BCC Minutes 09/14/2010 R
September 14, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 14,2010
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 districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Office
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
0,,\ III/.,
. '
. .]
,. .
( . I" -..
J( ,,\
AGENDA
September 14, 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 Vice-Chairman
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1, CRAB 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
September 14,2010
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 VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Curt Ayers - Capri Christian 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. July 27,2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
C. July 28,2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes (Continuation of July 27,
2010)
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 25 Year Attendees
Page 2
September 14, 2010
1) Erin Hall, Road Maintenance
B. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5 Year Service Awards
1) Mr. Renato F. Fernandez, Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
2) Mr. Mitchell A. Roberts, Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating September 23,2010 as Infant Mortality Awareness
Day. To be accepted by Cathy Cortez, Executive Director, Healthy Start SW
Florida, and Joe Paterno, Board Member. Sponsored by Commissioner
Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating September 30,2010 through October 2,2010 as
Zone Institute of Rotary Week. To be accepted by Ken Ruskin. Sponsored
by Commissioner Coletta.
C. Proclamation designating September 20, 2010 to September 24,2010 as
Industry Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Trish Biebricher, Tammie
Nemecek, Kristi Bartlett, Bob Mu1here, and Tim Cartwright. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coyle.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize James Bablitz, Traffic Signal Technician,
Traffic Operations, as the Employee of the Month for August 2010.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Mr. Anthony Brown regarding E-Verify.
B. Public Petition request by Mr. Jim Kramer regarding plausible deniability.
Page 3
September 14, 2010
C. Public Petition request by Mrs. Janet Vasey regarding voter referendum on
using local public funds for the Jackson Labs Project.
D. Public Petition request by Mr. Jason Larson of Creative Homes XIV, Ltd.,
regarding a SHIP loan extension.
E. Public Petition request by Ms. Denise Denard regarding wastewater impact
fees.
F. Public Petition request by Mr. Peter Goodin regarding permitting and
installation of signs reading "Oakes Estates".
G. Public Petition request by E's Country Store at Oil Well Road and
Immokalee Road.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 Y.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of a member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of a member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
C. Appointment of a member to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
E. Appointment of a member to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency.
F. Appointment of members to the Educational Facilities Authority.
Page 4
September 14, 2010
G. Request by the Collier County Tax Collector to name the Driver's License
Building at 725 Airport Road as the Guy L. Carlton Driver's License
Building. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Bid #10-5555, Isles of Capri Water Main
Replacement Phase II in the amount of$1,16l,922 to Haskins Inc., to
complete the rehabilitation of the potable water distribution system that
services the Isles of Capri, Project No. 71010.7 (Jim DeLony, Public
Utilities Administrator)
B. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners direct the County Manager or his designee to amend
Collier County Ordinance No. 92-60, as amended (Tourist Development
Tax) and advertise the amending Ordinance at a future public hearing to
reallocate on a one time basis $1,000,000 from TDC Category A Beach Park
Facilities Fund 183 to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 for tourism destination
marketing and authorize all necessary budget amendments. (Jack Wert,
Tourism Director)
C. Recommendation to rescind the Administrative Stay of the requirements for
Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventers on fire service lines, and require
retroactive implementation of the requirement to June 8, 2010. (Jim DeLony,
Public Utilities Administrator)
D. Recommendation to approve the renewal of the Group Dental Insurance
program through Cigna Dental Plan, Inc. with no increase in the rates or
terms for a one (1) year period effective January 1, 2011 in the amount of
$1,768,900. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 5
September 14, 2010
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. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Brook's Village.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Unitarian Church.
3) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Ave Maria Phase Three
with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained.
4) Recommendation to accept the donation of a drainage easement from
Fouad and Fady Farid between 40th Street NE and the F AKA Union
Canal in Unit 43 of Golden Gate Estates. (Fiscal Impact: Recording
fees not to exceed $27)
5) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a road right-of-way,
drainage and utility easement (Parcel No. 379RDUE) which is
required for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from two lanes
to four lanes between Wilson Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard
(Project No. 60040) - Fiscal Impact: $7,780.
6) Recommendation to approve the purchase of a road right-of-way,
drainage and utility easement (Parcel No. 429RDUE) required for the
expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from two lanes to four lanes
Page 6
September 14, 2010
between Wilson Boulevard and DeSoto Boulevard. (Project No.
60040.) Estimated fiscal impact: $10,200.
7) Recommendation to approve purchase of a Perpetual, Non-exclusive,
Road Right-of-Way, Drainage and Utility Easement (Parcel No.
I 66RDUE) containing 8, I 00 square feet, which is required for the
widening of Santa Barbara Boulevard between Copper Leaf Lane and
Green Boulevard. Project No. 62081 Phase 2 (Fiscal Impact: $9,800).
8) This item reauires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all
participants are reauired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Block ERe-plat Quarry
Phase 1 Lots 30-33 and Quarry Phase 2 Lots 34-42 and Lots 57-81.
9) Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement for right-of-way
required for the installation of another turn lane on Progress Avenue
at Livingston Road. Project No. 60188. (Fiscal Impact: $93,027)
10) Recommendation to approve four Purchase Agreements for the
purchase of right-of-way required for the construction of Oil Well
Road. Project No. 60044. (Fiscal Impact: $145,100.)
11) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
and Vanderbilt Galleria Condominium Association for conveying to
Collier County a Temporary Construction Easement related to the
Vanderbilt Beach Road six-laning project from east ofGoodlette-
Frank Road to Airport-Pulling Road. Project No. 66065. (Fiscal
Impact $35.50)
12) Recommendation to execute the Termination of Developer Agreement
between Collier County and Corradi Airport Inc., requested by
Corradi Airport Inc.
13) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to transfer
funding from the Transportation Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the
amount of$78,125 to the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service
Taxing Unit Fund (163).
Page 7
September 14,2010
14) Recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County
and Olympia Park Owner's Association for conveyance to Collier
County of a Temporary Construction Easement relating to the
Vanderbilt Beach Road six-laning project from east of Goodlette-
Frank Road to Airport-Pulling Road. Project No. 66065. (Fiscal
Impact $18.50)
15) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for submittal of
Five (5) 2010 TIGER II Discretionary Grant Applications, sponsored
by the United States Department of Transportation, for a total amount
of$87,839,075.
16) Recommendation to approve Release and Satisfaction of Orders in the
Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners
(BCC) vs. T & A Dockside, Inc., and the Release of a Civil Judgment
in the action entitled BCC vs. Charles Alderman, relating to property
located at 2891 Bayview Drive, Collier County, Florida.
17) Recommendation to approve Release and Satisfaction of Lien in the
Code Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners
vs. Agathonicos G. Pamboukis, CEB Case No. CESD20090011000,
relating to property located at 201 Santa Clara Drive, Unit 9, Building
201, Collier County, Florida.
18) Recommendation to direct the County Manager, or his designee, to
add to the 2009-2010 combined cycles of Growth Management Plan
Amendments proposed amendments affecting the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, Future Land Use Element Policy
5.1, other portions of the Future Land Use Element, and the Future
Land Use Map and Map Series, so as to make both substantive and
housecleaning revisions to the Growth Management Plan.
19) Recommendation to approve commercial Excavation Permit No.
