BCC Minutes 02/23/2010 R
February 23,2010
TRANSCRiPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 23,2010
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: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Torn Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, 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)
"0"\ 11//.
.. I
" .'-
)/ ,,\
AGENDA
February 23, 2010
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Frank Halas, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 2
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS 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."
Page 1
February 23, 2010
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE 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 P ARTICIP A TE 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 IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Sammy Mosquera - United Pentecostal Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. January 20, 2010 - BCC/CRA Workshop
C. January 26, 2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
Page 2
February 23, 2010
1) Zebedee Harris, Parks and Recreation
2) Lisa Taylor, Transportation
B. 30 Year Attendees
1) Mary Jo Thurston, Solid Waste
C. 35 Year Attendees
1) Henry Bickford, Road Maintenance
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recommending implementation of the South Florida
Intermodal Logistics Center (SFILC). To be accepted by Tammie Nemecek.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
B. Proclamation thanking and congratulating Dr. Joan M. Colfer, Director,
Collier County Health Department and the Health Department Staff for their
outstanding and dedicated service in promoting and protecting good health
for all in Collier County. To be accepted by Dr. Joan M. Colfer. Sponsored
by Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Collier County "Business of the Month" award to Thomas
Riley Artisans' Guild for February 2010.
B. Presentation by Mark Elsner, Water Supply Development Division Director,
South Florida Water Management District, regarding the Lower West Coast
Water Supply Plan.
C. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Presentation by the Blue Ribbon
Committee concerning Pre-Hospital EMS/Fire Services.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Page 3
February 23, 2010
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Michael R. Ramsey representing the Water
Symposium of Florida, Inc. regarding a pilot program proposal to redesign
roadway median.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-PL2009-037 FLO
TV Inc., represented by Kimberly 1. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky,
Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of67 feet and 4
inches from the 75-foot front yard setback requirement; and a Variance of 10
feet and 8 inches from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement ofLDC
subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard Requirements for
Base Zoning Districts, to permit 7-foot, 8-inch and 19-foot, 4-inch setbacks,
respectively, for the guy lines of a communications tower in excess of 75
feet in the Estates (E) Zoning District. The 4.77-acre subject property is
located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to CU-2008-AR-14085)
CTS.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: CU-2008-AR-
14085 FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional
Use for a communications tower in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as
specified in Section 5.05.09 of the Collier County Land Development Code
(LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860
Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier
County, Florida. (Companion item to V A-PL2009-037) CTS.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item continued from the
January 26. 2010 BCC Meetinl!. This item reQuires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
members: RZ-2008-AR-13951: Olde Florida Golf Club, Inc., represented
Page 4
February 23, 2010
Passidomo ofCheffy Passidomo, and Margaret C. Perry, AICP, of
WilsonMiller Inc., is requesting a standard rezone from the Golf Course
(GC) zoning district and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-Neutral Lands
Zoning Overlay District to the Agriculture (A) zoning district and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District-Neutral Lands Zoning Overlay District. The
subject property, consisting of 553.67 acres, is located on the Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension, approximately 2 miles east of the Vanderbilt Beach
Road (CR 862) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection, in Section 31,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
B. Discussion regarding a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida supporting legislative efforts to extend life safety
retrofit relief to community associations. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to adopt the FY 2011 Budget Policy. (Mark Isackson,
Corporate Financial and Management Services, County Manager's Office)
B. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve a
clarifying Resolution stating the position of the Board of County
Commissioners is to support the consolidation of all the independent fire
control and rescue districts in Collier County into one district providing
unified and equal fire protection services throughout the county. (Debbie
Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
C. Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$2,904,563 for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Finished
Water Quality and Odor Control Compliance Project to Cardinal
Contractors, Inc., Bid #10-5423, Project Number 71002. (Jim DeLony,
Public Utilities Administrator)
D. Recommendation to award Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 09-5262 for
Engineering Services for Collier County (estimated annual expenditures
Page 5
February 23, 2010
$11,365,000). (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Lien in
the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County
Commissioners vs Leobardo and Maritza Gutierrez, Case No.
2004060944, (CEB No. 2004-048) relating to property located at 1815
NE 47 Avenue, Naples, Florida.
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Lien for
the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County
Commissioners vs. Pedro Cruz, Case No. CESD20080007554,
relating to property located at 222251 Terrace SW, Naples, Florida.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Restoration Church.
4) Recommendation to accept a proposed settlement providing for Partial
Release of Lien in the Code Enforcement Action entitled Collier
Page 6
February 23, 2010
County Board of County Commissioners v. Tatiana Tannehill.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution providing for the
acceptance of real property conveyances to the County or to the
County Water-Sewer District which are made pursuant to ordinances,
agreements, conditional use stipulations, or which have been
requested by the County Manager, or his designee, as a pre-condition
for the approval of site development plans, and which authorizes the
Chairman of the Board to execute certain agreements related to said
conveyances.
2) Recommendation to: (1) Award Bid #10-5399, Traffic Control
System Components to Temple, Inc. for equipment necessary to
complete the Adaptive Traffic activity under the US Department of
Energys Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) in the
amount of$232,382; and (2) Standardize purchase of traffic control
system components used in Adaptive Traffic Control expansion.
3) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the
attached Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Home
Investment Partnership (HOME) grant application to Collier County
Housing & Human Services for a Naples Manor sidewalks project in
the amount of $750,000 with in-kind funding of$750,000 from
Project No. 690811.
4) Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property
which is required for the construction of the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension and for the construction of a storm water retention and
treatment pond. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal Impact: $214,354).
5) Recommendation to: (1) Award Bid # 1 0-5388, Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) Components to multiple vendors
(category basis), and (2) to standardize the purchase of ITS
components in the Video Detection, Remote Pager System, Vehicle
Pre-Emption and Wireless Vehicle Detection categories. Annual
Page 7
February 23, 2010
expenditure estimated $50,000.
6) Recommendation to approve Contract # 1 0-5206, Professional
Services for Design Services for Collier Area Transit (CAT) Transfer
Station, in the amount of$305,495 with Post, Buckley, Schuh and
Jernigan, Inc.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing a Joint Project
Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and
Collier County for the purpose of replacing or repainting traffic signal
mast arm components previously installed by the FDOT with
reimbursement to the County for its expenses.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Subrecipient Agreement providing for a $75,000 Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
grant to the City of Marco Island to install sidewalks on 2nd Avenue
which was approved for funding in the 2009-2010 Action Plan.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
modification to Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #07DB-3V-
09-21-0 I-ZO 1 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and Collier County to reallocate $135,657.85 in unused project funds
to the Disaster Recovery Initiative Single Family Rehabilitation
Program.
3) Recommendation to award Bid # 1 0-5418 for a production well for the
Immokalee Sports Complex Swimming Pool to Miller Drilling and
Water Treatment, Inc. in the amount of $55,935 and authorize the
necessary budget amendment.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Page 8
February 23, 2010
1) Recommendation authorizing an offering of the Voluntary Separation
Incentive Program pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 09-13,
empowering the County Manager to implement the program, and
authorizing the Chairman to sign the enabling Resolution.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Virginia Anne Devisse, Trustee of the Virginia Anne Devisse
Trust Dated December 22, 1990 for 4.84 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $137,700.
3) Recommendation to authorize the chairman to sign a resolution to
create the Caracara Prairie Preserve (formerly known as Starnes)
Trust Fund for management ofthe Caracara Prairie Preserve in
perpetuity and to authorize the necessary budget amendments.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2009-10 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association Annual Banquet on
January 25, 2010 at the Naples Lakes Country Club in Naples, FL.
$40.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Right Angle Men's Club as a speaker on January 14,
2010 at the Vanderbilt Country Club in Naples, FL. $15.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
Page 9
February 23, 2010
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the League of Women Voters Monthly Luncheon as a
speaker on January 11, 2010 at the Collier Athletic Club, Naples, FL.
$20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the 2010 Community Leadership Award - Beth Tikvah at
the Naples Beach Hotel, Naples, FL on February 17, 2010. $54.00 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Drug Free Collier Community Awareness Luncheon at
the Hilton Naples, Naples, FL on March 11,2010. $50.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Friends of Collier Fashion Show to benefit the
scholarship program to award scholarships to students at Edison
College who are studying for careers in healthcare. This event will
take place at the Forest Glen Country Club in Naples, FL on March
13,2010. $30.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Jim Coletta requests Board approval for
reimbursement regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid
Public purpose. Attended to the Naples Chamber of Commerce's
Business After Five event on 12/17/09 at the Naples Hilton Hotel in
Naples, FL. $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
Page 10
February 23, 2010
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of January
30,2010 through February 5, 2010 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of February
6, 2010 through February 12, 2010 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) This item continued from the February 9. 2010 BCC Meetinl!.
Request to review a proposed amendment to the Collier County Noise
Control Ordinance, which would specifically exempt noise resulting
from permitted motor racing events at the Swamp Buggy Recreation
and Sports Park, and if acceptable, direct the County Attorney to
prepare and advertise an amending ordinance.
2) Recommendation to authorize a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $6,000 for Parcel161RDUE in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Patricia K. Carlyle, et aI., Case No. 07-2829-CA (Oil Well
Road Project 60044) (Fiscal Impact $4,200).
3) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against
Stephen R. Sutherlin and Laboratory Corp. of America, in the County
Court in and for Collier County, Florida, to recover damages in the
amount of $6,421.85 plus costs of litigation as a result of an
automobile accident.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against
Kim Mudge in County Court in and for Collier County, Florida, to
recover damages as a result of an automobile accident in the amount
of $4,877 .09, plus costs of litigation.
Page 11
February 23, 2010
5) Recommendation to approve bylaws as adopted by the Collier County
Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board pursuant to
Section Five of Ordinance No. 2009-01, as amended.
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
RECOMMENDA TION 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 bv Commission members. PUDZ-A-2006-AR-
10318: Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC and Teryl
Brzeski, Trustee of the Land Trust # I-B, represented by Davidson
Engineering and Patrick White of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, are
requesting a rezone from the Magnolia Pond Planned Unit Development
(PUD), Ordinance No. 98-49, and Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning Districts to
a Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as Magnolia
Pond MPUD, permitting 231 multi-family dwelling units and/or an assisted
living facility (ALF) at a floor area ratio of 0.60 with the applicant seeking
to add an additional 5 acres to the site. The subject property is 47.05 acres
and is located on the north side of the 1-75 right-of-way and half mile west
of Collier Boulevard (CR-95I ) in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members: PUDZ-2007-AR-
12294: Collier County Airport Authority and CDC Land Investments, Inc.,
represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates,
requests a rezone from the Industrial (I) and the Rural Agricultural with a
Page 12
February 23, 2010
Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning Districts to the Airport Operations
Planned Unit Development Zoning District (AOPUD) for a project to be
known as the Immokalee Regional Airport Operations Planned Unit
Development. This project proposes to allow development of a maximum of
5,000,000 square feet of aviation and non-aviation development on 1,484
acres ofland located north ofCR 846, in Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47
South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2009-10 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 13
February 23, 2010
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting of
the Board of County Commissioners is now in session.
County Manager, we're going to have Reverend Sammy
Mosquera of the United Pentecostal Church to deliver the invocation.
Would everyone please stand.
REV. MOSQUERA: Good morning. Let's pray.
Heavenly Father, everything we see, everything that we cannot
see that sits (sic) because of you. It all comes from you and it all
belongs to you. And all this is because of your glory and your honor.
Your scripture tell us, do not fear, for I am with you. Do not be
dismayed, because I'm your God. I will strengthen you and I will help
you and I will help with my righteous right hand.
And you are so compassionate, God, so merciful, so loving and
wonderful to everyone that you have made.
Dear Lord, give our Board of County Commissioners the
wisdom, the grace to make decisions with boldness, to act with
humility, give them the courage to lead us with integrity, a
compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect them and
their families.
What we're pursuing there, our greatness and our prosperities, is
ours alone you give us, when we fail to treat other fellows and human
beings, all the earth with respect that they deserve, please forgive us.
And when we face these difficult days and times, we might have
a new birth of clarity in our hearts, responsibility in our actions,
humility in our approaches, and stability in our addictus (sic), even if
we defer.
Help us to share and to serve and to seek the common and good
for everyone, while all the people of good will today will join together
to work for more than just a healthier and more prosperous county for
the State of Florida.
And we might never forget that one day all nations and all people
will stand accountable before you. We now commit our board and all
Page 2
February 23, 2010
the members into your loving care.
I humbly ask this in the name that is above all the names, the
name of Jesus, my savior, who taught me how to pray.
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy the name, thy
kingdom comes, the will be done, on earth as is heaven (sic). Give us
this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power, the glory
forever. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Reverend Moscara.
Would you please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do you have any
changes or updates?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the board. Requested staff agenda changes, Board of County
Commission meeting February 23,2010.
First item is to withdraw Item 10C. It was a proposed contract
award being withdrawn due to a bid protest.
Next change is to move Item 16A2 to the regular agenda, Item
10E. It's a recommendation to approve a release and satisfaction on a
lien of code enforcement action.
Next item is a request to withdraw Item 16D2. That is a
modification to a grant agreement between the county and the state,
and that is being requested at the staffs request.
Next item, sir, is to withdraw Item 16D3. Again, that's another
Page 3
February 23, 2010
contract award that we have now received a bid protest, and under
your bid protest policy, we withdraw the item while we resolve the
protest, and we'll bring this item back at a later date.
Next item is to move Item 16Kl to your regular agenda under the
county attorney, l2A, and that is a consideration of an ordinance
amendment waiving the noise control and abatement provisions for
the Florida Swamp Buggy Recreation and Sports Park.
Then we have four time-certain items this morning,
Commissioners. Your first time-certain item is item Sc. That will be
heard at 9:30 a.m. Item 9B will be heard at two p.m. That's at
Commissioner Coyle's request. Item 10B will be heard at 11 a.m.
And Item 8A will be heard at one p.m.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, County Manager.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very well.
Commissioners, I'll entertain any further changes to the agenda,
as well as ex parte disclosure. We'll start with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have no changes, additions,
or corrections to the agenda. And as far as summary, I have -- on 17 A
I have meetings and correspondence. The meeting was with Patrick
White and Tim Hancock, and also I have a staff report on that. And
17B, I have -- I had a meeting with Deb Brueggeman and also a staff
report, and this information is filed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Chair.
I have no disclosures on the consent agenda. On 17 A, just a
staffs review, report, and also on 17B, same thing there, review of
staffs report.
Thank you very much.
Page 4
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. And I have no further
changes to the agenda. And with respect to the summary agenda, I do
have correspondence and I have had a telephone call with Patrick
White concerning item number 17 A. And the correspondence I have
is -- is the Collier County Planning Commission staff report.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Good morning, sir.
I have no changes to the agenda and nothing to report to you on
the consent agenda. On the summary agenda, 17 A, besides the staff
report, I also met with the petitioners, and the same with 17B, besides
the staff report, I met with the petitioners. And in both cases,
everything is in my file for anyone that would like to see it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, good morning.
The -- I have -- the only thing I have on the summary agenda is,
on 17 A and B, is staffs report.
Just a question on these time-certains. Are we going to -- these
time-certains, will that generate a two-hour lunch, or did we space
them out enough to get 'er done?
MR. OCHS: I think we've spaced them out appropriately, sir.
We should be able to have your regular lunch break.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good. I make a motion to
approve as amended.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve today's
regular, consent, and summary agenda as amended--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
We -- before we take a final vote, we have a speaker on 17 A.
MS. FILSON: Garrett Beyrent.
MR. BYRENT: I'm waiving. I'm not speaking.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any discussion?
Page 5
February 23,2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 6
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 23, 2010
Withdraw Item 10C: Recommendation to award a construction contract in the amount of
$2,904,563 for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant Finished Water Quality and Odor
Control Compliance Project to Cardinal Contractors, Inc., Bid #10-5423, Project Number 71002. (Staffs
request/bid protest)
Move Item 16A2 to 10E: Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Lien for
the Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Pedro Cruz, Case No.
CEs020080007s54, relating to property located at 2222 51st Terrace SW, Naples, Florida.
(Commissioner Halas' request)
Withdraw Item 1602: Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a modification to
Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #07DB-3V-09-21-0l-201 between the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and Collier County to reallocate $135,657.85 in unused project funds to the Disaster Recovery Initiative
Single Family Rehabilitation Program. (Staff's request)
Withdraw Item 1603: Recommendation to award Bid #10-5418 for a production well for the
Immokalee Sports Complex Swimming Pool to Miller Drilling and Water Treatment Inc., in the amount
of $55,935 and authorize the necessary budget amendments. (Staffs request/bid protest)
Move Item 16K1 to 12A: This item continued from the February 9,2010 Bee Meeting. Request
to review a proposed amendment to the Collier County Noise Control Ordinance, which would
specifically exempt noise resulting from permitted motor racing events at the Swamp Buggy
Recreation and Sports Park, and if acceptable, direct the County Attorney to prepare and advertise an
amending ordinance. (Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 5C to be heard at 9:30 a.m.
Item 9B to be heard at 2:00 a.m. (Commissioner Covle's reauest)
Item lOB to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 8A to be heard at 1:00 a.m.
2/23/2010 8:40 AM
February 23,2010
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 20,2010 - BCC/CRA
WORKSHOP AND THE JANUARY 26,2010 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The agenda is approved unanimously.
Now, can I have a motion to approve the January 20,2010,
BCC/CRA workshop and the January 26,2010, BCC regular meeting
minutes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The approval of those minutes is
-- motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They pass unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Sir, that takes us to service awards. The board
typically comes down off the dais to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't get one. It's not for you.
Item #3A
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - 20 YEAR ATTENDEES-
RECOGNIZED
Page 7
February 23, 2010
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 3A is your service awards.
We'll start this morning with your 20-year service awardees. Your
first awardee is Zebedee Harris from parks and recreation, 20 years of
servIce.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your
servIce.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty years is great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations. Take your picture.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Get in the picture.
MR. HARRIS: You want to hide.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Hey, Zeb. Congratulations, man.
Commissioners, our next 20-year service award recipient is Lisa
Taylor from your transportation services division.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very much
for your service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Lisa. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Lisa, thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MS. TAYLOR: Thanks.
(Applause.)
Item #3B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - 30 YEAR ATTENDEE -
RECOGNIZED
MR. OCHS: Congratulations. Thank you.
Commissioners, our next award is for 30 years of county service,
Page 8
February 23,2010
and that goes to Mary Jo Thurston from your Solid Waste Department.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fred almost slapped my hands when
I was touching it. He was afraid I was going to steal it.
MS. THURSTON: Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to give you
Commissioner Coyle's parking spot.
MR. OCHS: Did you get your photo?
MS. THURSTON: I'm used to a plaque.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll take this back and give you a
plaque.
MS. THURSTON: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #3C
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARD - 35 YEAR ATTENDEE -
RECOGNIZED
MR. OCHS: Congratulations. Well done.
Commissioners, your final service award this morning is to
recognize 35 years of service to county government. That would be
Henry Bickford from your Road Maintenance Department.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow, that's pretty amazing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Henry, congratulations. That's a long
time. Thank you very much for your service, and it also isn't set
properly, so you might want to check it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Henry, thank you so much for your
dedicated 35 years service Collier County here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Page 9
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have a relation to Harry
Bickford?
MR. BICKFORD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No kidding. Harry and I hung
around together when we worked for PBA.
Thank you. Thank you for all your service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to get a picture.
(Applause.)
Item #4 A
PROCLAMATION RECOMMENDING IMPLEMENT A TION OF
THE SOUTH FLORIDA INTERMODAL LOGISTICS CENTER
(SFILC). ACCEPTED BY TAMMIE NEMECEK - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to 4A on your agenda,
and proclamations. The first proclamation is a proclamation
recommending implementation of the South Florida Intermodal
Logistic Center. To be accepted by Tammie Nemecek, sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
We have representatives from the chamber. Please corne forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just so everyone knows what this
is, I think all of the commissioners have been briefed individually on
this proclamation. This is a proclamation supporting a 2009 legislative
appropriations bill which will examine the flow of goods and materials
throughout the State of Florida and specifically, in this case,
Southwest Florida, for the purpose of establishing muItimodal
transportation networks to support more efficient distribution of goods
and services in Florida and hopefully reduce the cost to the
consumers. So we're supporting a Florida state legislative
appropriation which will fund that study.
And it's my pleasure to present this Christy. Are you going to
Page 10
February 23, 2010
accept it? Now, Tammie's not going to be here, huh?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, I will accept it on her behalf.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Christy. For -- on behalf of the
Economic Development Council.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Thanks, Christy.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you.
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION THANKING AND CONGRA TULA TING DR.
JOAN M. COLFER, DIRECTOR, COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT STAFF FOR
THEIR OUTSTANDING AND DEDICATED SERVICE IN
PROMOTING AND PROTECTING GOOD HEALTH FOR ALL IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY DR. JOAN M. COLFER-
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4B, which is a
proclamation thanking and congratulating Dr. Joan M. Colfer, director
of Collier County Health Department and the Health Department staff
for their outstanding and dedicated service in promoting and
protecting good health for all in Collier County.
This award to be accepted by Dr. Joan M. Colfer. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This one is different. This one is
framed, and it's even autographed by me, which makes it more
valuable.
Page 11
February 23, 2010
DR. COLFER: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Dr. Colfer and her staff were responsible
for coordinating the HINl immunizations throughout Collier County.
They immunized tens of thousands of people and they coordinated all
of the efforts throughout the county. They did a wonderful job, and it
was a significant benefit to containing what could have been a fairly
significant health problem.
MR. OCHS: Squeeze in. Move in. Get in there. Tighten up.
(Applause.)
DR. COLFER: I've asked them to stay up there for just a second
because I wanted to tell you just a little bit about what some of these
people did. This is quite an honor. Thank you so much. And I know
Commissioner Coyle wanted us to be surprised, and we certainly
were, but we did hear about it a day or two ago. But thank you so
much. This is a wonderful honor.
As you know, we did not do this alone. We had many wonderful
partners, including some of our own county staff, some of which are
here today, too. Dan from Bureau of Emergency Management gave us
some of his staff. The EMS folks helped us with some of their
paramedics. The Sheriffs Department and over 100 volunteers from
organizations such as the Red Cross or CERT teams in Medical
Reserve Corps.
But the people you see up here, they are from the Health
Department, and they filled some critical roles, such as our nursing
director was our operations chief, which was a critical piece of ICS.
Our disaster person, Kathleen, was our logistics person. She was like
a supply officer for a small war. The amount of supplies and things
that we had to bring in, the consent forms of not just the vaccine but
all the materials to do this.
One of the gentlemen up here is one of our nurses who was -- he
worked a split shift. The vaccine had to be refrigerated, and so he
would corne in at five in the morning, pack up all the vaccine to send
Page 12
February 23,2010
out to many different venues. We did day care centers, all the schools,
and then at the same time, we're doing the large vaccine clinics that
immunized over 2,000 people.
So he'd go home in the middle of the day and then corne back
when some of these things ended, anywhere from two o'clock to seven
o'clock, and on into -- on into the night. So this poor gentleman
basically had no life for the last three months.
Half the people up here are nurses that actually did the
immunizations. And then the last group I wanted to talk about was
our epi, represented by Terry. The epidemiology people are the
people that track the disease for us. Not only that, but they provided
thousands of blast facts to all the doctors in the community about what
was a new disease for them, how to diagnosis it, how to treat it. They
kept track of the data that I sent to you all on a weekly basis. And
then lastly, they did things such as this. There was a Boy Scout troop
that was at an event in Georgia where the state health department had
notified us that there was ongoing transmission. They were seeing
cases from that group. So our epidemiology staff met those buses
when they carne back from Georgia, gave fact sheets to all the parents
as to what to do, when to call for medical help, and most importantly
to keep children home if they actually carne down with this. So we
did have cases from that group, but we had limited transmission
because of that.
With everybody's assistance, including the private sector, over
108,000 have been vaccinated now against this disease. That's about a
third of your community. We're proud to tell you, that's way more
than ever get vaccinated for flu. And most importantly, we've had no
deaths to this disease in Collier County.
So thank you very much, and thank you to all these wonderful
folks that helped us get this done. Thanks.
(Applause.)
DR. COLFER: Thank you so much.
Page 13
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Thanks, Joan.
Item #SA
PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY'S "BUSINESS OF THE
MONTH" AWARD TO THE THOMAS RILEY ARTISANS
GUILD FOR FEBRUARY 2010 - PRESENTED
Commissioners, that takes you to presentations on your agenda.
SA is your first presentation. It's to recognize our Business of the
Month for the month of February, 2010, and that award would go to
the Thomas Riley Artisans Guild. And Mr. Ben Riley, president of the
company, will make the presentation.
MR. RILEY: Good morning. My name is Ben Riley, and I'm
the president of the Thomas Riley Artisans Guild. I am joined today
by my father, Torn Riley, our founder and CEO, and Danielle Poff,
our community liaison.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and
especially for the honor of being named EDC business of the month.
Nearly 20 years ago, Tommy founded the Thomas Riley Artisans
Guild as a foreperson in woodworking and finishing operation serving
Naples high-end residential communities. We have since emerged as
a premier provider of fine interior woodworking, finishes, and
furniture, serving homeowners, top architects, interior designers,
general contractors throughout the nation.
As a team of more than 40 passionate artisans and support staff,
we are capable of executing a complete custom interior or any single
furniture master piece our distinguished clientele may desire.
Since our initial expansion in 2001, we've been based in North
Naples in the Rail Head Industrial Park off Old 41. With the help of
the EDC's fast-track permitting process, we operate from our own
Page 14
February 23, 2010
32,000-square-foot state-of-the-art facility housing design,
engineering, manufacturing, and finishing departments, as well as
administrative offices and showrooms.
