about the fact that one of our -- two of our companies
here were the lowest bidders of -- where was that county?
MR. CARNELL: Orange County, Orlando.
Page 144
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Orange County. And that's a--
that's a pretty big, progressive county, and I imagine they're probably
going to be doing a lot of business in the very near future as the
economy starts to come back. And our people, because of this, may
be forbidden to go forward.
How about, you know, specialty firms, those that offer -- instead
of a physical service where they actually build something,
professional services, something like WilsonMiller, would they have
been excluded from Orange County because of our vendor preference,
or doesn't that apply the same?
MR. CARNELL: It doesn't apply. The -- that's a good question
in the sense that Orange County -- in this particular moment, in this
particular set of facts, the answer would be no because those services
are not -- do not have a preference in Collier County so there would
have been no preference policy for them to apply up there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, just for comparison sake,
what happens when you get to the east coast and you get to Palm
Beach County or Miami-Dade? Do you know what they have there?
Are our people excluded from doing the trades over there?
MR. CARNELL: We -- yes. What I -- my understanding is that
Broward and Dade Counties -- Miami-Dade Counties, both have local
preference agreements similar to ours. In fact, a lot of the language
from ours came from Broward County's. But Broward County
excludes professional services. They do not have a preference for the
CCNA services, similar to how ours is presently set up. And Broward
and Dade also have a provision we have where we can enter into
agreements with immediate neighboring counties if we think it's in the
-- our economic interest to do so. They have the same provisions as
well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm curious. Is there anybody
here to speak on any of this today?
MS. FILSON: I have four speakers.
Page 145
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'd love to hear from
them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I know you have another portion
of your presentation. I have Commissioner Halas. Would you like to
wait until after his presentation, or you want to speak now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just got -- just some of my
observations on this whole affair.
What we're dealing here is protectionism, and it ends up
backfiring on us. And I have -- I've always had some reservations on
this, because I think that we need a free enterprise system, no matter
where it is. And I feel -- my feeling is that I think this needs to be
sunset. That's just where I stand.
Protectionism gets you in a lot of hot water, and it doesn't open
up a free enterprise system.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Halas.
Would you like to give the second portion of your presentation --
MR. CARNELL: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- then call on the speakers?
MR. CARNELL: Sure. And before I do that, I did want to
mention one thing I neglected to mention. When I suggest to you the
idea of discontinuing preference for the smaller purchases, I would
like to propose to you and offer to you from your purchasing
department a couple things that we can do. We can increase our
vendor outreach in the community. We already do a certain amount
of it in terms of going into organizations and different groups in the
community, inviting them in, to learn about how to do business with
the county . We can do more of that. I can do that with current, even
depleted staffing, because I already have a training component within
my professional staff. That doesn't take four FTE or anything like that
to do.
We can -- we're also in the process of revamping our website
right now to try to make it more friendly to the vendors, and
Page 146
June 23, 2009
particularly to newer vendors who are checking us out.
So I -- it's -- one thing you may want to consider would be -- if
we discontinue the smaller purchase approach, is to give me direction
to try to enhance the outreach and give you some follow-up reports on
how we're doing that, because part of the battle is to get people to the
table.
I agree with you, Commissioner Henning, that in this economy
everybody's looking, no question about it, and we should be able to
get people to the table. And I'm not telling you we can't get people to
give us quotes, the smaller purchases. What I'm telling you is, they're
not filling out the affidavit, they're not turning it in. I can't even assure
you if the departments are always asking in every instance because
that front end of the process is pushed out to them. So I understand
your point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And all I'm offering is, I'll help
you. And, you know, if it doesn't work, then I'll be the first one to say,
you know what? This section of local preference is not working --
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and we need to do away with
it. But, you know, I don't -- until the -- until I'm assured that these
people are contacted and understand that they have a great
opportunity, I'm reluctant to do any changes to that section of --
MR. CARNELL: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's a great offer, by the way.
I have another question. When you send out your bids -- because
you were saying sometimes maybe it doesn't get to enough people, or
even if it does, they don't know how to fill out the bids properly, so
they're disqualified because they --
MR. CARNELL: These are the smaller purchases.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- because they didn't dot an I or
something like that because it didn't -- and you had classes, but maybe
people didn't respond.
Page 147
June 23, 2009
When you send out your bids and also invitations to these
classes, do you include like CBIA and Chamber of Commerce and
things like that, all of the chambers? And if not, possibly you could
just add them into your list, and with the same button that you're
hitting that, you know, get them all, because then those organizations
could take it upon themselves to try and generate business for their
memberships.
MR. CARNELL: I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It might work.
MR. CARNELL: I appreciate that. Let me move to the CCNA
portion. Now remember, the gears change here. Everything we've
been talking about up till now was largely home rule. The five of you
tell me how to do it, tell the rest of the staff. You set broad parameters
of how to do it.
The CCNA, or the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act, is a
state statute. This is where Big Brother, Tallahassee, is telling us how
we're going to hire architects, engineers, landscape architects,
surveyors, mappers. And the focus on the CCNA, it's the exact
opposite of competitive bidding, and competitive bidding is a price
competition. Among the capable people, who is giving you the best
price? In the CCNA world, it's just the opposite. Who's the best who
will give you an acceptable, not the best price, but an acceptable price,
and you are not allowed to compete price on the front end when you
are creating a contract under the CCNA. Again, the focus is on
qualifications.
Now, we do -- the county procures CCNA services in two
different ways, and we really do this because we have to in order to be
logistically responsive and be able to get things done.
First off, on our larger projects, if we're designing a major
building, a water plant, a roadway widening, anything like that, we're
going to put that out as a single project RFP and go through the entire
CCNA process start to finish. That's what we call specific projects.
Page 148
June 23, 2009
For smaller projects, we will group them together and we will
solicit what we call fixed-term contracts, and here's my Latin for the
day . We solicit them a priori, in advance, before we need them. We
get consultants and firms under contract ready to go before we've even
actually identified the exact projects.
And then as these smaller to medium-size projects come up, we
then offer them up to the people under contract who we've competed
through the state statutory process. That saves us a lot of time in
terms of being able to engage a consultant. So just keep in mind we
have those two processes. That's very important to the discussion
here.
Now, again, back to 2006, if you look at strictly the CCNA
world, Collier County firms have submitted 32 percent of the
proposals that we've received. They've won 39 percent of the awards
during that same time. And our friends in Lee County, the firms
located there, have submitted 28 percent of the proposals, and they've
won 21 percent of the awards. That's been our history to date, and
that's without a set or specific or broad direct local preference policy
in mind.
We do consider location in our CCNA solicitations, but we don't
consider it universally. It's typically about one-third, about 40 percent
of our solicitations will have a factor for location. The way we as staff
have viewed location historically has been, is it relevant to the
project? Does it help in the delivery of the project? Does it make the
project better to have a local presence? And sometimes it very
definitely does. That's how we've viewed it historically.
Now, in the single-project world, you have one big RFP process,
the firms compete, you select the three most qualified, and then you
go and negotiate a price agreement with number one. You are not
allowed to talk to number two or number three. You are only allowed
to go number one.
If you can't reach an acceptable price, not a low price, not the
Page 149
June 23, 2009
best price, an acceptable price, then you go to number two, and you
have to break off negotiations with number one. That's the way the
law works. It's all about the most qualified firm for an acceptable fee.
In the fixed-term contract process, we do this -- some of the same
things in the front end. We compete, we get all the proposals in, we
score and rank the firms, and then we pick a group of firms and we
negotiate what we call umbrella or fixed-term contracts with them,
and then those contracts are in place, and now a project comes up, and
we will go to that group of firms and we'll compete among them.
Now, this is what we call our best-value-offer process. We just
started it in May. You all had blessed it back in February to give us
the authorization to start using it. And we do ask for fee and
qualifications. Qualifications are still the primary consideration. But
we do actually get a little side-by-side fee comparison at that point in
the process.
And we -- County Attorney's Office and my office believe that
this is legal because the board has the discretion to set policy. It goes
beyond the statute. The statute just covers how you get into the first
contract, how you create that first agreement.
And this is what you do -- what we're doing now is how we
choose among the people that are under contract, which ones to use.
So we use this best-value process to do that.
Now, just a couple of cautions. If we're thinking about extending
a global-type local preference for CCNA, some things you need to be
aware of is, first off, we do not always have a competitive pool of
resources available among our local consultants to provide all the
services we need.
I've got some examples here of services that we need that local
firms, at least not in large number, provide. You may have one or two
that can do some of this work. But by and large, very few of them can
take these types of scopes of work and run with them as the prime
consultant delivering all or virtually all of the work.
Page 150
June 23, 2009
So you need to keep that in mind that when -- remember the
thrust of the statute is hire the most qualified firm, and you've got the
firms that are -- that have the most exposure, the most knowledge, the
most capability in these areas are often located in other communities
but have access to us.
Now, if you -- again, if you adopt a global-local preference
where you just say, we're going to consider location and give it a fixed
rate in every single solicitation, you could have the possibility of
hiring a less qualified firm. They could win the contract. You could
also potentially increase the cost of services because our contracts
typically have a 5-percent markup between the prime consultant and
the sub-consultants they hire.
Well, if the big movers and shakers in a given industry in terms
of professional expertise are located somewhere else, they -- if they
team up with a local firm and the local firm's really only doing a small
piece of the work, that's not necessarily the spirit of the law in the first
place; but you're also paying that markup because the prime is not
doing the work, the sub-consultant is, and they're going to mark up
that cost typically between the prime and the sub, and you could run
into some issues there where it could push your costs up.
The other thing, too, on occasion -- this doesn't happen that often,
but on occasion, we need an independent look, we need somebody to
come in and look at a regulatory issue or look at something else who
has no ties to our community, where you want total independence.
You don't want somebody in your community who's tied to a certain
part of your commercial economy if you're trying to come up with
regulations or policies or plans that affect or play directly into that
area of expertise or knowledge. I mean, it creates the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
Now, I will tell you we manage that now by asking and directing
firms to declare any conflict of interest they may have before they
submit a proposal. And my experience with our firms locally is
Page 151
June 23, 2009
they're all very ethical, they're very sensitized to these things in
general, but there will be times where you simply want somebody
from the outside to look at what you're doing.
Then last and not least, we are in the process of trying to get our
arms around the American Recovery Act from the federal government
and all the grant funding that's coming from that and the projects that
are going to be funded through that.
And right now I think most of you know till now, the focus has
been on what they call shovel-ready projects, projects that are ready to
be built that are largely designed or near completely designed.
And if it stays that way, it may not be much of an issue here
because we may only be paying for construction services through
those grants in the future. But there is a possibility that they could
fund design services along the way as this program rolls out, and we
could be in a situation where you want to hire a design firm and the
federal grant restrictions are such that they will not allow you to
consider local preference in terms of how you engage a professional
consultant.
So what we would have to do in that case is we would have to
compete those contracts separately. And if you remember what I said
earlier, the fixed-term contract tool that we use is much faster. It only
takes four or five weeks to engage a consultant typically.
Ifwe have to start from scratch, that's four to five months. We
could be adding a few months to each of these projects. So I want you
just to be aware of that, that we run that risk. I can't sit here and tell
you that's going to happen because every federal agency is different.
I've got some that are just emphatically, oh no, you can't have local
preference. You've got others that say, oh yeah, we encourage it, and
then there's a third group that's just kind of indifferent about it. So
agency to agency it varies, but you just need to be aware of that, that
we could be boxing ourselves in a little bit if we're not careful.
Last couple of thoughts here, couple, three options for you to
Page 152
June 23, 2009
consider. We have -- as I said earlier, CCNA is exempt from the
current preference policy . You could just simply remove that
exemption. That's option one. And it would be treated like all the rest
of our RFPs where we would give ten points on a 100-point scale for
location.
The second option would to be give location a weight of up to ten
points when we do a best-value offer. So among the people that are
already under contract, we would -- when we go out to them, we
would put ten points -- thank you, Mike -- for location when we're
assigning the task during the best-value-offer stage.
And the third option would be to -- excuse me -- to instruct the
staff to use location on either situation one or situation two, depending
on what the rules of the game are. If we've got some grant restrictions
that keep us from using it for this task but we don't have them over
here, the staff could kind of work its way through that and just
mitigate around it. And we would take your intention as, use it
wherever you can, but keep us legal, keep us out of trouble. That's
essentially what number three is if you want to give us some direction
along those lines.
The -- I think option three gives you the advantage of enabling
your staff to manage the rest a little bit for you on some of these issues
and enables the staff to take into consideration location where it's
important, and it kind of flips things around, where we would go to a
bias of saying, we're going to generally include location unless it's
anti-competitive or it's prohibited by law.
So with that, I'll just take any questions or suggestions you may
have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In other words, like
FEMA or the federal government, we couldn't apply the rule, but we'd
be able to have like a two-tier --
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
Page 153
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- way of doing it? And that, to
me, sounds logical. In all honesty though -- and I -- I mean, I really
want to see local businesses get it, but I know that the professionalism
that you need has to be there. If it's based upon 100 points, would ten
points be more than generous, do you think, or do you think that's in
line with what other communities are doing?
MR. CARNELL: I've seen variations above and below ten
points. Historically we've done five, occasionally ten, and sometimes
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Historically?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, ten for me, from my point of view, is a
little bit of a stretch, but I don't think it's overly generous, generally
speaking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Our speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Bob Mulhere. He'll be followed by Dan
Brundage.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, you've been here all day, haven't
you?
MR. MULHERE: I have been, yes. I told you I was going back
to my office, but I didn't make it yet.
I'll be real brief. I appreciate the time that you spent on this. I
would highly recommend that you take the option three that Steve
outlined which would allow Steve to have the discretion to not have a
local vendor preference for the BVO or for the CCNA projects if there
was some legitimate reason not to do that, but if it was a typical
contract where there are plenty of local firms that are qualified and
there's no restriction from the federal government, it would be nice to
have that local vendor preference.
If you really want to help local firms, you have these fixed-term
contracts that have a time period, usually two years. They're good for
two years or three years. Many of them have a built-in extension
Page 154
June 23, 2009
period. You can extend them for a year or two beyond that.
Right now if you didn't extend any of those and went out on
every one of those fixed-term contracts when they were set to expire
without extending them, that would really help local firms have
another opportunity to get selected.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dan Brundage. He'll be followed by Chris
Wright.
MR. BRUNDAGE: I'd like to thank you very much for allowing
us the opportunity to come before you and speak on this issue.
Over the past 26 years I've had the pleasure of working with
ABB and providing services to the county for various projects, and
we've enjoyed that relationship. And I'd also like to just thank you all
for considering or at least talking about trying to keep it local as much
as possible. We do understand there are circumstances where that's
not possible, but I'd like to just tell you our appreciation for that.
And I also sense at this time that staff is very sensitive to the
needs too, because we're all neighbors here. We're all fighting the
same fight right now to try to stay alive.
There's been some talk today about the Interlocal Agreement
with Lee County, and for one, I'd like to continue for you all to
support that and also the one with the City of Bonita.
In the years past, you had to have an office within Lee County to
be considered for any of their work. So we did have a Lee County
office. But due to the economic situations, we've had to close that
office recently. And as long as the Interlocal Agreement is in place,
we will still be able to compete in Lee County. And I think that's an
important point.
I would say approximately about a third of our employees, in
fact, live in Lee County. So we have a, you know, fairly diverse
group of folks either from Collier and Lee County.
Of course, it's already been mentioned that our local employees
Page 155
June 23, 2009
will support the local economy through their taxes, but not only
through their taxes, but also through their other spending activities.
We go to local restaurants, we use local businesses for goods and
services, and there's a tremendous amount of economic benefit there, I
believe.
I believe also that because we are local, we're more accountable
to our friends and neighbors in projects that we design that have a
direct effect on them, and I think that there's been some direct
experience, for instance, Commissioner Fiala, with the LASIP project,
that we've been especially sensitive to the folks in that area, and also
with our road projects.
We have an open-office scenario where if you are a resident
along the way, you're invited to come in and speak to us, call us
anytime on the phone. We're there to talk to you. This was
particularly important, I think, in our Royal Wood work when we
were designing a very heavy-duty contract in these people's
backyards, and we were very sensitive to that.
I don't want to belabor the point, but I just wanted to mention that
we see our friends and neighbors in church and in situations like this,
and we're accountable to them.
There's also been a serious brain drain in our community just
recently with some of the employees we've had to let go. There's been
some tremendous talent in this area that's no longer here, and I think
that ultimately will hurt our community through the lack of having the
talent available for some of the committees we talked about today for
helping some of the youth activities that take place in our community
and just talking on community situations at all.