PL 20090000616, Ex 59.814-1 "East Naples Mine"; located in
Sections 21 & 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East: bound on
the north & west by existing quarry operations and vacant land zoned
agricultural and on the west & south by vacant land zoned
agricultural - A(ST/WS4).
Page 8
September 14, 2010
20) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$46,117.69 for Traffic Accident Reimbursements, Project #60076.1,
and to recognize revenues for future repairs.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve Local Advisory Board members and CRA staff attendance
at the Florida Redevelopment Association 2010 Annual Conference;
authorize payment of attendees registration, lodging, travel and per
diem from the Immokalee CRA Trust Fund (Fund 186) travel budget;
and declare the training received as serving a valid public purpose.
2) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to approve
an Amendment to the previously approved Grant Agreement between
the CRA and The Greater Eastern Collier County Chamber of
Commerce, Inc. (ECOC) to allow for reimbursement for actual
expenses incurred in connection with the Harvest Festival.
3) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal
oftwo(2) 2010 Community Challenge Planning Grant Applications,
sponsored by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, for a total amount of $400,000.
4) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to cover costs
associated with Collier County Contract #10-5402, Immokalee Storm
Water Master Plan Implementation, which reallocates the remaining
contract balance from Stormwater Fund 325 to CRA Fund 186 in the
amount of$3l7,341.08.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to authorize budget amendments of approximately
$631,000, transferring a Lift Station Improvement Project from the
Wastewater Capital Projects Fund to the 2006 Revenue Bond
Proceeds Fund to segregate projects funded by the 2006 Revenue
Bond.
Page 9
September 14, 2010
2) Recommendation to authorize submission of Amendment Two to the
State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement (DW 1111020) through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Lower Hawthorn Wells Numbers 18,
19, and 20, Project No. 71 006, reducing the authorized loan amount
by $1,334,909.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with 850 NWN, LLC, and
CG II, LLC; release certain utility easements; and accept replacement
utility easements and additional access easements for the existing
South Reverse Osmosis Well field in an amount not to exceed
$85,400, and necessary budget amendment.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Addendum to the Interlocal
Agreement for Agricultural Extension Agent Services clarifying the
original agreements start and annual anniversary date and providing
the University of Florida's leave policies apply as to the Extension
Agents governed by the Interlocal Agreement and authorize the
Chairman to sign.
2) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-5561 ARRA
Green Lighting System Retrofits in the amount of $276,096 to
Electrical Contracting Services, Inc., for the Parks and Recreation
projects at Eagle Lakes Community Park.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
modification to Disaster Recovery Initiative Agreement #08DB-D3-
09-21-0 1-A03 between the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and Collier County to reallocate $95,613.46 in unused project funds.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
agreement with the Agency for Health Care Administration in the
amount of $2,488,228 budgeted in FY 2011 to participate in the
Medicaid Low Income Pool Program for services provided on behalf
of the Housing, Human and Veteran Services Department in order to
generate an additional $449,227 in Federal matching funds.
Page 10
September 14, 2010
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to a Sub-recipient Agreement (Agreement) for the David
Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc. in the amount of $93,000 using
2009-2010 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. This
amendment will extend the term of the Agreement and allow payment
for psychiatric services.
6) Recommendation to accept the Library's Technology Plan and the
current year Action Plan and authorize the Chairman to sign the
FY 2010-2011 State Aid to Libraries Grant Application permitting the
Collier County Public Library to apply for State Aid to Libraries.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
four (4) Disaster Recovery Initiative sub-recipient grant agreements to
provide funding for specific stormwater and hurricane hardening
projects previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
8) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
agreement for Invitation to Bid #10-5533 Modular Homes to Idyll
Construction, Inc. for activities to be funded under the Disaster
Recovery Initiative.
9) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to the ARRA No. 203.09 agreement with the Area
Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. and recognize a
reduction in funding in the amount of$15,000. These federal funds
are provided by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of2009.
10) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
agreement between Collier County Board of County Commissioners
and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida, Inc. and
approve budget amendments to reflect an overall increase of$8,337 in
the Older Americans Act program.
11) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment between Collier County Board of County Commissioners
and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida and approve a
Page 11
September 14, 2010
budget amendment to decrease the grant award by $6,346.60 for the
Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP).
12) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement
funding agreements for the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Emergency
Shelter Grant (ESG) funds for FY 2010-2011.
13) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the submittal
of a Florida Boating Improvement Program (FBIP) grant application
to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC)
for a derelict vessel removal grant.
14) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amended release of lien to correct the Official Records Book and Page
number recorded on a previous impact fee deferral release of lien.
15) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign three
(3) releases of lien for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for owner occupied affordable housing dwelling units.
16) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
satisfaction of mortgage for an owner occupied affordable housing
dwelling unit that has satisfied the terms of assistance provided.
17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
amendment to the Habitat for Humanity of Collier County
Acquisition-Rehabilitation-Resale Sub-recipient Agreement approved
on September 15, 2009 (Item #16D3) for $460,000. This amendment
will allow for a revision of the Agreements Exhibit A to reflect the
following language change; Acquisition-Rehabilitation-Resale to state
only Acquisition, the amendment will also allow for a three month
extension through October 31, 2010.
18) Recommendation to approve the award ofInvitation to Bid (ITB)
#10-5525 for Home Appliances to Business Services Solutions, at an
estimated cost of approximately $150,000 over a three year period.
Purchases will be funded by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Page 12
September 14, 2010
(NSP) awarded to the Housing, Human and Veteran Services
Department.
19) Recommendation to approve Collier County Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership
(HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for FY 2009-2010 as
required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), approve the CAPER Resolution, and authorize the Chairman
to certify the CAPER for submission to HUD and sign the resolution.
20) Recommendation to approve a Letter of Understanding between the
County and Naples Funeral Home for cremation services to indigent
Collier County residents.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Second Amendment to the License
Agreement with St. Matthews House, Inc., for the continued use of
parking spaces at the Government Center, at a term revenue of$50.
2) Recommendation to reject award for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-5511
for Hardware and Related Items.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Collier County Government Equal Employment Opportunity Plan.
4) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate special service
revenues in the amount of$34,733.79 and approve all necessary
FY 20 I 0 budget amendments.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from AECOM USA, Inc., to AECOM
Technical Services, Inc., for county-wide engineering services.
6) Recommendation to award Bid #10-5549, 24-Hour Towing and
Recovery Services for County Vehicles and Equipment to multiple
primary and secondary vendors in three separate towing capacity
Page 13
September 14, 2010
categories with expenditures estimated at $35,000 annually.
7) Recommendation to approve the Assumption Agreement from EMC
Corporation to VMware, Inc., for Information Technology Service
Management software (ITIL Software Suite) and related professional
servIces.
8) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
9) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Worker's
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the
third quarter of FY 10.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emergency Agenda
Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's scheduled
recess. (In Absentia Meeting dated August 24,2010)
a) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of$150,000.00,
reallocating funds within the FYlO Mandatory Trash Collection
Fund Operating Expense Budget to pay for disposal costs of
residential curbside solid waste at the Collier County Landfill.
b) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the District
School Board of Collier County for transporting school-age
recreation program participants.
c) Recommendation to amend previous years' Action Plans;
authorize the reprogramming of Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) funds; and authorize the Chairman
to sign the notification to HUD to use reprogrammed federal
funds for the Single Family Rehabilitation (SFR) Program.