We've also hosted student and industry tours at our shop at the
request of the EDC and the Education Foundation.
As part of our core values, we foster a true shoulder-to-shoulder
work ethic where each department collaborates to evolve a project
from its earliest design inspirations to the final finishing touches.
From our design engineers who turn visions into detailed shop
drawings, to our artisans who turn drawings into finished products, to
our installers who turn these products into showcases, each team
member is committed to providing monumental quality products with
white-glove customer service.
This confluence of quality and service makes each project truly
extraordinarily -- extraordinary and defines the Thomas Riley Artisans
Guild.
In addition to serving our clients, it has always been our
philosophy to give back to the community. When our company was
in its infancy, we hosted special-needs middle school students. Every
week for nearly three years these students earned their way to Friday's
at the shop to work side by side with our craftsmen.
After this, our commitment expanded to partnerships with other
schools, like Immokalee and Palmetto Ridge High Schools, as well as
the Education Foundation.
Our handcrafted lecterns and stage set are seen annually at the
Naples Philharmonic for the Education Foundation's Golden Apple
Teacher Recognition Event.
The company also encourages our employees to give back
personally through charitable donations and volunteering. We
continue to lend our time, talent, and resources to a variety of other
local non-profit organizations, such as Junior Achievement, Habitat
for Humanity, and the Naples Winter Wine Festival.
Page 15
February 23,2010
More recently, our efforts have primarily focused within the
Immokalee community. We are currently spearheading an effort to
help the Immokalee Church of the Nazarene build a sanctuary and
community outreach facility. This Haitian/Creole church is a haven
for many families in Immokalee.
Reverend Jean Paul, his son Flavil, who is an associate pastor,
and our IT administrator at the artisans guild and their congregation
embarked on their journey to build their own church campus over ten
years ago. Torn Riley is leading the building campaign to raise $1.3
million to see this dream become a reality for the ICN and the people
of Immokalee.
Many employees of the artisan's guild contribute to the effort
through cash donations, household items, and clothing drives. We
also help to provide food at Thanksgiving and toys at Christmas to the
growing congregation. We continue to move forward towards
breaking ground on the sanctuary and outreach center to complete our
commitment and reinforce our firm dedication to the Immokalee
community.
In addition to working with the community, we also have strong
ties within the EDC. Since joining in 1997, Torn has been a board
member and vice-president, and both Torn and Danielle have served
on various EDC committees over the year. After this event, I'll be
joining our round-table discussion with presidents and CEOs
representing other local businesses to discuss peer-to-peer learning
tools. We all recognize and are grateful for the benefits that the EDC
affords our business community.
Thomas Riley Artisans Guild has been blessed to receive much
recognition both locally and at the state level for our unique
participation in the community. We are humbled to be recognized yet
realize that by telling others about what we do, more local businesses
will be encouraged to participate.
This past 18 months have not been the easiest on small business.
Page 16
February 23,2010
We, like most, have been forced to analyze our structure and make the
necessary changes to endure these challenging times.
One of our more recent changes was the acquisition of another
local company, Highland Custom Cabinetry, to allow us to expand our
product offering into what we call our silver standard. This change has
allowed us to serve a slightly larger demographic without taking on
additional overhead.
Our silver standard accounted for nearly 20 percent of our overall
revenue last year, a number we anticipate to grow in the corning years
as we continue to target local remodel work.
Additionally, in order to offer more cost-competitive alternatives
to one-of-a-kind custom products, we have developed several
customizable closet lines. These products are currently available, and
the EDC has, again, been very helpful in seeking small business
assistance opportunities to further develop this effort.
It is our goal to offer these products on a national level with our
current facility acting as the production center. Eventual growth will
lead to expansion and create many more manufacturing jobs right here
in Collier County.
While Thomas Riley Artisans Guild continues to evolve in order
to consistently exceed client needs and expectation, one thing remains
steadfast, our commitment to nothing more than monumental in each
and every business and civic endeavor for each and every client.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share our story with you,
and you are welcome to corne by and visit for a tour anytime.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. You do great
work.
MR. RILEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, by the way, I have a presentation for
you.
MR. OCHS: Yes, please corne forward.
Page 17
February 23, 2010
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, Ms. Filson has
reminded me that I failed to get a motion to approve the
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. RILEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you very
much.
Item #SC
PRESENT A TION BY THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE
CONCERNING PRE-HOSPITAL EMS/FIRE SERVICES-
MOTION ACCEPTING REPORT - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes you to your 9:30 time
certain, which is Item SC on your agenda this morning. That is a
presentation by the Blue Ribbon Committee concerning pre-hospital,
EMS, and fire service. Gentlemen?
MR. MOEBIUS: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you,
Mr. Ochs.
My name is Geoffrey Moebius. I'm the retired CEO of
Page 18
February 23, 2010
Physician's Regional Health System. With me today is also Mr.
Edward Morton, retired CEO of the NCH Healthcare System; Russell
Budd, who is the president of Wall Systems of Southwest Florida.
Back in August of 2009 I became interested in the issues that
were surrounding us here in the county with EMS and fire and decided
to get involved. I talked with Michael Reagan from the Chamber,
obviously Ed, and we also talked with Commissioner Coyle on how to
go about this, and Commissioner Coyle was instrumental in giving us
some guidance in forming the committee.
The other people who were on this panel was Patricia Barton.
She's a community leader involved with multiple services, including
Foster Care Council of Southwest Florida, also a liaison with Lee
Memorial Healthcare System's Trauma Center that serves Southwest
Florida; Dr. Gouta, who's the president of Collier County Medical
Society; Adria Starkey, who's the president of the Naples Trust and
has had experience with physicians in the county; in addition to
Russell, who is a past fire chief of the -- or fire commissioner of North
Naples with Ed and myself.
We met with -- we had four meetings starting in November
through December with EMS leaders, fire chiefs, emergency room
physicians, and also individuals who were involved with the actual
delivery ofBLS and ALS services from both fire and EMS.
Our conclusions, after meeting them, doing research on our own
of different articles presented, different functions across the country
and actually Canada, was that -- and I'll read my conclusions on this
now.
Collier County has experienced significant growth in population
during the past 30 years. The citizens both full time and part time
have seemed well served during that period by dedicated professionals
delivering timely and expert basic and advanced life support services,
BLS and ALS respectively.
The quest to continually improve Emergency Medical Services,
Page 19
February 23, 2010
EMS, while staying abreast of the technology and scientific advances
in medicine, has been embraced by those who deliver these
Emergency Medical Services in Collier County; however, at present
there exists a difference of opinion amongst those professionals
regarding the best EMS model for the delivery of that care.
The committee, after careful review of the materials provided by
the various groups and individuals interviewed and after conducting
our own review of the academic literature, and concluded that
countywide a two-tiered emergency delivery model should be
established.
Tier one should be charged with the delivery of timely BLS
services. Tier two should be charged with the delivery of timely ALS
and transportation services.
Medical literature is clear, time is critical to saving lives. It is a
common misperception, however, that ALS services that -- are always
critical to saving lives. While ALS services are needed in a limited
number of cases, it is the timely delivery of BLS services that will
actually save the most lives.
The rate of survival is improved by those patients who are
recipients of BLS services in less than eight minutes.
The committee has also concluded that ALS services are
appropriate but only for a small percentage of the cases. In a recent
study regarding ALS services in Volusia County, the percentage of
cases -- investigators concluded that taking into account procedures
and medications provided prior or upon arrival of the second tier
responder, the skill delivering shrinks to less than 2 percent, actually
1.92 percent, for all emergency medical responses.
The study had the benefit of pre-hospital ALS services on
trauma-related mortality and morbidity published in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal, August 22, 2008, concluded the
implementation of full advanced life support programs did not
decrease mortality or morbidity for major trauma patients.
Page 20
February 23, 2010
Gregg Henry, in a recent article, examined the cost benefit of
ALS services, stating, want to shave healthcare costs? Start with the
low hanging fruit, like advanced cardiac life support.
Clearly it's the delivery of more timely BLS services, not ALS
services that has the potential to save lives in Collier County.
Although it's the conclusion of this committee that the
aforementioned tiered delivery system would be best for all of Collier
County residents, there's clearly more work that needs to be done prior
to any final decisions being made.
The committee believes that the following additional measures
should be considered by the Collier County Commission.
A pre-hospital EMS panel should be established and charged
with conducting a thorough review of the current state of EMS
services provided in Collier County. This panel should address the
challenge of how the various providers of both BLS and ALS services
can be coordinated into a two tiered system.
The panel should oversee the development of countywide
evidence based clinical protocol for BLS and ALS services, best
practice policy, techniques, rules, regulations, standardization, and
equipment and material, certification and training in Collier County.
The panel should develop a process for the development and
management of all BLS and ALS trainers in Collier County and for
outsourcing the objective verification of certificate required training.
It is essential that this panel be comprised of objective
individuals drawn from local hospitals, emergency room physician
groups, fire departments, law enforcement, ALS and BLS providers,
and all prominent citizens. An objective evaluation of the data related
to emergency responses in Collier County is critical to understanding
the challenges and the problems.
Absent a thorough review of the data, it is ill advised for anyone
to draw conclusions as respect to the best design of a comprehensive
EMS delivery model for the entire county.
Page 21
February 23, 2010
The committee strongly suggests that the panel oversee an
objective review of the data, said review to be conducted by an
objective outside authority. Once the emergency response data has
been compiled and appropriately analyzed, the panel will gain
valuable insight, which should lead to changes that improves the
effectiveness and efficiency of EMS service countywide.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by commissioners?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
Thank you for the report. I think it's excellent the way you got it
laid out, and it makes total sense to me, but where do we go from
here?
MR. MOEBIUS: I think our next step is forming the committee,
bringing that panel of people, the experts, fire, the Sheriffs
Department, the emergency room physicians, hospital administration,
and others in the county together to truly start forming and corning up
with a way to address the analysis of the data. That is our -- that's the
first step.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you were planning to do this under
which organization?
MR. MOEBIUS: I'd leave that to the County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with any
particular organization out there. I -- to be honest with you, I really
prefer if it was some other organization other than County
Commission, and then we don't have that possible problems of
sunshine and all that. We can keep it in open forum for the public and
it won't impede the ability of the panelists to have to communicate on
a regular basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If -- are you finished?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If the other two commissioners,
Page 22
February 23, 2010
Commissioner Halas and Henning, would permit me just a 30-second
remark concerning Commissioner Coletta's suggestion.
That's exactly the basis for the Blue Ribbon Committee from the
beginning. They, of course, inquired as to whether or not we should --
we should appoint one from the County Commission, and there's too
much friction and suspicion surrounding this subject. And I've always
felt, as you do, Commissioner Coletta, that it's better that prominent
citizens, qualified prominent citizens, are better qualified to do that
than someone that we choose, because the perception will be that we
have chosen people who share our attitudes.
And the important -- one of the very important recommendations
is that -- it's something we had not thought about before, and that is
that the emergency rooms of the hospital do things in slightly different
ways. And it's critically important during the transfer of patients that
we make that as simple as possible. And so by involving the hospitals
in this process, we can get a more uniform method of delivery of care,
and we believe it will -- the committee believes it will improve the
standard of care throughout Collier County.
And with that, I'll call on Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I'm -- first of all, thank
you very, very much for being here and presenting this report to the
Board of County Commissioners. Also would like to thank the
dedication of all these individuals that gave of their time to study this
problem and to look at it very objectively.
I would hope that we can move forward, and hopefully that the
same group of people can still stay assembled and, as you stated, that
we need to bring in other people involved in this study such as the
sheriff, as you brought up. And I think this will benefit the whole
community, and I think we all are here to make sure that we serve the
citizens here in Collier County to the utmost as far as care and health
related items.
Thank you so much.
Page 23
February 23, 2010
MR. MOEBIUS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, first of all, I want to make
a motion to accept the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- report. And secondly, if it's
not going to be a committee under the board, then we ought to have a
resolution to -- so we have some consistency working with this panel.
And I think what you're recommending is the panel will adopt -- or
make some recommendations to the medical director on how to
administer ALS and BLS.
Jeff, can we do that?
MR. KLATZKOW: My preference is that they operate on their
own. It's a private organization. The more nexus they have with this
Board of County Commissioners, the closer you're going to get to
having to comply with the sunshine requirements. Keeping it entirely
private; they appoint who they want to meet, they meet when they
want to meet, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, can we -- can we change
the medical director's contract to include the recommendations of this
panel?
MR. KLATZKOW: I wouldn't do that. I would just let them and
-- where they want to meet, when they want to meet, if they want to
make a recommendation, as other private organization, they can corne
back to the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You finished, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 24
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I need a sign or anything?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need a sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Mobias, or Dr. Mobias, excuse
me, will you be focusing any on getting two organizations to work
together more cooperatively? I mean, right now they're on opposite
sides. And one of the things I'd love to see is everybody working
together.
MR. MOEBIUS: Our focus is on the pre-hospital care. And I
believe that both fire and EMS, the hospitals, the medical society,
Sheriffs Department, other individuals within the county can corne
together to provide us the best possible care during that period and
work together on that. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think Dr. Mobias' point is --
MR. MOEBIUS: Mr. Mobias. I'm not a doctor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
MR. MOEBIUS: I'm not a doctor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you aren't a doctor? I thought
you were a doctor.
MR. MOEBIUS: No, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, he plays one on TV.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry.
MR. MOEBIUS: Mr. Morton's going to be taking that role for
me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think the point of the Blue Ribbon
Committee is that before they can make specific recommendations
concerning the structure and changes and improvements, that they first
need to review the data and --
MR. MOEBIUS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and so that's the first step. And I think
the thing that we would ask is that you come back and brief us at
appropriate intervals. And certainly when you complete the analysis
Page 25
February 23,2010
of the data, if you can provide us an assessment of the conclusions you
draw from that analysis, that would be helpful.
It is the Board of County Commissioners that, after all, will be
making the decisions concerning Emergency Medical Services, but
there are other entities involved who have to be involved in that
process.
So Commissioner Henning has a motion to accept the report of
the Blue Ribbon Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. MOEBIUS: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for your work. I
know how difficult this is. We have been involved in trying to do it
for a long time, so we appreciate your help.
MR. MOEBIUS: I appreciate the work that the panel has done
also. They've done a great job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, they have.
MR. MOEBIUS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 26
February 23,2010
Item #SB
PRESENT A nON BY MARK ELSNER, WATER SUPPLY
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DIRECTOR, SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REGARDING THE LOWER
WEST COAST WATER SUPPLY PLAN - PRESENTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to SB, which is a
presentation by Mark Elsner, water supply development division
director, South Florida Water Management District, regarding the
lower west coast water supply plant.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Paul Mattausch, water department director.
I would like to introduce Mark Elsner to you this morning. Mark
is the director of the water supply development division.
Collier County has been working very closely with South Florida
Water Management District in the development of the five-year plan
update to the lower west coast water supply plan. Mark is here to give
you have some background on that plan this morning, and I just -- I
just wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that we -- we have
been actively engaged already in this process of development of this
plan, and I have had the -- the opportunity now -- I've been here long
enough -- this is the -- this is the third five-year plan that I've been
able to work with the South Florida water district on, and it's a
privilege to introduce Mr. Elsner to you.
Just for your information, Mark is going to go from here making
this presentation to visit our south county regional water treatment
plant and take a look at our reverse osmosis facility. So he's -- we are
looking forward to having him visit our plant.
Mark?
MR. ELSNER: Thank you, Paul.
Again, I'm Mark Elsner, director of the water supply
Page 27
February 23, 2010
development division for the South Florida Water Management
District.
This is just an information briefing. Like Paul indicated, we are
initiating our five-year update to our lower west coast regional water
supply plan. We started planning back in the early '90s for this area,
and our first plan was approved by our governing board in 1994. So
we have gone through several updates.
And I would like to acknowledge your staff, and especially Paul,
for the multiple trips he makes back and forth to West Palm and
always present and always forthcoming with information to make sure
that, you know, Collier County's interests are well represented.
Today I'm going to talk about what a water supply plant is, public
participation and opportunities for it, and why the plant is important to
you as a local government, and the importance for local involvement,
water conservation, and then the schedule that we're on.
Water supply planning is a central piece of the water resource
puzzle. For several decades we've been talking about alternative
water supply, water use regulation, local comprehensive planning, and
natural systems. A couple years ago the legislature strengthened this
linkage between water supply planning and your local comprehensive
planning, which I'll get into in a minute.
You know, also, DCA, they do take a very strong position in the
way of water supply and natural resource protection components in
your comprehensive plan, and our water supply plan does playa role
in that, which I'll get to later.
What is a regional water supply plan? We've divided our district
into four regional water planning areas based on hydrologic divides.
And what a water supply plan is is it's just a future -- protecting our
future demands and identifying strategies and putting those forth now
versus when the demand gets here. It's just a proactive approach
towards planning.
It's based on a 20-year planning horizon. Our planning horizon
Page 28
February 23, 2010
for this next update is 200S to 2030. In addition, these plants have to
be updated every five years, and I think the last five years are evident
of why that's so important. We have to stay current.
In the last update in 1990 -- or 2006, you know, we didn't see this
economic downturn corning, and the slowing of growth, which has
slowed the need for water. So I think it's very evident of how
important it is to keep this current, and then that's the reason why we
update them every five years.
Another important aspect in these plans is, it's not a master
permit or an authorization to use water. There's another level of
analysis and acquiring a consumptive use permit to get that
authorization.
The lower west coast planning area includes Lee County and
portions of Collier, Charlotte, Glades, Henry and Monroe Counties. It
generally reflects the drainage basins of the C43 canal,
Caloosahatchee River, the Big Cypress Basin canals and the Imperial
and Estero Rivers.
We're working with the local planning departments in the way of
finalizing population projections. But right now our preliminary
information indicates that the population in this region is going to
increase by about 72 percent to a little over one-and-a-half million.
For Collier County, we're projecting about a 60 percent increase
to a little over a half a million people. And again, we're working with
your planning department and utility department to refine those
numbers and corne to agreement on what those should be.
Our last plan was completed in 2006. And the overall conclusion
of that plan was the needs of the region can continue to be met with
appropriate management and diversification of water supply sources
through 202S.
There is a lot of emphasis put on conservation, use of brackish
water sources, use of reclaimed water, and continue maximizing the
use of the freshwater sources in this area, primarily the lower Tamiami
Page 29
February 23, 2010
aquifer.
And I'd like to go ahead and acknowledge the county in taking a
leadership role. I think that you've positioned yourself well in meeting
your future demands, and you have a very elaborate reclaimed water
program that's currently using almost 100 percent of your wastewater
for a beneficial purpose.
You have a water system that is diversified, and 54 percent of
your capacity is through reverse osmosis and a brackish water source
and reduces your susceptibility to droughts, and you are developing
aquifer storage and recovery for your reclaimed water program at this
time, which in times of less demand, it's very good to go ahead and
store that for use at a later time than go -- than dispose of it down a
deep injection well.
The county has been very successful in partnering with us
through our alternative water supply funding program, as well as the
Big Cypress Basin. Over the past five years we've provided over $6.6
million to the county towards your alternative water supply efforts.
And you know, as numbers go, you guys have been very successful in
getting our funding.
Public participation is a key part of this process. We have
several venues and opportunities for public participation. The primary
means is through issues workshops under the auspices of our Water
Resources Advisory Commission. These meetings are held about
every other month throughout the planning area, and we invite all
stakeholders to participate. We also have presentations to local
governments, like the one I'm doing today, as well as one-on-one
meetings with stakeholders.
Why is this involvement important? Well, your active
participation ensures that this plan is going to address the needs and
concerns and your local issues.
Population projections are the primary driver of urban demand,
water demand, so it's very important that we agree on what those
Page 30
February 23, 2010
numbers should be as we move forward.
You know, the county's coordinated input between policymakers
like yourselves, your utilities staff, as well as your planning staff, is
really important. You know, and in the end, we have to identify
sufficient projects to meet the future demands, and we'll be working
with your local utilities staff to corne up with those projects.
Why is it important to you? The lower west coast water supply
plant will create a framework for what future water decisions are
going to be made, but also, as much as important is, 18 months after
completion of the plan -- you may remember that puzzle slide I had at
the beginning. You're required to go ahead and update the ten-year
facilities work plan portion of your Comprehensive Plan, you know,
and that will be reviewed with the water supply plan as it goes through
DCA.
Conservation is going to a big part of what we do in the future.
The district approved a comprehensive water conservation plan in
2008. And what we want to do is create an enduring conservation
ethic, a day-in and day-out ethic.
Right now, the only time we talk about conservation is during
droughts. And during rainy times we sort of forget about it. In five to
seven years, we're going to bring it up again.
What we want to do is create that ethic almost like recycling.
The people are thinking about water use and water use efficiency and
day-to-day, and you get the most out of our drop of water.
You know, conservation reduces impact on the water resources,
reduces the wastewater we have to treat and dispose of, and it reduces
the impact of drought. You know, and it is true, the cheapest gallon of
water is a gallon we don't -- we don't waste, and you're going to put a
significant effort in promoting this conservation ethic. And we will be
looking to partnership with local governments and local utilities to do
that.
Our schedule. We had a kickoff meeting in December, and we
Page 31
February 23, 2010
plan on completing this process around March of next year. Our next
meeting is corning up March 5th at our lower west coast service center
in Fort Myers.
There are -- the aqua-color boxes in this schedule, those are local
government presentations. We do plan on corning back to you as we
move through the process and let you know of our process and get
your input at that time.
And with that, I thank you for your time, and we look forward to
the county's active participation in this five-year update. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Mr. Elsner, first of all, thank
you very much for this report, and appreciate your time being here and
give us an update in regards to conservation of water resource.
My concern is, one of your slides there; you had a slide there
showing the lower west coast and then the lower east coast. How does
that determine the dividing line; can you tell me?
MR. ELSNER: Like I said, it's based on drainage divides.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that might have been your
second slide. There you go. That's the slide there. I was looking at
where the dividing line was. How -- and that was established by
what?
MR. ELSNER: This is by the drainage, by drainage basins.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. ELSNER: So this area right in here is part of the
Everglades system, and that system is addressed in our lower west
coast regional water supply plant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have
for you is that Collier County has spent an awful lot of money in ASR
wells yet can't get any permit for them. Do you see any light at the
end of the tunnel here in regards to getting these ASR wells approved?
I understand after we put all the time and effort into these things,
now we have some serious mandates in regards to possibly an arsenic
Page 32
February 23, 2010
problem. And could you elaborate a little bit on that and how we can
work through this so that we can get these ASR wells up online to
conserve more water.
MR. ELSNER: I'm not the technical expert on ASR, but I will
tell you we're side by side with you working -- trying to work through
those issues. You brought up arsenic, which is the primary issue, and
there's different things that are being looked at in the way of additional
treatment technologies, how far does that reach out into the aquifer.
So there's a lot of effort going in on that. It's part of utilities, DEP, and
the Water Management District, and they are moving forward and
trying to get resolution of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the problem is, we were told
that we had to work for- -- forward in establishing these ASR wells, so
we did, we moved ahead, spent a lot of money in regards to this, and
now they're just sitting there. We can't do anything with them.
So anything that you can do to help stimulate this program so that
we can get these ASR wells up and operating, especially when we are
in a rain event to where we can store this water, and then when we
have a drought, then we have adequate freshwater supply here for the
residents here in the lower west coast water supply, more mainly,
Collier County.
MR. ELSNER: Yeah, and we're with you. I hear you loud and
clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. ELSNER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good presentation.
MR. ELSNER: Have a good day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #6A
Page 33
February 23, 2010
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. MICHAEL R. RAMSEY
REPRESENTING THE WATER SYMPOSIUM OF FLORIDA,
INC. REGARDING A PILOT PROGRAM PROPOSAL TO
REDESIGN ROADWAY MEDIAN - MOTION TO APPROVE
THE STUDY AND BRING BACK A COMPLETE PROPOSAL AS
A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to 6A, public
petitions, a public petition request by Mr. Michael Ramsey
representing the Water Symposium of Florida, Incorporated, regarding
a pilot program proposal to redesign a roadway median.
MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioners. It is a good
morning. Another beautiful day in South Florida.
I have outlines I'm going to pass out to you. I'm going to see if --
Mr. Tim, could you do this for me.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, very good morning.
I'm very excited to be here today because I think we have a project
and a topic for discussion that makes me very excited, and it makes
me very excited to present it to you. And in the last two months that
we've been working on it, it's just an exciting idea to work with, and
the response from most of the people in the community has been just
amazmg.
My name is Michael R. Ramsey. I'm a resident of Collier
County. I live out in the Estates. I'm an ecological consultant, and I'm
a board member on the Water Symposium of Florida, Inc. The water
Symposium of Florida, Inc., is a 501 C3 nonprofit organization that has
a mission statement for educational out- -- educational outreach of
information for water conservation.
We have been undertaking demonstration projects and
symposiums to disseminate information for water conservation since
2002.
Page 34
February 23,2010
This year for 2010, working with the proposed product we have,
we've partnered up with the Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida
Water Management District. For 2010 the proj ect that we are
proposing and trying to scope out, we call the road median green-
scape project.
Now, this project carne from an idea, as I understand it, from a
conversation between Commissioner Coletta and Director Clarence
Tears of the Big Cypress Basin of the South Florida Water
Management District. And from this debate or this discussion, we
started looking at some of the information pertaining to this issue.
Apparently, road median landscaping is an issue that affects all
counties and all municipalities. In the past few years, it's corne onto
the scene, it is increasing in area, it is increasing in acreage, it is
increasing in costs. It is affecting, as I understand it, all counties and
all municipalities that deal with this issue. So we, in our scoping
process, we decided to start digging around to see what we could find
for some of the information pertaining to this.