Is my time up?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. BRUNDAGE: Okay. Well, with that, I'd just like to ask
you to continue to support local businesses. We're here to serve the
community. We -- this is where our home is, and we'd like to keep it
Page 156
June 23, 2009
that way.
And I'd just like to close in saying that I think the new business
motto for the next coming years is going to be, Surviving is the New
Thriving, and we hope maybe you could help us with that.
So thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker was Chris Wright. I understand
he had to leave. Your final speaker will be Tom Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Commissioners. As Danny said, we
appreciate the fact that you're at least having this discussion.
I don't think we would dispute anything that Mr. Carnell applied.
There are certain projects that warrant outside expertise. There's a
certain expertise that does exist within the existing consultant firms,
and I think that ought to be utilized as much as possible.
As Steve indicated, many of these selections are not -- they're not
price based. Generally the selection on consultants is qualifications
based. It's not -- price doesn't come into the picture. You make a
selection, recommendation, staff negotiates a fee, and that contract is
then presented to you for final approval.
We believe that competition is good. We don't like protectionism
either, but I can tell you that it does work against us. It has worked
against us many times in Charlotte County, Sarasota County, although
maybe not in a formal sense, certainly in an informal sense. If you go
to some of their selection committee meetings, they create two piles.
The ones that have offices in their counties and firms that don't. So it's
very seriously considered in those other counties.
I think that one of the difficulties staff has is you're trying to take
a subjective type of process and make it as objective as possible. And
I think staff does a good job with that.
Oftentimes though, the measurable difference in qualifications
between a local firm and one of the other average larger firms is very
small. When that difference may be very small in qualifications to do
the job, we would like to see that work maybe stay local, at least we
Page 157
June 23, 2009
would like to see that a mind set.
I don't know how you'd put that in the objective process and
scoring. There is the ten-point thing. As Danny said, many of the
firms are really just struggling to survive. And we are all
high-wage-paying employers in Collier County, many, many
engineers and highly technical people, and we have had an awful lot
of people who've had to leave.
I know recruitment and growth of high-wage paying jobs is high
on your agenda. If there are things that you can do within reason,
that's all we would ask, that's all I would ask. And I will tell you, our
firm has been very fortunate to do a fair amount of work, a substantial
amount of work with your utilities department over the years, and
we've had a great relationship there, worked very hard, and I think
they're quite happy.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Carnell, would it be much
of a problem to take a look at those fixed term contracts, those -- and,
you know, let them go ahead and sunset or maybe even re- -- have
them rebid it or -- you can't rebid it.
MR. CARNELL: You mean, in other words, not renew them but
put them out for competition?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one thing, but also you
have some now -- I mean, on those -- correct me if I'm wrong -- those
professional contracts, those ones that you just go out and say, okay,
we want you to do this work, how much you going to charge me, if we
rebid it with the economic times across the board, would we get better
pricing?
MR. CARNELL: Well, it depends on what you're talking about
in the process. Generally you'll never know because you can't
compete pricing on the front end.
Page 158
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CARNELL: Let me just be sure we're all clear about what
he's talking about. On the fixed-term contracts, we have a front-end
process. We create a general, what we call, a master contract. It just --
it puts you on availability. It's almost like a paramedic in an
ambulance waiting for the call, and there's no specific project at that
moment. We just create the contract. And a week later or a month
later, we activate the contract. We ask you to go do project X.
Now, getting to your point, Commissioner, what we've done
recently at your direction is we have begun with those contracts.
When we're ready to do little task X, instead of just -- what we used to
do is rotate the firms or just pick one and call them up and say, we
need you to do it, write me a scope of services, let's go do task X.
Now what we do is we send out a best-value offer out of purchasing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: And that's where we could get at what you're
talking about. You may see price reductions of some sort, you may
see slightly lower fee schedules at that point, yes, at that point. Not
with the open -- the front-end process you can't compete price.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, on these existing
fixed-term contracts -- because I'm in favor of, you know, not
extending them, go out there and look again, but the ones that you
cannot, can you say, well, we want another firm within this fixed
contract?
MR. CARNELL: To add somebody to the group -- the pool, so
to speak?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. CARNELL: That's -- I'm looking at Mr. Klatzkow to see if
there -- I don't know if you have any opinions about -- I don't think
there's any legal prohibition, sir, against doing that.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I have several -- I have several contracts on
the same issues with several different firms, and what I'll do is price
Page 159
June 23, 2009
compete between them at the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. There's too much
noise over here. I couldn't hear what you said.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll have several different contracts with
several different firms for the same type of issue. And when I have an
issue, I'll basically call them and discuss a pricing at that point in time.
I don't have an issue with multiple contracts.
MR. CARNELL: His question is, could you add somebody to
the pool mid-contract. I don't know if that flies in the face of the staff
here or not.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have an issue with that.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. All right. So apparently we could do
that, too, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any objections to
that?
MR. CARNELL: I really don't in concept. The only thing I'll
caution you on is workload. We're putting out 20, 30 of these a year,
and if I don't renew any of them, I could be double that many out, and
it may -- I may not be able to do that in every case. But I certainly
will endeavor to try -- to look at that. We've actually been talking
about that as a staff a little bit, and I'm not opposed to the idea beyond
just managing the workload.
Just so you understand, every single one of these is a staff
committee of five people or more who have to meet in public two,
three times, have to read proposals, have to score them, and then
purchasing has to negotiate four, five contracts every solicitation.
So there's some work there involved. That's really the only
downside to it, or the upside to renewing is it manages the workload.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me -- let me make a
motion, and I want to try to work with the purchasing department. I
think you really get the emphasis on the needs -- is option three on Mr.
Carnell's slide. We definitely don't want to lose any grants because ofe
Page 160
June 23, 2009
any local policy. And also direct the purchasing department to work
to -- not to extend those fixed-term contracts and also work to add
other vendors, you know, other professionals to those fixed-term
contracts.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Other local professionals or just
professionals?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know if you can
really do that, but, you know, I'm hearing from local professionals,
engineers (sic), architects or whatever, hey, you know, we need more
business. My motion gives the opportunity for them to get their, you
know, qualifications in to Mr.Carnell, or whatever the particular thing
IS.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll second your motion.
MR. CARNELL: And if I could, let me --let me pare it back to
you how I'm interpreting what you want me to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CARNELL: You're saying, let's -- first off, we're not going
to apply local preference just globally and blindly . We're going to
apply it selectively where we can, where there's no prohibition or it
doesn't create competitive problems for us. And we can do it
potentially in the front end or we can do it in our best-value-offer
process. And you're giving me the discretion to do that. And then
you're telling me, on extensions of existing contracts, you're saying
you'd like to see me recompete as many of those as possible. You're
not telling me I can't extend anything. You're just saying you want me
to compete as many of them as I can. Is that what I'm hearing you
say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what we're hearing. I
have trust in -- you understand the issue --
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the importance of it.
Page 161
June 23, 2009
MR. CARNELL: All right. Now, before you vote, just one other
thing. On the other portion of the existing policy, do you wish to
continue to give a 10-percent right-to-match or right-to-match option
in your bidding process for, again, your formal bids above $50,000?
Do you want -- do you wish to continue to give ten points for all
non-CCNA RFPs? That's what we're doing now. Any desire to
change any of that? And then the third part of it was the smaller
purchases. Do you wish to continue issuing preference there or send
the purchasing department in a different direction to try to build more
participation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the reason I made the
motion the way I did is I don't want any changes, and I really would
like to work with you to try to reach out. If it doesn't work, I'll put it
on the agenda on those smaller contracts.
MR. CARNELL: All right. So your motion is to leave the front
end of it in place --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. CARNELL: -- as is, and you're making a commitment to
work with us to try to help us, all right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you want, I'd be more than
happy to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's in my second.
Okay. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's three and two, for.
Page 162
June 23, 2009
Okay. And with that, we're going to take a ten-minute break. I'm
sorry that we ran over.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO
CONTRACT #08-5122 WITH POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH &
JERNIGAN FOR A PHASE 2 COST OF $1,303,397.38 TO
DEVELOP WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANS REQUIRED
BY THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to lOG, which was
previously 16A10. That is a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approves change order one to contract
08-5122 with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan for Phase II cost of
$1,303,397.38 to develop Watershed Management Plans required by
the Growth Management Plan. And this item was moved at
Commissioner Henning's request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Tom, would you -- I mean, Commissioner
Henning, would you like to just tell us why you'd like to discuss this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It reminded me of this
picture of the boat with the dinghy, and the dinghy says in the back on
it, original contract, and the boat says change order. The -- you know,
I'm looking at this. This is a 300-percent increase on the consent
agenda change order for a contract.
This amount would take care of our shortfalls in parks and rec,
you know, beach parking fees, closing down libraries or library fees,
and probably help out the animal services. And, you know, to -- I
know the studies in the Growth Management Plan, but what I would
Page 163
June 23, 2009
really like to do is change the Growth Management Plan and push this
out and use these monies for upcoming budget shortfalls.
So that's -- I mean, that's where I'm going to try to get a
discussion going. Instead of doing studies and studies that would
result in more monies to spend or more government regulation, let's
try to take care of our existing problems now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that we have made a
commitment in regards to the Stormwater Management Plan, in fact,
of the watershed plan that we have to have -- we've pushed this out
once before, and I believe it's due the end of this year. And my
understanding is, I think we need to move forward on this; am I
correct?
MR. WILEY: Yes, you are. Robert Wiley with the county's
Engineering and Environmental Services Department.
This is a requirement of the Growth Management Plan. It has
been pushed out multiple times, not just once. We went into the
contract back in March understanding there were going to be multiple
phases. The initial phase was to go and do the background work for
setting up the modeling, and this takes the modeling and begins to
develop the actual watershed plan. So this is what we knew; back in
March we knew we would be coming to this at this point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I also think it's going to affect
some other issues that may be coming forward from South Florida
Water Management in regards to additional waters that may be
imposed upon us; is that correct?
MR. WILEY: What it has the ability to do is evaluate should
there be a desire to transfer waters from Lee County down into Collier
County. That would be able to put into a model to determine impacts
from it. It's -- as you and I have discussed in the past, it's a very
broad, very usable tool covering a lot of different functions for water
quantity as well as quality.
Page 164
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Am I also correct in saying that this
also addresses federal requirements ofTMDLs?
MR. WILEY: In a long-term look at it, it does go towards that.
What we're looking at right now is a couple of our basins have
impaired waters issues. We're facing the need to produce BMAPs,
Best Management Action Plans. By producing the Watershed
Management Plans, that will be utilized to prevent us from having to
do a totally separate BMAP production. So it lumps it together. But
to directly say it will prevent a TMDL is really not correct, but it's a
part of the process to evaluate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? And before I
call on you, you said that it went up how many percent from the
original order to this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three-hundred percent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three-hundred percent -- original order
was 300 -- was one amount, and this -- the change order is 300 percent
more?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- is there a reason why this
didn't go back out on the street for rebidding, or not rebidding, but put
it out there to other firms?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. The original contract that we put out, the
RFP, called for the development of the Watershed Management Plans.
When we selected the firms, we selected them on their ability to do
the whole package.
As we have developed the contract, the initial phase of the
contract was to pull together the front-end work that had to be done,
and that was developing of the computer modeling, taking the existing
models we have right now through the Big Cypress Basin, and the
software. All this gets pulled together as the initial tool that will then
be used.
Page 165
June 23, 2009
So all the firms that responded to the RFP understood there's a
modeling portion, there is a Watershed Management Plan
development portion. Everyone responded to that package. It was a
big package, and we opted to take the first bite, and now we're taking
the second bite.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to make
a motion not to approve and direct staff to put this money into next
year's budget for the funding of the beach parking and libraries and
museums and the dog -- cats and dogs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm really not satisfied with the
explanation of the increase in cost. I understood that it's an obligation
we have, but it's -- an obligation that goes from 575,000 to 1,879,000
is absolutely ludicrous, and I would like to explore alternatives that
would get us a lot closer to our original estimate than we are right
now.
I don't think that we could or should be obligated to make
expenditures this outrageous. And so I'm looking for alternatives from
the staff. I mean, we don't have -- we don't have enough to start
throwing it around on projects like this if we're so far off on our
estimates.
MR. WILEY: Well, let's talk about that. We're not so far off on
our estimates. The original budget going in two years ago in fiscal
year 2007 was an estimated $4 million, and that was for us to evaluate
just up front what we thought would be a rough idea.
Now, we started off -- if you really go back to the history of it,
when staff put together the initial scope of understanding what will be
entailed with this, we figured with the number of watersheds we have,
we're going to be probably closer to eight million. As it got to the
County Manager, he proposed to the board six million. You all
Page 166
June 23, 2009
approved four million with the understanding that if additional
funding was necessary as we got through the different watersheds
towards the end of the process, we needed more, to come back to you
at that time.
You approved the $4 million budget. We have taken that, and
through the process we've used money out of it to do the lidar
contract, as you heard us present that to you a while back, and that is
coming -- wrapping up. That's in the state review process right now.
That's going to be the information we will put into the modeling effort
here.
We hired URS Corporation to act as the overall master consultant
for this team. They have helped us pull together the scope of work
that is involved that Post, Buckley and the others applied for through
the RFP process.
Then we went through the RFP, and we selected Post, Buckley as
the firm knowing that we did not want to come in up front with a full
contract to cover everything until we had time to work with them, for
them to look at what we had, looking at the existing modeling.
So we took that initial effort that everyone had a real good grasp
upon, pulled that together as a Phase I understanding. And at the time
you even approved Phase I, they put together a draft budget for the
future Phase II that we knew would be subsequently coming. That is
brought to you today. And they have not exceeded that estimate either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, it isn't a change order;
it's Phase II?
MR. WILEY: It is Phase II. We use the term change order
because it is a change to the contract terms, but it is Phase II of the
original contract, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of$4 million.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the $4 million understood all along.
I think that that's -- you know, that's maybe --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the misleading part.
Page 167
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The change order thing is clearly
very misleading. It says, the original agreement amount was five
million, and this change order adds 1,303,000. You know, that's one
of the problems here. But honestly, I simply cannot understand how
you can spend that much money taking a look at lidar data.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It isn't lidar.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, he says he's going to use
lidar data to develop the --
MR. WILEY: What I said was we used monies from the four
million to acquire the lidar, which is the topographic data, and that is
one of the base bits of information that you utilize within the modeling
itself to help you determine where flows are going to be going. It is
an update to the lidar we have now, which is a 2001 product, covers a
small portion of the county. We have it overlap with the Army Corps
of Engineers lidar, and that's what we're using in the FEMA floodplain
studies.
This lidar takes us out all the way out past State Route 29 as a
single entity, so it's uniformity from the coast to 29. That is just one
product.
The study that Post, Buckley's going to be doing here takes the
information and goes through the various watersheds identifying from
water-quality issues, water-quantity issues, the water budget, the
availability for long-term -- what will happen in the long-term effects
in development continues at current layouts. Do we need to make
changes with water qualities? Are we better to come up with some
reasonable perspectives?
Those are all the analyses that will be done to come up with a
long-term plan for directing growth as we go through the county to
make sure we have sufficient water resources to handle them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Couple questions. What would
Page 168
June 23, 2009
happen if we didn't approve this? What would be the net results?
MR. WILEY: Well, at that point we would look to see, do we
continue on in with the Phase 1. If we're not going to continue the
process, do we continue on with the Phase I to pull the modeling
together?
Recommendation probably would be to at least finish that
product out so we have the two in hand ready to go when we do
decide to go into the Phase II portion to finish out the Watershed
Management Plan.
The impact to the Growth Management Plan is we are coming up
this year with the EAR process. So real quickly we get to declare to
DCA, sorry, sir, we went back on our word again for about the third
time. How they will react to that, I do not know, but we will have to
declare to them that we have not fulfilled our own commitments. And
at that point we go through the process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My second question is, is
how time sensitive is this, that we couldn't bring this back in
September when we had some time to digest the -- all the
ramifications of this?
MR. WILEY: You can delay it. We have said we would have
them done in 2010. So instead of finishing up right at the start of
2010, that would move us much later on into 2010. But it's not -- a
short delay is not going to derail the project. A lengthy delay would.