2) Recommendation to provide after the fact approval for the
submittal ofa 2010 Community Challenge Planning Grant
Application, sponsored by the United States Department of
Page 14
September 14, 2010
Housing and Urban Development, for a total amount of
$1,000,000.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to
sign three grant agreements for FY11 Tourist Development Tax
Category B Marketing Grants totaling $44,000, subject to
funding availability.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
five (5) FYll Tourist Development Tax Category C-2 Non-County
Owned Museum Grant Agreements totaling $295,000 subject to
funding availability.
5) Recommendation to approve Change Order #1 to Contract #09-5174
Management Services for Pelican Bay Services Division with Dorrill
Management Group, Inc. in the amount of$18,960 annually.
6) Recommendation to approve the cooperative purchase of Emergency
Medical Services Patient Care Reporting Software Package as an
emergency procurement with ImageTrend, Inc.
7) 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
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Balance of hotel charges and car rental charges for attending fact
finding trip to The Jackson Laboratory on July 15,2010 in Bar
Harbor, ME. $638 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
2) Resolution correcting an appointment to the Emergency Medical
Services Policy Advisory Board.
Page 15
September 14,2010
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the The 2010 Excellence in Industry Awards Luncheon at
the Naples Hilton in Naples, FL on September 21,2010. $50 to be
paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the CBIA Mixer event July 14,2010 at 1450 Airport Road
North, Naples, FL. $10 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's
travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 17,
2010 through July 23,2010 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 24,
2010 through July 30, 2010 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 31,
2010 through August 6, 2010 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
07,2010 through August 13,2010 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
14,2010 through August 20, 2010 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
Page 16
September 14, 2010
6) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
21,2010 through August 27, 2010 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
7) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
28,2010 through September 3, 2010 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the County
Attorney's Office 2011 Fiscal Year Pay and Classification Plan,
which is identical to the current approved plan.
2) Recommendation to approve a contract for James Lalumiere ofPDl,
for expert consulting services in the amount of$85,500 in the case
styled Collier County v. John Carlo, Inc., Case No. 09-8724-CA
(Rattlesnake Hammock Road Improvement Project No. 60169) (Fiscal
Impact $85,500).
3) Recommendation to approve a contract with James Lalumiere ofPDl,
for expert consulting services in the amount of$87,500 for the case
styled John Carlo, Inc. v. Collier County, Florida, Case No. 07-311-
CA (Immokalee Road Improvement Project No. 66042) (Fiscal
Impact $87,500).
4) Recommendation to approve a contract with Sam Lee, HHCP, for
expert consulting services to the County in the amount of$75,000 for
the case ofKer Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Armadillo Underground v.
APAC-Southeast, Inc. v. Collier County, Case No. 09-8724-CA
(Vanderbilt Beach Road Project No. 63051) (Fiscal Impact: an
additional $75,000).
5) Recommendation to ratify the Airport Authority Executive Director's
Employment Agreement with Thomas C. Curry.
6) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Mutual
Global Release with and to Embarq, Inc., Embarq Communications,
Inc. (now known as Centurylink), and Workman Services, Inc. that
Page 17
September 14, 2010
settles in full the litigation styled: Board of County Commissioners v.
Embarq, Inc., Embarq Communications, Inc., and Workman Services,
Inc., Case No. 1O-00090-CA, now pending in the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
7) Recommendation (1) to adopt a Resolution which formally accepts
the improvements built by the Marco Island Historical Society which
now comprise the Marco Island Museum Complex, including the
Rose History Auditorium, and authorizes the leasing of the Rose
History Auditorium back to the Marco Island Historical Society; and
(2) to approve both a Memorandum of Understanding and a Long-
Term Lease with the Marco Island Historical Society with respect to
the new Marco Island Historical Museum.
8) That the Board accepts the Recommended Order by Brenda C.
Garretson, Special Magistrate/Hearing Officer, and award a
Management Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fixed Route and Paratransit Programs to Limousines of South Florida,
Inc., doing business as Tectrans, Inc., for an estimated annual amount
of$6,092,167.
9) Recommendation to approve increasing a Purchase Order to Hahn
Loeser adding an additional $150,000 to the current $100,000 cap for
the Hussey v. Collier County litigation cases, to be paid by funds
currently within the County Attorney's approved budget.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING
CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM
STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OROTHER
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
Page 18
September 14,2010
NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to approve a scrivener's error, SE-2008-AR-13623,
amending Ordinance Number 07-34, for the Kaicasa RPUD. The Scrivener's
errorresulted in the omission of Section 12 of the legal description. The
property is located in Section 12 and Section 13, Township 47 South, Range
29 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary assessment
rolls as the final assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Municipal
Service Benefit Units, Service District No. I and Service District No. II,
Special Assessments levied against certain residential properties within the
unincorporated area of Collier County, The City of Marco Island and the
City of Everglades City pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 2005-54,
as amended. Revenues are anticipated to be $18,319,000.
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 19
September 14, 2010
September 14,2010
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, the Board
of County Commissioners meeting is now in session. Would you
please stand for the invocation to be given by Pastor Curt Ayers of the
Capri Christian Church.
PASTOR AYERS: Let us pray. Father, we thank you so much
for this meeting and for this time we gather together to work on the
needs of this community. And, Lord, I know in dealing with people
that it's difficult sometimes to get through issues, and we always ask in
a public setting like this for wisdom and for guidance, Lord, guidance
to make tough decisions, to do things that may be not popular in the
community but things that are right, things that are good for the
community in the long run, and we ask you to help us to do that. It's
not to think about the politics of it, but to think about what is right and
what is good and what is important. to the community.
And I ask that you would bless all those who are making those
decisions. I know how tough it can be sometimes to do that, to stand
up and to do the right thing and to be asking for guidance and
direction, and I pray that you would give them that and that at the end
of the day everyone would understand that the right thing has been
done.
When we make mistakes, Lord, we ask you to help us to
overcome them, to turn from them, and to go on and do the things that
we now see that are right.
And we ask for your grace and your compassion and your
forgiveness and your help because we cannot do this -- we cannot do
this without you.
We thank you, Lord. Thank you for being here, thank you for
these people, thank you for those who -- Lord, who have chosen to
take these responsibilities. They have a heavy weight. Bless them
now.
In Jesus' name we pray, amen.
Page 2
September 14,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Pastor Ayers.
Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do you have any
changes to the agenda?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, I do. Good morning.
Commissioners, these are your agenda changes for Board of
County Commissioners' meeting, September 14,2010.
First change is a request to withdraw Item 6F. It's a public
petition request by Mr. Peter Goodin. That was withdrawn at the
petitioner's request.
Next item is a request to continue Item 6G till the September 28,
2010, BCC meeting. That's a public petition request by
representatives ofE's Country Store.
Next item is a staff request to withdraw Item 16E2. It's a
rejection of a bid award.
Then we have a couple of agenda notes this morning, Mr.
Chairman. The first note is on agenda Item 16A 19 in your consent
agenda referencing the staff recommendations on Pages 9 -- excuse
me -- recommendations nine and ten on Pages 5 of 10, and I'll just
read the two changes, if I might.
On recommendation nine, it reads as follows: The property
owner will not excavate within 180 feet along the section line between
Sections 21 and 22, a non-excavation zone, for a period of up to
January 1,2030.