The first thing we did is we started looking into the fiscal year
2010 budget for transportation and landscaping. Median budgets for
Collier County is interesting. I don't know if I'm schooled enough to
do it, but it was an interesting task to read the budget.
It is my opinion from reading the budget, it looks like the annual
cost for a linear mile of landscaping of road median is somewhere
between 40,000 and $57,000 per linear mile. Now, if you take this
number and you expand it out, then for this year, fiscal year 2010,
we're somewhere between 4 and 5 million for costs for road median
landscaping maintenance.
If you continue on with that, you can tell that we've decided in
the past not to landscape all roads. Now, if we consider all the roads
that we have planned and all the roads that we were going to
landscape and we built them out completely, it looks like the potential
cost for landscape maintenance could run around 12 to 15 million
Page 35
February 23,2010
annually.
Now, going on from that, we started looking at the amount of
water used on these issues. Landscape medians require water the way
they're currently built. And if you backtrack into the numbers, we
estimate that currently they're using 160 million gallons a year for
landscape irrigation.
Again, if you take the issue of total build-out and you build out
all the roads that were planned to be landscaped for full build-out, it
looks like they could be using around 4- to 500 million gallons of
water per year.
Now, when you start looking at these numbers as we did, you
start to see that there is a demonstrated need, maybe to look at this
issue and find a different way to look at it. These are significant costs
and it could build to be -- more significantly in the future.
Not only did this county have this problem, we think other
counties have this problem and other governing bodies, so we started
scoping this project to see, maybe to find a way to look at it.
The first thing we did, we met with Mr. Casalanguida and Mr.
Feder. We threw the idea out to them, and they both thought it had
merit and we should pursue seeing what we could do with it.
So in that interest, we did have a quick meeting with staff to see
about some of the limitations or some of the guidelines we should go
along -- we've had to deal with.
Transportation staff in this issue was very helpful. They pointed
out all the issues and all the guidelines that we would have to deal
with. It was very informative almost to the point that it was
overwhelming. Landscaping is a complicated issue on road medians,
and it's costly and it involves a lot of parts.
But with this in mind and now having a guideline on how to
approach it, we went out to the communities. We went out to meet
with some of the businesspeople in the private sector, we went out to
talk with some of the civic associations, and we just talked with
Page 36
February 23, 2010
normal people out there in the community.
And I have to tell you, the response back from the community
was amazingly interesting. This is an issue the community really
likes. When we did our presentations, people were corning back
afterwards with a very interested look -- wanting to look at it even
more. It was surprising. And what is most surprising about it is that
when you look at the community the way they're interested in the
project, we found people that want to participate in something like
this.
And the first three reasons that carne out that we found to be just
amazing was that they wanted to do something they can see every day
on the way to work and the way to school. They want to talk about it
with their friends and associates, and they want their children to see it.
Now, this was a very interesting thing to see, because in these
economic times, it looks like it's kind of difficult for somebody to be
putting themselves out for this kind of project.
As we continued some of our conversations in the community, it
became clear that the reason they wanted to help -- there's been a lot
of publicity and information about the struggling with the budget.
These people that we're talking to feel like if they can help, then we
can help our county, we can help the issue at hand, and we can
participate. And the general feeling we got from talking to them is
that if we work together, together we can figure out how to solve some
of these issues; and this project here, the landscaping, the road
medians, has this hands-on feel to it that a lot of the people like.
As we continued on in our scope -- and we've been out talking
with some of the government municipalities that want to help us.
We've met with Marco Island, and Marco Island has accepted us and
approved us to do a project down there, demonstration project on
some of their property. We're still working out the details on it, but
we're going to be meeting with them and continuing this discussion to
work out exactly in the scope what they want us to do and how to do
Page 37
February 23,2010
it.
Everglades City has met with us, and they like the idea. They
want us to corne down and look at some of their roads and some of
their areas, see what we can do for them.
Sammy is ecstatic to get something for free. Mr. Sammy
Hamilton, the mayor, is a very enthusiastic individual for this project.
Now, our project, as we have it proposed, runs a two-year time
frame. What we plan to do is produce a white-paper report that can be
put together and then made of -- that was -- and then made available to
decision makers so that people in this kind of business for landscape
maintenance, particularly at the government level, maybe in the
private sector, can have some documents and some numbers that
quantify the differences in trying to approach a different type of
landscape planting that has different costs, different outcomes,
involves the community, and can possibly save a lot of money now
and a lot of water for the future, which ties in nicely to the prior
discussion on water management.
So in our proj ect, after two years, we want to pick three or four
locations to work on, do the initial setup, go back out and monitor and
collect data, do the maintenance, produce the report. Along the way as
we do the reports, we want to disseminate the information through
symposiums and presentations to all interested parties, we want to
utilize the community and local governments to coordinate a
follow-up project that follows up on these projects after they've been
implemented to see if we can figure out a continuation of a
partnership.
This is a new area that we think can, with some attention and
some interesting conversation, we think we can develop a new kind of
partnership here that will save money for everybody all the way
around.
And last, I do a lot of work out in the woods. And I found this
egg out in the woods yesterday. And eggs are interesting because, this
Page 38
February 23, 2010
one I never really understood what it was, and I'm trying to figure it
out. But if I -- with this egg, if I take care of it and I allow it to hatch,
something great might corne out of it but because it wasn't allowed to
hatch, I don't know what it's going to be, I don't know what it could
be, and I don't know how much it could have accomplished.
And with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, to sum this up, the Water
Symposium of Florida is asking that the BCC consider supporting our
project and endorsing it, and we're asking for coordination with staff,
to see if we can follow through on the scoping to actually implement
this.
And with that, I conclude my presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissions Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Michael, that was a
wonderful presentation. Could you bring that egg back out again?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want you to take a look at the
egg here and see the resemblance --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, squeeze it, squeeze it very, very
hard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- between the egg -- between
the egg and Michael.
Michael, you're a good egg, that's for darn sure. I couldn't let that
go by.
But listen, what's taking place here is pretty revolutionary. It's a
wonderful idea. I absolutely love it. I don't know if my fellow
commissioners are aware of the fact, but we are in economic
downturn. The availability of funds to be able to move forward with
anything that resembles landscaping east of 951 is questionable at best
for many years to corne.
Here's an opportunity, not only for east of951, but for other parts
of Collier County that have been left by the wayside as we move
Page 39
February 23,2010
forward with some of these projects, you know, 40- to $50,000 a mile.
Just for an estimate, do you have any kind of estimate what this
would cost per mile even though it's a donated type of item
underwritten by grants at this time, the maintenance of it?
MR. RAMSEY: Well, we've been talking with the community.
Now, to get implemented, we've already firmed up some
commitments to have all the material donated, all the services
donated, and all the labor donated we could possibly use.
In the report that we're going to provide, we're going to corne up,
working with the people that we work with, we're going to corne up
with a new planting methodology that right now in these early stages
looks like it will reduce the cost possibly in half, just for the initial
planning.
Now, based on the horticultural experts and the other talent that
we have working with us from the community, if you apply certain
common-sense ecological concepts to this, you can produce an area
with plants that is uses -- that is cheaper to set up initially and uses
less inputs over the long run.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. RAMSEY: It all is based on the plant initial design and
selection. It looks like we could cut the initial cost in half, and with
certain issues, we believe the irrigation could be cut almost in half or
more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And as far as the irrigation goes,
this would be just to get plants started, and it might be nothing more
than an irrigation truck where it's going by every so many -- for so
many weeks to be able to get them through the initial planting; is that
correct?
MR. RAMSEY: That's correct, sir. And also, too, now, based on
some of the issues that I also deal with, this issue deals very closely
what water quality issues corning off storm -- corning off highways. If
we get into this and we look at it very closely, there may be an issue to
Page 40
February 23, 2010
improve water quality discharge off of highways because of the
retention feature; however, like I said, this is a scoping process that
leads us to study areas that hasn't been looked at before. That's what
we're asking to do is to be allowed the possibility to explore these
areas and look at the feasibility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, of course, you're
talking the county roads. We can't give you authorization to go on
state roads, but we could even work towards that direction with our
cohorts within the State Department of Transportation.
What I'd like, Commissioners, is to be able to bring this back as a
regular agenda item with the idea that we're going to look at this as an
experimental program. We've got a grant in place to be able to do it,
there's going to be a minimum amount of staff time to get it off the
ground. It's a volunteer program. All the perfect elements to make this
world corne together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, excuse me.
Will you have somebody, or who will actually design the
medians? Are you going to have a landscape architect, or how are you
going to do that, so that these items will adhere to some of the
requirements as far as the traveling public goes?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am. We -- after meetings with
transportation staff, landscaping staff on this issue, they made it very
clear all the guidelines and regulations that have to be adhered to. So
-- and having that meeting, we went out and sought a landscape
architect that would be able to produce the plans necessary to meet all
the requirements. So we have a volunteer on staff now that will
supply that necessary expertise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You've talked about all of
the people that you've interviewed. Can you tell me, is it hundreds or
thousands or five or what?
MR. RAMSEY: We're probably getting up into the hundreds
Page 41
February 23, 2010
right now. We've talked to local businessmen from here to Immokalee
and some of those that supply plant materials. An example of the
people we've been talking to is the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association, Marco Island, Marco Island people, Marco Island
Beautification Committee, City of Everglades, Sammy Hamilton,
some ofthe people on his staff. We've talked to Joe Bonness, Better
Roads. We've talked to Speery (phonetic) Tree Farms, we've talked to
J&J Palms, we've talked to people that's corning up from the
organizations just wanting to volunteer and be a part of this. We're
scheduled to meet the other civic associations out in the Estates area.
We perceive a lot of the issues with roads will be east of951
where most of this impact could happen, but we're also interested in
other areas west of 951.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me stop you there, because
I don't want to take too much time. I wanted to know who all was
doing the interviews.
MR. RAMSEY: It's the water symposium planning scoping
group, myself, the board of directors and the people that we brought
on as volunteers to help us with these issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And lastly, do you have a
sketch or a drawing or something about what you envision these
medians to look like? You know, when I think about it, are they going
to be like a gully or are they going to be above grade or -- you know,
are they going to have a water stream going through them? I just -- I
have no idea. Do you have something that, when you corne back --
Commissioner Coletta's asked to put this on a regular agenda, will you
have some kind of sketches or something so that we can take a look to
see what you're talking about?
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, ma'am, we -- based on -- the presentation
today, we're looking for Collier County's partnership with us, to help
with us this issue.
With that, we would pick two or three locations within the county
Page 42
February 23, 2010
for road medians. Now, we have picked the location in the City of
Marco, and we're looking for one at the Everglades City. Once we
select those and we get into it based on our scoping and planning
group, and based on all the limitations brought out by the landscaping
staff under transportation, once we bring all that together and get it all
into a format, yes, we'll have a plan.
Right now for the road medians we have it -- we're asking for
your endorsement and support to see if we can proceed ahead with
this, and -- but we will have some plans for the -- maybe the Marco
Island and maybe Everglades City prepared.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm going to ask the county
attorney this. When we start having people work into the medians,
does that put the county into a precarious position where someone
could get hurt?
MR. KLATZKOW: There is a risk element here, and if the
board wishes to bring this back, we will discuss that as part of that
executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I think that there's some
great possibilities, since you've gotten this grant from South Florida
Water Management. We have a lot of retention ponds that I think
would be a great spot to start, instead of the -- I've got some concerns
about medians, being that we could be in jeopardy as far as not having
people there that know what they're doing as far as, you know, traffic
and things of this nature.
But I think the retention ponds would be an area that might be an
area that we could look at because all we've got now is just an area
where there's an indentation and really no growth, but that would be a
great place to put littoral plantings and figure out what's happening
there.
The other way -- the other thing that may be interesting is, you
know, we're working with the MPO in regards to greenways, and that
Page 43
February 23,2010
might be another area where you could look at a lot of areas in regards
to establishing good landscaping for greenways, and it will make it
more attractive for some of our citizens to take a walk, that way they'd
be shaded. So I think that's got some merit also.
But thank you so much for being here today and presenting this
plan. Appreciate it.
MR. RAMSEY: You're most welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Michael, have you distinguished
between -- when we're talking about irrigation water, have you
distinguished between reuse irrigation and other sources of irrigation?
MR. RAMSEY: We know that they exist out there. We haven't
had -- after -- we haven't been through the scoping enough to get into
that issue out there. But according to the Water Management District,
the way they look at irrigation and reuse, they manage it the same.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let me explain this in laymen's
terms. We have to have some way to dispose of treated sewage. The
most useful purpose is to put it on medians. Ifwe cannot put the
treated sewage reuse water on medians and we cut the use in half,
guess what happens to the other half? It gets pumped into the ground
in deep wells or it gets pumped into the bay, and that's not a really
good thing to do. So when we're talking about cutting the use of water
by 50 percent on the medians, we have to understand the implications
of doing that.
If we can't use reuse water for sprinkling medians, what are we
going to do with it? And the alternative is very, very expensive. So
we need to -- we need to examine that very carefully, because it's not a
matter of saving freshwater in most cases.
Secondly, as I see it, there are two parts to this process, and with
Commissioner Coletta's indulgence and hopefully support, we can
divide this in two parts. I think there's sufficient support on the board
to say, let's go ahead with a study, but when you bring it back, bring it
back with a plan with recommended types of plantings, with drawings
Page 44
February 23,2010
of what you would intend to do, with an analysis of the impact of
irrigation reductions, and tell us what that's likely to do to us, rather
than bringing it back and having a public hearing on your proposal to
get involved.
I think -- I think we can improve their involvement right now,
couldn't we? Would anybody object to that? Say, okay, we think it's
a great idea. You're not asking us for any money. I'd like to get
something free. We definitely do need to do something with respect
to reducing the cost of landscape maintenance, and I would welcome
your help, and I think the other commissioners would, too. But you
can't, through this authorization, go out to the medians and start
planting things yet.
MR. RAMSEY: That's very much understood, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You corne back to us with a
proposal for a demonstration project, and then we'll have the public
hearing, the public will have a chance to see what you're expected to
do, and we can make a decision as to whether or not we want to
proceed at that point.
Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the county staff and
attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, sure, exactly, yeah. Is that okay
for everybody?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've got some concerns, just
so long as we don't incorporate county staff to do the research on this.
I think it's left up to them to do all the research because we have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because we don't have those type
of resources anymore.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You won't require substantial
county staff; it will just be coordination.
MR. RAMSEY: Sir, as I understand it right now, mostly -- we
Page 45
February 23,2010
have skills and talents that exceed staff right now, but what staff has is
they can -- they can tell us the guidelines that we have to meet. We
have horticultural experts from the industry from around Immokalee
and in different counties that's been in the business 30, 40 years. We
have landscape architects that have expertise in that area, in roads.
What we need is for the county staff to tell us the guidelines of
the minimum requirements we have to meet, then we're going to go
out and try to find solutions for that. And your idea of this being a --
kind of an exploratory, is what we're looking for.
We want to proceed with the idea, can we put it together, and
then bring it back to you to see if you like it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. RAMSEY: But we very much understand all this issue, but
there's a lot of talent and skills in the community. They're willing to
step up and help.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I've seen the proposals for the types of
plants and designs of medians in the newspaper. There are all sorts of
people who are writing opinions -- experts who write their opinions
about how we ought to do it. So there's a lot of information there, and
we can do that.
Can I ask you to make a motion to approve this initial phase?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve the concept and authorize you to corne back to us with a
completed plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner
Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Page 46
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Opposed by Commissioner
Halas. It passes 4-1.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMSEY: Commissioners, thank you for the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're going to which item now,
County Manager?
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2010-45: APPOINTING CLARENCE S. TEARS,
JR. AND LAUREN BARBER TO THE LAND ACQUISITION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~ ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Oh. Commissioners, you have one appointment of
members under 9A. You may want to do that before your break.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Motion to approve
Clarence Tears and Lauren Barber to the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are -- what are Clarence Tears'
qualifications for this position?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He can stand up straight and
wear a tie.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. We have a motion to
approve Clarence Tears by Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I seconded.
Page 47
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you did?
MS. FILSON: There's two appointments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mentioned two people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Clarence Tears and Lauren
Barber.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Lauren Barber, okay. Motion made by
Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
And do you have anything we can do in two minutes?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to take a break.
We'll be back at 10:38.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, you're four
minutes late already.
MR. OCHS: So sorry, sir. We're falling behind here. Hard to
herd all these cats at one time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is; yes, it is.
Item #1OA
Page 48
February 23, 2010
RESOLUTION 2010-46: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE
FY 2011 BUDGET POLICY - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, the next item on your agenda is
Item 10A, county manager's report. It's a recommendation to adopt the
fiscal year 2011 budget policy, and Mr. Isackson from the county
manager's office is here to present or answer questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, is there a need for him
to present, or do you just have questions you want to ask him?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a fast question. What
about 9B?
MR. OCHS: That's a time certain, Commissioner, at two p.m.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, sorry -- oh, okay. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any questions by the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the guidance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, a second by?
MS. FILSON: I didn't hear a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. There you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now we'll have discussion.
Ladies and gentlemen, you have anything?
You like the guidance? Does it meet your needs?
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, we'd be happy to have you
pass it and get on with our business of preparing a budget for you,
corne back to you in your workshop in June with our millage-neutral
presentation with corresponding additions based on the service level
cuts that were made and connected with that millage-neutral budget,
and you guys can make some decisions about where you want to go at
that point in time.
Page 49
February 23,2010
But we think the guidance gives us some latitude to proceed with
preparation of the document and give you the best information that we
can that you can make decisions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then ifthere's no discussion, all
in favor, please signify by saying --
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry. Just a clarification now. We're accepting
the full staff recommendation, because it includes a resolution that
establishes dates for budget submissions --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- by your constitutional officers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now I presume you have coordinated
these with the constitutional officers?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. These are no different than prior years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: Perfunctory, but we have to do it by resolution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Good job. I think this budget submission will be a little simpler
and help us focus on the issues that we need to focus on, so thank you
very much.
MR. ISACKSON: Yes, sir.
Page 50
February 23,2010
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) NO. 09-5262 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION TO TABLE ITEM UNTIL
LATER IN MEETING - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 1OD, which is
a recommendation to award request for proposal number 09-5262 for
engineering services for Collier County, and Scott Johnson from your
Purchasing Department is here to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you say 10B?
MR. OCHS: 1OD, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: D.
MR.OCHS: 10D, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: D, okay, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board. For the record, Scott Johnson, purchasing agent from your
Purchasing Department.
The recommendation before you is to award request for proposal
number 09-5262 for countywide engineering services. You'll recall on
September 8, 2009, you requested the purchasing staff to not renew
any of the engineering and consulting agreements that were about to
corne due. You requested us to re-solicit those, and we have done so.
The engineering by itself is a very large amount of disciplines
that are covered. We divided this request for proposal into nine sub-
disciplines which are outlined in your executive summary. We
believe we had a very robust competition. We received 82 proposals
by the submission date. We had a 35-member professional staff
selection committee that met and deliberated over the 82 proposals
and made a recommendation for 42 of the 82 proposals to be -- to
Page 51
February 23,2010
receive an award.
Your staff does recommend approval of this item, and I'm
available for questions if you have them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Who was
first, Commissioner Henning or Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies first. That's the way it goes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. Couple simple
questions here.
First one is on Page 4 of 5, under materials and then under
mechanical, you show HSA -- under materials, HSA Engineers and
Scientists, Rare Earth Sciences, yet under mechanicals you have HAS
Engineers and Scientists, Rare Earth Sciences. I was wondering
which is the correct --
MR. JOHNSON: It's -- yes, ma'am. It's HSA Engineers and
Scientists. I believe that we had a typo in that -- in both places.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And then -- so then
Hazen and Sawyer underneath there is not one of those because of the
HAS.
MR. JOHNSON: No. They are two separate firms, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- obviously you applied
location. What kind of ranking did you give -- what kind of score did
you give location?
MR. JOHNSON: Commissioner, by the CCNA, we are not
allowed to call out location as grading criteria. We did, however, use
availability and responsiveness, and some of that criteria, it was a
maximum of ten points, and it had demonstrated experience with
Southwest Florida construction guidelines, local development codes,
Page 52
February 23,2010
contracting licensing issues, environmental conditions, and overall
experience with the scope of work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't -- that's not my
understanding on the CCNA. You can't -- my understanding, you can
use location. Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's my understanding as well.
MR. CARNELL: Sir, the -- Steve Carnell, purchasing director.
If you'll remember, we had a discussion last summer, and the
board directed us not to use location or to use local preference for
CCNA, and we had some participation from the consultants who
appeared before the board at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not what I remember.
MR. CARNELL: Well -- yes, sir, that was the direction at the
time. But, sir, let me finish, because I think what Mr. Johnson's telling
you is location was considered effectively. In the criteria that he read
to you, we were asking for things like ability to respond timely to
calls, access and proximity to Collier County sites, familiarity with
Collier County codes, so those are the kind of things that would favor
and assist local firms.
The other thing you need to understand is we had, of the 82
competitors, 18 of them were from Collier County; 14 are being
recommended for award. So our Collier County firms have fared quite
well in the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My understanding, we adopted
a location for professionals, so --
MR. CARNELL: We did for RFTs that were not CCNA. CCNA
was different.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: CCNA is dealing with
professionals.
MR. CARNELL: I'll be happy to follow up with you with the
minutes in the meeting and show you what was discussed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, since -- Commissioners--
Page 53
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I remember it the same way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it was just -- we changed
the policy over the fall.
MR. CARNELL: I'll be happy, again, to follow up with you and
tell you what was discussed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can continue this until
we get it straightened out.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have an open item here.
MR. CARNELL: I don't know that it will have any effect on the
outcome today. We've got 14 out of 18 of your local firms
recommended for award.
MR. KLATZKOW: You may want to table this so we can get
you an answer, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to motion --
make a motion to continue this item.
MR. KLATZKOW: To table it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Continue or table it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Table it for later today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Table?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. We'll get you that information, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the table motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to table and second by Commissioner Fiala. There any
discussion concerning that motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then all in favor, please signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 54
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to table is passed
unanimously. We'll take it up later today when we get the information
we need.
MR. CARNELL: All right, very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #1OE
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE RELEASE AND
SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. PEDRO CRUZ, CASE NO. CESD20080007554, RELATING
TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 222251 TERRACE SW, NAPLES,
FLORIDA - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, next item on your agenda is Item
10E. It was previously 16A2. This item was moved at Commissioner
Halas' request.
It's a recommendation to approve the release and satisfaction of
lien for the code enforcement action entitled Board of County
Commissioners versus Pedro Cruz, case number CESD20080007554,
relating to property located at 222251 Terrace Southwest, Naples,
Florida.
And Ms. Flagg is here to answer any questions, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And basically why I
brought this up for discussion is that we've got an awful lot of homes
that have been foreclosed on, and a lot of those homes, there have
been violations.
And I'm wondering how we're working through that process so
Page 55
February 23,2010
that people who buy these homes realize that they need to have an
inspection on these homes so that they don't get caught with all these
violations and have to make restitution.
So I understand that the bank owned this and that the person that
bought this realized that there were violations, and I just want to make
sure that, with the agreement that was proposed when it carne before
the board with NABOR and with the county, that we're working in
unison to make sure that as these properties become available, that due
action or due course is being provided to those who are buying these
foreclosed properties.
So I just want to get some clarification where we're at on this.
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. Diane Flagg,
code enforcement director.
What Mr. Ochs has put up on the overhead for you is a brochure
developed by the Code Enforcement Department in conjunction with
NAB OR, and it's a brochure that is handed out at all the
meet-and-greets that we do, all the vacant home sweeps that we do,
the cleanups that we do, all the community task force meetings that we
do, which is meetings once a month.
And let me point out -- you'll see the, under -- if we can scoot
that over. Under buyer, the underlined section where it talks about,
that the responsibility for the code violations are the buyer's.
So I have a meeting next month with NABORjust to get an
update from them. But I will tell you that Realtors are routinely
calling the office verifying the responsibilities in terms of handing out
this brochure to their clients and making sure that folks know that
when they're buying these foreclosed homes that the code violations
will be whoever has title to the property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how -- you feel that this is
going to -- is sufficient? That the realtors are working hand in hand
with you to make sure that this information is given to the prospective
buyer before he signs any type of a contract?
Page 56
February 23, 2010
MS. FLAGG: So far so good. We haven't had a home yet that
has corne to our attention where the buyer bought the home and didn't
realize, not that -- we've had several cases where they bought the
home but it was before we started this program.
But since we've started this program -- you know, I'm not saying
it hasn't happened, but in terms of what's corne to our attention, the
buyers are aware, and we're doing hundreds of lien searches for buyers
on a weekly basis, in some cases, folks finding out what -- if there are
any open cases on the home and if there are any code violations on the
home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FLAGG: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At that I'll make a motion to
approve this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item # 12A
Page 57
February 23, 2010
REQUEST TO REVIEW A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE, WHICH
WOULD SPECIFICALLY EXEMPT NOISE RESULTING FROM
PERMITTED MOTOR RACING EVENTS AT THE SWAMP
BUGGY RECREATION AND SPORTS PARK, AND IF
ACCEPT ABLE, DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO
PREP ARE AND ADVERTISE AN AMENDING ORDINANCE -
MOTION TO BRING BACK W / AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I believe you have time also to
take 12A, which was previously 16Kl. This item was moved at both
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle's request.
It is a request to review a proposed amendment to the Collier
County noise control ordinance which would specifically exempt
noise resulting from permitted road racing events at the Swamp Buggy
Recreation and Sports Park, and if acceptable, direct the county
attorney to prepare and advertise an amending ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Let me say, first of all, I
definitely want to approve this. This is a wonderful thing, so I have
no problem with it. I just wanted to make sure that it was more
explicit as we -- as we put it into written form, and that is, in the body
of this, it says that, you know, noise associated with permitted events
emanating from the Swamp Buggy Recreation and Sports Park,
including but not limited to motor racing, tractor pulls, festivals, and
music concerts.