Now, the other issue really gets to be, from a standpoint of the
consultant firm, Post, Buckley, we would also have to inform them of
this delay and see what their reaction would be. It could result in
coming back with an increased cost to us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and that may be, but I
mean, based upon what we've got in front of us right now, I can
understand where my fellow commissioners are. This seems a little
troublesome when you look at it and the amount of money we're
talking about and the poor choice they used of change orders, you
Page 169
June 23, 2009
know, to be able to get to the number it was. It's problematic.
So I don't want to -- I don't want to kill something that could be
an extreme benefit to the county. You know, it may be even
something that's absolutely essential that we go forward, the
ramifications with FEMA and everyone else, I don't know. But
possibly if we brought it back in September, we could meet with staff
numerous times, be able to work this out, maybe even have a
workshop on it to be able to find out where we stand.
Everyone's concerned up here about the amount of money and
the choice of the words. I would feel more comfortable if we bring it
back. That would be my own opinion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Leo?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, if I might, again, just to refresh the
board. This was a $4 million budgeted item. That money had been
earmarked. We've been bringing it forward in phases. If the boards
would want to use that money somewhere else, that's fine, just tell us.
But if you still want to move forward with the proj ect, I'm just having
a little trouble with trying to figure out what it is you're trying to
reconcile between now and September, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it's just being able
to get our arms around the whole thing. I mean, a lot of time has
lapsed since we worked with this in trying to give all the
commissioners a refresher in where we were and how we got to be
where we are in the absolute essential necessity of spending this
money at this point in time to keep everything on schedule. Is it
something that's mandated? Is it something we can work around? Is
it something that we come up with something a little less ambitious to
be able to take some of the load off the budget?
I just don't know. And I hate to throw the whole baby out with
the bathwater based upon that. I'd rather have a little bit of time to be
able to work through this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is this also the item that brings our
Page 170
June 23, 2009
insurance down?
MR. WILEY: No. This is a totally separate issue than that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many watersheds are you
dealing with here that we're talking about when we looked at the total
thing and approved the $4 million to go forward in regards to these
watersheds? How many watersheds is there? That's number one.
MR. WILEY: This particular contract addresses six of them.
There are still a couple more. One of them is right along the coastline.
It's being handled somewhat to the side issue right now through Mr.
McAlpin's effort on some water quality issues in -- right in the edge of
the urban area, and we're going to wait to see his results coming out of
there. It may preclude us from needing to spend additional dollars
with Post, Buckley because his product may produce for us what we
need.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's enough.
MR. WILEY: The other issues are, the very far eastern portion
of the county are not addressed, but there's no development pressure
there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. How does this affect the
citizens as far as addressing issues in regards to flooding?
MR. WILEY: This one is designed to address flooding from the
standpoint not of the flood insurance program, but from the overall
flooding such as you would work with the stormwater management
section, and because it will identify capital needs for the various storm
levels where you could anticipate having flooding.
Those are one of the issues that we have in here, and it goes
through the various storm iterations also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the bottom line is, this is a study
to address watershed problems and how it affects not only the quality
of water but in regards to the citizens and the possibility of flooding?
MR. WILEY: It would -- that is one portion of it, yes, sir.
Page 171
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I feel that this is an
important program, and I think it's something that we've been putting
off for a long period of time, and obviously we're get into the rainy
season, and we really don't know how it's going to affect the particular
watersheds. How far out east do they go that would impact the
citizens?
MR. WILEY: The watersheds that we're talking about here, the
primary ones of focus deal with, we call it Golden Gate Estates,
Gordon River, but it's basically the watershed goes into Naples Bay.
You know, that goes quite a distance out in -- all the way through the
northern part of the Estates. The Cocohatchee watershed goes all the
way up to Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: That's going east.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the question, the one up
there that we're talking about or the one that I'm concerned with is the
watershed that goes all the way back to almost Immokalee; is that
correct?
MR. WILEY: That would be the Cocohatchee, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so we've got all the other
communities that -- along that whole northern border between Lee
County and Collier County are affected -- are affecting the citizens; is
that correct?
MR. WILEY: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: The third major one is down in the East Naples
area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. In East Naples, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Robert, I think you
misunderstood what I was saying based upon your comments to the
commissioners. I was stating, because of the budgeting problem, is to
Page 1 72
June 23, 2009
put this off for a while.
I understand your priorities, but also you stated exactly what my
fear is. This is going to call for more capital needs. And it's -- my
feeling is the county or government doesn't have a budgeting problem.
It's got a spending problem. That's where -- the problem in the budget
that I see coming up.
Priorities -- my priorities is what we offer our existing residents
and historical, free beaches, parking at the beaches. And I don't see
any need why we can't put this off. I just wanted to let you know how
I feel.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are a lot of unanswered
questions as far as I'm concerned. Just as an example, you're going to
have a detailed water-quality model for the Golden Gate Canal
system, including the Gordon River. South Florida Water
Management District is already planning on diverting millions of
gallons per day from the Golden Gate Canal. When are you going to
study this thing, before it's diverted or after it's diverted or while it's
being diverted?
My bet is we'll study it before and we'll have to study it again
after it's been diverted. I just don't know how you put all these pieces
together in the amount of time that we have in a logical way. I'm not
saying don't do it. I'm saying, I think we can develop a better plan,
because there are a lot of components to this plan that have to be
integrated. And I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that South Florida
Water Management District doesn't have models for water flow in
Collier County already.
We had Mirasol. We required them to have a model to show the
water flow of that watershed through their development and to justify
how they could possibly destroy certain wetlands to build on it, and
they did that, and I'd be willing to bet you they didn't spend anywhere
Page 173
June 23, 2009
near $250,000 on that study.
So I just -- I'm uneasy about this. This is a complex document
which leads to a lot of interpretation and appears to turn loose a bunch
of consultants to go out and take samples of everything in the world
and spend a year or two doing it, and then we find out we don't have
enough information to develop.
It reminds me exactly of the floodplain analysis issue that we
had, that drug on for years and years and years and years and I don't
think ever got resolved.
So I -- we should make a good-faith effort to meet our
requirements for the Growth Management Plan. But my question is,
how do you do that when you're short of money? Is this the best use
of funds right now, or can we postpone it a little while, six months
maybe? I don't know.
What is our minimum deliverable in 2010 to meet our obligations
under the Land Development -- or the Growth Management Plan? I
don't know that. And when we're struggling with providing the
subsequent citizens services in Collier County, it just is hard to justify
going through the process of developing things that I believe should
pretty much already exist in Collier County in many, many cases.
And I think we're just reinventing the wheel in a lot of things here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, everything I'm
hearing is true. Obviously, the executive summary and your answers
just have not given us the comfort level to proceed. I'm sure there's a
lot more to this that -- if we get into it.
Once again though, Commissioner Coy Ie is right about the fact
that -- what could be done to maybe approach this from a different
perspective as far as holding the costs down to be able to start the
process going forward and maybe extending it over a number of years.
I, for one, would like to put this off until September and give
staff the chance to be able to come back with a more detailed
Page 174
June 23, 2009
explanation, maybe meet with us individually, and come up with a
justification for spending any portion of this money in whole or in part
at a September meeting.
I'd make a motion to that effect.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
continue this till the September meeting and meet with staff in the
meantime.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Staff, and I think they've got a
pretty good idea what our concerns are. Let's find out exactly what we
need to do now and act upon the absolute necessity that have to deal
with it, and then the rest of -- to leave to a time that -- when the
economy restores itself and we have the funds to be able to work with
it. But I'm not too sure what that is, and I don't think anyone can tell
us today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that when we discussed
this -- how many years ago was this, three years ago?
MR. WILEY: We started in 2007.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right. And at that time we
had a detailed discussion in regards to the importance of this study,
and at that time I believe we had a unanimous vote that we needed to
move forward on this because there were some commitments that
were made by -- to the state that we were going to have to get this
Watershed Management Study done. Am I correct in that?
MR. WILEY: That's my recollection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that we had stalled it once
before, and here we are today. And I believe the money has been set
aside for this particular study. And the amount of money that was set
aside was $4 million. And all you're doing is saying at this point in
Page 175
June 23, 2009
time, with the money that we spent, we're going to now address this --
the amount of money that you discussed earlier is needed to finish this
proj ect; is that correct?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. That's what we're saying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're not going to
exceed the amount of money that has been already allocated for the
study?
MR. WILEY: We have not exceeded it or proposed to, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WILEY: What is also included, if you'll look on your fiscal
impact, is we basically got roughly, and just lightly under, a
half-million dollars reimbursed back to us by the Water Management
District for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Preparing for the study.
MR. WILEY: -- cost sharing on lidar, which that number's also
not included in your information as far as showing an expenditure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So actually the information that we've
received seems to mislead us in many instances, including calling it a
change order if we've already got the money aside.
MR. WILEY: Well, it's not intended to mislead in any form or
fashion. That just happens to be the form that we use through the
purchasing department. When you go to make a change to a contract,
it's called a change order.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There hasn't been any -- there was
the money allocated, and so they were going forth with the study.
And so when they said change order, it isn't really a change order. It
was, okay --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Phase II.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we've got to Phase II and we're
going to try to get this thing done before the end of -- I think they
were talking about the end of this year, which is December, and -- am
Page 176
June 23, 2009
I correct? The end of this year, which is 2009, beginning of2010.
This is going to get this taken care of.
MR. WILEY: That is its purpose, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct. So we're actually
under budget.
MR. WILEY: So far.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So far, exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, this isn't three
years ago, this is now. We've got 20 percent plus whatever of our
employees laid off. We've got a job freeze in place. We're seeing a
devaluation of properties. It's going to be about 11 percent this year
on top of an $84,000 cut over the last couple of years.
There's a money issue here. I mean, yeah, we made a
commitment back when there was plenty of money. I guess the
question would be, what's the ramifications as far as other government
agencies if we don't follow through with this in a timely fashion?
MR. WILEY: Well, that would be a decision made by the
Department of Community Affairs. On your Growth Management
Plan planning, you gave me the plans that were not in compliance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no idea what that means
as far as what they would do. Maybe--
MR. WILEY : Well, it could be fairly nominal. It could have
serious impacts if you choose to ever go back and amend your Growth
Management Plan, they -- where you're found in noncompliance, it
could have implications to prevent you from doing that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let the County Attorney weigh in, okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: We can -- we can bring that back in
September as to what the ramifications might be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If any. I mean, you know, the state's under
their own pressures. I think they understand the issues the counties
Page 1 77
June 23, 2009
are under.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and
a second to bring this back in September.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 3-2 vote. We'll bring it
back in September.
MR. WILEY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We move on to Item 10H.
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION TO (1) GRANT THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT THE AUTHORITY TO
PURSUE AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 2005-46 TO
REZONE BEMBRIDGE PUD TRACT A FROM RESIDENTIAL
PUD TO COMMUNITY FACILITY PUD TO BE PROCESSED
BY CDES ON AN EXPEDITED OR FAST TRACK BASIS;
(2) CONTINGENT UPON REZONE APPROVAL, APPROVE A
TRANSFER OF 5.11 ACRES, BEMBRIDGE PUD TRACT A,
FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
SERVICES DEPARTMENT (EMS) TO THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE RELOCATION OF
THE NAPLES RECYCLING CENTER AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $450,000 AND (3) APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$500,000 FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE
Page 178
June 23, 2009
MANAGEMENT FUND (474), RESERVE FOR CAPITAL
CONTINGENCIES, TO A NEW PROJECT NO. 70013, NAPLES
RECYCLING CENTER AT SANTA BARBARA - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Item 10H was previously 1-3 (sic).
It's a recommendation to grant Solid Waste Department the authority
to pursue an amendment of ordinance 05-462, rezone Bembridge PUD
Tract A from residential PUD to community facility PUD to be
processed by CDES in an expedited or fast-tract basis contingent upon
rezone approval, and I'll stop there and let Mr. Rodriguez take you
through the items.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, why don't we -- we've all read this,
so why don't we just ask Commissioner Henning what he would like
to talk about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this item spending a half a
million dollars?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, Commissioner, if approved by the
board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's a different
understanding than the Deputy County Manager has and relayed to
me. So at least we all understand that you want to -- under this item
you want on spend a half a million dollars.
I guess my concern is, understand that you want to model this
like the center on Marco Island.
MR. ROGERS: For the record, Dan Rodriguez. I'm your Solid
Waste Management Department Director. That's correct,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what is the zoning on that
center location on Marco Island?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I believe it's light industry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Light industry. And that's -- I
guess my concern is, I mean, I don't want to take down a process
Page 1 79
June 23, 2009
where I feel those type of uses belong in light industry or industrial.
And I also feel that locating it just miles away from the existing, what
you're going to be asking for is a new recycling center at the landfill.
It's just not good public service.
So I can't support this item, and I'm afraid that we're going to --
it's going to be a contentious issue during the rezoning process. Private
sector can't put a recycling center in a PUD unless it's zoned
industrial. To do this right, you would really want to zone this
industrial. And that takes a Growth Management Plan change, and
that's not being -- what's being proposed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some concerns because I
think that it could be rezoned and it's -- I think this is in regards to the
same community that cost us another $12 million when we moved the
EOC center from that location to where it's presently located. And if I
remember correctly, that was about a $12 million increase in costs.
So I don't -- I've got some concerns about, what are we going to
put there? We own that land, and I think this would be very beneficial
for the citizens in that area or in Collier County, and it would get us
out of the contract at the airport. So that's my feeling.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Doesn't this property back up to a
shopping center about to be built?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. It's adjacent to the school, as
well as the EMS.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then there's the big shopping
center there that it looks like they've already carved out, right?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. Do I hear a motion
from anyone?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any further discussion?
Page 180
June 23, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 3-2.
Item #1 OJ
RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF A WORK ORDER FOR THE WATER
QUALITY MONITORING, DATA COLLECTION,
CIRCULATION/SEDIMENT MODEL AND NATURAL
RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY OF THE CLAM
BAY ESTUARY OUTLINED IN A PBS&J PROPOSAL FOR A
TIME AND MATERIALS, NOT TO EXCEED COST OF $265,012
AND AUTHORIZE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
EXECUTE WORK ORDER AFTER APPROVAL BY COUNTY
ATTORNEY - MOTION TO NOT APPROVE - DENIED;
MOTION TO SPEND $125,000 FOR THE INITIAL PHASE OF
THE PROPOSAL AND ANALYZE ALL DATA - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, next item is lOr. It was formerly
16D5. That's a recommendation -- recommend approval from the
board to provide peer review from Turrell, Hall & Associates,
Humiston and Moore Coastal Planning and Engineering, and Dr. Dean
from the University of Florida to PBS&J, Clam Bay water quality
monitoring, data collection, circulation, sediment model, natural
resource characterization study.
Page 181
June 23, 2009
This item as well as the next item that is related were removed
from your consent agenda by Commissioner Henning, and Mr.
McAlpin is here to answer questions or present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Spend, baby, spend. Again, you
know, you're complaining -- everybody's complaining they don't have
enough money, but here we've got another study that's going to result
in capital improvements, and you need to find -- find that money. And
I just -- I just think it's the wrong time to be doing things that, you
know, don't benefit the general -- the overall population. I know this
has been a contentious issue. And I'm going to make a motion not to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay -- and a second not to approve; is
that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Kathy Worley. She'll be followed by David
Roellig.
MS. WORLEY: Hi. Good afternoon. This is, again, the
cart-before-the-horse deal going on here, because if you didn't -- if
you don't approve I guess what now is 10J, then 10I is sort of
redundant because what you're talking about here is a peer review that
is connected to the Water Quality Circulation Study.
Peer review is a standard way of vetting scientific data and it's
vital to provide a critical review of the study methodology, the
analysis, and the results.
It really needs to be made clear that in order for any successful
Page 182
June 23, 2009
peer review there has to be in place an avenue from which any
responses and recommendations are given by the peer reviewers to be
acted upon, and we still have to work that out in the Clam Bay
Advisory Committee on how we're going to do that.
But -- so basically if you are -- approve the 10J item, it's really
necessary to have the 10I item. They kind of go together. So we're
talking about the first -- you know, the cart before the horse again.
Did that make sense?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- you know, Madam
Chair, can we -- can we address 16D6 with the motion not to approve?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 16D6?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, instead of 10I, 10J.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Do that one first you say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes, we can do that if that's -- if
that's a better --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion not to approve
10 -- or 10J.
MS. FILSON: And I have five speakers on that, Madam
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we're skipping over 10J. You
have five speakers. And Commissioner Henning makes a motion not
to approve 10J.
Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which was formerly 16D6.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Correct, 16D6.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta, is
your button on from before?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, it was. Forget it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Would you call the
Page 183
June 23, 2009
five speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Linda Roth. Kathy Worley. She'll
be followed by David Rolleig.