And then recommendation nine (sic) is amended as follows: The
Page 3
September 14,2010
property owner agrees not to excavate closer than 120 feet from the
northerly and southerly boundaries of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 mining
area, non-excavation zones, for a period of up to January 1,2030.
And these two changes are recommended at Commissioner
Coyle's request. And they do not change the meaning, but they clarify
the sentence structure and, I think, make it very clear on the
requirements.
Then we have Item 16D6. It's another agenda note. This was
identified by Commissioner Fiala. We have a couple of references on
Pages 11 and 12 on your executive summary that refer incorrectly to
fiscal year 2009 when they should refer to fiscal year 2011.
Page 11 should read, currently the library is under a hiring freeze.
We expect this to continue through FY2011.
And on Page 12 of that executive summary, it should read,
attention will be paid in FY11 to compliance with the E-Rate and
Patriot Act requirements for technology policies. Again, that was at
Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next change or agenda note is Item 16F4. The second agreement
made part of the backup to this item is entitled, 2011 Tourism
Agreement Between Collier County and Friends of Rookery Bay,
Incorporated, marked as Exhibit F of that agreement, and that
agreement -- excuse me -- that exhibit has been replaced with a new
Exhibit F that now contains an itemized list of the project expenses,
and that amount to be paid under the agreement has not changed, but
it's more specific and it will allow the Clerk's Office to do a better
preaudit on that expense.
Item 16H 1, the amount paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget to attend the fact-finding trip to the Jackson Laboratory on July
15,2010, should be $591.80 not $638, as stated in the executive
summary. The sales tax was incorrectly included in the total. That
change is at staffs request.
And Item 16H3, the amount paid from Commissioner Coletta's
Page 4
September 14,2010
travel budget to attend the September 21, 2010, Excellence in Industry
Awards Luncheon that is upcoming is $20, not $50, as stated on the
agenda. And again, that correction at staffs request.
And, Commissioners, we have two time-certain items on the
agenda today. The first is Item lOB, and that will be heard at one
p.m., and Item 10C will be heard at 11 a.m. this morning.
And that is all the changes that 1 have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with commissioners
now. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you very much. Good
mornmg, everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This morning I have no changes or
additions or corrections to the agenda, and I have no disclosures on the
consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures on the
consent agenda, or neither the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda, and I have no ex parte disclosure for the summary or
consent agendas.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Good morning, Chair. I
have no changes to the agenda and nothing to declare.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to pull 16E8. That's the
change orders on today's consent agenda.
Page 5
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 16E8, County Manager, becomes what
item?
MR. OCHS: That will become Item 10E on your agenda. 16E8
will become 10E.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And those are all of your
suggested changes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's the only thing I
want to pull from today's consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. And no ex parte?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte on today's
consent or summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And then I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- as amended by the withdrawal of -- or
proposed --
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, we have a public speaker to
the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one public speaker for the
consent agenda.
MR. MITCHELL: To the consent agenda item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: About any specific -- yes, 1 know which
specific item it is.
MR. MITCHELL: 16K8.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on
your reelection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, good morning. Patrick White,
Porter, Wright, for the record, representing McDonald Transit
Associates.
We had filed with you yesterday a request to have this item
Page 6
September 14, 2010
removed from the consent agenda to the regular agenda. There was
some confusion. I thought it had been moved to 12A. Apparently not.
I'm simply here for two purposes; one, to make that request
again, if you would so consider it and, two, to submit to the record to
the minutes keeper an original of our petition for stay of the execution
of the contract award.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Patrick, just so I understand --
MR. WHITE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- are you saying that we did not include
in the records something that you wanted submitted?
MR. WHITE: There were some points in the documents we
provided you yesterday, a letter and some backup materials, that we
believe warrant a more further and complete discussion in front of this
board about this item.
I understand that there may not be a desire on the part of you or
the other commissioners to hear what we have to say about it, but all
I'm doing is submitting the original of one of the documents that was a
backup to what we provided yesterday, and that's the petition for stay
of execution of the contract today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would suggest if you have that
information you submit it now for inclusion in the record. Submitting
it yesterday, it wasn't possible to put it with the assembled documents,
nor was it advertised.
MR. WHITE: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. WHITE: But it was essentially a request to withdraw the
item and move it to -- from the consent agenda to the regular agenda
for dialogue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And any commissioner who wishes
to do that and make such a motion is capable of making such a motion
now.
Page 7
September 14, 2010
MR. WHITE: And I can infer from the actions earlier that they
have not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. There -- one commissioner is
waiting is speak.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. It's my
understanding that when this came before the magistrate, that since
you're the attorney for that, for those people, that you were out of
town on vacation, is my understanding, when that came before the
magistrate.
MR. WHITE: No, that's not correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's not correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if! may stop you. He's
already said he's going to sue us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's what he's saying right now. So he's
basically saying, if you don't give us the contract, we're suing you. I
don't know that it makes any sense to have any debate because --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- he'll just use that in the litigation, which
he's already doing from the prior debate the commission had on this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Very well.
MR. WHITE: I can't say I agree with your county attorney's
characterization nor some of the items in the executive summary about
my unavailability. I was unavailable for meetings, but I was not
unavailable for teleconference. In fact, anybody could have called me
anytime, sent me an email. They never did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you very much,
Patrick.
MR. WHITE: Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No other public speakers?
Page 8
September 14,2010
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And I'll entertain a motion for approval of the agenda as amended
by the withdrawal of 16E8, or movement of 16E8 out of the consent
agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas
to approve, seconded 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: The agenda is approved.
Page 9
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
September 14, 2010
Withdraw Item 6F: Public Petition request by Mr. Peter Goodin regarding permitting and
installation of signs reading "Oakes Estates". (Petitioner's request)
Continue Item 6G to the SeDtember 28. 2010 BCC Meetine:: Public Petition request by
E's Country Store at Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road. (Petitioner's request)
Withdraw Item 16E2: Recommendation to reject award for Invitation to Bid (ITB) 10-
5511 for Hardware and Related Items. (Staff's request)
Note:
Item 16A19: Recommendation to approve commercial Excavation Permit No. PL
20090000616, Ex 59.814-1 "East Naples Mine, located in sections 21 & 22, Township 49 south,
Range 27 east: bounded on the north and west by existing quarry operations and vacant land
zoned agricultural, and on the west & south by vacant land zoned agricultural - A(ST /WS4).
(Commissioner Coyle's request)
Amend Staff Recommendations 9 and 10 on Page 5 of 10 as follows:
9. The property owner agreet will not w excavate ts a miRimllm within 180 feet along
the section line between Sections 21 and 22 (a "non-excavation zone") for a period of up to
January 1, 2030.
10. The property owner agrees "due"weRt te the i"waAte af tl:te ,wlajeGt enGa":atisR
permit RS' ts eI16a':a'e 's a miRimllm sf not to excavate closer than 120 feet from the
northerly 110 fee' and Ule-southerly 110 fee' sf boundaries of the Phase I and Phase 2 mining
area ("non-excavation zones) for a period of up to January 1, 2030.
Item 1606: The year 2009 is incorrectly referenced on Pages 11 and 12 as follows:
Pg. 11: Currently the Library is under a hiring freeze. We expect this to continue through
FYJOOIl FY2011.