Now, that's good, but people get the idea that these are things
taking place during the swamp buggy races themselves, and they don't
realize that this is an every weekend event, and that's fine. You know,
swamp buggy was there first, and it's a wonderful thing for our
community, but I think that we ought to spell out that this could be an
absolutely every weekend event so that when developers want to corne
Page 58
February 23,2010
in and develop something there say, for instance, an assisted living
facility, they understand where they're building. Maybe they'll want to
move that assisted living facility to another area.
It's just like moving into an airport. You know, if you know what
noise is there, you're not going to build there. But I don't think that
this is made clear enough so that all of the people that might want to
build residential will understand that they're going to be dealing with
some noise every weekend and we approve of the noise. Did I make
that clear enough?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I understand the issue. One of the
ways we're approaching this, ma'am -- and you'll be seeing this, I
think, at your next agenda, if not the following one, on a PUD corning
to you, is we're requiring the developer put in the public records the
fact that this is adjacent to the swamp buggy tract and that they have
regular motor races and festivals and everything else.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Every weekend.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, and that will be in the public record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
MR. KLATZKOW: So for anyone purchasing property will be
on notice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was my point was the
every weekend, because most people -- if the developer thinks, oh,
well, it's only three times a year, you know, that's not going to bother
anything. He's got to know that this is an active facility where they
don't just operate three times a year, but every single weekend. And
so then if they -- if that doesn't suit them in their development, well,
they can put their development in another area that's better suited. I
just wanted to tie up and make sure that Swamp Buggy is protected.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Your Planning Commission has heard this
from the board and has been very aggressive on that issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it doesn't say anything like that
in here.
Page 59
February 23,2010
MR. KLATZKOW: In the ordinance, no. It's going to be in the
public notice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm sorry. Commissioner
Fiala, I appreciate where you're going with this. What harm would
there be in also including the language in here?
MR. KLATZKOW: None. I'll put it in there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So Commissioner Fiala,
if you want to make a motion to that effect, I'd be happy to second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, very good. I'd like to bring
this back, this ordinance back, for approval at a future meeting, and I
would like you to include that the noise associated with the swamp
buggy races is acceptable to us and that -- that they understand that the
noise will be corning from this facility every weekend, just so that
everybody understands that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me ask you a question. Can
this corne back and be placed on the consent agenda next time if -- the
reason you want it to corne back is that you just want to look at the
language and make sure it's been changed properly?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think it has to corne back.
That's what it says.
MR. KLATZKOW: It has to corne back anyway. I never take
an ordinance -- I never pre-advertise an ordinance for the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. OCHS: It can corne on summary though.
MR. KLATZKOW: Summary.
MR. OCHS: If you prefer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well.
Now, before we take a vote, I have another question. I
Page 60
February 23, 2010
understand that the ordinance will not necessarily accomplish this, but
we need to have a way of doing it. I believe, if my memory serves me
correctly, that we did it when there was a development approved near
the Marco airport, and we wanted to avoid any problems with the
aircraft and conflict of noise and that sort of thing.
We required the developer, prior to selling any property in that
development or any developments within a certain radius of the
airport to notify each prospective buyer and have them sign and
acknowledge that they are aware of the airport and the fact that it
creates noise.
I'd like to see the same sort of thing done for the sports park.
That puts everybody on record. Because just putting the developer on
record isn't really enough, because a developer will then sell the
property to somebody else who will claim they didn't have any idea
that this was ever happening. And so, can we find a good way to do
that?
MR. KLATZKOW: We are doing that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Weare doing that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. And what I'll do is, I'll bring this
ordinance back for the board's approval at the same time as this PUD
comes before the board so you can see how the two tie in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, what are our guidelines
with respect to the distances from the sports park? I mean, what other
PUDs are likely to receive a similar restriction in their PUD? Do we
have a guideline? Do we say a mile, two miles or whatever?
MR. KLATZKOW: We've been doing -- we've been doing tracts
that are adjacent to the sports park.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only adjacent, huh? So a small
development of a few acres then bounded by another very large
development where many people might live would be exempted from
this notification or requirement?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We just haven't had that occurrence at
Page 61
February 23, 2010
the Planning Commission yet. I mean, the Planning Commission's
taken this on a development-by-development basis. Developments
that have been adjacent to it have been getting it. Developments that
have been far away have not been getting it. We haven't had a
circumstance that you describe it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last thing. I just wanted to
make it clear that this is now -- this ordinance is for this particular
property. If Swamp Buggy happens to move to another property, does
this follow with it?
MR. KLATZKOW: The ordinance was constructed that it is
only for this property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: I can construct it so that it will move with
the Swamp Buggy if you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, no. You know, because we
don't know where -- you know, we don't even know if they'll ever
move. But if they do and if they happen to move into an area that's
already populated, then I think we need to address that at the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think when you look into
this, see what kind of ordinances other communities have in regards to
motor racing or some type of -- where you have un-muffled engines so
that we make sure that we encompass a large area. Could be a
half-mile away. But just to make sure that people understand that this
is a motor racing event. And not only motor racing, but when you
have concerts, it could be loud music and that -- also depending upon
what direction the wind's blowing. So we want to make sure that we
encompass that so we don't end up with suits in regards to this.
Page 62
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You can research that.
MR. KLATZKOW: We looked at the Daytona as an example,
because I figured, you know, what makes more noise. Your issue
really is, if you're going to permit somebody to do something, all
right, then when they do that thing, it's kind of hard to send
enforcement after them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, that's why -- for the exclusion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So it sounds like you've
researched it fair enough?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You answered my question.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala to bring this item back with amendments, and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
And now that brings us to our time certain at 11 p.m --
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- 11 a.m.
Page 63
February 23, 2010
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CLARIFYING
RESOLUTION STATING THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS TO SUPPORT THE
CONSOLIDATION OF ALL THE INDEPENDENT FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICTS IN COLLIER COUNTY
INTO ONE DISTRICT PROVIDING UNIFIED AND EQUAL FIRE
PROTECTION SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY -
MOTION TO CONTINUE AND DIRECT THE CHAIRMAN TO
DRAFT A LETTER TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE STATING
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED BILL - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 10B on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve a clarifying resolution stating, the
position of the Board of County Commissioners is to support the
consolidation of all the independent fire control and rescue districts in
Collier County into one district providing unified and equal fire
protection services throughout the county.
And Ms. Debbie Wight, assistant to the county attorney, is
prepared to present.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. You have before
you an executive summary that explains, as Mr. Ochs read, the
clarifying resolution stating, the position of the Board of County
Commissioners is to support the consolidation of all the independent
fire control and rescue districts in Collier County into one district
providing unified and equal fire protection services throughout the
county .
At your January 26th Board of County Commissioners' regular
meeting, you requested that staff and the County Attorney's Office
develop a resolution expressing the position that I just spoke, that the
board would like one consolidated fire district throughout the county.
Page 64
February 23, 2010
And we did that, and we are bringing that forward to you today for
your consideration and approval. And that was in your backup.
And we also did a staff review of the consolidation -- the
proposed consolidation bills, House Bill 807 and House Bill 809,
which are the same except in name, and those were part of your
backup.
And at this point, do you have questions or comments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have five speakers. Would the
commissioners like to hear the speakers first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the first speaker, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Laura Donaldson. She'll be
followed by Nancy Lascheid.
MS. DONALDSON: Good morning. Laura Donaldson, for the
record. I'm here, one, to answer any questions that you might. Had a
conversation with Mr. Ochs last week.
So I will be here in the audience if you have any questions, but I
wanted to talk to you about some changes that will -- you will be
seeing. Weare listening to the County Commission.
One of those changes is, we will be moving -- if we get support
of the County Commission today, we will be moving to one local bill.
It will be the Southwest Florida Fire Control and Rescue District. We
would not have the two separate districts that could eventually merge
into one district. It would be one district that the five districts could
merge into.
Personally, I think that hurts consolidation, but we've listened to
the county. And we keep hearing, we want one local bill, one district,
so that's what we're moving to.
And so I'm going to go over six other changes just so you know,
because I know there are going to be comments corning. One of the
changes we're making is, it relates to tyranny by the majority. We
have a provision in the bill that says if two districts are merging, it's a
Page 65
February 23, 2010
combined majority of those two districts. And it's been like that in the
legislation for the last year. We've now heard outcry about it. We've
heard it from -- outcry from our residents and from other activists.
So we are now changing that. For a merger to become effective,
it is a separate vote of each of the districts merging, and you'll have to
have a 50-percent-plus-one vote of each district. That hampers
consolidation but, you know, we're being criticized that we have that
provision in there, so we're trying to eliminate as much controversy as
we can from this bill so we can get the framework in place so that the
districts have the ability to consolidate.
The next one, we're changing -- I don't know if the county cares
about this. We're changing some provisions as it relates to the pension
issue. The state can't do one of the things we had in the pension bill.
Annexation. We keep being told that we have annexation issues.
There was language in there that helped the county and the special
district from future litigation against an annexing city. We've taken
that out. Now it's just going to say, current law applies, even though
there is a benefit to the county.
We're also clarifying the transition process when the county or
city wants to transfer fire services to us, there -- it's clarified that the --
for example, if the county transferred one of your MSTUs, that area to
the new direct, there would be -- you'd have the ability to appoint
someone on the board, because they would become a member of our --
within our boundaries. So that was something that was an oversight.
And two other things. One, incorporation. We're clarifying the
incorporation language that says, this is the case except -- unless the
legislature exempts it with another local bill. To incorporate you have
to have a local bill, so it's not that much of an additional burden.
And finally, we have staff from the House asking us to corne in
with a local bill when our boundaries change.
So I just wanted to tell you what those are -- we're making those
changes. Those will be released hopefully in the next couple days.
Page 66
February 23,2010
There's a whole process with that. But beyond that, I'm here to answer
any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. We'll probably have
the questions after we have all the speakers.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Lascheid. She'll be
followed by Janet Vasey.
MS. LASCHEID: Good morning, Commissioners. The attorney
has just addressed the objection that I had on how the count -- the
votes were going to be counted, so I would like to defer my time to
Duane Billington, please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey. She'll be
followed by Jim Hoppensteadt.
MS. VASEY: Good morning, Commissioners. Janet Vasey, for
the record.
Unfortunately my issue was not corrected by the attorney, so I'd
like to discuss it.
I'm concerned about the non-ad valorem assessment language in
these fire district bills. Under current law, fire districts must get voter
referendum approval to charge non-ad valorem assessments. The
assessment would have to be identified for a purpose and dollar
amount so voters would know what they're voting on.
With the proposed fire district bills, the ability to charge non-ad
valorem assessments would be approved automatically if the merger is
approved. The amount and type of any specific non-ad valorem
assessments would not have to be identified at the time of this merger.
A majority vote of fire commissioners could impose these
assessments, not a voter referendum. Voters would be approving this
very significant new financial authority in their merger vote without
even knowing it and without knowing the amount for these
assessments. It gives the new fire board a tremendous amount of
financial authority they don't have now, without specific voter
Page 67
February 23,2010
approval.
When this fire district legislation first carne before the BCC, you
identified significant problems, and the fire district language was
changed. And we've seen that again today, but there -- this problem
still exists.
Please don't give your blessing to this legislation unless this
non-ad valorem assessment issue is changed to protect the citizens.
Keep the same protections we currently have; no automatic non-ad
valorem assessments without a separate voter referendum.
Thank you. Any questions?
MS. FILSON: Jim--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Jim Hoppensteadt's already here.
MS. FILSON: Jim Hoppensteadt. He'll be followed by Duane
Billington.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, Commissioners. For the
record, Jim Hoppensteadt.
There's two issues that I'd like to address on this resolution and
on the bills.
Let's start with the bills. This has been a moving target. You
currently don't have the current bill that's being proposed. It's kind of
tough to pass a resolution supporting a bill you haven't even seen. I
would ask you not to do that.
Secondly, as far as the issue of consolidating and one district fire
district being the best thing, I'd ask you to reconsider that. There's no
evidence that bigger is better. There's actually a lot of studies that
would support the current structure. You know, you'll hear that the
current structure's old, and because it's old it must be broken. But the
fact is that you have a structure right now that is the most responsive
to its constituency, that provides for the level of service that that
constituency wants, that doesn't create a huge conglomerate that is
much tougher to manage and to monitor.
Currently, 10 percent of our tax bill goes to the fire districts. If
Page 68
February 23,2010
you create another 800-pound gorilla in the room in addition to the
school district -- and with all due respect to the sheriff -- the Sheriffs
Office, it makes it much more difficult to unwind and separate tax
issues. We do -- we look at that from a productivity committee every
year. It's tough to get your arms around these big entities.
The fire districts have been much more responsive. As an
example, North Naples Fire District, in the last eight years, millage
rate has been one; hasn't moved. They've been responsive to the
constituency.
Collier County Government, conversely, over those same eight
years, has grown by 76 percent. You need to keep -- you need to think
about whether or not this is the right thing to do of having one great
big merged fire district.
There's also problems with this bill. I agree with Laura
Donaldson. Taking out the two districts and making one is
problematic. The way it stands right now, one district could move
into the shoes of a shell and occupy that. Let's say North Naples Fire
District, as example. If then Immokalee and Big Corkscrew decide,
because they have very like and similar interests, they'd want to
merge, they have to merge with North Naples. That may not be what
you -- what your people want.
There have been no public forums on this. Commissioners, have
you attended any public forums on this? Do you know what your
constituency wants on this? We had one in Pelican Bay. Our
constituency doesn't want it.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just one moment. Jim, I -- I either need
to ask you a question or correct something.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You say that while the fire district's
millage rate has been one mill for the past eight years, Collier County
Page 69
February 23, 2010
has grown by 75 percent.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In fact, the millage rate in -- set by the
commissioners in 2010 is virtually the same as the millage rate in
1999, over ten years ago. And in fact, the millage rate set in 2010 is
less than the millage rates in 2006, 2005, 2004. So there is no
indication that the millage rate of Collier County has increased
dramatically during that period.
The fire district and the people of Collier County have
experienced the same thing. If the fire district's millage rate stayed at
one mill for that entire period of time, their revenues increased
dramatically because of the valuations of the property. Conversely,
Collier County's millage rate declined from 2006 to -- from 3.8 mills
to 3.5 mills in 2010. So there -- that -- I just don't want to mislead the
people who are listening to this.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: No, and that's a fair comment,
Commissioner. I apologize. I did mix metaphors on this and -- in
comparing millages to the budgets, and so that's a fair comment.
I think that it does speak though to why smaller, more localized
districts are better because the millage rates and the property values in
different areas are going to move at different rates, and it allows the
smaller districts to be more responsible -- responsive to those changes
in property values and subsequent millage rates, and it allows the
districts to provide the levels of service that those residents want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Duane Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Duane Billington. I'm here today to try to help fix the shell
bill, not to kill it.
I think the districts have gone a long way in the last, apparently,
couple weeks to try to fix this. There's still a couple concerns I have,
and I'd like to share them with you. Some have been addressed, so I'm
Page 70
February 23,2010
just going to forget those.
We still have the issues of the fees, we still have the issue of the
provision for the 3.75 millage cap. Existing law, established law, has
a structure for increasing millage rates. There's no need to have this in
the shell bill for referendum language to confuse the voter. If you
read the referendum languages, the actual language, it almost implies
that this 3.75 cap, same thing with the fees, same thing with the ad- --
with the assessments, that it's already a right. They're not already
rights. They're not a right unless the voter gives them the right to do
it, and that would be in the form of a referendum.
Existing law, you get a separate referendum. There's required
hearings. There's a referendum question that's specific to the item
being considered, and there's an election, a vote, rather, and it's either
approved or rejected by the voters. It has to stand its own. It's not
attached to -- it's not a rider. It's not hung with confusing language to
make it seem like it's already a right. It's not. It's absolutely not.
There's 16 pages of five Florida Statutes that are involved here.
How is a voter going to go into that election box with the referendum
questions the way they're written without having something to look at?
And this isn't any good unless you put it in context with the 47 pages
of the bill. And now they also have the -- we're back to talking about
surcharge tax.
Now, it's interesting about the surcharge. You know, before --
and I'm glad they corrected it. They wanted to take two districts and
count it as one. Now if two districts consolidate into one, you have a
new corporate structure, which is one; now for voting for the surtax,
they want it to count as two.
Let's get this other extraneous garbage out of this bill, let's do it
right, let's push this bill forward. Don't make it a funding bill. Let's
just make it what it should be, a consolidation bill. There's existing
law, there's existing procedures to accomplish all the rest of this.
When Golden Gate wanted to raise their millage, they explained
Page 71
February 23, 2010
what they wanted to the voters. They wanted to go from 1 to 1.5
mills. There were hearings. The -- our district went out into the
community, explained what was wanted. There was an election, the
voters approved it up to a 1.5 cap, not 3.75 or above, and now that
district has to live within those constricts of that cap.
So, you know, the language of the referendum question is the
killer on these, and there's no need to have these other items in there.
There's existing laws where they can accomplish the same thing.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Were you
first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
First I want to clarify something, because some people think I'm
anti-consolidation. I'm not. I've been involved in the subject matter
for 15 years. And back about four years I put together a task force on
my own. Consisted of Chris Lombardo, Chief Brown, Spencer from
the union, a couple other people, and we met monthly down to
Perkin's restaurant, started moving all the different scenarios forward.
Once it got underway to the point I felt comfortable with it, I
turned it over to Chris Lombardo and bowed out to go on to other
things. I kind of regret it now. But then again, too, these things have
a tendency to take on a life of their own.
And I've heard a lot of things today that were absolutely true and
on the mark, and I heard some things that were a little bit
questionable. But I want to go through the things where I have some
concerns on.
First, that all the employees merging with the new district shall
not lose rank or equivalency position or benefits. It doesn't say how
Page 72
February 23,2010
long. This thing is so structured that when the opposition to it says,
there'll be no cost savings in the future, they're absolutely correct.
If you put it in there and you tie the hands of a future commission
to be able to deal with this in an efficient and humane way, you are
absolutely guaranteed that there will be cost inefficiencies that will go
forward into the future. Also, the way it should be structured, it
should be where the millage is locked in. Whatever the millage is of
any given district at this point in time, the voters should be guaranteed
that it would be that for a minimum of three to five years, and then
approval would corne from the voters in the future to be able to raise it
if necessary.
So in other words, if North Naples is paying 1 mill, they would
continue to pay 1 mill and receive service corresponding to what
they've been getting in the past. Immokalee is what, 2 mills? They
would continue to pay 2 mills. And the idea being is if you live in the
rural area, because of the lack of density, the lack of property values
compared to the urban area, you are going to pay more, and you'll
realize cost savings as time goes along.
But the real killer on this whole thing has to do with the issue of
-- let me find my notes here -- authorization to levy a non-ad valorem
assessment fee and service charges without voters' approval. This was
put in by the anti-consolidation effort. You got to understand
something. The way this shell bill is at this time, it's to tie our hands
in the future, the public's hands in the future, for consolidation. They'll
have to go back through the shell bill to get where they need to be or
have to overturn it at the state legislative body.
Now, the truth of the matter is, if two entities decide to put it to a
vote to the voters, the first thing that's going to corne up, the people
that put this poison pill in here, they're going to say, well, you don't
want to vote for that. Do you realize that if you vote for this, you lose
your right for representation. That's going to be taxed without due
process. And they effectively killed it. That's the poison pill.
Page 73
February 23, 2010
There's so few commissioners that are in -- fire commissioners in
support of consolidation that this thing was constructed in a way that's
guaranteed to fail down the line. I'm sorry that's the way I see it. If
we went -- and Duane Billington said a little while ago, there's already
laws that are out there and Florida Statutes that cover such things as
taxation and those other issues.
Ifwe could get rid of this -- this garbage in here that's destined to
deem this thing to be inappropriate for the voters in the community,
then we probably would be able to get to the point that we got
something that's workable. I hope we don't give up on it. The basic
premise of a shell bill to be able to bring everybody in is a great one,
but let's get rid of the poison pills. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hoppensteadt pointed out
that we shouldn't pass it because it's not in its final. Congress does
that all the time. But, you know, that is one thing that's broken in
Washington, D.C.
I would like to continue it so we can get the final one. The pro-
-- I'm hearing that there's a lot of things that is -- there's some
redundancy language. Florida Statutes 191 is the governing language
for the independent fire districts.
And I understand, you know, these -- it gives a right -- right for
certain assessments such as impact fees. The only thing is the
consolidation. Now we got all this other stuff on top of it. Let's make
it simple.
And also, I understand that there's contracts out there, honoring
contracts. Those contracts are with the district presently. They're not
with -- if you consolidate, they're not with a new district.
But -- anyways, I would much rather continue this to try to get
the final document before we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
Page 74
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, let me make a couple of
observations. Some of the objectionable points of this legislation have
been removed, but it -- the fact that these things were even raised
projects an image of greed and entitlement that reflects poorly upon
our civic-minded firefighters in Collier County. I don't know how
they got in there. I don't know why they got in there. Maybe they
were poison pills to make sure this thing was disapproved or that it
fails.
But at a time when this county is struggling financially, to try to
get additional unauth- -- taxing authority, which is now not
authorized, and to guarantee all employees of the independent fire
district merging with a new district that they will not lose rank or
equivalent position of command or administrative position, paid
benefit, accrued leave, seniority, or pension -- what are you
consolidating for? I mean, have you ever seen a private sector
organization consolidate under those circumstances? No. It doesn't
happen. And I'm certainly not going to support that kind of thing
happening in the government.
Of course -- now I see why the fire districts are telling us you
can't get any economies through consolidation. You bet you can't get
-- you're not even planning on eliminating all those commissioners of
all those individual districts?
It is -- it projects the wrong image to the public, and I just can't
believe that the rank and file would agree with that sort of image, and
I just cannot support it.
And I will vote for a continuance of this item until we can do one
thing, which is to focus on consolidation, just legislation to
consolidate, not changing tax authority, not guaranteeing positions
forever without -- without some expiration date. It just isn't
appropriate, and I can't support it under those circumstances.
So Commissioner Coletta? Is that from before?
Page 75
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very shortly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to confirm that we do
have a motion from Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I understand. Yes, we do.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In my book consolidation means
downsizing, and that's where I think we need to go on this. Whether
it's rank and file, whether it's fire chiefs, whether it's fire
commissioners, it means downsizing, and we're going to be more
efficient in this county. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to continue
this from Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
I have one final question. While we continue this, we're going to
have the legislature wondering what we're going to do, and soon
they're going to be considering this bill. We need to have a date
certain as to when this is going to be completed so that we can give
them a position on the bill or, alternatively, alternatively, we can send
them a letter outlining our objections to this bill right now and telling
them that we will support only a bill that will allow consolidation, not
forced consolid- -- allow consolidation of the fire districts without all
of these extraneous issues.
MS. WIGHT: Right, because both bills are still filed,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MS. WIGHT: And they have three committees of reference.
One is meeting March 3rd. And I don't know if it's scheduled to be
heard then, but it's meeting March 3rd.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have no alternative, in
my opinion, but to at least advise our legislators where we are on this
issue. So if you -- along with this continuance, if you will authorize
Page 76
February 23,2010
me to send a letter to the legislators telling them that we object to
these tax provisions, we object to these -- this permanent Employment
Protection Act, and we object to a couple of other things that have not
yet been corrected, and -- so that they at least understand that we don't
support this bill in its current form.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If Commissioner Henning will
add that to his motion, I'd be happy to include it in my second. Also,
too, we might ask for the transcripts to go with it so that there's a
verbatim transcript for them to be able to also look at and see what the
Issue was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's great, yeah.
Commissioner Henning, are you in agreement with this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's my second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wonder if we can get this put to
bed by March 10th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope so.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're not the author of the bill. Ms.
Donaldson is, so she may be able to shed some more light on the
schedule. But we could certainly draft the letter, but I don't know that
we can control, without their consent, when this is going to be ready to
go III --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ms. Donaldson, is it possible to get
this taken care of by March 10th so we can get it up to Tallahassee?
MS. DONALDSON: Commissioner, my concern is any delay is
going to kill the consolidation efforts. It's not -- I can say I'm going to
amend this and I can amend it, but it's a very complicated process to
amend a local bill. I might have to re-notice -- I've already re-noticed
it once to meet constitutional requirements. I might have to re-notice
Page 77
February 23, 2010
it again. I mean, the longer we delay this -- I don't know if I can
address some of your issues because I think some of them are
incorrect.
The issue as it relates to employment, if you -- you read what the
bill says, but if you actually read the next sentence it states; however,
the bill provides that the -- that you're not guaranteed permanent
employment for any duration of time. One of those reasons, the issue
is with contracts. Just as all the assets are going to the new district, of
the liabilities -- the legislature is not allowed to violate contracts.
These are contracts. And those liabilities go to the new district.
Because if not, you're going to have basically -- a local government
could just say, well, we're going to create a new district and merge
into it so we can avoid that we've got a hundred million dollars worth
of debt. You can't do that. So all of our assets, all of our contracts go
to the new district.
The reason why we put that in there, because we don't know
initially which districts are going to merge. We don't know where
there is additional people. According to the fire services or fire chiefs
report, if all five districts merge, we need additional firefighters to
deal with -- for Immokalee and Big Corkscrew and Golden Gate.
That's what -- I didn't corne up with that study. That was their study.
As it relates to the commissioners, the bill actually doesn't allow
you -- we don't have -- let's say Golden Gate and North (sic) merge.