THE AUDIENCE: He's not here.
MS. WORLEY: Hi, again. Anyway, due to time constraints, I'm
going to make this really short. I did send you a letter on this
particular issue, and I'm only going to mention -- highlight a few
things that I had said within it.
And basically the intent of the study is to provide a piece of the
information needed to make a Comprehensive Management Plan for
Clam Bay. It should be understood that it's not the only study that will
need to be performed to arrive at a management plan.
As far as the scope of the work that is presented by PBS&J under
the background purpose, question one, what is the extent and relative
health of the natural resources in the Clam Bay and Moorings Bay,
cannot be answered entirely by this study, okay. What this thing is for
is the natural resources part of this thing.
It should be understood that the study before you today, the
natural resources component addresses the physical component of the
characterization study. It does not address the biology.
So these things that are in this study are a piece of a puzzle. And
in order to develop a management plan, you need to have all the
pieces, and this is a piece of it.
Oh, let's see. I'm just going to -- I'm not going to go into all of
the things that I've pulled up before in my letter, but one thing I would
ask is that in regard to the circulation model, modeling depicted in this
study, the one thing that the Clam Bay Advisory Committee asked for
was that all the models that were used by PBS&J undergo model
verification or recalibration, however you want to phrase it, after the
model has been developed to ensure that it's accurate.
If the process of verifying the accuracy of the model is not
employed through post-model field verifications, then there's no basis
Page 184
June 23, 2009
to trust the model results.
The cost of doing so, I don't know if it's included in the proposal,
but it is really essential to validating the results, and it was requested
by the advisory committee for inclusion in the April 16th meeting.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: David Roellig left, so you're next -- are you Mr.
Roellig?
MR. CARROLL: No, I'm Jim Carroll.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marcia Cravens, and she will
be followed by Jim Carroll.
MR. CARROLL: It would have been helpful if I talked first, but
I'll wait.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. And I found
it really interesting that -- to find that the PBS&J company had had a
recent change order that was a 300-percent increase in what their
original cost was, because that's one of the things that I had wanted to
talk about, but that will be, I guess, in the next item.
What I want to talk about though is collaboration. And the
current ten-year management plan, which is actually a comprehensive
management plan -- it's not just about mangroves -- was actually the
result of collaboration. We included in -- to bring that management
plan about, it included local consultants from Engineering and
Environmental Services, universities, the Conservancy, Rookery Bay,
the Mangrove Action Group; you had staff from Environmental
Services, Mac Hatcher, who -- I don't think he's still here anymore --
he was involved in it, and it was a real collaborative effort, which
most of this was donated time.
Kathy Worley, at the subcommittee meeting that was discussing
the studies, she brought forth a motion for it to be a collaborative
effort again with the Conservancy and other environmental
organizations, rather than expending all of these funds that are so
needed elsewhere.
Page 185
June 23, 2009
I can tell you that the Mangrove Action Group has already
approved to do a comprehensive seagrass survey and mapping, and we
are also looking to do a partnership and some sort of collaboration
with other organizations and to do fundraising to do further surveys in
this area.
And I hope that, you know, that's not ignored. We've got so much
talent in this area. We've got two universities. We've got a number of
environmental organizations and all kinds of talented, knowledgeable
people who could easily do the review work, because much of this
contract is for the PBS&J Company to review other studies.
And other -- other studies there definitely have been. I think
what they're talking about are reviews of water quality studies that the
City of Naples does, you've got pollution control, they're already
monitoring the water quality, PBS&- -- PBSD monitors some water
quality, so does -- the Conservancy does water quality monitoring. So
I'm wondering, why are we doing a third-party contract spending our
needed money on that?
And I just want to kind of show you. These are all studies. We
have studied Clam Bay and the Moorings and Doctors Pass ad
nauseam. We have done hydrology studies. We've got a study --
here's one from Surveillance and Analysis Division of the EP A. This
one is from Department of Environmental Protection. This one is
from Pollution Control Department.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Ms. Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: Okay. You got my point. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Madam Chairman, is Jim
Carroll.
MR. CARROLL: Hi, I'm back again.
This particular item -- we had at least three subcommittees that
were put together to work out different portions of this study. After
several meetings of these committees individually, we decided that
they overlapped so much that we really needed to combine them, and
Page 186
June 23, 2009
we ended up basically with one committee working on this whole
subject of water quality.
There are a lot of other details you'll notice regarding data
collection and circulation models and so forth. And, yes, we're
certainly aware of the studies that Ms. Cravens mentioned before, but
it did seem to us -- and I've attended some of the subcommittee
meetings -- that there was a new study, new data, new work needed to
be done to kind of bring all of this together, and we chose PBS&J to
do that study.
One of the other items that you began to work on before and
moved into second place had to do with this peer review which Ms.
Worley talked about. One of the principal reasons that subj ect was
brought up and -- was that it felt to all of us that we needed to have the
experience of the contractors that are listed here. Humiston and
Moore, Turrell & Hall (sic) Associates, for example.
Now, I know these two companies very well. They were very
active with us in the services division. Tim Hall you've probably
heard of. He was one of our principal consultants as we did the
mangrove die-off study problem so that we felt that the -- it was
important that though we selected PBS&J to do this large study, that
we needed to have the input of these other two organizations.
The idea of doing it by a peer review was kind of new to me. As
far as I was concerned, the PBS&J, if they needed that kind of help,
should have been able to hire as a sub if they needed, Humiston and
Moore or Turrell, Hall to work with them so that -- what I'm -- what
I'm saying is that I think that this study is a real important part of our
whole effort, and I think -- I recognize -- I've sat here all day, and I've
heard you talk about saving money, and I can understand why --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Carroll.
MR. CARROLL: -- you might be really concerned about
spending $265,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Carroll.
Page 187
June 23, 2009
MR. CARROLL: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask Mr. Carroll a question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Carroll, if you would come
back to the mike, I'd just like to ask a question.
MR. CARROLL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you envision that the study that
we expect to spend over a quarter million dollars on will look at the
other studies and use the data that has already been gathered, or are we
going to duplicate the sampling and the modeling that has been done
by these other studies?
MR. CARROLL: I certainly hope that we would use that and
expect that we would use that. To duplicate that would seem, to me, a
very big waste.
One of the things that is a little different about this study, as I've
tried to understand it, is that it actually reaches into the two areas
outside of Pelican Bay, but mostly to the south through -- into
Moorings Bay and so forth.
And when I tried to challenge whether we ought to be including
somebody outside of this study, I became convinced that this was an
important part of it, kind of an integration of that entire area. I think
this estuary, we tend to define it as, in Pelican Bay, but it really
reaches into these other two areas. And I think that this study is
important. And to answer your question, we certainly should be using
existing studies.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, thank you. I have the same
opinion. I'm just concerned that the project might not be described in
that manner and be administered in that manner, that's my only
concern.
MR. CARROLL: I think that's a very good point, and I think it
would become part of my committee's job to make sure that happened,
Commissioner.
Page 188
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
MR. McALPIN: Madam Chair, if I may, this study is -- really
the heart and soul of the master plan that we're pulling together for
Clam Bay.
F or the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
The issues that we're talking about prior to this on navigational
markings and permitting are really preliminary issues. This is really
going to determine what we do and how we develop the master plan
for Clam Bay moving forward.
Weare going to use as much study information as we can,
Commissioner Coyle, to the north; but all the other impacts and work
that has been done has focused on the north, and it hasn't focused on
the whole estuary.
And what we're trying to do is we're trying to do a complete
mixing and flushing study, look at -- look at the whole system and
balance water quality with flushing so we could increase the level of
the quality of the -- for the whole estuary, not only seagrasses, not
only mangroves, but everything.
The -- so we're trying to pull together a balanced approach on
this issue. We would be using a combination of TDC funds and
general revenue funds to do this. Why, is because some of this work
would be directly related to ebb-tide shoal work that -- so it is not 100
percent -- 100 percent paid for with general revenue funds.
And probably the most important thing here is what we're really
trying to do is be proactive and get ahead of the curve. And by that
what I mean is that we have in the system -- the water quality data that
we have there, we think, is very much suspect. We have TMDLs that
are over the permissible levels.
IfDEP was to come in at this point in time, we do not want them
to impose upon us a way to fix this. We want to get out in front of it,
do whatever data acquisition we have to do, come up with a plan, and
then go back to sell that to D EP.
Page 189
June 23, 2009
We want to work with them to establish our specific water
quality standards for Clam Bay. And then if we are off base with that,
a plan on how we can get there as opposed to them telling us how to
get there. And that's really what we're trying to do is we're trying to
be proactive, stay ahead of the curve, and come back to you, as you
directed to us, at the end of this year with a master plan which will lay
it out to do that. So that's what this whole thing is about. It's the heart
of the Clam Bay program.
And any questions?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. My only point is, you
know, we're looking at tax increases; we're looking at charging fees to
residents that we never charged before; we're looking at closing down
facilities. My only point is, let's stop, you know. Let's not take on any
more. And, you know, I -- if I ever thought that we'd be looking at a
$75 beach sticker fee, I would have started this process a long time
ago. But anyways, that's the reason I pulled it off.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's a good point.
And Gary, you can tell me, can this study be done two years from
now, when we get back on our feet financially?
MR. McALPIN: What we would do is, I think we would -- if
you wanted to do it two years from now, there's nothing to say it could
not be done two years from now.
The risk that you'd run is you still have a lot of data in -- that's
out there that's floating around that says that we're not in compliance
with TMDLs, okay, and that data is required to be put into the store-at
system from the state, which hasn't been done, okay. If we were able
to put that data -- if we re- -- if that data had been put in the store-at
system, there is a possibility the state could come in, review that data,
and then tell us what we had to do on this estuary. That's what we're
Page 190
June 23, 2009
trying to avoid.
So to the extent -- can it be delayed? Absolutely. We would put
the whole Clam Bay Program on hold for a period of time. We just
have an exposure during that period of time, Madam Chair, and that's
what we're trying to avoid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I next?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I have a proposal to make.
Let's use some of this money for Phase r. Phase I will be to take all the
studies that exist right now and correlate those studies and derive
some initial impressions concerning the health of Clam Bay. It will
clearly indicate that we are missing certain data. We then can focus
our efforts on collecting that missing data so we can get a more
comprehensive result.
We might also find that there are volunteers or volunteer
organizations that will -- will conduct some of these studies without a
great expenditure of funds.
So what I'm suggesting is, let's start by taking the studies we have
right now and having somebody look at them and correlate them,
compile some conclusions, and then come back to us, and then we see
where we go from there.
MR. McALPIN: And we had -- that was -- that was definitely
part of this study here.
Commissioner Coyle, if we could, if you want to do it in phases,
what I would also suggest to you is that we initiate the data-collection
phase because there's certain data out there from a flow and from a
water quality that we definitely need to do that would lead to the next
step.
So if we could add to what you're saying with the -- with the
analysis of everything that's out there, which is primarily on the north
Page 191
June 23, 2009
end, and do more data collection on the south end -- and the
data-collection piece on the south end was about $95,000, which is
part of this study, then we would not lose time, and we could also then
have information to rebut whatever the state will come back and tell
us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so when do you think you
could do that? What's the timing for that?
MR. McALPIN: We could start with the -- we could start with
this immediately. We would look at a data-collection phase that
would continue, which would be relatively modest, that would
continue until we had funds available to move it to the next step, and
that would be whenever you would decide.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So rather than getting approval to
spend $265,000, you'd ask for $95,000 to do the data collection, come
back and give us a study, and then we would take a look at that study
and decide how much more we allocate you at that point in time?
MR. McALPIN: It would probably be more than 95,000,
because analysis of the data, that's current data, would probably cost
us some money, Commissioner Coyle. So if you said certainly within
$120,000, we could come back and do all of that that you're
requesting.
And the other thing I want to say is that we will use whatever
volunteer organizations we can, but we want this piece. It's very
important that it be balanced and fair and objective, and that's -- that's
why we chose PBS&J because they didn't have a dog in this fight. I
mean, they were neutral all the way through this thing. So it's very
important that any organizations, they don't have a vested interest.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, so would -- perhaps some
group from a university, they would be relatively unbiased, I would
presume. But didn't Turrell & Associates conduct a study?
MR. McALPIN: Turrell & Associates conducted the initial study
from -- that was done by -- that was done for the Pelican Bay --
Page 192
June 23, 2009
Pelican Bay Services Division, that is correct, Mr. Chair (sic).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're going to use that data, I
would presume, it looks like?
MR. McALPIN: We would look at that data, evaluate that data,
and use it in the system, yes. We would use that data.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, you see, what I'm getting at is,
let's not duplicate what we've already done. Let's start with what
we've got and then try to derive as many conclusions as you can from
it, come back to us, give us a report, tell us what you need to move
forward from there, and I think we can manage it a little more closely
and probably save some money here.
I do recall a study that was done for the southern portion on flows
when people were talking about putting those dampers in the drainage
pipes. So, you know, we've -- we've been studying this area for a long,
long, long time. And I would doubt that flows have changed all that
much, but there could be some changes, so I won't even argue that
point.
But what I would suggest is we -- all right. You say $120,000? I
would suggest we cut the request for the initial funding to $120,000,
we authorize you to take -- to do what we just described, take the
existing studies, analyze them, and then come back and report to us
where you are and what you need to do after that.
MR. McALPIN: Very good. We could do that, if that's the
board's wishes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think we already have a motion on
the floor, don't we?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what was the motion?
MS. FILSON: To deny.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion was not to approve this
item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay.
Page 193
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that
everybody understands that we could have saved the county a whole
hell of a lot of money here.
One of their -- our objectives when we talked to the congressmen
up in Washington was to try to get money down here, WRDA money.
And there was a certain individual that made calls to the congressmen
saying we didn't need that money down here.
So I just want to make sure that everybody understands that we
tried every effort to make sure that this wasn't a burden to the
taxpayers, that we were trying to get some funding from the citizens
who will pay taxes and send it up to Washington, and obviously that's
one of the areas of concern with me, that when we try to do things
here for the citizens, there's an individual or individuals that get
involved and make statements that are untrue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that have to do with this
item?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A lot, because this -- we asked for
money specifically for Clam Bay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor. Would
you like to repeat your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I beg to differ. The Board
of County Commissioners removed that request from the agenda. I
don't know what you're talking about, somebody talking to
Washington, D. C. It has nothing to do with the item on the agenda.
The motion is not approve this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second was by Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Not to approve?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor not to
Page 194
June 23, 2009
approve and second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
That's a 3-2 opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we approve
$120,000 for the initial phase of the study to examine the existing
studies, provide some preliminary conclusions, recommendations to
the board for further action.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, that wasn't
advertised. I mean, that's just something that was just thrown out here
in the last minute. The public didn't have a chance to comment on
that, review those recommendations to make a comment. How can we
do that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same way we did the three or four
other items that you pulled.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- when that was your argument
of the marking on Clam Bay? Shouldn't we be consistent?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are consistent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We do this a lot where we--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do this a lot but the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- where we modify.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We just did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the argument for Clam Bay
is, when they're a proposal by citizens, we can't do this. It hasn't been
Page 195
June 23, 2009
advertised.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was an entirely different
proposal. You are confusing an approval of a monetary amount to be
expended with a project definition, and that's not what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're changing the scope on it,
and that's just the same suggestion that citizens on the marking of
Clam Bay did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
spend $120,000 for a modified version of this agenda item, and I have
a second. The second was by Donna Fiala.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 4-1 vote. Thank you.
Item #10I
RECOMMEND APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE PEER REVIEW FROM
TURRELL-HALL AND ASSOCIATES, HUMISTON AND
MOORE, COASTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING AND
DR. DEAN FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TO THE
PBS&J CLAM BAY WATER QUALITY MONITORING, DATA
COLLECTION, CIRCULATION/SEDIMENT MODEL AND
NATURAL RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY. THE
COST FOR THIS PEER REVIEW IS EXPECTED NOT TO
EXCEED $50.000 - MOTION TO NOT APPROVE - APPROVED
Page 196
June 23, 2009
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, given that vote, the staff would ask
to withdraw then 10I because it becomes moot. We won't need a peer
review for that first phase of the project.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And I do have two speakers for that item, so we're
not going to hear those?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to take action on it, I
think.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can call them.
MS. FILSON: Okay. David Roellig?
THE AUDIENCE: Not here.
MS. FILSON: Marcia Cravens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Being that the item isn't on here anymore,
there's no reason to talk actually, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to -- I'll make a motion
we don't approve it.