Pg. 12: Attention will be paid in Ft!09 FYll to compliance with the E-Rate and Patriot Act
requirements for technology policies.
(Commissioner Fiala's request)
9/14/20108:43 AM
Item 16F4: The second agreement made part of the back-up to this item is entitled 2011
Tourism Agreement between Collier County and Friends of Rookery Bay, Inc. Exhibit "F" of
that agreement is replaced with an Exhibit "F" that now contains an itemized list of the
Project Expenses. The amount to be paid under the Agreement has not changed.
Item 16H1: The amount paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget to attend the fact
finding trip to the Jackson Laboratory on July 15, 2010 should be $591.80 not $638 as stated
in the executive summary. Sales tax was incorrectly included in the total. (Staffs request)
Item 16H3: The amount paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget to attend the
September 21, 2010 Excellence in Industry Awards Luncheon is $20 not $50 as stated on the
agenda index. (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item lOB to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
Item 10C to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
9/14/2010 8:43 AM
September 14, 2010
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM THE JULY 27-28,2010 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING -APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN OYLE: That brings us to minutes of the meeting
for July the 27th, 2010, BCC/regular meeting minutes and July 28,
2010, BCC/regular meeting minutes. Do any of the commissioners
have corrections or changes to make to those minutes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second 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: Those minutes are approved
unanimously.
Item #3A
SERVICES AWARD - 25 YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to service awards. You
Page 10
September 14, 2010
want us to do that down here?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. If you'd be so kind as to join us in front of
the dais. We have one employee service award this morning and a
series of advisory committee service awards.
Commissioners, recognizing 25 years of county service this
morning from your Road and Maintenance Division is Erin Hall.
Erin?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
MS. HALL: Great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Thanks for your
serVIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twenty-five years. Good for you,
girl.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your time.
(Applause.)
Item #3B
SERVICE AWARDS: ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS - 5 YEAR
A W ARDEES - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have some five-year service
awards, recognizing service on your advisory committees. Your first
five-year recipient is Mr. Renato Fernandez from your Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. Thank you for
your serVIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't want a handshake. A hug.
Page 11
September 14, 2010
Thanks for all your work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to stand -- we'll put you right
here.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations, thank you.
Commissioners, your next awardee recognizing five years of
service on your Tourist Development Council is Mr. Clark Hill.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks again for your time.
MR. HILL: All right, sir.
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, your final five-year awardee, Mr.
Mitchell Roberts, is not present today. He's teaching school. But he
serves on your Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee.
So that completes our service awards this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Brings us to proclamations.
Item #4 A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 23,2010 AS
INFANT MORTALITY AWARENESS DAY. ACCEPTED BY
CATHY CORTEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEALTHY START
SW FLORIDA, AND JOE PATERNO, BOARD MEMBER.
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Your first proclamation is 4A. It's a proclamation designating
September 23,2010, as Infant Mortality Awareness Day, to be
accepted by Cathy Cortez, executive director, Healthy Start Southwest
Florida. This proclamation sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. Ms.
Cortez?
Page 12
September 14,2010
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Please come forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Cathy. How are you? Good to see
you. Is everybody ready?
Cathy, if you want to say anything.
MS. CORTEZ: I do want to take just a moment to say thank you
for your support of Collier's babies, and want to make sure that you
know about the invitation to join us, and those in the room. As part of
Infant Mortality Awareness Month, we will be holding a dedication
ceremony for the babies that died before the first birthday at Naples
Community Hospital on 41 next Thursday on September 23rd at four
o'clock, and then we're also celebrating our Inaugural Golden Baby
Shoe Awards on September 24th at the Grandezza.
But thank you again for your support of the babies in Collier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
THROUGH OCTOBER 2,2010 AS ZONE INSTITUTE OF
ROTARY WEEK. ACCEPTED BY KEN RUSKIN. SPONSORED
BY COMMISSIONER COLETTA - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, proclamation 4B is a proclamation
designating September 30, 2010, through October 2, 2010, as Zone
Institute of Rotary Week. This proclamation to be accepted by Ken
Ruskin, and it's sponsored by Commissioner Coletta. Mr. Ruskin?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning, Ken. How are you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Ken. Pleasure to
Page 13
September 14,2010
see you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to say something?
MR. RUSKIN: I want to thank the commissioners for
recognizing Rotary, Rotary International, a worldwide organization.
In the week of September 28th to October 3rd, 600 Rotarians
from nine eastern states, all of the Caribbean nations, including
Guiana, French Guiana, and Suriname in South America, are coming
to Naples for training. This event was produced by John Smarge.
Many of you may know him as Ray the Mover, who is an
international director of Rotary, of which there are 14. So we're very
happy to have this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 20,2010 TO
SEPTEMBER 24,2010 AS INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK.
ACCEPTED BY TRISH BIEBRICHER, TAMMIE NEMECEK,
KRISTI BARTLETT, BOB MULHERE, AND TIM
CARTWRIGHT. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE-
ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4C is a proclamation
designating September 20, 2010, to September 24, 2010, as Industry
Appreciation Week, to be accepted by Trish Biebricher, Tammie
Nemecek, Kristi Bartlett, Bob Mulhere, and Tim Cartwright. And this
proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hi, Kristi.
MS. BARTLETT: Hello.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bob, good to see you.
Page 14
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Bob.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. BIEBRICHER: Good morning. I'm Trish Biebricher, and
thank you very much.
I am the 27th annual chair for the EDC Excellence in Industry
A wards this year, and which will take place at the Hilton. And I
notice Clark Hill is here today.
We want to invite you to join us. We have ten award winners in
various different categories, and I'm very pleased to be supporting
local businesses in the Collier County area, the personal one-on-one
attention that the EDC has been able to provide for our local
businesses, and it's nice to be able to share some good new. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, if! could get a motion to approve
the proclamations, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve today's
proclamations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second 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?
Page 15
September 14, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The proclamations are approved
unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, sir.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZING JAMES BABLITZ, TRAFFIC SIGNAL
TECHNICIAN, TRAFFIC OPERATIONS, AS THE EMPLOYEE
OF THE MONTH FOR AUGUST 2010 - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 5 on your agenda,
Commissioners, presentation. This is a recommendation to recognize
James Bablitz, Traffic Signal Technician, Traffic Operations, as the
Employee of the Month for August 2010. Ifwe could have James
come forward, please.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'll tell you a little bit about James
as he receives his reward.
James is a Traffic Signal Technician. He's been an employee of
Collier County for almost nine years working in our Traffic
Operations Department in our Growth Management Division. He's
always been a very diligent, dependable employee who consistently
exceeds expectations.
As a traffic signal technician, he consistently displays foresight
and sound judgment when restoring the lighting services to all the
signal systems throughout the county.
James has offered a number of very useful suggestions, not only
on how to be more efficient in our operations, but more importantly,
on how to practice safety out in the field. He's made several
suggestions to the staff that have been implemented, saved us a lot of
time, and made sure that our employees were working in a very safe
Page 16
September 14, 2010
environment.
His innovative suggestions have proven to be excellent in
proactive safety measures, saving countless dollars for the county.
His initiative to promote not only a safe but efficient workplace makes
him a true asset to the county and very deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's my great pleasure to present James Bablitz as
the Employee of the Month for August 2010.