You have three members in Golden Gate and five in North Naples.
Under the bill in front of you, the new district becomes operational.
Golden Gate appoints three, North Naples appoints three, until the
next general election.
So we'd have six members for that -- until that next general
election, and then we'd go down to five. And it's through attrition
where eventually there will only be one commissioner from each
service delivery area. So we're not -- I mean, we might at one point, if
all the districts merge, have all the governing board members from the
Page 78
February 23, 2010
point that they merge until the next general election. So we're not just
keeping everyone on the payroll. And the bill provides that.
So I just want -- I mean, it states that it does not guarantee
permanent employment. You know, I've looked at it. I can't find
anything that says we can void contracts by merging. If -- I mean, just
like they're going to take all of North Naples' assets, they've got to
take North Naples' debt. Just like if Golden Gate moves in, they're
going to have to take Golden Gate's debt. I mean, those are contract.
That debt is a contract. We just can't void it.
And so, I just -- I wanted to -- because that was an issue. And I
know that you have other issues. But I wanted to raise the
employment. We did put in there that there's no guarantee for
permanent, and we just can't -- do we say we're going to fire everyone
because we don't know who's going to be merging? I think through
attrition that's the way these -- when you merge, that's how it works.
You don't renew contracts. You change contracts. You don't -- might
not need as many officers. You might -- you don't need as many chief
financial officers. It's through attrition and the merger.
But, you know, we -- based on what the County Commission
does today, I can tell you we will be going back and I will be getting
direction on whether or not we just stop the process and maybe try
again next year -- because the longer it takes for us to get a decision
out of the county, whether it's yes or no, the longer it takes and will
kill it.
I mean, the legislative process is difficult. We've got three
committees in the house that we have to get through, and I -- and so I
just ask that -- I understand you have concerns. But if you want to kill
the bill, continue it or vote against it today, because if you continue it,
it's the same thing for us from a timing effort.
And I -- session starts next week. It takes a while to get on
agendas. It takes a while to get through. And the longer we wait, the
harder it is for me to do that.
Page 79
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I guess I would say, Ms.
Donaldson, that I don't know of anybody who has agreed to merge
here in Collier County. As a matter of fact, based upon the
information I've received, they've said they're not going to merge, they
don't want to merge. And so I'm not at all concerned about delaying a
consolidation bill that will not accomplish any mergers.
So at least my personal opinion is that I'm beginning to suspect
this was never a consolidation bill in the first place. And if it -- if it
were to die today, it probably wouldn't make me all that unhappy.
MS. DONALDSON: Mr. Chair, can I say, I just want to go on
record. The districts, you're right, they have not voted to merge with
anyone because -- you know why? They ask me and I say, who cares
if you vote to merge? You can't merge. I mean, we can have districts
today vote to merge. They cannot merge unless, one, we pass this
local bill or, two, they go in front of the legislature next year with a
local bill to merge. Those are the only two ways.
So I mean, they vote, who cares? They vote to merge. It doesn't
mean they're actually going to merge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It means a lot if two districts get together
and say, yes, we want to make sure this succeeds. It doesn't mean
much when you have these kinds of provisions in the bill that assure
that it won't be successful even if somebody wanted to.
So I'm not particularly pleased with the way this thing has turned
out. But nevertheless; that's debatable. I have merged organizations
before, I have assumed their debt, I've taken their assets, and I've done
it by improving efficiency so that I can afford to take their debts.
And I understand the difficulties of dealing with these through
labor union contracts, but they are things that happen in the public
sector all the time. And I think the more we begin to deal with this in
-- from the standpoint of efficiency and cost savings, the better off
we're all going to be. But nevertheless.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 80
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm very uncomfortable with it
the way it stands. And quite frankly, I don't even know that you can
fix it by next week. So, you know, as far as voting to continue it,
that's fine. I don't think it could be fixed anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The issue with the contracts,
assumption of debt and assuming liability and assets is not a contract.
But if you have a contract on the maintenance of a building, you've
got to honor that contract even if it doesn't make sense when you do
merge.
Yeah. I -- the bottom line is, you -- we can't vote on something
that is going to change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And so we need to nail it down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I don't want to keep
rehashing this, but I was very disappointed with the presentation I just
heard from the attorney. We are finding more reasons why it wouldn't
work. We're assuming the fact that -- and I represent the area of
Immokalee, and it was mentioned that we're going to have to bring
their service up to rest of the county. Who said that?
Immokalee has a service right now that is fairly complete.
Maybe in time as their base grows and they got more tax money
corning in, they'll be able to expand it. More poison pills. In other
words, I live in North Naples, I'm going to have to support Immokalee
if this thing goes through.
We can make this thing work if people want to make it work.
We're trying to find reasons now not to make it work, and that's the
only thing I heard in the presentation that just took place, more
reasons why this will not work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on the floor,
Page 81
February 23, 2010
and I just want to clarify. I had asked you for permission to send to
the legislators a letter attached -- attaching the minutes of the meeting
to let them know where we are with respect to this even though it is
continued. Does that still prevail? You still okay with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Additional comments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Debbie, do you have anything additional
you wanted to tell us?
MS. WIGHT: I just wanted to make the point that the bill filing
deadline is March 2nd, so -- and which is the day the session begins.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But we're not filing the bill anyway.
MS. WIGHT: No, you're not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The bill could be filed with or without
our approval.
MS. WIGHT: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So--
MS. WIGHT: That's a week from today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's just my point that we need to let
legislators understand where we are. In the event the bill is filed,
they're going to want to hear from us.
MS. WIGHT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I think we should let them hear from
us.
MS. WIGHT: You get the letter to me, I will get it there for you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the transcript.
MS. WIGHT: And the transcript.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 82
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously. Thank
you very much.
What can we do in 18 minutes?
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) NO. 09-5262 FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
COLLIER COUNTY ~ MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE
MARCH 9, 2010 BCC MEETING ~ APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Well, I believe your tabled item may be ready to
corne back, sir.
MS. GREEN: Good morning, Commissioners. Colleen Green,
assistant county attorney.
We have done the research and gone back to review board
discussion regarding applying the county's local vendor preference to
CCNA contracts. This was discussed on June 23, 2009, at the board,
Item !OF, where the staff presented three options to the Board of
County Commissioners regarding whether to apply the local vendor
preference to the fixed-term contracts. The direction to staff was not
to extend local vendor preference to fixed-term contracts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, where does that--
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But since then we have adopted
local preference for professionals.
MS. GREEN: We have not adopted applying the local vendor
preference policy to CCNA contracts, which includes all consulting
Page 83
February 23,2010
professionals, architects, and engineers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that -- I mean, that's not
what I remember. And it wasn't that long ago that we did that policy
change.
MS. GREEN: Commissioner Henning, under the CCNA statute,
Section 287.055, location may be used as one of the qualifying criteria
to becoming a firm on a fixed-term contract, but then there's no
additional local vendor preference applied. There's no right to match.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, no. And I said that
from the beginning. I said, what weight did you give for location?
MS. GREEN: I'll let the purchasing department answer that
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, not to confuse
the issue, that's -- I understand the ranking of professionals. And you
can give a location to it. That's -- that was my only question, what
weight was given.
We stood -- Commissioner Fiala, we sat here and we said, okay
-- we were asked, well, okay, what percentage do you want to be--
give? And I think it was 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this was -- this was just
recently. I understand what we did back then, but since then we
applied to -- location to professionals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Understanding -- and this is, I think,
how we felt all along. We're just trying to make sure that our
businesses here have an opportunity to bid on things, because we're
trying to make sure our businesspeople and employees and our
unemployment rate -- our unemployment rate goes down and our
businesses can hang on through this recession, and we have to support
our local businesses. That's been paramount in my opinion anyway.
And I shouldn't speak for Commissioner Henning, but I believe it's
his, too.
Page 84
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. CARNELL: If I could -- and let me follow up on what
Commissioner Henning just said. If I understood the commissioner,
he said that he didn't expect us to include a hard local preference.
What he expected was ten points for location.
And let me read you -- we had, as we said a moment ago, we had
ten points in the weighting scale for the following criteria. It was
called availability and responsiveness.
Firms will be awarded points for demonstrated experience and
understanding of the Southwest Florida construction guidelines, Land
Development Codes, contractor license issues, environmental
conditions relating to the disciplines required in the scope of work,
demonstrated responsiveness to meetings, telephone calls, emails, and
emergencies, and sensitivity to reducing travel expenses.
Now, you may -- maybe that's not location. I would suggest it
point in that direction. And they were all evaluated, and they got ten
points out of 100 for that specific criteria.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not a part of our policy.
MR. CARNELL: Well, again, our -- the policy did not change.
The board did not direct the staff, on anything we can see in the
minutes, to change the policy regarding local preference for CCNA. It
expressly excluded it when it was adopted in June, 2008, and it has
never been amended to add it in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, can I make a
motion to continue this one? Let me do some research on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How long do you want to
continue it, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Continue it to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does that have an impact on anything
you're doing?
MR. CARNELL: We have -- we're going to have some issues in
terms of being able to contract work because a number of the contracts
Page 85
February 23, 2010
have expired.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any way we can get it done
faster, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you can recess the
meeting for about five hours and let me go back through the agenda
item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll excuse you for the next five
hours. And will you come back at the end of five hours and give us a
report?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will you take my vote. Act
accordingly, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I will, of course.
Can someone get the information you need for you between now
and the end of the day?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what the staffwas doing.
I know I can find it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: Sir, if you'd like to continue it to the next
meeting, let's just do that. I think we need to get everybody confident
about what the facts are. I would just go with that, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to continue till
the next meeting. Is there --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- a second? Second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 86
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas opposing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you meet with us sometime
during this time just to, you know, have some one-on-ones?
MR. CARNELL: Certainly, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And where do you want to go now,
County Manager?
Item #15 (Continued discussion later in the Meeting)
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: I don't know if -- Commissioners, if you want to go
to -- the only thing left we have is public comment on general topics.
Usually you wait towards the end of the meeting for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. OCHS: But other than that and staff communications, you
have a one-clock time certain and then a two-o'clock time certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you prepared to do all the staff
communications right now if you were given ten minutes?
MR. OCHS: I'm prepared ifMr. Klatzkow's-
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't we do the staffs
communications right now, just the staff, not the commissioner
communications.
MR. OCHS: I just have a couple of quick items. Number one,
just to tell the board that the Chair and the county attorney and I did
have an opportunity to meet with the Seminole Indian Tribe on
February the 12th, and that was pursuant to previous board direction
Page 87
February 23,2010
to reach out to the tribe and try to establish some direct avenues of
communication. And I think we accomplished that objective. And
perhaps, you know, the chairman will talk about that during his
comments.
Also I wanted to advise the board that I'm continuing to meet
with the Clerk of Courts in negotiating the interlocal agreement. We
met as recently as last week on the lith of February. I think we're
continuing to make good progress there.
The board had indicated that they wanted an agreement by the 1 st
of March. There's a couple of issues that are know pending that may
ultimately impact what kind of interlocal agreement you want to see,
and specifically those are, as you know, the Supreme Court did decide
to hear the county's arguments on the audit issue and, of course, that's
a financial issue potentially for both the board and the clerk depending
on the outcome of that decision by the Supreme Court.
And the second issue is that there has been a bill introduced for
the upcoming legislative session that would have the net effect of
reversing the legislature's decision last session to allow the interest on
board investments to be interest earnings to the clerk and not to the
board as it currently exists.
Again, that may have an impact going forward into your 2011
budget considerations on how you want to fund the clerk.
My point of all this is that it may not be in the board's best
interest necessarily to finish and sign an agreement by the 1 st of
March. You may -- you may want to wait to see how things play out
through the legislative session. I don't see where that puts the board at
a disadvantage, but that's something that I would just offer for some
consideration.
And the only other thing I have, sir -- and we can come back to
that if you'd like -- is just a reminder that you do have three scheduled
workshops in March. On the 2nd of March you have your Foreclosure
Task Force workshop, you have a strategic planning workshop on the
Page 88
February 23,2010
11 th of March, and finally on the 29th of March, the City of Marco
Island City Council will be coming here to address their proposed
community redevelopment area and other topics of mutual interests.
Those are all the things that I had, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions of the county
manager?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
County Attorney?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to get seven extra
minutes of lunch, as much as you -- as it's paining you to give that to
us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to adjourn until 12 o'clock.
You're going to have to sit here for seven more minutes, okay.
Okay. I'll see you back here at 12 (sic) o'clock -- I o'clock, 1
o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioner meeting is now in session.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2010-08: PETITION RZ-2008-AR-13951, OLDE
FLORIDA GOLF CLUB, INC., REPRESENTED BY JOHN
P ASSIDOMO OF CHEFFY P ASSIDOMO, AND MARGARET C.
PERRY, AICP, OF WILSONMILLER INC., IS REQUESTING A
STANDARD REZONE FROM THE GOLF COURSE (GC)
ZONING DISTRICT AND THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE
DISTRICT -NEUTRAL LANDS ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT
TO THE AGRICULTURE (A) ZONING DISTRICT AND THE
Page 89
February 23, 2010
RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT-NEUTRAL LANDS
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 553.67 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION, APPROXIMATELY
2 MILES EAST OF THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD (CR 862)
AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) INTERSECTION, IN
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this takes us to your one p.m. time
certain. It's advertised public hearings, item 8A.
This item requires all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's RZ2008-AR-13951, Olde Florida Golf Club, Incorporated,
represented by John Passidomo of Cheffy Passidomo, and Margaret C.
Perry, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., is requesting a standard zone from
the golf course zoning district in the rural fringe mixed-use district
neutral land zoning overlay district to the agricultural zoning district
in the rural fringe mixed-use district neutral land zoning overlay
district.
The subject property consisting of 553.67 acres is located on
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, approximately two miles east of
the Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard intersection in
Section 31, Township 48 south, Range 27 east, Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Will all persons who are going to be giving testimony concerning
this petition please rise and raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: The petitioner typically begins.
MS. DESELEM: He's coming.
Page 90
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we have to give ex parte
disclosure first. So we'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I reviewed staffs report. I've
had -- received correspondence and emails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I reviewed staff report,
correspondence, emails. I met a couple times with John Passidomo
and Bill Barnett (sic), and also had several times, about three or four
times I've talked to him on the phone, and just prior to this meeting,
also talked to him again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was Bill Barton, not Barnett.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Barton, excuse me. My
mistake.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I wasn't in the meeting with you,
it's just that I know that's who.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how do you know it
happened that way?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have received correspondence and
emails concerning this item. I've also met with John Passidomo and
Bill Barton to discuss the plans for this development.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you very much, Chair.
I've had correspondence, I've had emails, and I've also reviewed the
information with staff, and I also had correspondence from the chair of
the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I did, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think all of us did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, had correspondence
from the Planning Commission chairman, and also I was out there, I
Page 91
February 23,2010
don't know, maybe a year or two ago just to see the property long
before we were talking about this, but just for the matter of stating it.
Also I met with Bill Barton and with John Passidomo, and I've spoken
with staff about this, and I think that's about everything.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Passidomo?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the Board of County Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo.
My address is 821 5th Avenue South in the City of Naples. Our firm
represents Olde Florida Golf Club in this petition for standard from
golf course to ago within the rural fringe mixed-use neutral lands
overlay district.
The subject property as depicted on the overhead is comprised of
some 554 acres ofland located at the north side of Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard.
The land is designated rural fringe mixed-use district neutral land
under the Future Land Use Element of the county's Growth
Management Plan, and it contains a golf course, a clubhouse, and
supporting facilities and open space.
Permitted uses as of right within the rural fringe neutral lands
include agriculture, single-family dwelling units, and golf courses.
The petition before you this afternoon simply seeks to rezone the land
so that it has the same zoning as other neutral lands in the rural fringe
overlay district.
Rezoning will allow Olde Florida to continue using part of the
golf course -- part of the property for the existing golf course and to
provide flexibility for a broader range of uses to allow the club to
respond to marketing conditions as and when they arise for the
balance of the property in the future.
Staff recommended approval without conditions, and the
Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to
five stipulations at their meeting in December. At the time, and under
Page 92
February 23,2010
the circumstances, we consider those stipulations to be benign,
consistent with the future likely development scenario for the property
and, therefore, acceptable.
Between the time the Planning Commission considered this
matter and the date that it was originally scheduled for consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners in January, Olde Florida Golf
Club was presented with a proposal for a joint development
opportunity with its western neighbor, Golf Course to the Everglades
-- and you can see depicted on the overhead immediately to the west
of the property are Golf Course at the Everglades, and that proposal
and that development opportunity would not work with the stipulation
for a 100-foot setback for a potential future right-of-way along the
western perimeter of the property, where it adjoins Golf Club at the
Everglades.
We, therefore, consulted with Mr. Casalanguida and Mr. Feder,
and they confirmed that a roadway in that area along the western 100
feet of the Olde Florida Golf Club property is not on any future road
plan. It's not depicted on the county's long-range transportation plan.
There are, in fact, north/south parallel links planned both about a
mile west and a mile east, and both of those links are depicted on the
overhead. And then finally, Mr. Casalanguida and Mr. Feder
concluded that the more important need in the area was drainage
relief. And Mr. Casalanguida's staff provided an alternative
stipulation to provide a drainage easement to Olde Florida in lieu of
the setback along the western perimeter.
And that language -- thank you, Mr. Ochs. That language is
depicted here. And you can see the proposal in front of you for
consideration, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, is to delete the
stipulation pertaining to the 100- foot setback, which is here illustrated
as number two and substitute in lieu thereof the one for drainage.
We then, in order to close the loop, consulted with Planning
Commission Chairman, Mark Strain, informed him of the issue, and
Page 93
February 23, 2010
later circulated an email fromMr.Straintoyou.AndIknowyou.ve
read this, but in order for the public record to reflect Mr. Strain
effectively commented that the setback stipulation at issue before you
for consideration this afternoon, if it were not included, he would not
have changed his vote, speaking only on behalf of himself, not on
behalf of the Planning Commission, and without a code requirement,
without a public purpose, and without a planning requirement, this
setback would otherwise have not been -- may not have otherwise
been included as a stipulation.
With that, we respectfully request your vote of approval with the
one change of the setback being deleted, and the drainage requirement
being substituted in its place. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much, Mr.
Passidomo.
Do we have any public speakers, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: We have one public speaker. John Passidomo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. He doesn't have any more time
left.
Okay. Would you like to have Mr. Feder--
MR. OCHS: We have a staff presentation, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is -- who's going to do that?
MR. OCHS: Ms. Deselem.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
principal planner with zoning.
You have the documents the staff has prepared and the staff
reports that support the recommendation, along with the executive
summary that summarizes the events up until we found out that they
wanted to change the proposed condition to, instead of the
right-of-way, to provide for the drainage easement. Staff is supportive
of the proposed changes.
Page 94
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Feder, do you concur that the county is not going to
need that land for a north/south road?
MR. FEDER: Yes, we do. It's an opportunity lost in the sense
that we don't have the other two today. But this wouldn't bring you all
the way to Immokalee, and it would have to be bridged to get to the
Vanderbilt extension.
The only thing I would like to say -- and I just mentioned it to
Mr. Passidomo -- is on the writeup here -- and Jerry Kurtz with my
stormwater staff did develop the language, and I appreciate that they
utilized that -- but we'd like to have the wording in there as well, at no
cost to the county. It's inferred in there, but we'd like to make sure
that that statement's in that drainage.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's the dedication of the drainage
easement, not the construction of the drainage easement.
MR. FEDER: The dedication and the construction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Both of them?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Passidomo, do you--
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, that's fine and agreeable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, Mr. Feder? I'm not too
sure if you're the person I should be addressing drainage issues with or
not.
MR. FEDER: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As we know, we're required by
our laws and ordinances to accept the traditional flow that goes on
somebody's property; however, with that said, it's impossible to take
any more than the canals there can hold. It's my understanding that
there's some efforts being taken or have been taken to be able to divert
some of the flow away from that canal, which will open up the
Page 95
February 23, 2010
capacity, which will also open up the opportunities to be able to come
up with ways to be able to handle some of the flooding in that sector.
Do you remember the issues of Rock Road and --
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the neighborhoods around
there? It's one of those trying things.
Is there a possibility that offline, after this is over with, we can
arrange for your department to meet with the petitioners along with
water management, and I'd like to attend that meeting, to talk about
possibilities in the near future of what we can do to make this work for
everyone?
MR. FEDER: I think that would be an excellent idea. It may
even be something you want to make as part of the discussion that we
come up specifically in this process of the plan at how that gets done.
To your issue, you're correct, Mr. Barton discussed with me, and
I've been told there's been modification by the Water Management
District, because really the canal in that area's Big Cypress Basin, to
divert some of the flows, which is some of the problem for even this
property, let alone the property to the north. They were also looking
to get addressed for drainage.
And now they can have some capacity in the system, as I
understand it, that can accommodate that flow. And what we're asking
them is to work with not only on traditional, but to bring that water
from the north and also in there is, either through their lake system,
through any other process that they can do, or from the new lake
system that they might develop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, is there anything in this
document before us now that gives us some assurance that they'll do
that or --
MR. FEDER: I think the paragraph intended there is that they
will before they get their permits at no cost to the county, both for the
provision of the drainage easement and process that they develop, as
Page 96
February 23,2010
well as for the construction. In other words, if they went into their
lake system, as I understand it, they may have to widen some of their
culverts connecting from the lakes to each other, and then eventually
maybe even have either gravity flow or pumping into the canal after
it's been treated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Passidomo, would you like
to comment on that? Because this is probably the most important
issue for your whole project.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, Commissioner. I heard some of what
Mr. Feder said, and actually we've talked to Commissioner Coletta
already. We're looking for- -- we've had an ongoing dialogue. We
look forward to continuing that with the active participation of Mr.
Feder and his staff.
We're at your disposal, Commissioner. So when that meeting is
set, we'll be there and we'll be looking for opportunities to improve the
drainage.
As you know, the impacts are spread equally, and they're
impactful on Olde Florida as they are on anybody else. So if there's a
way to improve the drainage capacity of that canal, that helps us and it
helps everyone, so we'd like to participate in that discussion. You call
the meeting, we'll be there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks. Mr. -- Jeff, would you
please tell me if we're missing anything in this discussion?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I think we're just trying to get
clarification. My understanding -- and Mr. Passidomo, correct me if
I'm wrong -- is that the applicant here, or the landowner, shall be
permitting, engineering, and constructing this conveyance; is that
correct?
MR. PASSIDOMO: That's correct. And Mr. Klatzkow, it's all
part of an integrated drainage system. At the time we come in for site
planning or subdivision plan approval, at that point in time, we'll have
an integrated drainage system that will accommodate not only our
Page 97
February 23, 2010
needs but the historic needs that are impacted through this property to
the canal to the south.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that's at the landowner's sole cost.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And commend you for that and
do appreciate it. I realize we still have to go through the rest of the
public meeting. When we get to that point, I'd be happy to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I would like to just pursue that
issue for just a second. The condition number two really doesn't say
that. It talks about the conveyance of a drainage, or dedication of a
drainage easement. It doesn't say anything about constructing or
engineering or the obligations and costs associated with them.
Is there -- do you have any objections, Mr. Passidomo, if we put
that language in this --
MR. PASSIDOMO: We don't, Mr. Chairman. The reason we
don't is we always -- that was always implied, because we always
assumed this was part of an integrated system, and there would be no
incremental cost, or it would be so marginal that it wouldn't be
impactful.
So this doesn't come as a surprise. We think it's helpful as a
point of clarification, but it doesn't come as a surprise, and it's
certainly not anything we object to, as long as it -- everybody
recognizes it's all part of one integrated system. And at the time we do
it, we'll accommodate not only our drainage, but the other drainage as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if we -- if we include that
language, the construction of an integrated stormwater system and the
dedication of that drainage easement, if we put both of those into this
condition, would that be acceptable to you?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Yes, sir, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 98
February 23, 2010
MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to have to do a rewrite. My
office will get with Mr. Passidomo and Mr. Feder to make sure that
the board's direction is laid out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Norm, before you go away, I
want to make sure that we're going to have total interconnectivity with
Massey Road (sic) and Tree Line Road in regards to this piece of
property.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We are?
MR. FEDER: We're working on that. We're already working on
Massey, and we don't have that right-of-way in hand. We're working
on the section to the north up to Immokalee as part of the Tree Farm,
and that effort. On the other, we were working, but we're waiting on
what happens with Twin Eagles south and a possibility of a
connection to 13th and 15th as shown on --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So how are we going to get this all
tied together? Is this going to be part of the whole process here?
MR. FEDER: Well, Woodcrest/Tree Farm as a bypass of
951/Immokalee is critical because there is no other alternate all the
way back to Wilson. We're working on that already. We had a
number of developer agreements. A portion of that's been built on
Tree Farm as part of our 951 project.
We're working through the issue to get it down to Massey to
Vanderbilt. We don't have that this time. And the other, we're waiting
on what happens to the development in that area to establish that
connection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So let me follow up. I'm
sorry. I didn't mean to let you back away so quick.
So everything that's been discussed and everything that's been
brought to our attention, you, representing the director of
Page 99
February 23,2010
transportation and stormwater, you don't have any other concerns?
You feel that they've all been addressed at this time?
MR. FEDER: The only other concern we have -- and I assume
it's in here -- is that the right-of-way that they own that is on the
alignment of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension itself would
request that they provide that to the county at no cost to the county as
well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Have you had discussions
with the two parties involved in this in regards to this?