MS. CRAVENS: I'll accept that. I was going to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion that we don't
approve lOr. It's on our agenda, we need to vote.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, you're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Vote for it or--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Vote to not approve it or withdraw it.
MR. OCHS: Either one. I would say not approve it; that way we
know the board has no intent of doing this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. Now go ahead, Ms.
Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: I was just going to make a point that there's
been a lot of concern about that particular company. And when
Commissioner Henning spoke about the 300-percent increase on this
other study they were doing, I thought it was very interesting because
they actually did that on a study just last year. They had an original
Page 197
June 23, 2009
cost for an ebb shoal study of $25,000, and the real cost of that ended
up being $75,000.
So I'm a little concerned about the costs that are being discussed
for the study right now, that that -- well, now it's $125,000. But I'm
concerned that it could also increase by as much as 300 percent.
That's apparently happened at least twice now.
And, you know, I didn't bring it up then because I thought, you
know, it would be maybe more pertinent on this part because you're
adding also in the cost of the peer review. So you had what was
proposed as a $265,000 study, plus a $55,000 peer review, comes in
at, you know, quarter of a million dollars, but the experiences we've
had in this county with this company is that they have now twice
raised the cost, that it's actually costing us 300 percent. Not once, but
twice.
And I'm really concerned with it. We need that money. We're
fighting so hard to keep the libraries open and to be able to access the
beaches and maintain our county parks, that I don't even think these
are real numbers with this company. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now we go to item what?
MS. FILSON: You need to take a vote. You didn't--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, we didn't vote on this? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We didn't.
MR. OCHS: I think Commissioner Henning made a motion to
disapprove the item.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Coletta was the second.
MR.OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 198
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 4-0.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
That takes us to Item 11, public comments on general topics.
MS. FILSON: I have no public comment, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Item #12A
STATUS REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS REGARDING THE 2003 AGREEMENT
AND PROMISES MADE BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO THE COUNTY
VACATING APPROXIMATELY 287 MILES OF ROADS IN
SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - MOTION TO GO
FORWARD WITH LAWSUIT - APPROVED
Takes us to 12A, County Attorney's report.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. This is an ATV issue with the water
district. We've talked about this before the board. I don't really want
a large discussion on this because if we move toward litigation,
obviously everything on the record will be part of that. So that I'll
take questions; Jackie's here to answer questions as well. Otherwise,
I'd just ask for a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm glad you don't want to have much
conversation on this. That will shorten this one up. It seems we've --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to do what?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Whether or not you wish us to bring suit
against the Water Management District for the A TV park. They
promised you 640 acres, seems like a lifetime ago. We still don't have
Page 199
June 23, 2009
it. And the issue is whether or not you want to commence suit to -- for
breach of contract.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, I have a couple speakers on
this item?
MS. FILSON: One, one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to hear the speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They were -- did you have your button on
or do you think you did?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you want me to turn it on?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no, uh-uh, no.
Would you call the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Brian McMahon.
MR. McMAHON: I'll be very brief. I know you're in a hurry to
leave. This issue's been going on for six years. There's no relief in
sight. It's time that we resolve it one way or the other.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That comes right to the point, doesn't it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I feel extremely guilty. I
dragged them all the way out of work for half the day for that. You
know, I could have -- you could have put it in writing, and I could
have read it.
MR. McMAHON: There's nothing more you can say.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you're right. And I'll be
honest with you, if I may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You read the executive
summary. It was right to the point. I don't think there was anything in
there that wasn't true. It was a great observation. I commend the
County Attorney for putting it together in concise terms.
Page 200
June 23, 2009
My recommendation is that we go forward with this lawsuit
while the time element's still on our side. Doesn't mean that
something can't be settled beforehand, but no one's taken us that
senous.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Is that in a motion, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
proceed with the lawsuit, and second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's a guy standing there that
looks familiar. Have we seen him before?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know, but he didn't have a -- does he
have a speaker slip?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where's he from?
MS. FILSON: I believe he's from South--
MR. KLATZKOW: The dark side.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's from the dark side, I see,
okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No speaker slip. What is your name, sir?
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, my name is John Dunnuck.
I'm the program manager for Everglades Restoration.
I did want to offer one thing up today. While we have been
diligently still looking -- and you know, we recognize that from a
district's official perspective, the Lake Trafford is the official site of
this 640.
We have been looking to address the 2007 agreement's interim
location. And Commissioner Coletta, we went up and saw a site in
Hendry County about six months ago, along with Commissioner
Turner from Hendry County, and we just received verbal approval
from the Department of Interior that they're going to go forward with
Page 201
June 23, 2009
the advertisement of what's considered the land use change to allow us
to use 200 acres up at that site. And we would like to proceed
forward; however, obviously with potential litigation out there, I don't
want to move forward with looking -- we'd have to do a conditional
use zoning change with Hendry County to approve that site for the
interim location, but I need your board's concurrence to allow this to
go forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, John, actually I think I
liked you more when you were parks and rec. But you're still a nice
person, even though your dog did jump into my swimming pool -- and
that's beside the point. We're going to forget all that.
But honest -- to be honest with you, John, we've just been going
in smaller and smaller circles all the time. The clock's starting to run
out. There is no reason while we're proceeding with this lawsuit that
you still can't try to rectify this and that we have buried a lawsuit.
If it's the stance of water management that once we take a lawsuit
they're not going to communicate anymore, then everything's just as it
always has been. We just don't have a willing partner in this dance.
That's the way I'm looking at it.
John, I hope to God you carry it back to them, that there's still
salvation. The County Attorney's going to go forward with the
direction that he gets here today. It doesn't -- nothing happens until
that point in time it happens, meanwhile, every opportunity still lies
within your camp. If you want to close that door, then so be it, you
know. It will only hurt the people that we all represent. And I hope to
God that water management is cognizant of that fact.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And sadly there's -- every time there's
another threat. If you don't do this, then we're going to do that, or if
you do this, then we're going to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's consistency. At
least we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Always a threat.
Page 202
June 23, 2009
MR. DUNNUCK: We're not trying to convey that. We recognize
there's an expense with going outside of Collier County to get an
interim land use change. And consistent with the 2007 agreement,
there were three components. There was the component of the
acceptance of the Lake Trafford site upon the dredging of the lake,
and we're finalizing the dredging of the lake as we speak right now.
There was a conveyance of $550,000 for a boat ramp, which we
did in January, which we have a letter from the County Manager
agreeing that it was consistent with the 2007 agreement.
And the third component was to provide an interim site which we
provided in the Alico site; however, we recognized that that was going
to take two years to possibly zone and do an EIS because of a caracara
situation.
We've been working trying to find an interim site. We were
encouraged by the fact that we had the commissioner and another
commissioner from Hendry County. We've been following up with
the Department of Interior for the past six months. They just gave us
the approval from that standpoint.
So from that end of it, you know, we would be hopeful that you
guys would recognize that. But we can't go forward with Hendry
County and say we have a partner in Collier County, please give us
conditional use zoning approval if in fact it's the county's position that
you do not accept the interim location that we're trying to provide and
pay for the management of.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What you said is
absolutely correct. John, I'm sorry. You know, you offer us nothing.
You were supposed to complete this contract, what was it, 2005?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, God, years ago.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I mean, it's way past that.
You offer us a site in Immokalee that you as well as everybody else
has admitted that it's polluted with arsenic, and what's that other heavy
metal?
Page 203
June 23, 2009
MR. KLATZKOW: I think selenium.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Selenium. And that, yeah, you
might be able to mitigate it. You might, but we don't know that.
There's too many uncertains. Meanwhile, many, many people in
Collier County that given up on the Picayune so water management
could have their way, they have -- their kids have grown up, and now
there's other families out there that would like to recreate, and they're
still out of it.
I mean, come on, John, this isn't real. This is not real. I mean,
you know, take a look at it from where I'm sitting here and everything
I seen. Did you read the executive summary?
MR. DUNNUCK: I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take that back to water
management board and tell them, this is how Collier County feels.
We'd love to talk to them when they really get serious. About the only
time I ever seen them get serious is the day I had the effort going
statewide to have that board replaced by an elected board, and then
they came down here to the man and met with me in the office. We
made all sorts of deals on things, and I think they lived up to some of
them.
Hey, I'll tell you what. I think that they got the book that our
original pioneers got when they took the land away from the Indians, I
really do. And we're following the same thing. We keep getting all
these treaties, or in this case promises, and none of them ever
materialize. It's always just over the hill, just the next horizon.
Manana. How do you say it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Manana.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Manana, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: John, come on. Carry it back to
them, tell them to come back here and talk to us. It's -- it would have
made me feel better today if we had several members of the board
Page 204
June 23, 2009
sitting in the audience ready to do dialogue with us, not that you're not
a capable representative of water management, but it doesn't speak
well when they just send one person here to be able to talk to us. And
the only thing he can offer us is a little bit of an ultimatum rather than
MR. DUNNUCK: That's not the intent at all for an ultimatum.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I misunderstood
you, but time will tell.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What was the offer?
MR. DUNNUCK: Our offer is we would like to work with you
on the interim location with Hendry County, and we were hoping to
get the county's approval that you -- while you may go forward upon
the 640-acre side of it, we would be able to have a step forward to say
we would like to pursue the conditional use permit with Hendry
County to open up this site up in Hendry County for an interim
location so we can get the A TV ers out on the location. That's what
we're offering.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor.
Would you like to repeat the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the motion is that we
direct the County Attorney to go forward with the lawsuit, but
meanwhile we keep other options open so the dialogue stays alive at
least at our end.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have a second on that
motion.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 205
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 4-0. Thank you.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, John.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Moving down to -
Item #13A
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TOTALING $144,000 TO PROVIDE FUNDING
FOR VARIOUS AGENCIES WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM TO
COVER THE ARTICLE V REVENUE SHORTFALL FOR THE
BALANCE OF FY09 - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. The next item is 13A. It was formerly
16D -- excuse me -- 16J5, and that is a recommendation to authorize
budget amendments totaling $144,000 that will provide funding for
various agencies within the court system to cover Article V revenue
shortfall for the balance of fiscal year 2009. This was at
Commissioner Henning's request.
Mr. Middlebrook's here to present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you know, Mr.
Middlebrook, the funds from this come from the ordinance for $65 per
misdemeanor violation?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Misdemeanor, felony, criminal traffic,
yes, sIr.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Convictions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What happened to that money?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: What happened to it?
Page 206
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is it down or--
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes. It's significantly down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why is it -- why is it
down?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Because arrests are down. In
misdemeanors, I believe it's 22 percent from 2007 to 2008; felony is
down, I believe, 10 percent or 12 percent during the same time period.
So with the number of citations, criminal citations, and arrests being
down, obviously the number of convictions will be down also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to me ifbusiness is down,
just like what's happening to so many businesses, you make changes
within your spending habits to have a balanced budget. Instead of
doing a budget amendment, why don't we amend the practices of these
different agencies?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Well, first, these recipients of the $65
fund have nothing to do with criminal, other than teen court, which is
juvenile, so it still has nothing to do with the criminal side.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: So if we're going to have to reduce
because the criminal numbers are down, we've done that already by
cutting or freezing four positions in probation. So to adjust these
because criminal numbers, arrests, have decreased, would be
penalizing these people and these organizations and these services due
to no fault of their efforts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- all right. Right now you
have four less probation officers; you have a freeze on them?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Three probation officers and one
probation secretary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Teen court doesn't meet
in the summertime?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you still need a budget
Page 207
June 23, 2009
amendment on it?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct, because we have an employee
-- teen court is more than just the court session. They have to track
the people that have been given sanctions through the court, which
occurs over the summer. Additionally, that person assists us with
other juvenile efforts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public guardianship?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has nothing to do with
felonies --
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or misdemeanors?
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Correct. Public guardianship is actually
a county program that the board had to pay 100 percent of the cost,
nearly $200,000 a year, previous to 2004 until the chief judge
identified that as a court innovations program that he would allow the
$65 component to pay for, so that for the last five years, the board has
had to pay zero dollars for that program.
At the request of the board approximately 15 years ago, the
courts have overseen this program. This is the program where elderly
individuals who have no family members and no viable income that
are placed in retirement homes, hospitals, those that have diminished
capacity that could be young adults that have no one to oversee them
past their 18th birthday, they are appointed a public guardian to ensure
that they are taken care of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 208
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks, Mark.
MR. MIDDLEBROOK: Thank you very much.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY (CRA) ACCEPT A RESPONSE TO RFP #09-5177R
FROM FIFTH THIRD BANK FOR A $13,500,000 TERM LOAN;
AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE PROPOSAL
AND ALL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;
DIRECT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO PREP ARE ALL
REQUIRED ENABLING DOCUMENTS/RESOLUTIONS TO
PLEDGE CRA TAX INCREMENT FUNDS AS THE LOAN
REPAYMENT SOURCE AND RETURN FOR BOARD
APPROVAL; AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that moves us to 14A on your
agenda, which is a recommendation the Community Redevelopment
Agency accepts a response to RFP number 09-5177R from Fifth Third
Bank for a $13,500,000 term loan, authorize the CRA Chairman to
sign the proposal and all other documents in connection therewith,
direct the -- excuse me -- direct the executive director to prepare all
required enabling documents and resolutions to pledge CRA tax
increment funds as the loan repayment source, in return for board
approval, and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
Page 209
June 23, 2009
Mr. David Jackson, your Executive Director of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
I didn't miss it.
Hearing none -- are you opening your mouth to say something,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was yawning. But
nevertheless, yeah, I do have a question.
David, I -- despite the information you've given to me, I am still a
little confused about how we are going to use these funds.
You have seven parcels and you have contract one and contract
two. They equal to $7 million. Could you just briefly describe what
you're going to use the $13 million for?
MR. JACKSON: The 13 -- David Jackson, Executive Director
for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA.
The $13.5 million will absorb the existing Wachovia line of
credit of$5.901 million. It will leave $7.5 million plus, a little bit
over that, somewhere almost $.6 million, to purchase this priority one
target that the CRA board has said to acquire. It's those parcels on the
screen, one through seven.
The initial contract was for all parcels, and we could not close on
them because parcel number seven, highlighted there, was found to be
dirty during the Phase II environmental inspection.
So under recommendations of various agencies and County
Attorney was to cancel that contract, which you did today on the
consent agenda, and is to reacquire two more contracts, parcels one
through six through -- to date, have been found to be clean with no
issues, and parcel number seven is a second contract. The price for
Page 210
June 23, 2009
that -- all seven parcels is still $7.5 million.
We prorated the cost of the land, which is $27 a square foot, over
the acreage, and divided the cost for one through six and parcel seven,
and it adds up to 7.5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that still leaves you with a
$5-million line of credit?
MR. JACKSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: That taps us out. That absorbs and uses the
entire amount of fixed term, 13.5. That is our -- where we'll have to
pay the debt service on that total amount.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You use the term line of credit
though.
MR. JACKSON: No, sir. The line of credit was the pre-existing
Wachovia line of credit. This is a fixed-term loan which will absorb
and take out the line of credit and then become one note, one financial
debt instrument.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Of$13,500,000?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm still confused. Does that mean
you have exhausted the line of credit that you previously had with
Fifth/Third?
MR. JACKSON: Fifth/Third? We never had a line of credit
with Fifth/Third.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. JACKSON: We had a line of credit with a bank called
Wachovia.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wachovia, okay.
MR. JACKSON: Fifth/Third has agreed to pay that debt and
issue it into one instrument for a total of 13.5. So it's basically rolling
it up. It's like taking two -- taking a couple bonds and rolling them up
into one bond.
Page 211
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you owed Wachovia $5
million?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. To me a line of credit is
something that you can borrow against, but you apparently had
already borrowed that money from Wachovia.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. The line of credit for Wachovia was a
total of not to exceed seven million. We had borrowed 5.9 million of
that. There was still a $1 million ceiling yet to reach on it; however,
because of the economic times and there wasn't any land to purchase,
we just held off on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This does not leave you with any
money to purchase the Burger King property to the west; is that
correct?
MR. JACKSON: No, only debt instrument, however, we do have
several million dollars in the current fiscal budget that could be used
to purchase that Burger King parcel to the west.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that still a possibility?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, it's a possibility. We'd have to really
look at the budget and pay attention to what our out-years finances
will be. I sent you over a cash flow prognosis out to 20 14. We'll have
to take a look at that. Right now I have no direction to go there. I can
bring that back to you later this year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion, we have a
second.
And with that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 212
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How did he become the -- oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not paying attention.