Congratulations, James.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, James. Congratulations to you. Well
done.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY MR. ANTHONY BROWN REGARDING
E- VERIFY - NOT PRESENT; MOTION DIRECTING THE
PURCHASING DEPARTMENT TO BEGIN USING THE E-
VERIFY PROGRAM, SEND NOTIFICATION TO ALL VENDORS
REGARDING IMPLEMENT A TION OF THE PROGRAM AND TO
ADD THIS ITEM TO THE LIST OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
- APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6 on your
agenda, public petitions. 6A is a public petition request by Mr.
Anthony Brown regarding E- VerifY. Is Mr. Brown present this
morning?
(No response.)
MR.OCHS: I don't see him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If Mr. Brown isn't here, then let me -- let
me say something about his petition.
I would like to publicly thank him for bringing this issue to our
Page 17
September 14, 2010
attention, and it involves a failure by county staff to implement
provisions that the County Commission approved a long time ago, and
I would like to thank Mr. Brown for bringing this failure to our
attention.
This commission has been unanimous in its insistence that our
immigration laws be enforced by the federal government, that
employers not hire illegal immigrants for work in Collier County. This
county was the first county in the State of Florida and one of the first
in the entire nation to implement a cooperative agreement with
immigrations and customs enforcement through the sheriffs agency
that has resulted in the apprehension and deportation of thousands of
criminal illegal aliens that has reduced our jail population dramatically
and saved the taxpayers of Collier County millions and millions of
dollar.
I am particularly mortified to find out that we are not
implementing and inspecting compliance for the E- Verify process. So
we will commit ourselves to getting that issue resolved.
And I have to also add another item that I think we've been too
soft on, and that is the policy that allows what we believe to be
imposters who collect money on behalf of veterans from Miami-Dade
who come over here and collect money --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- at shopping centers and intersections
in Collier County. We don't believe that money is properly accounted
for, we don't think it's properly spent, but we don't have the authority
to go over to Miami-Dade and inspect it. But I think we have been
particularly timid here in establishing guidelines to solve that problem.
So I want Mr. Brown and others to understand that at least -- and
I, and I think all the members of the board -- if anybody objects to
that, please tell me -- but I think all the members of the board are in
agreement with those -- those procedures.
So with that, Commissioner, who's first, you or Commissioner
Page 18
September 14, 2010
Henning? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They both came on at the same
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we need to direct our
staffto change the purchasing policy to include that all vendors and
contractors use E- Verify and also send -- direct our staff to send a
letter to existing contractors to use and verify through E- Verify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If that's a motion--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Henning, I would be
happy to second it.
And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I was working
with Mr. Brown for the last four months to bring it to the commission
today in the form of a public petition. I'm sorry he's not here, but I
think we got the gist of what he was saying, and he's absolutely
correct.
We have been doing everything we possibly could, and this is
one of the things that has escaped the attention of the commission and
will be corrected in short order.
The program that's in place at this point in time has been so
successful that the 1mmokalee Jail, a newly built jail that's about four
or five years old, has been placed in the moth balls because there's so
few prisoners to put into it, which is a -- which is a wonderful thing.
One of the things I'd like to see us do -- and if you would -- Mr.
Henning, if you'd consider -- Commissioner Henning, if you'd
consider adding it to your motion, is that we also direct staff to make
this one of our legislative priorities for the coming legislative session
at the state level to see if we can reach out to the legislative body to
make it a state initiative rather than just us working with the Collier
Page 19
September 14, 2010
County Government entity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll include that in my motion. I
believe they are -- there is something about that coming up. But,
yeah, I think that's a great idea. I include that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The commission has sent -- previously
sent a resolution to the state government encouraging that the
procedures we have here be implemented -- be required to be
implemented in all counties in Florida. Unfortunately they've never
acted on it. But it wouldn't hurt to have another one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to see us go so far
as to require all businesses, whether they're dealing with government
entities or not, to use E- V eri:ty.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I agree, I agree.
Any further discussion? Yes, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is directed to the county
attorney. Don't we follow the E- V eri:ty policy at the present time as
far as contractors with the county?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think we can do a better job at it, and we
will. E- Veri:ty's very limited. I mean, just -- we can require people to
sign up for the program, but we really have very little auditing, you
know, power to see if they're actually using it. And quite frankly, the
federal government --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the reason I asked.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- does not require that anybody keep
documentation on it, which is very frustrating. But we will work with
county staff to implement board's direction here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We are -- we do have our hands
tied somewhat in regard to other employers in the county who we
don't deal business with as far as E- Veri:ty; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, yes. The federal government ties our
hands in a lot of ways on this.
Page 20
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So actually, not only does it need
to go to Tallahassee, but it needs to go up to the federal government to
address this.
MR. KLATZKOW: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just wanted to verify that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I often wonder, as the Sheriff's
Office continues to give us reports of how our crime is being reduced,
if this is one of the factors in reduction of crime.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They will tell you absolutely, it is. The
Public Safety Coordinating Council has been getting reports from the
Sheriff's Office on this issue on a quarterly basis for the past several
years, and they will tell you that it definitely has reduced the level of
crime, because I believe that the average number of crimes committed
per deportee is somewhere in the range often to 12. So these were
repeat offenders. They were people who were creating a series of
crimes. So getting them off the street and out ofthe country has,
indeed, substantially reduced the crime rate in Collier County.
Any further comments by the commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of Commissioner Henning's
motion, 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.
Page 21
September 14, 2010
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY MR. JIM KRAMER REGARDING
PLAUSIBLE DENIAB1LITY - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That bring us to the public petition
request by Mr. Jim Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jim
Kramer from District 2 in North Naples.
I would like to talk to you about a political dis-ease that I believe
might have afflicted you all known as plausible deniabi1ity.
The online reference, Wikipedia, refers to the denial of blame in
change of demand where upper rungs quarantine the blame to lower
rungs, and the lower rungs are often inaccessible, meaning that
confirming responsibility for the action is nearly impossible.
In the case that legal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular
activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any
awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out
such acts.
Plausible deniability is a legal concept. It refers to lack of
evidence proving an allegation. Standards of proof vary in civil and
criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is more likely so
than not; whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is beyond a
reasonable doubt.
If your opponent lacks incontrovertible proof or evidence of their
allegation, you can plausibly deny the allegation even though it may
be true.
So far today we've seen your reaction to Brent Batten's Naples
Daily News article of August 6th. Quote, Collier County Government
wants its contractors to hire legal workers. It doesn't bother to check,
mind you, but it wants them to, unquote. And Mr. Brown, as you've
said, has offered steps the county can take to verify the legality of the
Page 22
September 14,2010
word -- workers.
But is plausible deniability at work here? Have you advocated
your responsibility to see that the codes you established are enforced?
Quote again. Brown finds the county's don't ask policy towards
E- Verify ironic, given that in 2007 the commission adopted a
resolution reading in part, quote, the board urges the federal
government to swiftly and firmly enforce our immigration laws
against illegal immigrants and those employers who hired them,
unquote.
Also in 2007, then County Sheriff Don Hunter took a proactive
stance and entered into agreements with Department of Homeland
Security and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement as provided
by statute 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This allows
local and state agencies to receive delegated authority for immigration
enforcement.
Three years ago today I presented another public petition
requesting similar action. Was plausible deniability at play in the
delay of such actions?