MR. FEDER: With Mr. Barton, I have, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's been the choice of the
petitioner on this? Are you in favor of helping us out in regards to this
realignment of the road?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, Mr. Chairman (sic), we are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further questions by the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No? Then I'm going to close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval
with the additional language that we asked be inserted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval of petition
with the elimination of condition two and the substitute of additional
-- an additional condition relating to the flow-way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, have you got
enough direction here to make sure that all of the issues that were
discussed, that they can be addressed?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And if there's any confusion or
Page 100
February 23,2010
disagreement between the applicant and the county, we'll come back
to the board before this gets sent up to Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any -- like -- any objections to this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Okay. It passes unanimously.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2010-47: PETITION V A-PL2009-037, FLO TV
INC., REPRESENTED BY KIMBERLY 1. MADISON, ESQ., OF
RUDEN, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER AND RUSSELL,
P.A., IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE OF 67 FEET AND 4
INCHES FROM THE 75-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT; AND A VARIANCE OF 10 FEET AND 8
INCHES FROM THE 30-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENT OF LDC SUBSECTION 4.02.01, TABLE 2.1,
TABLE OF MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR BASE
ZONING DISTRICTS, TO PERMIT 7-FOOT, 8-INCH AND 19-
FOOT, 4-INCH SETBACKS, RESPECTIVELY, FOR THE GUY
LINES OF A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN EXCESS OF 75
FEET IN THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT. THE 4.77-
ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5860 CREWS
ROAD, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
Page 10 1
February 23,2010
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, that takes us to 7 A. This item
requires all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. V A-PL2009-037, FLO TV,
Incorporated, represented by Kimberly 1. Madison, Esquire, of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster, and Russell, P A, is requesting a variance
of 67 feet and 4 inches from the 75-foot front yard setback
requirement, and a variance of 10 feet and 8 inches from the 30-foot
side yard setback requirement ofLDC Subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1,
Table of Minimum Yard Requirements for Base Zoning Districts, to
permit 7-foot, 8 inches, and 19-foot-4 inch setbacks respectively for
the guy lines of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the
Estates zoning district.
The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road in
Section 8, Township 50 south, Range 26 east in Collier County,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will all persons who are going to
give testimony in this petition please stand, raise your right hand to be
sworn m.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. And ex parte
disclosure. We'll start with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I spoke to staff about this,
different members of the staff, and I've had some correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The only thing I've had is the
report from staff and questioned them in some detail on my
one-on-one yesterday, and I have no other disclosure to give on this
item, 7 A.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I apologize. I should
have pointed out to the board that 7 A and 7B are companion items.
They're both a request for variance and a request for conditional use,
Page 102
February 23, 2010
and staff advises that traditionally we give disclosure for both items
and hear them together.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: So if there's any other disclosures for 7B that we
needed to give, now would be the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, let's go back
to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same thing for 7 A and 7B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I have the same thing, 7A and
7B. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. For both 7A and 7B, I have
reviewed the Planning Commission's reports, and I have talked with
staff about this issue.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. For both 7 A and 7B, I've
talked to staff, I viewed the Planning Commission's video on it, and
also talked to Mark Strain about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have reviewed staffs report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. Then we will have a
presentation by the petitioner.
MS. MADISON: Good afternoon, board members, staff
members, County Attorney. My name is Kimberly Madison, attorney
with Ruden, McClosky, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, here on
behalf of the applicant, FLO TV. I do have several people with me
today. Mr. Dave Hollowell, engineer with Backen Beach
Construction, as well as Mr. Rob Thompson of FLO TV. Also present
are representatives of the -- excuse me, the property owner, Renda
Broadcasting, and that's Mr. Tony Renda, and the site engineer, Jerry
Heckerman.
And we are here before you today to request approvals of two
Page 103
February 23, 2010
separate yet interrelated petitions, one for a conditional use and one
for a variance. And if it pleases the board, we can address the
variance first as it was presented in the introduction. I just wanted to
make a couple comments relative to both petitions at the outset.
First and foremost, it's important to note that the applicant seeks
approval of the petitions to gain use of an existing tower. I point that
out because there's been some sort of -- or some misperception
throughout the process that another tower was being built. That's not
the case. These two approvals pertain to an existing tower, a tower
that has been in existence for over 30 years now. It was in existence
prior to the applicant's interest in the property. The tower was also in
existence prior to the current ownership by Renda Broadcasting.
If approved, both petitions would, in effect, legitimize the use of
the already existing tower and allow the applicant to install its
equipment and shelter to use that tower.
I use the word legitimize because the property initially received a
conditional use approval on May 25, 1993, to allow the replacement of
an existing tower with a newer tower.
This conditional use approval was issued during the time of
ownership by the prior owner prior to Renda Broadcasting's ownership
of that property. According to the resolution in effect for this
conditional-- and that's resolution 93-219 -- in the expansion of the
use would require the submittal a new conditional use application.
This was not done. Instead, the new tower was erected alongside the
old tower, so there are now two towers at this site.
So when the applicant approached the county in Mayor April,
2008, to seek counsel as to placing its equipment on that tower, they
were advised by way of a zoning verification letter that the use had
been improperly expanded, and an expansion of that use would require
a conditional use approval. That is why the applicant has submitted
this application for a conditional use approval.
Additionally, in the conditional use approval process, I would
Page 104
February 23,2010
say, I think it was mid 2009 -- I have the email to that effect -- but we
were -- we were advised midway through that process that the site also
required a variance to seek relief from the setback requirements under
the code as they pertained to the front and the side yard setbacks. So at
that point, we supplied the application for the variance as well.
So the request for the variance, which was filed upon being
advised of the need by the county, is to accommodate the locations of
existing guy line wires which anchor the tower that has existed for
30-plus years at this point. There is no reduction needed for the rear
setbacks.
So in effect, the applicant does request a variance from the front
and side yard setback requirements, which are established under
Section 5.05.09, sub G, sub 17, of the Land Development Code, to
permit the continued existence of the tower with the guy line anchors
and placement as they -- as they currently sit today.
It is important to note again that FLO TV as the applicant, nor
Renda, was responsible for the construction of this tower nor were
they responsible for the placement of the guy anchors, which are at
issue for the variance. The placement does constitute a preexisting
continue, as they were in place at the time that Renda acquired
ownership of the property. They were also in place at the time that
FLO TV expressed an interest in installing its equipment on that
tower.
Further, we have engineers here who will testify that any attempt
to actually relocate or to move the guy line anchors would jeopardize
the structural integrity of this particular tower. And it's given these
special circumstances and preexisting conditions that are uniquely
peculiar to this site that the applicant submits a strict adherence to the
setback requirements would cause undue hardship to the applicant.
This variance request is consistent with Collier County's desire to
maximize the shared use of specified tower sites and to minimize the
need for additional sites as set forth in Section 5.05.09, sub A, of the
Page 105
February 23,2010
Land Development Code.
Section 9.04.01 permits a variance from the terms of the Land
Development Code where, owing to special conditions as previously
discussed, a diminution of a regulation is found to have no measurable
impact on the public interests or literal enforcement of the code
provision would result in an unnecessary and undue hardship.
On January 7, 2010, the Planning Commission, by a majority
vote, issued a recommendation of approval of the applicant's variance
request. The Planning Commission's recommendation constitutes
competent substantial evidence with the published criteria for the
variances that are established under 9.04.03. Specifically, the
Planning Commission -- prior to the Planning Commission
recommending approval to this board, it was charged under Section
9.04.03 to consider and be guided by published criteria, which
included, but are not limited to, any existing special conditions and
circumstances peculiar to the site, any preexisting conditions relative
to the site and the property, and whether or not strict adherence would
cause an undue hardship to the applicant.
In reviewing these criteria, the Planning Commission did issue a
majority vote recommending approval of the applicant's request.
Additionally, County Collier's -- Collier County's staff has
reviewed a variance request and has issued a recommendation of
approval. The staff recommendation of approval, along with the
Planning Commission's, also constitute competent substantial
evidence. Further, we have not received any additional notices from
the public or inquiries whatsoever in the form of opposition.
Based upon the compliance with the published criteria, based
upon the staff written recommendation of approval, based upon
Planning Commission's written recommendation of approval, the
applicant respectfully requests approval of its petition for variance and
to seek relief from the front and side yard requirements to allow the
existence of this tower to remain in place and to allow the guy line
Page 106
February 23, 2010
anchors to sit as they are.
At this time, if you have any additional questions, either myself
or anyone of the people we have present are available to respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to wait till staff is done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning? I
guess he'll wait till staff is done, too. Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, principal planner with the Department of Zoning Review.
And as the applicant has just stated, Planning Commission and
staff recommended approval of this conditional use and this variance.
It is also consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
And it's important to note again that at least one of the towers has
been there for approximately three decades, and the other one's been
there for over a decade, and they have peacefully coexisted with their
neighbors.
It's my pleasure to answer any questions you might have today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a -- can I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question I have is, when this
Site Development Plan was put forth, who was the owner of the
property?
MS. GUNDLACH: There have been several site development
plans that have been put forth. Is there a particular year?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm talking about the one here
where staff basically said, however, it should be noted that the
approval of the SDP did not depict the old tower, only its concrete
pad, and referred to the new tower as a replacement tower. Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: I believe you're talking about a plan that was
put forth after 1999.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And then it says, the
application submitted in the SDP was also ambiguous about the
Page 107
February 23,2010
applicant's intent to dismantle the old tower, stating that the SDP
amendment is only to replace the existing communication tower.
And I believe the documentation in 1993 said that if you replace
the tower, you had to take the old tower down.
MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. That's the conditional use
from 1993.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So why have we got this
tower up?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's a good question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's -- it basically said that it
needed to come down, the old tower needed to come down. Was this
done intentionally by the applicant to be ambiguous about exactly
what was going to be placed on this site?
MS. GUNDLACH: I don't know if it was done intentionally.
We have -- our records show that there are several SDPs on file. We
do know that, as you previously stated, that once the new tower was
up, the old tower was to be dismantled.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly right, okay. So that's
my -- one of my big concerns, okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other concern I have is, I
believe that the applicant has due diligence in regards to submitting
reports to the county on an ongoing basis of what the condition of the
guy wires are, and I don't -- I don't -- have we gotten any reports on
that? I haven't seen any reports.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. We have -- we have a copy of a
structural report that was submitted by the applicant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But have they been doing this on
an ongoing basis, or has this just been a report that just recently
showed up?
MS. GUNDLACH: It was a report that was requested by the
Planning Commission at their last hearing.
Page 108
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And this was supposed to
be an ongoing part of their --
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- making sure that the towers are
in good shape; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: I think what you're describing is one of our
requirements in our Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly, okay. And so this hasn't
been done, right, with due diligence?
MS. GUNDLACH: No, it hasn't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Halas.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The conditional use application
is be -- for the existing tower that should have came down? Is that
what the conditional use is for?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. It's to remedy that situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The variance is for the
guide (sic) wires.
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you consider the guide wires
part of the structure?
MS. GUNDLACH: The Land Development Code requires that
the anchors and the guy wires be within the prescribed setbacks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions, no, on either
of these?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager -- or County Attorney,
do we need separate votes for each of these two items, or can we
handle them together?
MR. KLATZKOW: One requires four votes, one requires three.
Page 109
February 23, 2010
I'd take separate votes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. And 7A requires
three votes. So is there a motion on 7 A?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in Commissioner
Coletta's district?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it would be Commissioner
Fiala's, if I'm not mistaken. It's on the other side of 951, the west side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. It's after Cope Lane. I don't
know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay, yeah. That straddles
you and I. Is there any -- was there any public opposition on this,
Nancy?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. There was one letter from a--
MS. GUNDLACH: There was a letter, but it was a
misunderstanding on the part of the letter writer. He thought that they
were requesting another tower, and that's not the case. And my
understanding is --
MS. MADISON: The prior planner, John David, spoke with that
particular person directly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll make a motion to
approve the variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any discussion? I have one question.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, sir, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What would staff recommend with
respect to mitigation for the fact that these support platforms or
anchors violate the setbacks? Do you suggest any landscaping to
mitigate this? I know that fencing is required but, you know, that's not
very attractive for neighbors who might wish to build homes there. So
is there any interest in trying to make this place look a little better?
Page 110
February 23, 2010
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm glad you asked that question,
Commissioner. As you know, I've been a landscape architect for the
past three decades. I love green. This particular site is a site that is --
it's very, very, very heavily vegetated.
I have some photographs I can show you. The grasses are so tall
that they cover up the anchors, so you don't even see them. I tried to
go --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have -- do you have those
pictures available for us now?
MS. GUNDLACH: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you show them to us.
MS. GUNDLACH: I'd be happy to show them to you. I marked
the exact photo. And if you look at the aerial, the towers are
surrounded by a lot of vegetation. You can hardly see the guy wire.
Would you like me to mark it in red?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I can see it. I think what you should
do is paint the guy wires green and put some pine cones on them. It
might make it look a little better.
Okay. Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is for the county attorney, or
maybe for code enforcement. How can we make sure that this
applicant can come in compliance in regards to inspection of guy
wires so that -- because this is a public safety issue as far as I'm
concerned, especially if they've been negligent on their part to come
forth with these reports.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nick is indicating he might want to answer
this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida.
Page III
February 23,2010
At the Planning Commission hearing when this item was heard, I
asked staff if these inspections were available for review for all the
cell towers, and they said there were none available at the time.
I asked them to identify all the cell towers on GAS and submit
notification by March 15th to all the cell tower owners to provide
documentation on the status of inspection.
So we are going to have them on a map, on the GIS base. They
will be in the commitment tracking system, and they will be notified
of the inspection requirements officially within the next 30 days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why is it left up to us to notify
those people? They should have a responsibility to make sure that
they follow our codes, and I would -- would think that when they built
the towers that they knew exactly what was required of the applicant
as he went forth on this, that there are some due diligence that need to
be done on their part.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's an annual inspection. It's required
by the code, by the Land Development Code, and I want to take it on
our responsibility to make sure that we have them. It should be staffs
best interest to make sure that these inspections come to us, so we're
going to notify them.
I agree with you, it's something they should provide to us, but I
want to make it our effort to make sure they're told and held in
compliance by our staff, both code enforcement and county
engineering department.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you telling me that nobody
has come forth with inspections on their cell towers that are -- that
have guy wires on them?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have not found any to date, sir, and
that's being corrected right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Amazing. And this has been going
on for 30 years?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I found out about it about a month ago
Page 112
February 23,2010
and took corrective action, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very interesting. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He asked my question again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I would just like to say one
thing. This is an egregious violation of our previous approvals. I
mean, it was very, very clear that one of those towers was supposed to
come down.
Now, I -- under normal circumstances, I would vote against this,
but we have to assume some of the responsibility ourselves. When we
issue develop orders, we should be looking to see that they're
complied with. And to let this go so long, I think, is not only due to a
failure in carrying out our own responsibilities, but it's a failure of the
people who own this property. And even the new owners should have
done due diligence when they purchased this company to make sure
that their structures were in compliance with local law.
But having said that, I will now call the question. You have who
made it and who seconded it, right?
All in favor of the motion to approve, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the variance?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is the variance, Item 7 A. It takes
three votes.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Page 113
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2, with
Commissioners Halas and Fiala voting against it.
Now that brings us to 7B.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2010-48: PETITION CU-2008-AR-
14085, FLO TV, INC., REPRESENTED BY KIMBERLY J.
MADISON, ESQ. OF RUDEN, MCCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER
AND RUSSELL, P.A., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE
FOR A COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN THE ESTATES (E)
ZONING DISTRICT, AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 5.05.09 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC).
THE APPROXIMATELY 4.77-ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 5860 CREWS ROAD, IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
- MOTION TO APPROVE - FAILS; COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE DIRECTED TO PREP ARE A RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could I ask a question on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you -- did anybody review
the record to find out why the board stated that there's one tower up --
if you put another tower up, the other one needs to come down or
something like that, there can only be one tower?
MS. GUNDLACH: I didn't review the record, but it is explicitly
stated in the conditional use resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I'm wondering why,
why the BCC at that time --
MS. GUNDLACH: It's a good question considering that our
Page 114
February 23,2010
Land Development Code encourages multiple towers on a site. It
seems contrary to our code.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean if you -- yeah. If the
need is there --
MS. GUNDLACH: Current code, that is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. If the need is there, then
wouldn't you want to locate them on the same site instead of spacing
them out over multiple sites?
MS. GUNDLACH: What you stated is exactly what our current
code encourages.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But because this was a
conditional use specificity, that's why the need to come back for
approval?
MS. GUNDLACH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And staff probably looked at the
existing code and said, there's not a problem here with the two towers,
two -- there was two erected. They got a permit for two of them.
MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I would assume that staff
took a look at that and said -- looked at the Land Development Code
and said, you know, there's not a problem, you know, because you
want to encourage multiple towers.
MS. GUNDLACH: That thought did occur to us, yes,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Proliferation, okay.
You know -- is there any public opposition?
MS. GUNDLACH: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's no public opposition, I
don't see why I should be opposed to something like that, so I'm going
to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it and reserve the
right to speak.
Page 115
February 23, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion for -- this is
for 7B. Motion to approve by Commissioner Henning and a second
by Commissioner Coletta.
And questions from the board members? Commissioner Coletta,
go first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I could. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Klatzkow, help me with this. We just approved a variance
for this item; now we've got the conditional use. The conditional use
is going to take four votes; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go with the what-if,
because there's always eventualities with everything we do in this
world, and I understand the part of some of my fellow commissioners
feeling put upon by the fact that this thing did not follow the normal
course of events, and almost like a slap in the face with the way it
went forward, so I can understand the anger with it.
But in this particular case, if this fails, that means that they -- that
by -- they would be required to tear the tower down?
MR. KLATZKOW: If this fails, the new tower stays and the guy
wires can remain where they are under the variance, and the old tower
would have to come down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what's the
likelihood they're going to tear this tower down without taking us to
court?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess she can answer that better than
me.
MS. MADISON: The guy line wires that were just approved are
for the older tower, the tower which is all the subject of the
conditional use application.
MR. KLATZKOW: You don't -- you don't have guy wires from
both towers in the setback.
MS. MADISON: They're -- no, certainly. I don't mean to
Page 116
February 23,2010
suggest that one doesn't have guy line towers, but the --
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So both towers have guy -- both of
your towers, the guy lines are in the setback; is that correct?
MS. MADISON: I apologize. They do require for both towers.
I'm sorry. It's -- earlier on, the application was for the older tower,
because that is the only tower that was of interest to the applicant. But
midway through the process, we began to address the entire site, so it
IS my --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the value of these
towers, between 500 and $4 million?
MR. KLA TZKOW: She can't testify to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I'm just trying to--
MR. KLATZKOW: No, she can't -- I'm just saying.
MS. MADISON: This is Mr. Renda of Renda Broadcasting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I'm just trying to shorten the
course of events here so we don't spend a lot of your money and our
money chasing this thing down the road for a couple years.
MR. RENDA: Thank you, I appreciate that. My name is Tony
Renda. I live at 2617 Half Moon Walk, Naples, Florida.
Before I -- before I get on with this, my reputation and our
company's reputation is very, very, very important. Vice-Chairman,
let me say something to you. Our towers are inspected yearly,
sometimes even more so. If any change is made to our tower, if
someone hangs a single, simple dish on that tower, we have it
inspected. We have the wind load evaluated.
In all of the years that I have been here in Naples, to our
knowledge we have never been notified by the county to supply any
kind of information regarding inspection. It is not that they weren't
inspected. Sir, they were inspected, for our own personal use and our
own personal safety and, quite frankly, any liability problems or
insurance problems.
Anytime that we would have an insurance issue, they were
Page 117
February 23,2010
inspected. So it is not anything that we were avoiding doing, sir. So
that is very important for me to convey that to you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. RENDA: We are -- we are wrong in that we should have
taken the tower down. We had a number of people on that tower, the
FBI and several other people, and we had said, you know, move to the
new tower and they said, yes, as soon as our leases were out. And so
that got away from us. We kept on paying the taxes, and we were
wrong in that. We were wrong in that.
I've been in business long enough to know that when you get an
order, get out. We have been accused of building a tower taller than
what we were granted. That is wrong, that is wrong. Renda
Broadcasting would never do that. My father and my mother would
come out of their grave and beat the hell out of me for doing that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, if I could, I'd like to take
you down the road with some of these questions so I get to the point.
MR. RENDA: If! can answer them for you, I will.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that. Now, you need
both towers in place or do you plan to take one down? According to
MR. RENDA: No, we would like to keep one up because what
Commissioner Henning talked about, there is a drastic need for
towers. We own four radio stations in this market. Trying to find a
tower location even to find a location for a satellite dish or a dish or
repeater is a challenge. We would prefer -- we would want to keep
them up.
One of our radio stations, WGUF, is way down toward Marco
because we cannot move --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Within this application you're
looking to keep both towers?
MR. RENDA: We would like to keep both towers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, what's the value of these
Page 118
February 23,2010
towers? You don't have to answer the question. If you would, it
might be able to help me make my point.
MR. RENDA: The value of these towers is probably someplace
between 800 and two or three million, depending upon how large they
are, and it could go for a -- could go up to several million if -- well,
excuse me. I have to remind myself of where I am.
These are heavy-duty towers. Every one is a -- I believe it's G5,
Jerry, of the area five? These are all for Florida hurricane. They are
built to those specifications, so it would be anywhere from a million to
$5 million.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So it's not the kind of
investment that your company -- I'm a businessman, too -- would not
willingly walk away from?
MR. RENDA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's my point is, I
think the county attorney will also tell you that even such times when
we have variances, that we have come across as a commission and
ordered this to be torn down or that to be done, it doesn't happen.
What happens is we go into costly litigation that costs the applicant
money, but more than that, it costs us money at a time that is of certain
severe disadvantage to the people that we represent.
What I'm saying is, the end results will be somewhere along the
line, after we pay a couple hundred dollars each, the towers will
probably stay up, and we're going to be out that money.
Yes, they did something wrong, and I appreciate they admitted it
in public. They've been put through the wringer on this. They had to
pay all the fees that was necessary to bring both these items forward. I
think if they had to do it over again, they wouldn't have done it the
same way. They probably would have asked for both of them in the
beginning. Asking for forgiveness after the fact doesn't always cut it,
especially with government entities.
So, I know where you're coming -- I don't agree. I think that you
Page 119
February 23, 2010
were wrong in what you did, but I think it would be very wrong for us
to try to chase this down the road. We don't have anybody that's
having any problems with it, it's not a blight on the landscape, it serves
a useful public purpose. To do anything other than approve it's going
to cost the public untold amounts of money at a time when we can't
afford it.
MR. RENDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's my understanding that the guy
wires we're discussing today are not from the old tower but from the
new tower; am I right or wrong?
MR. RENDA: I believe they're from the --
MS. MADISON: They're from both towers.
MR. RENDA: They're from both towers?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me that this tower
that was put up originally was out of compliance, too?
MR. RENDA: Oh, absolutely not. It was built -- if those --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, wait a minute.
MR. RENDA: Ifthere was -- sir, if! can -- I can tell you that --
well, I should say it this way, Vice-Chairman. The plans that were
given -- when I bought the company, the plans that were in place, the
construction site and the approval plans were followed to the letter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the original tower?
MR. RENDA: Of the original tower, and of the new tower. We
did not do all of that. It was the prior owner.
We followed the construction of the approval that was granted to
the previous owner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, can you
enlighten me on this? I was under the impression that this was guy
wires that were out of compliance with the new tower because they
didn't tear the old tower down.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's kind of faint, but you can see the yellow
Page 120
February 23, 2010
lines --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- and where they intersect, the two towers,
the guy lines are along the periphery of the property so that all the guy
lines are within the setback, both the new tower and the old tower.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So the old tower was out of
compliance?
MR. KLA TZKOW: No. The -- what happened was that, based
on the minutes of the hearing, they came in for the new tower based
on the age of the old tower.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: So they wanted to take the old tower down
because of its age and put up a new tower. Board of Planning --
Board of County Commissioners said yes, and both towers remain.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the -- my question is, the guy
wires are for the new tower?
MR. KLATZKOW: And the old tower.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the old tower was out of
compliance then, too?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the question I asked before.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So both guy wires are out of
compliance?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but you just granted a variance, which
cures both towers' guy wires.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we got -- still got the
issue of the old tower.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
MS. MADISON: May I -- if I may, just a point of -- point of
Page 121
February 23,2010
clarification to provide some numbers in terms of Mr. Renda's
testimony. What he is saying is that in relation to the old and the new
tower, Renda bought the property with the old tower already built,
fully constructed.
So I would stipulate that he's probably not the best in terms of
who -- the degree to which they were complied with. He acquired the
property with a fully built and constructed tower.
He also acquired that property with the zoning and the approvals
in place for construction of the new tower. So when he acquired that
property, he had the older tower and he also had the plans, the
approved plans, and approvals for the construction of the new tower.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And he built the new tower?
MS. MADISON: Yeah. The new tower was built under Renda's
watch.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they wanted to bring the old
tower down because it was old and build a new one and yet -- so it
was Mr. Renda then that left the old one there and built the new one,
and so -- and I appreciated that he came up and said, yes, we were at
fault, that was great, except that it was he that left it there in the first
place. And that's rather interesting. Not only that, but I fear for the
safety of the people that are around there.
And Mr. Renda said that they've been having inspections
regularly. We don't know that. Our people don't have any record of
any inspections being given to them.
But I'll tell you, I fear for the people that live around that area.
We've seen what happens when a tower falls. We know that that can
be a problem. And they didn't take down the old one even though
they wanted to replace it with a new one. So what makes this old
tower strong enough to withstand some of our hurricanes and so forth
when they wanted to take it down in the first place? I'm having a real
Page 122
February 23,2010
problem with this.
MS. MADISON: And I'm sorry. Again, I just -- with the
obvious caveat being said -- and I echo Mr. Renda's statements -- there
is absolutely no one trying to suggest that the property was improperly
expanded and that both towers were allowed to remain in
contradiction of the existing zoning approval at the time.