MR. OCHS: He's the CRA --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's getting a little late in the day for
you, SIr.
Those opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the vote is 4-0, and I turn the
meeting back over to Chairman --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got one more.
MR. JACKSON: You've got one more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, one more.
MR.OCHS: You've got one more, sir. It's 14B.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: This is actually an Airport Authority item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, so that's back to me.
MR.OCHS: So it's back to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, what are you trying to
do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm trying to confuse, just like
what's been going on, that's all.
Item #14B
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVES AND AUTHORIZES ITS
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S EXECUTIVE
Page 213
June 23, 2009
DIRECTOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, EXTENDING THE
AGREEMENT THREE (3) YEARS STARTING OCTOBER 1,2009
AND PROVIDING A SALARY ADJUSTMENT - MOTION TO
BRING BACK IN SEPTEMBER WITH OPTIONS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: 14B is a recommendation that the board approves
and authorizes its chairman to execute attached first amendment to the
Collier County Airport Authority's Executive Director's Employment
Agreement extending the agreement three years starting on 1 October,
2009, providing a salary adjustment.
Ms. Theresa Cook, your Executive Director, is here to present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Theresa?
MS. COOK: Chairman Fiala, Commissioners, actually I would
like to table this agenda item for a future meeting, probably in
September after the budget meetings have been held.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I think we've got to move
on this today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Oh, my goodness. Okay. Let's
see. Commissioner Coletta was first, and then Commissioner Coyle
and then Commissioner Henning.
Okay. They would prefer to discuss it today they said.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, now as far as tabling it, I
don't have a problem with tabling it, but I want staff to bring back
some other alternatives.
I got to be honest with you, I'm less than happy with the direction
of the Airport Authority and the length of time it's taken to get
anyplace.
I would like to have it brought back in September, be able to
consider it after the budget, but also I'd like to get recommendations
from staff regarding doing the Airport Authority back under
transportation because we have a different breed of cats now in
Page 214
June 23, 2009
transportation for running things; two, looking at the possibility of a
new director; three, to be able to entertain the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Panel being put together by the EDC to be able to find
the very best possible thing we can do with the Airport Authority to be
able to move things forward and possibly achieve some goals that
were placed on earlier. That would be my wish.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The motion -- the motion is to table
it until September?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, table it or bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At that time you would discuss all
these other issues?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, and we would be able to
hear from staff to be able to look at all the other options that I
mentioned, including to hear recommendations from the Blue Ribbon
Panel that the EDC has put together on this subj ect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's not all different -- too
much different than what she's requested is to table it until September.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but I'm asking staff to
bring back a little bit more, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand, I understand.
Okay, I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you have anything further to
say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if we're going to wait till
September, I guess I'll just hold my questions until then.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Table.
Page 215
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- table this item until September and
include at that time the suggestions that Commissioner Coletta made;
is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Absent.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's a 4-0.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: That takes us to staff and commission general
communications.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, be- -- I need to jump in here before
anything else. I'm still --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I know that, but I just -- I wanted to
go back to an item on the agenda, and that was the Bembridge thing,
16C3, which became 10H, and it's been -- it's been a -- bothering me
just a little bit about that. And I was wondering if it's possible that I
could reconsider that and talk with staff before we vote on that.
Would that be something we could do?
MR. KLA TZKOW: You could do a reconsideration at your next
Page 216
June 23, 2009
meeting. That would give you time to talk with staff in between. I
mean, I would --
MS. FILSON: Not until July.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not until July. I understand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So right now I can't do anything but --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you could, but you have time to do
your reconsideration, so you can talk with staff first, and then if you
want to do a motion, you can give the County Manager notice that you
intend to bring it up at the next meeting, and then you can make your
motion for reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm very, very
curious to where you're going with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I'll just come flat out
with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know the recycling center on Marco
Island, and quite frankly I've been there and -- I'm there every week. I
go by there. It's a wonderful place. Never makes any noise, never any
odor, never a problem. It's located in an industrial section, but in my
opinion anyway, it could be located anyplace, that's why I asked
during this conversation if the shopping center's backing up to it
because I don't know of anything residential even in the area, to be
honest with you, and I thought that it wouldn't be offensive at all.
Word has gotten to me that it might be offensive to the people in
the area. I don't know that. I don't know if they were contacted by it
or anything. I didn't think it would be because of watching the one on
Marco Island. But I thought I needed to talk to staff about it before --
that's why I was going to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you want to bring it back for
reconsideration, I'd be happy to second that motion for the next
meeting.
Page 217
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just so you don't have the
uncertainty of what's happening and have to move it off to sometime
in October.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that would be just great, then I --
next meeting is just perfect. In fact --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now you'd have to put it to a
vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. So it would be -- I need to ask the
other commissioners if it's all right if we could have a reconsideration
at next meeting? It's just so I can talk to staff, yeah. And I can talk to
you. Tell me, you voted -- you voted for -- against it. Why did you
vote against it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's unclear to me what the total
project costs are likely to be. The situation at the current location is
that you're occupying, I think, five acres or so and you're saying
$45,000 a year for five acres. Well, we're going to do something,
we're going to build something, and we're going to go to 12 or 15
acres, and we're increasing our costs eight -- eight, okay . We're
doubling the size pretty much.
MR. DeLONY: With the buffer and other things, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And -- but the cost is going up, and
I think --
MR. DeLONY: The lease cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $8 million -- or $5 million for ten
years or --
MR. DeLONY: Right. It was 30 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty years.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, for the lease costs, yes, sir. And that's
what we're trying to avoid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's -- whereas right now it's
only one million three for the lease cost of the property we've got right
Page 218
June 23, 2009
now.
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So what I'm looking at is
one million three for property we've got right now. It's functioning as
a recycling center. It's doing fine. It serves a segment of the
population. It's fairly convenient, keeps people from driving all the
way out east to get to the recycling center.
So I'm asking myself, what is the benefit to the entire community
to spend all these additional millions of dollars to do something
different? What's wrong with it as it is right now?
I don't see the return for the investment. It's a big investment, and
I just don't see the return. I use it, I go there. It works fine. It's
efficient. The people there are very helpful. I don't know what
improvement you're going to make to the service to the individuals in
Collier County by spending all this money and going somewhere else
and building another facility. That's my only concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a legitimate thing, and I -- we
didn't have enough conversation about this at all, and it's just been
gnawing at me. You know how sometimes you have something
gnawing at you?
MR. DeLONY: If I may?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
MR. DeLONY: First of all, the point of the matter is is that we're
not -- we're moving to a standard of service where we segregate retail
and wholesale commensurate to what we have at Marco, which we
don't have at that site we're discussing. And if you're saying that's
adequate and that's where we need to stay, then I'll take that direction
and move forward.
When we did the integrated solid waste management strategy, we
talked about this and increasing the breadth and the convenience of
our recycling program to enhance participation. And one of those
things that we discussed was locating additional recycling centers
Page 219
June 23, 2009
within the community, enhancing the services at those recycling
centers.
This is that second breakout from that strategy. The first was the
Marco site, and I just believe I'm following guidance with regard to it
with regard to this specific site, $500,000 for this location and this
acreage and this convenience to the public, provided we can find that
it is compatible to the land use that's already there. I mean, my view
is the best-value solution, you know, in response to your guidance.
If it's the intent of the board that it's not, then I'm back to the
drawing boards, and we'll proceed as directed. But that's generally,
you know, the drift line we've been on on this particular site and this
. .
Issue, sIr.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could respond to that.
My perception is that at least at that recycling site people are real
happy with it. And in fact, I think you should have recycling sites
conveniently located in other parts of the county because I think
people will use them that way.
And at 40-something-thousand dollars a year for a lease for that
site, that's not a lot of money and -- but you're planning something
significantly bigger and better.
MR. DeLONY: Well, it's certainly more conducive to -- in terms
of segregating some of the commercial activities, that is, pulling it out
and sending it on. Like the Marco facility, for example, we're trying
to make it convenient, clean, orderly, safe, and visually enhancing for
folks coming to it.
I mean, right now we're in an abandoned landfill area. You're
right, we do the very best we can. And generally speaking, because of
our staff, it's a great experience. I'm trying to bring that standard up a
little bit in terms of quality of the facility we're providing as per -- you
know, as per direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it -- at the point we're at now
from a financial standpoint, I'm looking more for functional than
Page 220
June 23, 2009
pretty.
MR. DeLONY: I agree with you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And that facility works real
fine. You've got paint, you go to here, you unload your paint. You go
to cardboard here. You go to wood over there. You go to appliances
over here. It's really very convenient.
MR. DeLONY: And what we were trying to accomplish with the
new facility was the same functionality. Some enhancements with
regards to its convenience to the customer and the customer safety,
better tolerance with regard to storm and storm vulnerability. Those
are just temporary buildings and some concerns about that.
But we'll -- I can address all those operationally. And the
direction of the County Manager has to date to get out of our leased
facilities where it's possible, where it makes sense, we can enhance
functionality, enhance the ability to pay, move out of leased facilities
into county-owned facilities. This was, I thought, an excellent
opportunity because of its location.
Problematic was only in, of course, beyond your -- you know,
taking your guidance and moving that to approval for the land was the
use concern I saw in terms of feathering this program.
Now, we can bite off as many chunks of this integrated solid
waste management strategy you all have approved as we'll have
ability to pay. And I agree with you that we're at that point. But this,
I thought, was a logical next step in getting those locations identified,
and then over the next couple or few years enhancing them into our
neighborhoods.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- you know, you're not
enhancing anything into a neighborhood anywhere near where that
one is located.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, that's the problem. You're
taking it out of the neighborhood.
Page 221
June 23, 2009
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what you're -- what will
happen then is the people who want to get rid of all this stuff will be
dumping it throughout East Naples and everyplace else for pickup at
the curbside, which is going to require additional transportation, and
they're going to have to truck it further distances and things of that
nature.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely true with any location we choose
different than the one we have now. You're actually going to displace
some and you're going to create new ones. And there was an offset. I
just felt that in this particular case, given the conditions at the airport,
leased facility, some concerns that -- last time we were up for a lease
-- I don't know if you remember this -- they voted 3-2 for us to get the
lease. I mean, they were -- I don't guess they view us as a valued
tenant.
And I know we can influence that through whatever. But my
point was, it was just, in my view, the next logical step. And in
putting these out in the neighborhoods, we need to put one in North
Naples. We need to put one out in the eastern part of Collier County
in District 5 . We want to spread this out for the convenience you just
spoke to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what I would suggest to you
then in this case, rather than spending a million or more dollars to
move that to a different facility, leave it there, take the money that you
were going to spend there and create one in another place, another
community, and give those people in that community a greater
convenIence.
MR. DeLONY: Well, we actually thought that we were doing
that by moving it into East Naples into -- along Santa Barbara. But if
this is not something you want me to do, we can look at other
alternatives with regard to it.
As we were spoke -- we -- it's been several years ago we did this,
Page 222
June 23, 2009
but we can update you again, was that we thought in the instate we'd
have as many as six or seven of these in the county as we move
toward build-out.
And the earlier we can make decisions about land use and
purchasing of land or leasing of land, if that's the direction you want
me to take, ultimately, that will be the best value in terms of cost.
But, again, it was just in my view a logical extension of moving
forward in our solid waste program, moving these convenience centers
into different areas of the county and service centers. We don't mean
to disadvantage or disenfranchise the good folks that already use our
current facility. I use that facility and I -- you know, and I travel to do
it, too.
Moving it into the landfill is problematic. You get confu- -- you
get in there, you've got traffic, you've got trucks moving. It's just an
unsafe situation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I always dump it at the gate at
night.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you very much. Now we know who to
send the -- but, again, sir. It's a matter of just moving though, that
strategy. Ifwe can't get the land use and it's not something you want
us to do, we'll go out and try to figure out another way to get after this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the current economic
circumstances, I'd rather see you march ahead instead of mark time for
a little bit --
MR. DeLONY: And that's our intent. Actually that's our intent,
sir. You know, we're going to get the land, get the land use, and then
based on financial cost containment and revenue-centric operations,
you know, we're going to -- we're going to move that into that. We're
not going to shut one down till we get one built. I don't think -- I don't
think I talked to you about the sequencing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: See, we didn't know -- as you can see
now, we really did need some --
Page 223
June 23, 2009
MR. DeLONY: Yeah, I--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- help --
MR. DeLONY: And I apologize for not making sure that was
clear in the executive summary.
We have a lease, and we intend to stay there until we get this one
built. We would not stand down and then wait and then get another
one. We got to time it in terms of convenience for the customer,
ability to pay, and just do the right thing.
The situation will be -- and we had a 3-2 vote on this. If I have to
do a rezone -- which I have yet to determine through the County
Attorney's Office and my staff and CDES whether I'll need a rezone
and whether this is an allowed use of the PUD. There's still some
debate about it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where--
MR. DeLONY: At the Bembridge site -- and I don't have four
votes, we're through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Forget that.
MR. DeLONY: We're through, because I'll need four votes for
the rezone.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me call on Commissioner Henning
here.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, let's go to the County
Manager's report.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, did we -- so what can we do now?
Can I just ask right this minute that we can bring it back for discussion
at the next meeting, or I mean --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, if that's the will of the board, Mr.
DeLony can bring it back at the next meeting.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. In fact, I'm recommending we bring
it back in September because I think we're going to have less than four
-- three commissioners -- we have only three commissioners in July.
Page 224
June 23, 2009
So if -- there's no hurry here. We own the land. I've got a lease. You
know, there's really no time. The time is on us. It would be my
recommendations, County Attorney, if that's okay with you--
MR. KLATZKOW: It makes--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll have four commissioners here in
July I think, aren't we?
MR. DeLONY: I heard that we were going to have less than --
less than five.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'm going to be here.
MR.OCHS: That was going to be one of my questions.
MR. DeLONY: I'm sorry, Leo, I jumped --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They can attend by phone?
MR. DeLONY: But I'd like to do it in September, would be fine
with me, ma'am, if it's okay with you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. So now, did I do
everything legally --
MR. KLATZKOW: You're fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to bring it back?
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. DeLony's going to bring this back.
MR. DeLONY: I'll take no action till I bring it back to the Board
of County Commissioners in September. We'll have a full discussion
and vetting at that time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you -- thank you very much.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I really appreciate that.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now to the County Attorney's
report -- I mean the County Manager's report.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Following up on what we just talked
about, I just want to get a head count for the meeting in July. I had
heard from your office supervisor there may only be three members
here present for the July 28th meeting. Is that accurate or --
Page 225
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll be here. I wasn't going to be here for
the Value Adjustment Board, the date that they had, but I'll be here for
our meeting.
MR. OCHS: July 28th?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Um-hmm.
MR.OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean mentally, physically
or what? What do you mean by here?
MR. OCHS: Will we have at least four members --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Participating or --
MR.OCHS: Participating, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'll participate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you be here physically?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I plan to be here.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Physically participating?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I might not be here mentally.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, well that's all right. But physically
you're sitting in a chair, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll be sitting, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. How did Commissioner Halas, do
you know -- I don't know about him.
MR.OCHS: I believe he'll be here, yes. That's fine. As long as
we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coyle? You will try
and be here by phone if nothing else, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So you should have five people
participating, even if it's not sitting in these seats.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it looks like you're going to have at
least three people sitting in the seats, if not four.
Page 226
June 23, 2009
MR. OCHS: Very good. The only other item real quickly that I
have may need some consideration before you get together next July,
is there is an initiative I'm told going through the United States
Congress that may have the effect of eliminating the 125-mile no-drill
buffer around Florida's coastline, and that's moving through a Senate
committee now through an amendment that would potentially
jeopardize that.
So the question for the staff to the board is, if the board wants to
take any position on that, we could draft up a letter for the Chair's
signature to our senators and representatives in Congress. We're just
looking for some direction there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I thought John
McCain's stance was -- and actually I think it was our delegation --
leave it up to that state to allow it or not. In other words, bringing it
closer to home instead of making those decisions, the ultimate
decision up in Washington, DC.
Can we draft something like that to where that we -- we request
that they -- if they open up the exploration or drilling, to have the final
approval by the State of Florida?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I tell you, that kind of scares me a little
bit though because it seems that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's home rule.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You never know what people in
Tallahassee are going to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I was trying to say gently.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They'll be drilling in Clam Bay
before long.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe they'll suck some of that
sand out of there.
MR. OCHS: So the question is, does the board have any interest
in the Chair authoring a letter up to our representatives in Congress,
you know, opposing any --
Page 227
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I do.