Mark Strain writes in the Collier Citizen in August, quote, Our
government seems to be going further and further in the direction
inconsistent with the desires of its citizens. The concerns raised by the
public appear daily in the news, on the radio, and through a variety of
electronic media, yet the message is often not being heeded by some
politicians at all levels, unquote. Is this a sign of plausible
deniability?
Quote again. It will take more than a news quote or a blog about
something we dislike to change things. While those things are
necessary and helpful in order to make people aware and possibly
even get them thinking, introducing issues for discussion must be
followed by voter participation, unquote.
That's why I'm here today putting this on the public record.
Quote again, Some elected officials may feel that they are infallible,
Page 23
September 14, 2010
but voting can prove them wrong. The number of mistakes and the
abuse of power at all levels of government are increasing and will
continue to do so until the voters express their discontent.
Look at the position the public has been restricted to when we try
to participate in local government. We are selectively limited in the
time allowed to speak regardless of the intensity of the subject. The
entire psychology of the meeting room is centered on elevating those
in power and intimidating everyone else.
The public is outmaneuvered if they ask for a simply explanation,
not by the politicians who cannot answer in the first place, but by staff
we are funding. Too many times the response is simply not to
respond.
As taxpayers, we have been removed from expressing ourselves
by referendum on a potential tax increase. Our community planning is
being ignored for the benefit of special interests far too often.
Unquote.
In a later article Mark says, quote, Public involvement is the
cornerstone of our democracy, and a lack of public involvement has
created a lot of problems in this country. When all's going well and
the economy is singing along, was singing along, very few citizens
were paying much attention to what the government was doing.
Unfortunately, government was and still is making mistake after
mistake in the process -- and in the process setting the stage for
destroying our economy and selling our futures far down the road.
Locally we have pledged our future -- tax future away for
hundreds of millions in unnecessary and extravagant projects that
could have been just as functional at a fraction of the cost.
When our parks become water parks to rival Disney for tourist
attractions and we pay $60 million for this privilege, someone is not
watching the store.
When we pay 35 million for a connery (sic) overpass -- a
concrete overpass that can be functionally accomplished for half that
Page 24
September 14, 2010
amount without all the fluff, someone is not watching the store.
When we pay 60 million to build -- overbuild an emergency
operations center with every conceivable toy, someone is not watching
the store.
When we approve long-range transportation plans that will
require us to shell out more than a billion dollars in road
improvements to split up a local community, bulldoze homes and
provide services they do not need or want, someone is not watching
the store, not to mention the special projects now being considered,
unquote.
Plausible deniability?
Liz Freeman writes in the Daily News of Janet Vasey's pitch for
a mail-in ballot referendum on Jackson Labs. Quote, $130 million in
taxpayers' funding for the project locally. Does plausible deniability
allow you to ignore the Productivity Committee's conclusions that the
project was not economically sound based on how the project stood at
the time, unquote, or that she says, quote, I hear people want to vote
and I hear that everywhere I go, unquote.
Back to Wikipedia. Arguably the key concept of plausible
deniability is plausible. It's fairly easy for a government official to
issue a blanket denial of such an action, and it is possible to destroy or
cover up evidence after the fact. And this might be sufficient to avoid
a criminal prosecution, for instance; however, the public might well
disbelieve the denial, particularly if there's strong circumstantial
evidence or if the action taken is believed to be so unlikely that the
only possible explanation is that the denial is false, unquote.
I would request more sunshine, Commissioners, so that you
might be relieved of this dis-ease. Thank you for your attention.
(Applause.)
Item #6C
Page 25
September 14,20 I 0
PUBLIC PETITION BY MRS. JANET VASEY REGARDING
VOTER REFERENDUM ON USING LOCAL PUBLIC FUNDS
FOR THE JACKSON LABS PROJECT - COMMISSIONER
HENNING MADE THE MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO
PREPARE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ASTRA W BALLOT
REGARDING JACKSON LABS AND TO HAVE PROPOSED
RESOLUTION BROUGHT BACK AT THE NEXT BCC
MEETING - NOT CONSIDERED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. The next public petitioner is
Ms. Janet Vasey.
(Applause.)
MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey, for the record. Good morning,
Commissioners.
My purpose today is to request that you authorize a referendum
using mail-in ballots to allow voters to decide whether local public
funds should be used to bring Jackson Lab to Collier County.
This is a large financial undertaking for our community, and
people want to vote on it. This is the type of major new spending
initiative where this board has welcomed voter input in the past.
In 2002, you authorized a referendum asking for voter approval
to spend $75 million for Conservation Collier. In 2004, you
authorized a referendum asking for voter approval to spend $40
million to purchase land for the zoo.
The 130 million for Jackson Lab is more expensive than those
two projects put together and it is more controversial among
taxpayers, making it doubly important for the public to vote.
Funding Jackson Lab is also a huge departure from the way
property taxes have been spent in Collier County in the past.
Currently we spend our tax dollars for normal local government
functions such as health, safety, county infrastructure, and services to
residents.
Page 26
September 14,2010
In the last five years you have spent $1.2 million on economic
development. Now you're planning to transfer $130 million of public
money to a private enterprise for just one economic development
project; 1.2 million to 130 million without voter input.
The actual cost to the taxpayer would be 216 million iffully
bonded, but that's not the total cost we could -- that we could be
expected to pay. It's entirely possible that more public money would
be needed to bring another genetics company to Collier. It's happened
in two counties already, and Palm Beach taxpayers were required to
pay an additional 94 million in local match funding for the second
biotechnology company.
And along with the Jackson project, this board has been
encouraging other businesses to come forward with their economic
development needs for public money. How much economic
development can a small community afford?
It's really necessary to ask Collier taxpayers if they want to
increase their property taxes to spend such a large amount of money
for private business creation when we never have in the past. Public
validation in the form of a vote is essential.
As reported three weeks ago, the state still has a funding problem
getting the first $50 million increment of their $130 million share of
the Jackson project cost. It's unclear at this point when the problem
will be resolved; however, once the state has an agreement with
Jackson Lab, Collier County has, and I quote, 120 days to adopt the
mechanism to provide $130 million in local matching funds. That's
four months during which you can conduct a voter referendum using a
mail-in ballot.
Commissioner Coyle, on July 27th you said you couldn't put
Jackson Lab on the November 2nd ballot because, quote, the process
was still evolving and you, quote, couldn't ask people to vote based on
so little information. Once the state completes its agreement with
Jackson, the board will have these 120 days to make a decision based
Page 27
September 14,2010
on the latest available information at that time. You'll have to vote on
the issue then, and we should be allowed to vote on it, too, using the
very same information you would have at that time.
That's the beauty of the mail-in ballot. The public would be able
to vote based on the latest information available within weeks of when
a decision has to be made.
Some people, businesses, groups, have supported the project.
The Daily News clearly supports it. The chamber of commerce is in
favor. Some have been against spending any public money for
Jackson, and many others have been supportive of Jackson's research
but are against spending so much public money to bring Jackson Lab
to Collier.
The Collier County Medical Society had a survey where 94
percent voted in support of a biomedical research business moving to
Collier County, but two-thirds voted that county tax dollars should not
be used to fund this project solely. No groups, not even those actively
supporting Jackson, have expressly said, we oppose a referendum vote
on Jackson Lab. We don't want people to vote. No one has said that.