But just in terms of numbers, just to help you gain an
understanding of exactly how long that property sat, that conditional
use was in effect or approved in 1993. Renda acquired that property
in '97/'98.
But with regard to the -- the potential or the concern for
surrounding property areas, that information was addressed and also
brought up many times by the Planning Commission. In fact, we were
originally set for a hearing in October of 2009. They requested -- or
we requested a continuance for the specific purpose of providing
certified information concerning the collapse zone from one of our
engineers. That is on the record and has been submitted as a
prerequisite to the continuance, which was conducted on January the
7th.
I have a copy of that information as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's in here. I read it.
MS. MADISON: Okay. Okay -- no. And we also have the
engineers, if you have any additional questions concerning that
specific issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, if they don't have -- you
know, Mr. Renda said that they had inspections regularly. I haven't
seen them; our staff hasn't seen them. And you've got this old tower
that should have been taken down ten years ago that's still standing
there, and you've got people living in the area and more that are about
to come because of the new road that is being expanded at this
moment, or rather built, at this moment, and we don't even know that
they're going to be doing these inspections --
Page 123
February 23, 2010
MS. MADISON: Well-- and to that point, we certainly
recognize that this tower -- and I guess every tower site has not been --
or there are no records of any such inspections; that issue was
addressed during the Planning Commission meeting as well.
Additionally, we have stated, and I've gone on the record and are
willing to stipulate as a condition of approval, that not only will we
comply with the inspections from this point on, but that it will be a
stated condition. That will not be a stated condition of every other
tower in this county, but we are willing to put that as a condition of
approval that we will comply from this point on and submit --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's already in here. It's just never
been complied with. It said --
MS. MADISON: Right, we're trying to correct every issue--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read everything in here. It says
every two years.
MS. MADISON: Right, exactly. And in an effort to correct this,
to correct the existing zoning inconsistencies and to correct previous
mistakes, which are the result of this owner and the prior owner, we
are willing to go on the record and willfully submit to that and to
submit to future compliance with every single condition stated if
approved from this point on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that if these towers have
been inspected through the years, I think that that should be submitted
on the record, and hopefully it's been certified that the towers are
okay, especially the older one, and I think that that information needs
to come forth to the county so that it's on record that all those -- that
that tower, the older tower, has been inspected.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, as part of this petition
process, we do have a copy of the last structural report for the towers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All through the years.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
Page 124
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The ones that they're missing.
That's the ones that are important. They need to come back with those
records.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let me -- let me ask a couple of
questions of staff. Who prepared the inspection of the old tower and
when? Who was the inspector?
MS. GUNDLACH: We could find that information out for you,
perhaps maybe on the next break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's on here. It's--
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. We have somebody who can testify
to that.
MR. HECKERMAN: Hi. My name is Jerry Heckerman. I'm the
chief engineer of Renda Broadcasting. I've been employed with them
since 1997, and I've been basically Renda's site manager for the tower
site that's been there.
First of all, I want to clarify, in 1998 it was mandated by the FCC
that there would be a frequency swap and a power change of several
radio stations in the area. On the old tower we were licensed for much
less power on a frequency of 103.1. The FCC came around and said,
well, you're going to switch to 104.7. It allowed a new station to
come into town, 102.9, and stations all around Florida got juggled
around to where they were at.
They also said that we were allowed to have a power increase
from 3,000 watts to 20,000 watts. What this meant was a much larger,
heavier, antenna.
The county back then, to my understanding, says, well, we'll let
you build a new tower, but it cannot exceed the height of the old
tower. So the new tower was built shorter but with a taller stick to
accommodate a much larger antenna that was 60 feet tall, and that's
why both towers are the same height.
The older tower was in place, had a smaller antenna which Renda
Broadcasting removed, and we put it lower on the new tower as a
Page 125
February 23,2010
backup antenna. All the tenants, including the FBI, were required to
move off of the old tower to the new tower.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, this is not answering my question.
MR. HECKERMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am only interested in a structural
inspection by a certified engineer of the old tower. The old tower, we
are told, was going to be replaced in 1993 because of its age. It is now
17 years later and the old tower is still standing. We have no
inspection reports on that old tower, and I want to see an inspection by
a certified structural engineer about the condition of that old tower.
Tell me who did it.
MR. HECKERMAN: Okay. Global Broadband Services was
the last person to do the tower inspection, and also we have a
structural analysis report of the other tower.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From whom?
MR. HECKERMAN: That was from Media Flow USA and their
engineers, and I have those. Plus the fact, Broadband Wireless
Services, a reputable company, I have older inspections dating back
to, I believe, 2005 and 2003 on that.
Now, I didn't have the complete inspection every two years to the
county because I was unaware of that requirement that anything had to
be turned in to the county. And when I checked with all the radio
stations in Collier County, my colleagues in the business, none of
them were aware that they had to turn in reports to the county.
In fact, my understanding is there hasn't been a single radio
station owner that has ever done it because we weren't aware, and --
but as Mr. Renda said, we always did the proper thing.
And I have these reports in hand. They were turned over in the
last hearing. So you should have copies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And they contain the stamp of a licensed
engineer?
MR. HECKERMAN: On the structural, we have those, but
Page 126
February 23,2010
according to the -- it says, any qualified professional in your rules.
And so it may not be a structural engineer, but qualified professional.
The structural engineer did give a stamped letter saying that both
towers were built and in compliance, and you do have a copy of that
letter.
In other words, tower companies do tower inspections. Structural
engineers, they will do loading if you add a new antenna to the tower.
But the people that actually inspect towers are people in the tower
business, and they have certain rules that they go by to calibrate the
tension on the guy wires, usually 50 percent of the tensile strength of
the wire, and there's special formulas they use. And all the stuff is
pretty much in here. The reports are there. The towers are safe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's interesting that you claim that
fellow people who are in the radio business had no idea that there had
to be reports given, but wouldn't you think that the county would be
interested in this since it's a health, safety, and welfare issue, and don't
you think as the station engineer with a first-class license that you
would want to make sure that you were in compliance with all rules
and regulations, not only just with the FCC but with the surrounding
community to make sure that you were in compliance?
If you had -- you must have had the information someplace at the
station in regards to the construction of the tower, the first tower.
Before you even put up the second tower, there had to be some--
either your legal advice -- the person who was giving you the legal
advice would have to tell you, oh, by the way, this is in the code for
Collier County and this is what you have to abide by also, on top of
the rulings by the Federal Communications Commission.
MR. HECKERMAN: As I said before, I was unaware until I
actually started studying the code recently when this came about. It
was an overlook. And when I didn't know about this, I was surprised,
so I talked to other radio stations, and I asked them about it to see if
Page 127
February 23,2010
they do.
And once we figured out that this was really important, it was a
code, what I did was I tried to get as many of the reports they I had
that were on paper and sealed. And then I also made sure --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The County attorney, it
doesn't matter whether you don't know the law or not, just because
you don't -- don't realize what the law is, you still have to be in
compliance of it; is that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to close the public
hearing. I believe we have a motion to approve by Commissioner
Her- -- Henning and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Close enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Close enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that close enough? Okay. Was it was
just the reverse?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the last name, Herring.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought I said Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Herring's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please
signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It fails on a vote of 3-2,
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Fiala opposing the petition.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Staff will be taking this to the Code
Page 128
February 23,2010
Enforcement Board in that case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MADISON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, where does that
take us?
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2010-49: DISCUSSION REGARDING A
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO EXTEND LIFE
SAFETY RETROFIT RELIEF TO COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATIONS - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: That takes you to your two p.m. time certain, which
was Item 9B on your agenda today.
That is a discussion regarding the resolution of the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, supporting
legislative efforts to extend life safety retrofit relief to community
associations, and this item was added to the agenda by Commissioner
Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And because I added it to the agenda, I
think I should take just a moment to explain what the issue is so that
all the commissioners understand what we're -- we could be talking
about.
Many years ago, actually around 1998, the -- there was a national
fire safety code that was adopted, and most of the states, if not all of
the states, had adopted it, did so without making it retroactive.
Unfortunately, the State of Florida made this legislation, these
fire safety codes retroactive, which meant it applied to all of the
condos that were built before 1980, and this has resulted in a
Page 129
February 23,2010
requirement for condo owners to undertake very costly retrofits. It's
something that affects the entire State of Florida, and people who have
been trying to get relief from this, condo owners all over the State of
Florida, have asked that the legislature revise the legislation in a way
that would permit the condo owners essentially to opt out of this
requirement for retrofitting.
Ifthere was a vote ofa majority of the condo owners who didn't
want to take this -- make this retrofit, then they could opt out of it, in
essence, giving them some self-determination concerning health,
safety, and welfare of their residences.
So I have introduced this resolution to ask for the board's support
of legislation which would eliminate this retroactive application of
codes.
We make changes to building codes and Land Development
Codes here on a regular basis, but we never go back and retrofit them.
And someone -- I think it might have been Councilman Price who's
here today -- said, you know, that's like requiring everyone who owns
an older car to go back and install air bags. It's very expensive, if not
maybe impossible.
And some of these things are quite difficult to do. Some of them
would require the widening of stairways. Well, how do you do that in
a building that has already been constructed? These are not easy
things for the residents to do, and it's very costly at a time when we're
having economic difficulties. It continues -- it will continue to depress
the real estate market. And so I've brought it before you to urge your
support.
The city council has passed a similar resolution, and I think it
was a unanimous vote; Councilman Price is here. And so I'm -- I've
brought it here for your consideration and ask for your support.
And we have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: Eight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Eight, okay.
Page 130
February 23,2010
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for bringing this to our
attention. I think it's what we should be doing, and I'm sure the
legislators will take action on that. So I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. No, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, unless you would like to second
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I don't. This is something that
doesn't just include my district. It's -- everybody's district here is
impacted by this to some degree or another, and I think some of the
speakers will be able to tell you what that is.
Would you like to hear some of the speakers just to get some
additional background on this, if we can be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to make one comment,
if I could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Were you next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you were before me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just hope that we can get
some action up there in Tallahassee. Obviously when these people up
there make laws, they don't understand the impact that it's going to
have. And I think classroom size was a big one, and obviously this is
even bigger than classroom size because it deals with large structural
buildings.
So I'm hoping that they have an understanding on it. And I think
there's another bill up there that kind of concerns me, and that's
protecting the banks on foreclosures. But we can discuss that at a later
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 131
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, many times I think
common sense ought to prevail. And this, what we're doing today,
allows that to happen, and that's so important to make these decisions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I thank you for bringing that
forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
And let's call the first speaker, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Christopher Thornton. He'll
be followed by Bill Poteet.
MR. THORNTON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
Commissioners. I'm Chris Thornton with the law firm Becker and
Poliakoffat 999 Vanderbilt Beach Road here in Collier County.
I'm here today representing CALL, the Community Association
Leadership Lobby, which is a statewide organization of more than
4,000 condominium and homeowners associations throughout the
State of Florida, including high-rise condominiums here in Collier
County that are subject to the fire sprinkler retrofit requirement that
you're discussing.
We appreciate your efforts and in particular the leadership of
Commissioner Coyle on this issue. It's clear from his presentation to
Naples City Council that he's done his homework and understands the
economic impact that this is going to have on your residents if relief is
not forthcoming.
I think it was clear from the information presented to the city
council by the state fire marshal's office that when the retrofit law was
adopted in 1998, there was -- although it sounded like a good idea at
the time, there was never a true understanding of the costs that would
be involved or the measure of the benefits, if any, to be gained from
these retrofit requirements.
What we do know is that there are condominium associations
here in this county that are being asked to spend more than a million
Page 132
February 23, 2010
dollars per building to retrofit the buildings with sprinkler systems,
and we don't know how much, if any, safety this money's going to
buy.
We believe that if a building was constructed in accordance with
the code at the time it was built, that the members in the building
should at least be afforded the opportunity to opt out and decide for
themselves whether they should come up to meet new regulations.
And we urge you to adopt this resolution in favor of House Bill
561 and Senate Bill 1222. Commissioner Hudson is co-sponsoring the
house bill. And we're hopeful that with your support -- you know, last
year the legislature unanimously approved this, this relief, but it was
vetoed by Governor Crist. And we hope that with your support and
with support from around the state, that Governor Crist will let the law
-- let the legislatures (sic) pass a law that goes into effect. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Bill Poteet. He'll be followed
by Gary Price.
MR. POTEET: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
the opportunity to be here today. For the record, my name is Bill
Poteet, and I represent the Naples Area Board of Realtors.
The Naples Area Board of Realtors supports the passage of this
resolution. While fire safety should be a concern for those who live in
high-rise condominiums, there are other factors other than sprinklers
that contribute to the overall safety of the building; construction
materials, physical design, alarms, et cetera, play an important role in
computing the risk of fire.
Currently the risk appears low when compared to the economic
challenges that face the condominium owners and the condominium
associations.
Twelve years ago it may have seemed like a very good idea to
require sprinkler retrofits in all the high-rise condominiums, but today,
due to an unprecedented decline in property values during my lifetime
Page 133
February 23, 2010
and extreme number of foreclosures, many condominium owners and
associations are at the brink of financial collapse.
It is for this reason the -- our Realtor association supports the
resolution. Owners should have the right to choose their own destiny.
Without relief from House Bill 561 and Senate Bill 1222, government
regulations will decide their fate for them. We fear it will result in
additional foreclosures, condominium association bankruptcies.
Such an unnecessary loss affects more than just one owner or one
association. It would ripple through our community, and instead of
climbing out of our current economic malaise, we would continue to
watch helplessly as values sink lower and lower with each new victim
being one of our neighbors and one of our friends. We urge the
passage of this resolution. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gary Price. He'll be followed
by Alfred Homann.
MR. PRICE: Good afternoon. Gary Price, for the record, City of
Naples.
Chairman Coyle, thank you, and Commissioners, good to see you
all.
I appreciate Commissioner Coyle being at our meeting last week.
I'm not here on behalf of the council. I don't ever get to take that hat
off. And I also know when I'm not supposed to talk my way out of
some momentum, which I sense is happening up here. So I'll try to be
brief.
I just wanted to tell you that it took us about three hours of a
hearing to hear from fire marshals last week. It isn't about fire safety.
It's about the appropriate risk and whether or not this is a reduction of
risk. And I'm not convinced that this effort is to reduce fire safety
risk. And they weren't able to quantify it for me. A week later, after
we asked some questions, they're still not -- I still don't have answers
to that.
So I don't want this to be about money versus fire safety. This is
Page 134
February 23,2010
always going to be about safety, which I know all of you are
concerned about. But I think this legislation will help get some relief
to the owners, and appreciate all of your efforts in doing so.
And I was here to answer questions -- since I had three hours of a
briefing, if you had any questions, I thought I would answer those.
And if not, thank you for your time. Thank you for your service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Councilman
Price.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Alfred Homann. He'll be
followed by Ewing Sutherland.
MR. HOMANN: Good afternoon. My name is Alfred Homann.
I'm president of the Marco Association of Condominiums. We have
monthly meetings. We represent condominiums on Marco Island.
We have discussed this issue in the past and as recently as last
Thursday's meeting and, generally speaking, our members support the
repeat -- the owners taking responsibility for their buildings.
We find that we have a number of buildings that have
foreclosures. In my own condominium with 80 units, we have one
foreclosure, and a second, apparently, about ready to start, partly
because of the economic times. So I think this bill is justified in that it
relieves our owners of some questionable expenses.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ewing Sutherland. He'll be
followed by Steve Smith.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ewing, before you begin, could you do
me a favor and provide us some information during your presentation
about the range of condos that might be impacted? These are not just
high-rise condos, as I understand it. That are condos of all types.
MR. SUTHERLAND: They are condos of all types. First of all,
thank you, Chairman, and Commissioners. Just for the record, I'm
Ewing Sutherland. I'm president of Gulfside, Inc., in Naples. I'm also
a member of the advisory council of the community advocacy
Page 135
February 23, 2010
network, a network of CALL.
And first of all, I agree with all the previous speakers' points.
Now, the sprinkler retrofit law includes also an alternative to retrofit
engineered life safety systems. And right now there are new codes
which have been issued which will add to the load which the
condominiums right now are facing. These are condominiums,
whether they be over 75 feet, which are high-rise, or lower ones.
And the effort that's being made by Representative Hudson and
Jeremy Ring is to reduce the pressure on all of those buildings by
making -- by bringing it back into the hands of the individual owners.
It doesn't mean necessarily that the overall condominium buildings
will be relieved of new code implications, but that is something else
which our legislators need to -- need to address.
Since I agreed with all the previous speakers, maybe, perhaps, I
could just give you some high notes of -- to explain some of the risks.
And I did send you a briefing paper in which I set out just what
little risk there is to life through -- in concrete block construction in
Florida from fire.
For example, nationally, in a single year there were 3,000 deaths
in single-family units and 15 in residential high-rise buildings. There
wasn't one in Florida in that. That makes it the odds of 200 to one.
But there has been no retrofitting requirements in single-family units.
The legislator was -- the governor was seriously criticized for
vetoing the bill last year. And in the discussions with those who told
him so, he said that he would be welcome to investigate the possibility
involved of a recall (sic) for the affected buildings and was shown the
legislation which was eventually filed by -- in the form of HB561 and
1222.
Out of the blue, he did an about-face about two weeks ago, two
weeks ago, indeed, today, and we've been doing our best to rescue that
situation, and I hope that support from County Commissioners today
will give emphasis to that and we're endeavoring to do as much of this
Page 136
February 23, 2010
throughout Florida as is humanly possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Ewing.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Steve Smith. He'll be
followed by Jim Hoppensteadt.
MR. SMITH: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Smith. I'm
president of Lausanne Condominium Association. We're one of the
few buildings who have already accomplished the retrofit of the
sprinkler system, and I can only tell you what an onerous situation it
became. I would be more than happy to sit down with anyone and tell
them what we -- the hoops that we had to jump through to complete
our retrofit.
When we first got estimates, three years ago the estimates were
$2 million for our building for just the sprinkler system alone. It
doesn't include the rest of the retrofitting that is being required. But
because of the economic hard times, we were able to accomplish the
retrofit for approximately a million dollar.
We're in a very affluent area along Gulf Shore Boulevard. And
even though we come from that area, I, as president, still had to file
liens against a number of units in the apartment that were not able to
write a check for the amount of the retrofit.
I fear for the people who are less affluent who live in the 50- to
$100,000 condominiums that are not capable of writing the check for
$8,800 that I had to write. So I ask you to help those people and to
support this bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jim Hoppensteadt. He'll be followed by Bill
Holmes.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: For the record, Jim Hoppensteadt.
This is my fire day. I think it's turning out better than my Clam Bay
days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything is better than Clam Bay days.
Page 13 7
February 23, 2010
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: There are 6,000 buildings in the State
of Florida affected by this legislation. If you accept that anywhere
between 500,000 and a million dollars is the cost of the retrofit on
these buildings, it's a 3 billion to $6 billion problem that this state is
facing.
And the legislators actually have been supportive of this
initiative. As Mr. Sutherland indicated, they have passed this in the
past unanimously. Petitions need to go to Governor Crist, who has
vetoed it, and CFO Sink, who oversees the fire marshal's office, so we
would encourage you to do that.
And to give some more statistics, because as Councilman Price
said, the fire marshal's office is scant on statistics. In addition to what
Ewing's already indicated as far as number of fatalities that happen in
single-family homes versus condos, in condos, 95 percent of the fires
in high-rises are contained within the rooms they start in. Has nothing
to do with the public areas that this sprinkler retrofit is having to deal
with.
Sixty-nine percent of fires in high-rises start below the fourth
floor. So there's a lot of statistics that this is not good or even prudent
risk management. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker is Bill Holmes.
MR. HOLMES: Good afternoon, Council. I represent the
community association managers of Marco Island, and I am on the
other side of the fence, because I am the manager of a condominium
association, and I have to put out these messages to owners, and this
retrofit just about gives everybody a heart attack.
At this time five years ago we had condominiums worth well
over a million-and-a-half dollars there are now selling for $900,000.
And I think that for this bill to pass, it would drop the value lower.
And I think with the poor economy that we have right now, this would
be devastating. And the State of Florida needs all the help we can get
to bring the economy up. Thank you.
Page 138
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, your light is on. Did you want to make
another comment, or was that from before?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, uh-huh. That was from before.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions by
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, if! remember correctly, for approval of the
resolution, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
So any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Thank you all for being here.
(Applause.)
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENT
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item lion your
agenda, public comments on general topics.
MS. FILSON: I do have one speaker under public comments,
Page 139
February 23, 2010
Mr. Chairman, Gina Downs.
MS. DOWNS: Good afternoon. And I'm required to say Gina
Downs, I'm a candidate for County Commissioner District 2. I have to
say that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just as long as it's not District 4.
MS. DOWNS: No, I think it's District 2.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: District 5.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: District I.
MS. DOWNS: Shaking in your boots, huh?
I applaud what you just did, and I'd like you to consider
something that Commissioner Halas mentioned earlier, House--
Senate Bill 780. I hope you'll look into that one. That's another one,
when we talk about economic challenges for condo associations and
homeowners associations. It's a simple one page bill right now. It
essentially addresses foreclosures. It's requiring banks from the time
of initiation until the foreclosure is resolved to pay all fees, all
maintenance fees, all special assessments associated with the condo or
a homeowners association.
You know, currently the legislation is written all one sided to
favor the bankers. They are limited to paying 1 percent on a
homeowner's association delinquent fees or six months or condo fees.
Now, we all know frequently when you go into foreclosure, you
have a history of not paying your maintenance and assessment fees.
So these are usually accumulated fees that are higher than six months
or one year, so there is a bill, state bill -- Senate Bill 780, and recently,
I'm happy to say, a companion House Bill, 987, has also been filed.
So I encourage you, like, along with what just did, to support
these bills and let the legislature know that you're serious about
protecting homeowners associations and condo association people in
Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
That's the last public speaker?
Page 140
February 23, 2010
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question or comment by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, thank you, thank you.
And it is important. The HOAs throughout the State of Florida have
been having problems with that. But a week ago today there was a
court decision that gave relief to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Supreme Court decision?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a -- no, it was a district
court. A ground-breaking South Florida court decision paved the way
for legal solutions for condominium and homeowners associations to
address the underreported but highly complacent practice of banks
stalling their foreclosure. And the banks engaging in tactics and
efforts to delay title to finance upside-down units to avoid payment of
past-due assessments and legal fees due to the association.
The new legal approach puts the end to that practice and employs
a dramatic strength, financial health of communities throughout the
State of Florida.
So the condo associations already have relief. They can go in and
foreclose on that particular unit and get the unit. So they -- I know
that bill was created prior to the Court's -- the Court's ruling. There is
no need for that new law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right. Let
Commissioner Halas go first, because I was going to ask something,
but he was -- you start.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. There's also another bill
that's sponsored by our representatives here down in Southwest
Florida whereby they want to make sure that the banks are protected,
and I feel that the banks don't need any further protection in regards to
this. I think that we need to make sure that the citizens are protected.
What they're trying to institute now is a law that other states have
Page 141
February 23,2010
where they can come in and immediately -- instead of go through
court action, immediately just foreclose on the home and push
everybody out the door. I think that due process needs to be done, and
that has to do with going through the court system. Even though it
may be somewhat lengthy, I think everybody has their -- should have
their day in court.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So do you think we ought to
bring this back then to discuss at another meeting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it would be worthwhile to
bring back because I think it does have a lot of effect to do with
citizens that may experience that foreclosure in the future here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And to Commissioner Henning's.
I think that what is happening is that there are some pieces of
legislation that are being introduced to circumvent a court ruling. The
Court really -- I mean, if the legislature passes a new law, unless it's
unconstitutional, the court ruling essentially becomes null and void.
Am I right, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Courts generally have the ability to
trump -- the legislature generally has the ability to trump a court.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So even though the Court might have
made a favorable ruling in this case, if legislation is introduced which
circumvents the Court's ruling, it still means that we need to take a
position on that to try to discourage any kind of legislation that would
do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually the legislation is
to give relief to the association that the Court has already ruled on. If
I can make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we let -- give it --
this information to the county attorney and get the recommendations
from him.
Page 142
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. And he can get back to us the
next meeting and tell us what legislation is pending in Tallahassee, or
anticipated, and if we find something that is contrary to the best
interests of the condo associations or other homeowners, then we can
take a position on it; we can debate it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Will do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll forward you this article.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
Okay. Anything else?
Item #15 (Continued from earlier discussion)
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Just item 15, if the board has any comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yes, I wanted to just bring
up this booting situation that we had discussed a couple meetings
back. And we set a price that we felt was pretty fair because we felt
things -- people were being taken advantage of, really; $160 for a
booting fee is way out of line.
Since that time I was approached by a group of people, and they
were saying that they feel that the booting was safe -- was a safety
measure for them in their communities. I, of course, am worried about
neighbors working against neighbors.
But then they mentioned that they needed to have some kind of
relief from some of the things going on in their communities, and they
were wond- -- they said, you know, their -- you know, they would
have to tow cars. And the more we talked -- and we had a nice
conversation. The more we talked, the more I realized, we probably
Page 143
February 23,2010
ought to revisit that situation and at least possibly raise the booting fee
-- rather than have cars towed. I think that that's really a problem --
maybe we can just raise the booting fee to be a more reasonable fee.
So I asked the county attorney, and he checked to see what some
of the booting fees were in some of the other counties around the State
of Florida as well as around the country. And so I was thinking, if you
wouldn't mind, maybe we could bring it back and we could adjust the
booting fee a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I would support you,
Commissioner Fiala, if you would agree to support a proposal to boot
red-light runners. Booting for 30 days for every red-light runner; is
that a fair trade?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as you don't include right
on red.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the law.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you would --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would that be okay with everyone?
Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- my concern is, there's a
community -- and I didn't want to say it, but it was published in the
Naples Daily News where they have criminal activities such as drugs
and prostitution.
My concern is the citizens taking things into their own hands, and
you're going to have a problem with that. That's something that the
Sheriffs Department needs to address. I know the Sheriffs
Department was involved in this originally. It was on our executive
Page 144
February 23,2010
summary about the different pricing.
Now, if you -- you -- if -- you really need to have a professional
do this and have a towing company, a company that, you know,
already deals with vehicle recovery instead of a security company,
have a towing company do it, make a requirement for a booting
company to be licensed towing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a good point. Could we discuss
that when we bring it back?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three nods?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need to get the
sheriffs --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- people involved in this whole
thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We should ask them to attend the
next meeting when we discuss this.
MR. KLA TZKOW: My office will bring it back, and we'll work
with the Sheriffs Office to make sure you have somebody here to
discuss the issue with the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. One of the things that's been
bothering me -- and obviously I think the board knows where I stand
on this -- recently we've had some recent challenges in regards to
corporations or companies, construction companies, who spend a lot
of time in coming up with estimates on a particular job. And let's face
it, companies out there spend a lot of time, and they're just as -- in bad
shape as everybody else is.
But some of these companies are out of county and they do very
good work, and they end up with the lowest bid, and then all of a
sudden we say, well, we're going to give this to one of our local
Page 145
February 23,2010
companies, and they end up saying, sure, show me what the lowest bid
is, and I'll see if can match it by 5 percent.
And then what's happening here is, we're having challenges by
corporations that want to bid, and they want to be fair and square with
the taxpayers. What's happening is, now some of these companies are
saying, I'm no longer going to bid because I can't get the -- I can't get
the job.
And I've got a problem with that, because in the long run, when
you end up cutting people out of the process for bidding for jobs, the
end result is, the taxpayers in this county are going to pay more, and
they may not get the quality of work that we're assured of. And I
believe we've already been challenged in a couple of aspects of that.
So in order to make it fair and square, I believe that everybody
should have an opportunity to come up with the lowest bid and not
have this deal where, okay, you've got -- I'm going to show you the
lowest bid, can you beat it by 5 percent. I've got a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a very brief report to give
you on our meeting with the Seminole Indian tribe. We asked for a
meeting with them for two reasons; number one, their agreement with
the State of Florida has been a topic of debate for some time. The
agreement that was negotiated and approved by General Cr- --
Governor Crist providing that 3 percent of the revenues would go to
the local economy, go to the local government.
And the changes to the compact with the tribe doesn't provide for
that. And we, of course, are interested in making sure we can fund the
infrastructure.
Indian -- facilities on the Indian reservations do not have to pay
impact fees. So as they improve their facilities in Immokalee, which
they intend to do, there's going to be an impact on roads and all other
infrastructure in Immokalee, and we have no way of funding that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't have to pay taxes either,
right?
Page 146
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's right. And so there's no way
of funding it, and they understand that -- the Indian tribe understands
that as well as we do, if not better.
So we're interested in trying to encourage an agreement that will
provide money so that we can build the infrastructure that's necessary
for their future expansions in Immokalee. And there are a couple of
things that are already happening. The tribes -- I think it's annually --
provide a list of roads to the Federal Indian Agency, and those roads
get designated as part of the Indian road inventory, and they are
eligible for federal grants. They have already submitted their request
for certain roads to be placed in the inventory.
They did not include Oil Well Road or Camp Keais Road. We're
trying to get them to include those two roads. I hope we will do that.
Staff -- our planning staff has been working with their planning
staff to get those included, because if we get those included and we
get some federal grants, it will reduce our expenditure on those roads.
But they do have very ambitious plans there. They're very
impressive. They're not likely to happen immediately, but when they
do happen, they will create a need for infrastructure for which we do
not have a funding source.
So we've -- we had a very good conversation with them. They
presented us their complete plan for probably the next ten, 15,20
years. And as I said, it is impressive. It will benefit Immokalee
immensely, and we just need to continue to work with them in order to
have a cooperative working relationship and hopefully find some way
of building the infrastructure that we and the people of Immokalee
need for the future growth plans out there.
And I think that's all I'm supposed to report on today; is that not
correct?
Commissioner Coletta, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. First I want to come back
to what you just said, which I think is tremendous. In fact, we're
Page 147
February 23,2010
moving forward with that. And I imagine they're probably talking
about 82 to Fort Myers as probably putting it on the list.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Which would be a tremendous
thing. But once again, you're absolutely correct. What's going to
happen in Immokalee once the Indian casino gets going full blast and
they hire another 2,000-plus people and bring them in, and they're
going 24 hours a day, it's going to use all the reserve capacity on the
road, and any new development in Immokalee will be held at bay until
something else is worked out.
And as you know, we have no money in our budget. We're doing
the last hoorah now on Oil Well Road, and that's the end of it for a
while. That 3 percent is critical. Is there any way we might be able to
direct the Chair to write a letter to our legislative representatives
letting them know that we have great concern over this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I don't have a problem doing that.
If you'd like for me to do it, I'll draft up a letter and ask them to
include us, make sure that we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- have a source revenue to support
them. I have a feeling I know what they're going to tell me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it doesn't hurt to try.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll be glad to -- I'll be glad to ask.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I appreciate that.
And the other thing I'd like to give you a brief report on is the
youth hunt at Pepper's Ranch (sic), tremendous response for it.
There's 12 youths that will be going to it. Their adult response has
been over 40 qualified people that have to fill out a lengthy form to be
one of the mentors.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Youth hunt, take those 12 people and put
them out in the woods and we go hunt them or what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, this is for the wild hogs.
Page 148
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I see, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We had a meeting all the -- of a
number of the hunting clubs and everything to try to come up with
something in the way of regulations for future hunts on Pepper Ranch
as far as for the general population limited to Collier County, of
course, like we talked about.
And it was very impressive with the group of people. They--
instead of being something where they were looking for every
weekend, they realized this is a limited resource. And what they
recommended was is that the hunt be allowed only one weekend a
month during the season and that it be divided up so that all the
different entities -- there's a lot of competition within the hunting
community for people that like to bull hunt, those that like to muzzle
hunt with muzzle -- with guns, those that like to use shotguns, rifles,
and coming up with a way that will meet the needs for everything.
Plus, also, a youth hunt --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Horses.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- being responsible enough to
be able to realize there's other uses within the land. And they were
doing this themselves.
Also, too, they were firm believers in imposing fees upon
themselves to cover the costs, because there's going to be more than
administrative costs. There's certain things you have to do to maintain
the land that will make it advantageous to be able to support game life,
which will also be a positive for the -- such things as the panther to be
able to feed on also.
I was very, very impressed with the process as it went through. I
just wanted to share that with you.
Now, the youth hunt's going to take place on the 16th and the
17th of April. One of the people that's very much involved in it is our
friend Tom Taylor, who was the original owner of the land. He, in
fact, is putting together a catered dinner for everyone that evening.
Page 149
February 23, 2010
And they have another person that's putting together a catered dinner
for them on Saturday, plus there's going to be lunch.
And these people will be -- they're all very qualified to be out
there in the woods. They're going to walk the kids through every part
of it, how you handle the animal if you're fortunate enough to harvest
one, and just take them through the whole process, so it's going to be
-- it's going to be quite an event.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will they -- to show their success,
will they have a giant hog roast, and we can all go?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we could certainly ask.
Let's see what happens. Of course, you know, they'll probably be so
excited to get a hog, they'll just run home with it and want to put it in
their freezer. I'm sure there'll be other opportunities coming up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now that the courts have ruled
the red-light cameras unconstitutional, being that we're a board of
lawful people, we need to stop issuing the citations for red-light
cameras until it is lawful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not lawful -- it hasn't been stayed
because there is an opportunity for appeal, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a trial court, okay, out of the Miami
area, and they ruled that -- not that -- the papers wrongly reported it.
That never happens.
What they ruled was that the citation element of it conflicts with
existing state law, not that it was unconstitutional. So you have a
constitutional ordinance, you just can't fine anybody with it, which is
kind of peculiar.
I told the board this before, this issue, unless the legislature
resolves it -- and there is pending legislation to do so -- this is headed
for the Florida Supreme Court.
Page 150
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: There are three counties, including
Hillsborough, and over 20 cities, including Orlando, that do this. And
so, unless the state legislature takes it upon themselves to resolve this
once and for all, we're looking at two, three years' litigation.
Now, if you want to stay all enforcement of this pending a
resolution, that's your prerogative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the Court has -- the Court that
ruled in this particular case has not stayed the enforcement of the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- of the laws. They are still issuing
tickets, if I understand correctly, pending a determination as to
whether or not they will appeal?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is you can still issue
tickets, but you just can't take the money. That's my understanding of
what the judge ruled. But again, it's just limited to that one particular
court. It doesn't affect our court. We have three suits pending in
Collier County. Our local judge decided to put it off until Tallahassee
rules on the issue. And if Tallahassee does rule, then our judge will
pick it up again, which I think is the appropriate way to do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Let democracy work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, that sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, on that issue, a couple
things come to mind. One, ifthere's a ruling that it is illegal, then we
have to return the fines. What happens to that part of the fine that's
already been paid to the vendor?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think we'll be writing a check.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's number one.
Number two, the direction this is going -- now, this is -- this is one of
the most troublesome things I think we ever dealt with. There's a
tremendous amount of support for it, just as there's a tremendous
Page 151
February 23, 2010
amount of opposition.
And I know this isn't going to sit well with this suggestion, but
what I'd like us to give thought, if we're still in the business of
red-light cameras and all that come August or November, that we put
it on the ballot as a straw poll and vote it up, vote it down, and have it
over with.
Because remember, the state's also going to enter into it. The
minute the state enters into it, and the fee goes to $150, you know, you
no longer got my support.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what about people that run
red lights? Is it all right then?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. We'll just shoot them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm serious. The sheriff came
to us with the idea that he cannot support -- he cannot have an officer
on every corner, okay, and the idea was that we deal with health,
safety, and welfare issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned about the person
who is visually impaired, I'm concerned about the young teen-age kid
on a bicycle riding in a crosswalk and people don't observe the rules
and regulations and just as soon hit somebody, or the person, a mother
pushing a baby carriage in a crosswalk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, or the little guy walking a
dog or whatever. But you're right, we are a land of laws and orders,
rules that we're supposed to follow. But also we're a democracy
whereby we take guidance from the people that are out there.
I mean, if it was a true safe society, people never would have
been able to smoke cigarettes, you never would have had them take
the helmets away from motorcycle riders.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's not get ridiculous.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that. I'm just
pointing it out to you.
Page 152
February 23, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think -- I think that this was well
-- I think this was well researched by our legal department in regards
to, if we could -- if we could address this issue, and it was by our legal
staff and by the Sheriffs Department, and I think that's where we're at
at the present.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You're absolutely
correct, Commissioner Halas, but the thing is, once again, the will of
the people has to be served.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, here's the problem though. The
will of the people will not be served.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How's that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because no matter what they do in a
straw ballot in Collier County in November, this will be decided by
the courts and/or the legislature. So -- and it might be -- some of this
might be resolved. We might have a -- we might have a better
indication of how it looks.
And so I don't know that we should get into the -- but let's try to
look at this unemotionally. There are a number of people who are very
strongly opposed to these cameras and the use of them, and
considering the number of tickets we have issued, it's a very small
percentage. This is not a widespread issue of concern.
And I think anybody who's gotten a traffic ticket experiences a
few moments or a few days of anger or frustration that they got
caught. But after a while, the emotion ought to wear off and the
common sense kicks in. Did you violate the law or not? That's the
only question that needs to be answered here.
So I would urge that we not let ourselves get stampeded into a
decision on the basis of a relative handful of very vocal opponents to
this thing.
I've got a letter from a gentleman who praises us for standing up
to these quote, whiners, unquote, and working instead for safer streets.
And so I -- let's let the issue take its course. If it's illegal, if it's
Page 153
February 23, 2010
unconstitutional, somebody's going to tell us that, and we'll get out of
the business.
But our interpretation from our county attorney and the county
attorneys in many, many other states and counties and cities says this
is not unconstitutional.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. If! can quote what you said
after one of our board meetings, we don't want your money. Just obey
the law, and you won't have to pay the $62.50.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if the state passes this where
it's $155 just obey the law. You don't have to pay it, you know.
That's all you -- that's all we're asking. Obey the law, and you won't
have to pay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's it, that's it.
County Attorney had something to say.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. This is a -- this is an exposure
liability issue at the end of the day. Look, some states have gone for
this, some states have not gone for this. This is a coin flip at the end
of the day.
If, at the end of the day, the legislation doesn't decide and if, at
the end of the day, the courts say you can't do this, then Collier
County is generating liabilities right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
MR. KLA TZKOW: One approach is simply to stay it, you
know, until you get final resolution, stay the enforcement, and this
way we won't have that exposure.
Cutting against that, however, you know, is the fact that you do
have a sheriff with limited resources, and this helps him out. I mean,
every time you have one of these lights going off, you don't have a
sheriff car having to post at the corner.
So this is, at the end of the day, a business decision for this board.
Page 154
February 23,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, why don't we do this. Can we
reach agreement that we're going to stick this out through the
legislative session, and if the legislators don't resolve it, we revisit it
from a standpoint of the liability issue as to whether or not we
continue it? Is that fair enough?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can discuss it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you, sir,
I can understand where you're coming from, and you've got a valid
point, but it doesn't reach my concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you get a traffic ticket or what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, if the program
continues, I want it to continue because of the fact that it has the
support of the voters.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can't get the vote of the voters
before the end of the legislative session.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know that. But when we
get to that where the legislative (sic) does approve it, has no problem,
puts it in the right place, we have a local option. I want to be able to
exercise that local option with a local vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I doubt seriously you're going to have a
local option, but we can discuss that, too, yeah. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's the best motion I've heard
yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. Let's go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We are adjourned.
****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Page 155
February 23, 2010
Item #16Al
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS LEOBARDO AND MARITZA
GUTIERREZ, CASE NO. 2004060944, (CEB NO. 2004-048)
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1815 NE 47
AVENUE, NAPLES, FLORIDA - PAYING ONLY $649.61 IN
OPERATIONAL COSTS AND WAIVING THE $13,425 IN FINES
Item #16A2 - Moved to Item #10E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR THE RESTORATION CHURCH - W /RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A4
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDING FOR PARTIAL
RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS V. TATIANA TANNEHILL-RELEASING
(3) LIENS ON FORECLOSED PROPERTY AT 2263 SPRUCE
STREET CURRENTLY OWNED BY WELLS FARGO BANK
FOR THE PAYMENT OF $7,041.25
Item #16Bl
RESOLUTION 2010-39: PROVIDING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF
Page 156
February 23, 2010
REAL PROPERTY CONVEYANCES TO THE COUNTY OR THE
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT MADE PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCES, AGREEMENTS, CONDITIONAL USE
STIPULATIONS, OR WHICH HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, AS A PRE-
CONDITION FOR THE APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLANS, AND AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS RELATED TO SAID
CONVEYANCES - FULFILLING DEVELOPMENT
COMMITMENTS REQUIRED BY RE-ZONE ORDINANCES,
CONDITIONAL USE STIPULATIONS AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVALS
Item #16B2
AWARD BID #10-5399 TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
COMPONENTS TO TEMPLE, INC. FOR THE EQUIPMENT
NECESSARY TO COMPLETE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY
UNDER THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S ENERGY
EFFICIENCY CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT (EECBG) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $232,382; AND TO STANDARDIZE THE
PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM COMPONENTS
USED IN ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL EXPANSION -
INTEGRATING EIGHT INTERSECTIONS ON IMMOKALEE
ROAD INTO COLLIER COUNTY'S EXISTING SYSTEM AND
COVERING FUTURE EXPANSION EFFORTS
Item #16B3
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) HOME
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) GRANT APPLICATION
Page 157
February 23,2010
TO COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING & HUMAN SERVICES FOR
A NAPLES MANOR SIDEW ALK(S) PROJECT FOR THE
AMOUNT OF $750,000 WITH LOCAL MATCH FUNDING OF
$750,000 COMING FROM PROJECT NO. 690811 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16B4
PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY REQUIRED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD
EXTENSION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STORMW A TER
RETENTION AND TREATMENT POND. PROJECT NO. 60168
(FISCAL IMPACT: $214,354) - FOR 2.81 ACRES LOCATED AT
1121 WILSON BLVD. NORTH AND ALLOWING THE
CURRENT OWNERS TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY UP TO ONE
YEAR BEYOND THE REAL ESTATE CLOSING DATE
Item #16B5
BID #10-5388, INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
(ITS) COMPONENTS TO MULTIPLE VENDORS (CATEGORY
BASIS), AND STANDARDIZE THE PURCHASE OF ITS
COMPONENTS IN THE VIDEO DETECTION, REMOTE PAGER
SYSTEM, VEHICLE PRE-EMPTION AND WIRELESS VEHICLE
DETECTION CATEGORIES. ANNUAL EXPENDITURE
ESTIMATED AT $50,000 - AWARDED TO SOUTH ATLANTIC
TRAFFIC, TEMPLE, INC., AND TRANSPORTATION CONTROL
SYSTEMS AS PRIMARY VENDORS; COHU, INC. AND
TEMPLE, INC. AS SECONDARY VENDORS
Item # 16B6
Page 158
February 23, 2010
CONTRACT #10-5206, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)
TRANSFER STATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $305,495 WITH
POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH AND JERNIGAN, INC. - FOR A
NEW FACILITY ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER; ADJACENT TO US 41
AND ESPINAL BLVD. AND ACROSS FROM W AL-MART
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2010-40: AUTHORIZING A JOINT PROJECT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER COUNTY TO REPLACE
OR REPAINT TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAST ARM COMPONENTS
PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED BY FDOT AND REIMBURSING
THE COUNTY FOR ITS EXPENSES - FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS
A T FIVE INTERSECTIONS MAINTAINED BY COLLEIR
COUNTY AND REPLACING A MAST ARM AT THE AIRPORT-
PULLING ROAD/DAVIS BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
Item #16Dl
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
PROVIDING FOR A $75,000 HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) GRANT TO THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS ON 2ND AVENUE THAT
WAS APPROVED FOR FUNDING IN THE 2009-2010 ACTION
PLAN - IMPROVING SAFETY FOR RESIDENTS AND
PEDESTRIANS IN THE MARCO HIGHLANDS SUBDIVISION
Item #16D2 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 159
February 23, 2010
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVED AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE AGREEMENT #07DB-3V-09-21-01-
ZOI BETWEEN FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY TO REALLOCATE
$135,657.85 IN UNUSED PROJECT FUNDS TO THE DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION
Item #16D3 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #10-5418 FORA
PRODUCTION WELL FOR THE IMMOKALEE SPORTS
COMPLEX SWIMMING POOL TO MILLER DRILLING AND
WATER TREATMENT, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,935 AND
AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 2010-41: AUTHORIZING AN OFFERING OF THE
VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM (VSIP)
PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2009-13,
EMPOWERING THE COUNTY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT
THE PROGRAM, AND CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ENABLING
RESOLUTION -APPROXIMATELY 155 EMPLOYEES ARE
ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM
Item #16E2
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
VIRGINIA ANNE DEVISSE, TRUSTEE OF THE VIRGINIA
ANNE DEVISSE TRUST, DATED DECEMBER 22, 1990 FOR
Page 160
February 23, 2010
4.84 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$137,700 - FOR PROPERTY SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
BETWEEN RIVERS ROAD AND MOULDER DRIVE
Item # 16E3
RESOLUTION 2010-42: CREATING THE CARACARA PRAIRIE
PRESERVE (FORMERLY KNOWN AS STARNES) TRUST
FUND FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE CARACARA PRAIRIE
PRESERVE IN PERPETUITY AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2010-43: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST
NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION ANNUAL BANQUET ON
JANUARY 25, 2010 AT THE NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB
IN NAPLES, FL. $40.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 4784 INVERNESS
CLUB DRIVE, NAPLES
Page 161
February 23, 2010
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE RIGHT
ANGLE MEN'S CLUB AS A SPEAKER ON JANUARY 14,2010
AT THE VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FL.
$15.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 8250 DANBURY BOULEVARD,
NAPLES
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS MONTHLY LUNCHEON AS A SPEAKER ON
JANUARY 11,2010 AT THE COLLIER ATHLETIC CLUB,
NAPLES, FL. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 710 GOODLETTE
ROAD NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE 2010
COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP AWARD - BETH TIKV AH AT
THE NAPLES BEACH HOTEL, NAPLES, FL ON FEBRUARY 17,
2010. $54.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - HONORING PAULINE AND MURRAY
HENDEL AT 851 GULF SHORE BLVD. NORTH, NAPLES
Page 162
February 23, 2010
Item # 16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE DRUG
FREE COLLIER COMMUNITY AWARENESS LUNCHEON AT
THE HILTON NAPLES ON MARCH 11,2010. $50.00 TO BE
P AID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE FRIENDS
OF COLLIER FASHION SHOW TO BENEFIT A SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM THAT AWARDS SCHOLARSHIPS TO STUDENTS
AT EDISON COLLEGE WHO ARE STUDYING FOR CAREERS
IN HEALTHCARE AT THE FOREST GLEN COUNTRY CLUB IN
NAPLES, FL ON MARCH 13,2010. $30.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED ON
COLLIER BOULEVARD, NAPLES
Item # 16H7
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A
FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE
ATTENDED THE NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S
BUSINESS AFTER FIVE EVENT ON 12/17 /09 AT THE NAPLES
HIL TON HOTEL IN NAPLES, FL. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM
Page 163
February 23,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 164
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 23, 2010
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Airport Authority:
Minutes of November 20, 2009; December 14, 2009.
2) Collier Count v Citizens Corps:
Agenda of December 16, 2009.
Minutes of December 16, 2009.
3) Collier Countv Planning Commission:
Minutes of December 16, 2009 joint workshop w/CRA and IMPVC;
December 17, 2009.
4) Librarv Advisorv Board:
Agenda of January 20, 2010.
Minutes of December 9,2010.
B. Other:
I) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of December 4, 2009.
February 23,2010
Item # 1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER
JANUARY 30, 2010 THROUGH FEBRUARY 5, 2010 AND FOR
SUBMISSION INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 6, 2010
THROUGH FEBRUARY 12,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl - Moved to Item #12A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,000FOR PARCEL 161 RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V PATRICIA K. CARLYLE, ET AL., CASE NO.
07-2829-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044) (FISCAL
IMPACT $4,200) - A .52 ACRE PARCEL FOR A PERPETUAL,
NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT
Item # 16K3
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST STEPHEN R. SUTHERLIN AND
LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA, IN THE COUNTY
COURT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO
RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,421.85 PLUS
Page 165
February 23, 2010
COSTS OF LITIGATION AS A RESULT OF AN AUTOMOBILE
ACCIDENT - FOR NEGLIGENT AND UNPAID DAMAGE TO A
COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITIES VEHICLE
Item #16K4
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
AGAINST KIM MUDGE IN COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES AS A
RESUL T OF AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,877.09, PLUS COSTS OF LITIGATION - FOR DAMAGES
TO A GUARDRAIL AT THE CR 951 AND RATTLESNAKE
HAMMOCK ROAD INTERSECTION
Item # 16K5
BYLAWS ADOPTED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY
BOARD PURSUANT TO SECTION FIVE OF ORDINANCE NO.
2009-01, AS AMENDED - DUTIES FURTHER DETAILED IN
ORDINANCE 2009-01, ADOPTED ON JANUARY 13,2009
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2010-06: PETITION PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318,
P A WEL AND TERYL BRZESKI, MAGNOLIA POND
HOLDINGS, LLC AND TERYL BRZESKI, TRUSTEE OF THE
LAND TRUST # I-B, REPRESENTED BY DAVIDSON
ENGINEERING AND PATRICK WHITE OF PORTER, WRIGHT,
MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
Page 166
February 23,2010
THE MAGNOLIA POND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD), ORDINANCE NO. 98-49, AND RURAL AGRICULTURE
(A) ZONING DISTRICTS TO A MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS MAGNOLIA
POND MPUD, PERMITTING 231 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS AND/OR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (ALF) AT A
FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.60 WITH THE APPLICANT
SEEKING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 5 ACRES TO THE SITE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 47.05 ACRES AND IS LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 1-75 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR-951) IN
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (CTS)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2010-07: PETITION PUDZ-2007-AR-12294,
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND CDC LAND
INVESTMENTS, INC., REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE
ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES,
REQUESTS A REZONE FROM THE INDUSTRIAL (I) AND THE
RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLA Y
(A-MHO) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE AIRPORT
OPERATIONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT (AOPUD) FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROJECT PROPOSES TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 5,000,000 SQUARE FEET
OF A VIA TION AND NON-A VIA TION DEVELOPMENT ON
1,484 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF CR 846, IN
SECTIONS 25, 26, 27,34,35,36, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE
29 EAST, AND SECTIONS 2 AND 3, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
Page 167
February 23,2010
RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (CTS)
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2010-44: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10
ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 168
February 23,2010
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~1uJ- w. c+
FRED COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIQHjTi:,.}3ROCK, CLERK
- ',. . . ,....".." '. ..;:~
,. ~.~ . ' . "".
'-~,.
-'rlLU' ,Jr,
~" ~l~A-^~.p 't;<~~o L.
till I~ '.~~\'
These min~s approved by the Board on 3/2 ~ I ~Ol 0 , as presented
~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 169