MR. OCHS: -- legislation that would eliminate that buffer?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And drilling on the coast of Florida? I
have an interest in sending them a letter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do, too.
MR. OCHS: I have two nods. No, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not me.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: About the drilling?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have an interest in sending our
Congress or our congressional representatives in Washington a letter
opposing drilling along the coast Florida?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And are we going to specify
mileage or anything, or just blanketly opposed to it?
MR. OCHS: No. There's already a ban that was limited to more
than 125 miles off the coast. The recent legislative amendment that
was offered up there would jeopardize that and make it drilling within
closer than that 125 miles.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifty miles.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not going to sign in on that
letter, if we're talking 50 miles off the coast.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we send a letter saying,
we urge you to retain the current agreement which limits drilling to X,
whatever it is? You see, if we start trying to change something and
come up with a new concept ourselves, we're going to -- we could get
into some difficulty. But Congress made an agreement. They said,
here's what we will permit, and they -- they kept it at least 125 miles
off the coast.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That gives the oil companies so
much territory to drill in. I mean, thousands of square miles. Why do
Page 228
June 23, 2009
they need to get closer? So I think that if we would just say, we want
to keep the current restrictions on drilling off the coast of Florida, then
-- or the restrictions that were established by bill such-and-such or--
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or an act of Congress of
such-and-such, then I think that's what we ought to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, the oil companies have so
much money, and they can hire high-powered public relations people
who scream, the sky is falling, we need more oil, we need more oil,
they won't let us drill along the coast of Florida; yet we're not allowed
to pull that oil all out of -- out of, for instance, Alaska. What about all
of those oil wells? We've got pictures of all those oil wells all along
the coast of Louisiana, Texas. I mean, there's scads of them. What are
they doing with that oil? What are we -- why are we still importing
oil from foreign countries when we've got all of this oil that's here that
we're not allowed to -- I mean, they want to drill more, you bet you --
there's so many -- oh, boy, you hit a raw nerve with me, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right. I'll tell you how
you're right to a point, too. It doesn't matter how much oil they'll drill.
They're never going to make a difference as far as what we have to
import from foreign countries. Also, whatever oil they take out of this
country will not affect the price of what we pay for oil.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a world-market type thing,
and they control how much oil goes out to be able to keep the price of
oil.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Where does the oil that they drill here in
the United States of America go? Does it go into any of our tanks?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It goes to Japan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I mean, really. I'd like to know
which oil company uses the oil from the United States of America.
Hello?
Page 229
June 23, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not in America.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. Right, that's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to support you on this
letter, and I'll tell you why. I'm not going to -- I don't think we should
be drilling it because of environmental reasons. I think we should
leave the resources in the ground for future generations. I really do.
Let's take the cheap oil, and it's cheap now, what it will be in the
future, from Saudi Arabia and every other place in the world that's got
it; and when the day comes everybody's out, we'll still have some
resources to draw from.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But Commissioner, we've got it right
here. That's what Sarah Palin was saying all through the election.
They've got so much oil in Alaska, and they can't use it. All the
pipelines are already in place, and they can't use them. What about all
the oil they're pulling out of Michigan? They can't use it.
I see in just tiny little Ohio, oil wells everyplace, and they're not
using them. We've got them all over the coast of Texas and Louisiana.
Why aren't we -- where is that oil going? Why do we keep buying it
from foreign countries?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anyway, yes, I'd like to write the letter.
MR. OCHS: That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That only took 45 minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Try to keep it down to five
pages.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You better write it for me, Leo.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Otherwise, my passion will show through.
MR. OCHS: Will do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nothing else?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
Page 230
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have nothing, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. Let's start with you,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only one thing very briefly. The
Productivity Committee has asked that we eliminate the alternate
member on the committee. That alternate member's term is expiring in
July, and they see no reason to re-establish an alternate member. They
have plenty of members on the Productivity Committee now.
That person has indicated they do not wish to serve beyond this
point in time. And you might recall that that alternate position was
established because of a particular situation that occurred a year or so
ago. So it's -- it was something done by us just for -- to address a
specific issue, and the Productivity Committee is suggesting we
eliminate it and not bother to fill it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we need to vote on that?
MR.OCHS: Ordinance amendment?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I would suggest you keep it in your
ordinance but simply don't fill the position.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: This way if you ever need it again it will be
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So this is a heads up so when that comes
to be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we just won't -- we could
advise Ms. Filson not to advertise for it. It will save us some
advertising costs, perhaps, if we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You've got a nod here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You've got three nods.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 23 1
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right-yo
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have two things. One of
them deals with Reverend Mallory. If you'll recall the -- a couple
meetings ago, Reverend Mallory was here under public petition, and
we directed Joe Schmitt to allow him to go forward to proceed on,
what do you call that, on his own risk, to be able to come back later
and pay the impact fees and to be able to get the metal off the ground.
Joe, would you come up for just a second. There seems to be a
misunderstanding. They're holding him up down there at permitting,
and they want the permit fees for the project, and it's just not practical.
The man doesn't have the money for the impact fees. He doesn't have
the money for the permitting fees for the project.
And I think the will of the commission at that time was just to get
this -- allow him to build his metal dome to be able to get the metal off
the ground to be able to reassure his parishioners that at least there's a
start on this whole thing.
MR. SCHMITT: The -- my recollection -- again, for the record,
Joe Schmitt.
My recollection was to allow to proceed without paying any
additional impact fees. The permit fees are associated with the plan
review and the inspections that we provide.
I didn't know until I saw Randy sitting there. I asked him what he
was here for, and he told me, so I looked it up.
The total is $49,000 for the permit fee, but $31,000 of that is a
fire review fee, fire fees, fire impact fees. I have no control over. So
those would have to -- Randy would have to deal with that through the
-- a separate board, through the East Naples Fire District.
The other fees are fees -- the review fees and other fees and
services we provide with the board's direction. I have no authority to
Page 232
June 23, 2009
modify my fee code, but if you so direct, I can work out an
arrangement for him to pay in phases for the services that we provide.
I can do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could do that, and at least
they would be paying the fair amount for what they get up into the air.
MR. SCHMITT: So approximately $17,000 of that is -- the
$17,000 is the total building review fee, inspection fees, everything
associated with it, for the complete product.
I can work with Randy and Pastor Mallory on phasing that so at
least they pay for the services that we've provided for the plan review
and the permitting and any inspections. But I have no control, other
than I collect money for fire. I have no control over, nor can I amend
in any way what I do for fire.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Randy, maybe you might take
the results of this meeting with you to the fire commission, East
Naples Fire Commission, and share with them and ask them if they
could do something that would be comparable to what the county
commission's doing as far as the fees go, with the idea that when
everything comes forward and you get ready to do it that all those fees
will be paid. That would be a suggestion. Agreeable?
MR. SCHMITT: So I get board direction at least so that I can
work out a payment schedule? That gives me authority to modify my
fee schedule to work with them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
The other item I got is, I guess, more for Jeff Klatzkow than
anyone else. I'm just getting involved with this new phenomenon,
Facebook, and Twiddlers (sic), is that what it's called?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Footers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Footers? And I'm a little bit
concerned about the sunshine laws and everything if I start
communicating with my constituents through this media, and also I
noticed that the county website won't accommodate it. You have to
Page 233
June 23, 2009
do it through your own personal computer.
Now, there's other elected officials from the state level that use
this -- use it exclusively to keep in touch with their constituents on
every single thing going. I'd like some sort of determination before I
start to bank on this as a way to communicate with the public, before I
go to the next step.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll be happy to give you a legal opinion, but
I don't have any issue with your communicating with your constituents
in any manner. You have a public records issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my problem is, is that
undoubtedly if I'm communicating with my constituents, I'm going to
be discussing all sorts of government business.
MR. KLATZKOW: With your constituents.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My constituents. Now, where
does the sunshine law apply? How do these records have to be
maintained on a private computer? I'm not too sure how this all works
out.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll give you a legal opinion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a good question.
Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I think that's enough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think so, too.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you can trust I won't be
looking at your Tweeter (sic) page or your book of faces.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Facebook.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There won't be any sunshine
law issue there. But I want to read --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can anybody look in those Twitter
things?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you've got to be a
Page 234
June 23, 2009
member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- or ask for it.
Ronald Reagan said one time, government's view of the economy
(sic) could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it; if
it keeps a moving, regulate it; and if it stops, subsidize it.
And the reason I bring that up is the budget fees, the new fees
and closing down facilities, has really upset the community. And I
received correspondence in the past, or this past year, about what
people considered wasteful spending, like enhancing a community
park or doing intersection improvements.
And the reason I'm saying that is, I believe if a board is going to
be looking for a tax increase or new fees that -- it's really going to
exacerbate the situation here in Collier County.
Let me give you one example of one I received today of a
correspondence, and this is a correspondence about the beach barking
fee, the $75 unjustified yet-to-be-determined fee. They're saying that
they're not in favor of it. They're retired. They don't want to raise
their taxes.
And also, we passed a county truck parked at the swale inside our
gated community. I glanced over and wondered what (sic) he might
be parked there -- and where he was. To my surprise, he was reading
the newspaper. When I saw him -- looking at him (sic), he quickly
closed the paper and drove away.
I submit to you that some of the people on the county payroll
whose salaries should be save -- saving (sic).
I know it's going to be very difficult, but at this point, I don't
think the public is going to see where we do -- open up a library or
expand the courthouse center, that they're going to say, well that's not
saVing money.
So I just want to share my feelings going into the budget and
what I see from the public.
Page 235
June 23, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The public is going to be most affected by
things that they lose. For instance, free parking at the beaches, right?
And they're not going to like losing libraries or parks, because that
directly affects their lives.
They won't see somebody driving around in a truck or something,
you know, especially if there's an employee that isn't busy; is that
what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But if you tax them,
more taxes, or higher taxes I should say, they're going to say the same
thing. So it's going to be very, very difficult this budget season.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, and we did lower their taxes, didn't
we? And then they voted to lower their taxes, so we haven't been
getting the same amount of money in.
Folks, it's 5:15, and I'd like a motion to adjourn this meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have nothing else to tell you.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I want to stay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Meeting adjourned. Like it or not.
Motioned and seconded.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I would have slammed the
gavel if I had it, too.
****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CLASSIC PLANTATION, PHASE 3-
Page 236
June 23, 2009
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MISSION HILLS SHOPPING CENTER -
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR POLARIS CENTER (A.K.A. 1265 CREEKSIDE PARKWAY)
- W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
ASSIGNMENT OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) RELATING TO
THIRTY-FOUR (34) PARCELS OWNED BY ESTATES AT TWIN
EAGLES, LTD., ALLOWING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
CONVEYANCE OF BONUS CREDITS SPECIFIED BY THE
RURAL FRINGE MIXED-USE SUB-DISTRICT OF THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN AND SECTIONS 2.03.07.D.4 AND 2.03.08 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE - FOR PROPERTY IN THE SOUTH
BELLE MEADE SENDING AREA OF THE RURAL FRINGE
Item # 16A5
Page 237
June 23, 2009
AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD'S
RULES AND REGULATIONS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER, SEWER AND
IRRIGATION UTILITY FACILITIES FOR TREVISO BAY
BOULEVARD - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CLASSIC PLANTATION ESTATES PHASE 4-
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR HIBISCUS CLUBHOUSE - W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A9
RELEASE AND SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR PAYMENTS
RECEIVED FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS - WITH A
RECORDING COST OF $10 PER LIEN, TOTALING $220.00, AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A10 - Moved to Item #10G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 238
June 23, 2009
Item #16A11
FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA UNIT 16, ELLINGTON PARK,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO APPROVE A LAND USE AS A
COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE USE IN THE C-5 ZONING
DISTRICT PURSUANT TO A PENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE AMENDMENT, ALLOWING STANDARD INDUSTRIAL
CLASSIFICATION (SIC) CODE 3842 OR PORTIONS THEREOF
IN THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL, C-5 COMMERCIAL ZONING
DISTRICT - FOR THE RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF
STRUCTURE MEDICAL INC. FROM 2975 S. HORSESHOE
DRIVE TO 4720 RADIO ROAD
Item #16A13
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR RUNAWAY BAY AT FIDDLER'S CREEK,
PARCEL 31 - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16B1
VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR A PORTION OF A
DRAINAGE EASEMENT (PARCEL 103DE2) ACQUIRED FOR
THE DAVIS BOULEVARD PROJECT. (PROJECT NO. 60073)
Page 239
June 23, 2009
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $30.00 - WITH A COST OF
$30.00 FOR RECORDING
Item #16B2
RFP #09-5197, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ROADWAY
CONTRACTORS, TO THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTORS:
APAC SOUTHEAST, INC., BETTER ROADS, INC., BONNESS
INC., AND QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA, INC. (ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT $1,750,000) - TO LENGTHEN OR MODIFY
LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANES, MODIFY MEDIAN
OPENINGS, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND
CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS
Item #16B3
AN ALTERNATIVE ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND
RESULTING RATE OF $7,416 PER BAY FOR THE LOVES CAR
WASH LOCATED AT 4712 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND
CONDUCTING FURTHER REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE
APPROPRIATE RATE APPLICABLE TO CAR WASH
FACILITIES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B4
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR
NAPLES PARROT HEAD CLUB WITH TWO (2) ROADWAY
RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF $150.00 - FOR
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM 1-75 TO LOGAN BLVD.
Item #16B5
Page 240
June 23, 2009
NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
WHICH IS THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT
FEE ORDINANCE, FOR THE INCORPORATION OF A NEW
ROAD IMPACT FEE LAND USE CATEGORY AND IMPACT
FEE RATE FOR MINES, CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS
DIRECTION, AND FUTURE CONSIDERATION BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT AN ADVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARING - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16B6
INSTALLATION OF NATIVE LANDSCAPE MATERIALS FOR
A HEDGE AS PART OF THE PALM RIVER ESTATES UNIT 5 N-
S STORMW ATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO.
51030.1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,062.50 - WITH THE
STIPULATION THAT THE COUNTY WILL NOT PERFORM
ANY FUTURE MAINTENANCE; EACH LOT OWNER AGREES
TO THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2009-157: A CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE COMMISSION FOR
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FOR THE
PROGRESS PAYMENTS AND DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE
OF FUNDS FOR THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES FOR QUALIFIED MEDICAID RECIPIENTS - TO
OUTLINE THE FUTURE SCHEDULED DISBURSEMENT
METHOD OF FUNDS
Page 241
June 23, 2009
Item #16B8
THE CONTRACT SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT #1 TO
CONTRACT NO. 06-3931 IN THE AMOUNT OF $573,302 WITH
STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR THE RE-DESIGN OF
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM WILSON BOULEVARD
TO DESOTO BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60040 - TO DESIGN
AND PERMIT GOLDEN GATE BLVD. AS A FOUR-LANE
ROAD WITHIN A SIX-LANE RIGHT-OF-WAY
Item #16B9
TERMINATING THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO AMERA-
TECH, INC., FOR BID #09-5194 COLLIER COUNTY RIGHT-OF-
WAY (ROW) AND MEDIAN MOWING AND MAINTENANCE
ANNUAL CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,000.00 - DUE
TO THE CONTRACTOR REQUESTING THE TERMINATION
Item #16B10
A DECLARATION SETTING ASIDE COUNTY-OWNED
PROPERTY FOR COLLIER BOULEVARD ROADWAY,
SIDEWALK, BIKE PATH, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
FACILITIES. PROJECT NO. 60001, ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $20.00 - TO RELOCATE THE FPL POWER POLE AND
OVERHEAD WIRES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE
Item #16B11
BID #09-5164, COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) BUS
SHELTERS AND RELATED ITEMS, TO RCP SHELTERS INC.,
DUO-GARD INDUSTRIES, INC., W AUSAU TILE INC., BRASCO
Page 242
June 23, 2009
ENTERPRISES, INC., AND SWARTZ ASSOCIATES, INC. IN
THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $100,000
Item #16B12
AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT ALLOWING FORMER
OWNERS OF A PROPERTY PURCHASED BY COLLIER
COUNTY DUE TO ITS LOCATION ON THE V ANDERBIL T
BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT (PARCEL 133) THE
OPTION TO FURTHER EXTEND THEIR POST -CLOSING
OCCUP ANCY OF THE PROPERTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX
MONTH PERIOD. PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT:
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF UP TO $9,000 WHICH
WOULD BE CREDITED TO THE GAS TAX AND/OR IMPACT
FEE ACCOUNTS) - FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 780 27TH
STREET NW IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16B13
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE EASTERN COLLIER
COUNTY WETLAND MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION
PROJECT APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(EPA) FOR A REGION 04 WETLAND PROGRAM
DEVELOPMENT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,000 - DUE
TO THE GRANT DEADLINE OF JUNE 5, 2009
Item #16B14
A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO CREATE THE RADIO ROAD
EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD TO DAVIS
BOULEVARD MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT (MSTU)
Page 243
June 23, 2009
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2009-158: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1993 AND 1996 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $38.00 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN (ACCOUNT #15134 AND #16298)
Item #16C2
A DEDUCTIVE CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$57,622.94 TO A WORK ORDER TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
THE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE
VANDERBILT DRIVE BRIDGE OVER THE COCOHA TCHEE
RIVER, PROJECT #70045 - FOR THE RELOCATION OF
EXISTING UTILITIES
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #10H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16C4
ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FROM THE
COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF NAPLES, INC., FOR AN
ELECTRICAL SERVICE LATERAL, AN ASSOCIATED
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT, AND FOR ACCESS ON, OVER AND
ACROSS COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF NAPLES, INC.
