Loading...
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