PROPERTY AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED
Page 244
June 23, 2009
$1,360 - PROJECT NUMBER 74033 - ALONG LIVINGSTON
ROAD, NORTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
Item #16D1
ONE (1) OWNER OCCUPIED LIEN AGREEMENT FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY-
DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN LIBERTY LANDING, LOT 44
Item #16D2
A SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY09,
INCLUDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS
APPROVED, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED
AND THE BALANCE REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL
DEFERRALS IN FY09
Item #16D3
A CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE MASTER AGREEMENT
WITH THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, INC., RELATING TO GRANTS AWARDED TO THE
SERVICES FOR SENIORS PROGRAM, THE RENEWAL, AND
CONTINUED PAYMENT OF GRANT EXPENDITURES - TO
RETROACTIVELY COVER THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2009
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
Item #16D4
Page 245
June 23, 2009
RESOLUTION 2009-159: AN AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND SUPPORTING
MAINTENANCE OF THE NORTH FISHING PIER TO BE
CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MARCO
ISLAND BRIDGE (JOLLEY BRIDGE) REPLACEMENT - THE
CURRENT PIER WAS DAMAGED BEYONG REPAIR DUE TO
HURRICANE WILMA
Item #16D5 - Moved to Item #101 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D6 - Moved to Item #10J (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D7
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMISSION OF
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT-
RECOVERY (CDBG-R) SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE
2008-2009 COLLIER COUNTY ACTION PLAN WHICH WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR AMERICAN RECOVERY
AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (ARRA) FUNDING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $631,283.00 - TO FUND A GREATER
IMMOKALEE SOUTHSIDE FRONT PORCH INITIATIVE TO
COMPLETE THE HURRICANE HARDENING AND
REHABILITATION OF THE IMMOKALEE APARTMENTS
Item #16D8
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
(SPONSOR) AND THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
Page 246
June 23, 2009
COLLIER COUNTY FOR PREPARING AND DELIVERING
MEALS TO SUMMER CAMP CHILDREN LIVING IN
DISADVANTAGED NEIGHBORHOODS - PROVIDING AN
ESTIMATED 70,000 BREAKFASTS AND 100,000 LUNCHES
Item #16D9
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO CONTRACT #08-5134 FOR THE
CAXAMBAS BOAT DOCK EXPANSION PROJECT #80057.1 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $28,394.00 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
BOAT LIFT FOR THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FIRE
DEPARTMENTS RESCUE VESSEL. ALSO, THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $42,155.85 IN
REIMBURSEMENT REVENUE FROM THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND TO COVER A PORTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT
COST. THE NET CONTRACTUAL VALUE OF SERVICES WILL
TOTAL $160,534.00 - CITY OF MARCO TO REIMBURSE THE
COUNTY PER ARTICLE 5 OF THE SUBLEASE AGREEMENT
Item #16D10
STAFF'S REPORT ON ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE
RELOCATION OF THE MODULAR HOME FROM SUDGEN
REGIONAL PARK
Item #16D11
RESOLUTION 2009-160: AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (BEER) AT THE FORMULA 1
CHAMPBOAT GRAND PRIX EVENT NOVEMBER 7-8, 2009
AT SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK
Page 247
June 23, 2009
Item #16D12
CHANGE ORDER #2 TO CONTRACT #08-5028 FOR THE
GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY PARK BOAT RAMP PROJECT
(#80031.1) IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,080.00 FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF MOORING PILINGS. THE NET
CONTRACTUAL VALUE OF SERVICES WILL TOTAL
$206,620.40 - FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIX (6) PILINGS
Item #16E1
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION FUND (172) TO ADEQUATELY
APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR AN ESCROW IN THE AMOUNT
OF $250,000, STIPULATED BY THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT
FOR PEPPER RANCH - FOR THE POTENTIAL LOSS OF
PANTHER HABITAT MITIGATION UNITS
Item #16E2
BID #09-5237, UNDERGROUND STORAGE FUEL TANK
REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, TO SURGE SOLUTIONS
GROUP, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $447,884.00, AUTHORIZE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AND NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER,
IMMOKALEE JAIL SITE AND PORT OF THE ISLANDS
MARINA MEETING FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL
REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2009
Item # 16E3
ICMA-RC RECOMMENDED DEFAULT AMENDMENTS TO
Page 248
June 23, 2009
COLLIER COUNTY'S CURRENT AGREEMENT WITH ICMA-
RETIREMENT CORPORATION (ICMA-RC) THAT PROVIDES A
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN TO COUNTY
EMPLOYEES - GIVING EMPLOYEES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN
ACCESSING THEIR RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
Item #16E4
BID #09-5211, PARTS FOR FLEET, IN TWO CATEGORIES AS
FOLLOWS: HEAVY TRUCKS/HEAVY EQUIPMENT/BUSES
AWARD TO GENUINE PARTS CO. D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS
AS PRIMARY VENDOR AND TO NAPLES TRUCK PARTS AS
SECONDARY VENDOR; AUTOMOBILES/LIGHT TRUCKS
AWARD TO PARTS DEPOT, INC., AS PRIMARY VENDOR
AND TO GENUINE PARTS CO. D/B/A NAPA AUTO PARTS
AND MERUSA AUTO, INC. D/B/A CARQUEST OF NORTH
NAPLES AS SECONDARY VENDORS. EXPENDITURES ON
THIS CONTRACT ARE ESTIMATED TO BE $300,000
ANNUALLY - FOR MAINTENANCE AND REP AIR PARTS,
SUPPLIES AND TOOLS TO MAINTAIN COUNTY VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT
Item # 16E5
BID #09-5208, FILTERS FOR FLEET VEHICLES AND
EQUIPMENT, TO PARTS DEPOT, INC. AS PRIMARY VENDOR
AND TO GENUINE PARTS COMPANY D/B/A NAPA AUTO
PARTS, MERUSA AUTO, INC. D/B/A CARQUEST OF NORTH
NAPLES, AND GLADE & GROVE SUPPLY CO., INC. AS
SECONDARY VENDORS. EXPENDITURES ON THIS
CONTRACT ARE ESTIMATED AT $70,000 ANNUALLY - FOR
Page 249
June 23, 2009
FILTERS TO MAINTAIN COUNTY VEHICLES AND
EQUIPMENT
Item #16E6
BID #09-5210, FASTENERS AND WHEEL WEIGHTS FOR
FLEET, TO PARTS ASSOCIATES, INC. AS PRIMARY VENDOR
AND LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. AS SECONDARY VENDOR.
EXPENDITURES ON THIS CONTRACT ARE ESTIMATED TO
BE $70,000 ANNUALLY - FOR A TWO YEAR TERM WITH
ONE 2-YEAR RENEWAL OPTION
Item #16E7
WALLACE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS AS SOLE SOURCE
VENDOR WITH FY 2009 EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED AT
$80,000 FOR FLEET PARTS, REPAIRS AND SERVICES
Item # 16E8
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS BY
$46,800 AND RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR REIMBURSEMENT
OF PRIOR YEAR EXPENDITURES, INSURANCE COMPANY
REFUNDS AND SCRAP METAL AND WASTE OIL SALES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $46,800 IN FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND
(521) - DUE TO UNEXPECTED PRICE INCREASES AND THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL STOCK ITEMS AT THE
NEW CAT BUS MAINTENANCE SHOP
Item #16E9
ALLOWING THE CONSERVATION COLLIER'S STARNES
Page 250
June 23, 2009
PROPERTY TO BECOME A CERTIFIED FLORIDA FISH AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION GOPHER
TORTOISE RECIPIENT SITE - FOR RELOCATING TORTOISES
THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED BY DEVELOPMENT
Item #16E10
THE INVITATION TO QUALIFY (ITQ) #09-5227 TO VENDORS
FOR DELIVERY OF VARIOUS SERVICES TO SENIORS IN
COLLIER COUNTY AND EXECUTING THE STANDARD
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS - TO PROVIDE ADUL T DAY CARE,
ENHANCED CHORES, HOMEMAKER, PERSONAL CARE,
SKILLED NURSING, EMERGENCY ALERT RESPONSE
SERVICES, SPECIALIZED MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND
FACILITY RESPITE
Item #16E11
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
TRIANGLE LICENSING CORPORATION, FOR 29.33 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $295,000-
LOCATED SOUTH OF U.S. 41 AND JUST WEST OF COLLIER
SEMINOLE STATE PARK WITHIN THE MCIIVANE MARSH
AREA
Item #16E12
WAIVING THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND APPROVING A
CONTRACT WITH PENITUS SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXTENSIONS TO SAP FOR GRANT
Page 251
June 23, 2009
MANAGEMENT, THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL END-
USER LICENSES FROM SAP PUBLIC SERVICES, INC., AND
SIGNING CONTRACTS. TOTAL PROJECT WILL NOT EXCEED
$160,000 - TERMS IN FORCE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30,2009
Item #16E13
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
AMOUNTS FROM FY 2008 FOR THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION FUND (172) IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,713,300
Item #16E14
CONTINUED UTILIZATION OF NALCO COMPANY, WHICH
EXCEEDS THE FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR COMPETITIVE
BIDDING THRESHOLD PER COLLIER COUNTY'S
PURCHASING POLICY FOR CONTINUED WATER
TREATMENT SERVICES AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS
FOR CHILLER PLANTS AT THE GOVERNMENT COMPLEX-
ELIMINATING ANY LAPSE IN SERVICE DUE TO A REBID
Item #16E15
A GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE EMPLOYED WORKER
TRAINING PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE WORKFORCE
INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) THROUGH WORKFORCE
FLORIDA, INC. AND ADMINISTERED BY THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $57,800 - TO IMPROVE AND ENHANCE
THE SKILLS OF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED WORKERS IN THE
WATER AND WASTEWATER DEPARTMENTS
Page 252
June 23, 2009
Item #16E16
AMENDMENT NO. 04 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER
COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE DRIVER
EDUCA TION PROGRAM - FOR PUBLIC AND PRIV ATE HIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2009-161: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F2 (W/Changes Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RESOLUTION 2009-162: FIXING THE DATE, TIME AND
PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPROVING THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT)
TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT
UNIT FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE WATER MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM, BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
AND MEDIAN AREAS AND MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS FOR
AMBIENT NOISE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE OF
CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, INCLUDING THE
RESTORATION OF THE MANGROVE FOREST, U.S. 41 BERM,
STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN
AREAS AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41
Page 253
June 23, 2009
ENTRANCES, ALL WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - HEARING AET FOR
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10,2009 AT 5:05 P.M.
Item #16F3
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL FOR THE ATTACHED
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT APPLICATION
THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
PUMPER ALS TRANSPORT VEHICLE FOR EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES/FIRE IN THE AMOUNT OF $380,000
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000 FROM
THE COURT ADMINISTRATION FUND (681) TO THE TEEN
COURT FUND (171) - DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REVENUE TO
COVER PAYROLL FOR THE BALANCE OF FY 2009
Item #16F5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $483,773,
AND PAYMENT FOR DETENTION SERVICES PROVIDED BY
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (DJJ)-
TO HOUSE JUVENILES UNTIL THEY APPEAR BEFORE A
JUDGE
Item #16F6
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR THE NATIONAL CENTER
FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN BY GIVING
Page 254
June 23,2009
THEM FUNDS FOR EQUIPMENT AND STAFF (BA #09-367)
Item #16F7
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES
FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION PURSUANT TO RFP
#09-5174 TO DORRILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $56,400.00 - TO MANAGE FUNDS
COLLECTED BY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR SERVICES,
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT THE SAME
OWNERS
Item #16G1
LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS AND CRA STAFF
ATTENDANCE AT FLORIDA REDEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATION 2009 ANNUAL CONFERENCE; PAYMENT OF
ATTENDEES REGISTRATION, LODGING, TRAVEL AND PER
DIEM FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE TRUST
FUND (FUND 187) TRAVEL BUDGET; AND DECLARING THE
TRAINING RECEIVED AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE - HELD OCTOBER 28-30, 2009 IN ORLANDO
Item #16G2
THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
UPDATE, APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION ON APRIL 15, 2009 IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE - REQUIRED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FEDERAL
FUNDS FOR CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Page 255
June 23, 2009
Item #16G3
THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
UPDATE, APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION ON APRIL 15,2009 IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE - REQUIRED IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FEDERAL
FUNDS FOR CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Item #16G4
THE TERMINATION OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
EXECUTED ON APRIL 28, 2009, PURCHASING AN
ASSEMBLAGE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN
THE CENTER OF THE GATEWAY MINI-TRIANGLE; AND
NEGOTIATING NEW CONTRACTS TO SECURE AND
FACILITATE THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTIES AND
RETURN TO THE CRA BOARD FOR APPROVAL - IN ORDER
TO ENTER INTO TWO SEPARATE CONTRACTS THAT WILL
ADDRESS CURRENT ISSUES
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED CBIA'S LOCAL IMPACT OF HOME
BUILDING IN COLLIER COUNTY ON JUNE 11,2009 AT
12:00P.M AT THE HILTON OF NAPLES, FLORIDA. $20.00 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
Page 256
June 23, 2009
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COYLE'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER IS TRAVELING TO BANGOR,
MAINE, JUNE 25TH THROUGH JUNE 27TH, TO VISIT WITH
OFFICIALS OF JACKSON LABS AND TOUR THEIR FACILITY.
TOTAL OF $1,047.72 WILL BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COYLE'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BRING INNOVATION
ECONOMY TO COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16Jl
DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL FISCAL
YEAR 2009 APPLICANT AND PROGRAM POINT -OF-
CONTACT FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, EDWARD
BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG)
STANDARD PROGRAM, ACCEPTING THE GRANT WHEN
AWARDED, APPLICABLE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, AND
THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (CCSO)
RECEIVING AND EXPEND THE PAYMENT OF 2009 JAG
STANDARD GRANT FUNDS
Item # 16J2
THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS FOR EQUIPMENT
AND STAFF SUPPORT TO ASSIST IN THE RECOVERY OF
MISSING/ABDUCTED CHILDREN
Item # 16J3
Page 257
June 23, 2009
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 30, 2009
THROUGH JUNE 5, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 6, 2009
THROUGH JUNE 12, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J5 - Moved to Item #13A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2009-37: PUDZ-2008-AR-12804, AVOW HOSPICE
INC., REPRESENTED BY TIM HANCOCK, AICP, OF
DAVIDSON ENGINEERING INC., A PUD REZONE FROM
COMMUNITY FACILITY (CF) AND AGRICULTURAL (A)
ZONING DISTRICTS WITH A ST/W-4 WELLFIELD RISK
MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY ZONE TO
A COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT
(CFPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A ST/W-4 WELLFIELD
RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY
ZONE FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS AVOW HOSPICE
CFPUD. THE 15.25 ACRES SUBJECT PROPERTY IS FOR THE
EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING HOSPICE USE. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AT 1095
WHIPPOORWILL LANE, IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH AND RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
Page 258
June 23, 2009
ORDINANCE 2009-38: 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
AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 2009-24 TO CORRECT A
SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2009-163: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Page 259
June 23, 2009
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5: 15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTRO~ _
'h...n.u d~
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
ATTEst:..' ,
DWIGHT E'.-BROCK, CLERK
~~
... ., ,'"
11......-1 II
These minutes approved by the Board on ,[~ql oL, as presented
~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 260