I think it would make a difference to the public if you found
paying partners to help fund a large part of the Jackson Lab local
match cost. The way it stands now, a cost of 216 million with bonding
is a lot of money for a small community of333,000 people to pay.
People are asking, where is the private money? If this is such a
great investment, where are the corporate and philanthropic partners
that would reduce the cost to taxpayers?
Why isn't Lee County paying a share of the local match since
they will benefit greatly? Why is billionaire Tom Monahan giving 50
percent of his money to charity and nothing to the Jackson project that
would stimulate the economy around his own Ave Maria University?
Jackson Lab might be more attractive to voters if the project didn't
cost them so very much.
Another benefit with the voter referendum is that taxpayers
Page 28
September 14,2010
would be able to decide if they agree with the way you want to fund
the 130 million for Jackson. Property taxes were used for
Conservation Collier and the zoo. The possibility of using a franchise
fee has many people very concerned because a franchise fee would
not be paid by anyone in the cities of Naples, Marco and Everglades.
It's unlikely that a majority of the 294,000 people living in the
unincorporated county would vote in favor of a funding mechanism
using any franchise fees.
Commissioners, wouldn't you like to know if your constituents
want to pay for Jackson Lab and whether they agree with the way you
intend to fund it?
According to our Supervisor of Elections Jennifer Edwards, the
cost of a mail-in ballot would be about $300,000, and she would need
authorization from the Board of County Commissioners about 90 days
prior to the determined election day.
When the state completes its agreement with Jackson, the
120-day clock starts ticking, and the mail-in voter referendum taking
90 days would be accomplished within that time frame.
And finally, I do think it's important to recognize the financial
impact this would have on your people as another reason to give them
a voice in the decision.
The economy stinks, the times are tough, and it doesn't look like
we're going to get any kind ofa rebound quickly. We have a
recession following a financial crisis. Collier's unemployment rate is a
high 13 percent. We've had 22,000 foreclosures from 2007 to August
of2010.
Fifty thousand homeowners will be affected by the new flood
maps, and most of them will have to buy flood insurance at, perhaps,
300 to $500 each year.
We still expect another significant drop in property values and
tax revenues in fiscal year 2012, and there are property tax rate
increases in our future, even without Jackson.
Page 29
September 14,2010
Jackson would add almost $9 million in debt payments each and
every year for the next 25 years if bonded with property taxes.
People out there in your districts are struggling. Let them decide
if this is the way they want to use their money to stimulate our
economy.
You know, there's a high level of public frustration these days.
People feel powerless to have an impact on things that directly affect
their lives. They don't think elected officials are listening, not at the
national level and, due to Jackson, not at the local level. Let the voters
speak, welcome their input as you have in the past.
There will be time within the 120 days for the state -- after the
state signs with Jackson to conduct a 90-day mail-in ballot with voters
using the latest possible information to make a decision.
I'm asking you to agree to a voter referendum on Jackson and act
quickly to finalize the ballot language so that everything can be ready
to go once the state signs their agreement. Please don't make this
decision on your own. Let the people you serve decide for themselves
on this important issue.
I do have some ballot language with me if you're interested in
considering it. And also I'd like to mention that in the hallway I just
heard that Arthrex is willing to reimburse the county for the full cost
of the election so it would not have an impact on taxpayers. And they
apparently -- they're planning to present their offer under public
comment.
I'm available to answer any of your questions, to show you the
ballot language that I have drafted, or anything else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Janet, I would appreciate it if you could
put the ballot language on the overhead there for all of us to see.
(Applause.)
MS. VASEY: Actually this is one of two options that I had.
This is the one that's almost identical to the Conservation Collier and
the zoo language.
Page 30
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have another one?
MS. VASEY: Well, I can't put it on the visualizer because my
printer stopped working. It had enough, I guess. But basically it's
very similar to this one, but it allows you to present the Jackson issue,
say yes or no to the Jackson issue, and then say, if yes, should it be
funded with bonded property tax, franchise fee, property taxes, or
property taxes and franchise fees, so that's more like a straw ballot that
would give you the option of saying yes, and if yes, how would you
like to spend -- how would you like to pay for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, this appears to me to be
sort of a policy issue, or is it just targeted at Jackson Labs? I mean,
would it be okay if we had some other organization in essentially the
same position, or should we be saying we don't want you to spend this
amount of money to attract private firms of any kind to Collier
County?
MS. VASEY: I would not say that. What I'm saying here is that
it's too much money. By the time you would bond it, it's just way too
much money to spend of taxpayers' dollars without getting their input.
Now, if you had -- and you wouldn't ever be able to afford to do
any of those other things you're talking about if you've already used
up all that money on one economic development project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no. I'm just trying to segregate the
Issue.
MS. VASEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it an issue that relates only to Jackson
Laboratories and the amount of money, or is it an issue that relates to
that amount of money? Should any expenditure for private companies
who come to Collier County not be permitted?
MS. VASEY: I wouldn't say that it should be denied.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's just for Jackson Labs? Ifwe
changed the name and we went with some other company six months
from now --
Page 3 1
September 14, 2010
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, no. You're talking 130
million, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hey, hey, hey, hey. You'll get a chance
one day to speak, okay. And by the way, you can't vote for me
anyway. So--
MS. VASEY: From my perspective, I see it as a real problem.
The amount of money that we're talking about -- not the Jackson. It
could be Bill Smith, it doesn't matter. It's the amount of money and
that it's such a different direction for Collier County. We've never
spent that kind of money on economic development, and people --
okay. And I think people need to have a say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Commissioner Henning had his light on first. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Question for my
colleagues. Why would anybody on this board be opposed to asking
our citizens to bond general fund monies to support Jackson Labs?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me explain to you what my problem
would be with this language. It says $130 million of ad valorem taxes
not exceeding .143 of 1 mill for a period of 25 years and bearing an
interest rate -- interest at a rate not exceeding the maximum legal rate.
And you vote no, does that mean that you wouldn't approve a
$100 million bond payable for a period of20 years? That's my
problem, Janet, and I think you understand that.
If you're going to ask the people a question, it should be a
question that establishes a policy. And in this case, one could take this
ballot question, put it on the ballot, let the people vote, and turn right
around and change the parameters, and it would be perfectly legal to
do it. And so -- that's why I didn't ask you for some more specific
language.
Page 32
September 14,2010
If it is for Jackson Labs only, maybe what we -- somebody could
do is come in and say, okay, we're going to do it for XYZ
Laboratories, and this ballot question would not apply to them.
So the issue that I think you might want to consider is a policy
issue. Should Collier County allocate money of any kind -- maybe
you can get a maximum limit -- to private organizations to diversifY
our economy? Yes or no. And that establishes a policy issue.
But this particular question, in my opinion, would not get at what
you want to do. It doesn't address the issue of what would happen if
the Board of County Commission were to say that we won't fund it
from ad valorem taxes? We'll fund it from some other source. You
see, it just doesn't solve the problem for you. But nevertheless. We--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks for answering my
question. But let me just say that other sources of funding, the general
public cannot take those off their income taxes. The only thing that
they can take off is property taxes. And the issue of -- let's say that we
only give Jackson Laboratories 100 million, 1 think the specific
question here answers that by issuing a bond up to $130 million.
But you could say, instead of Jackson Lab, biomedical company.
The issue is putting it on the ballot. That's the whole issue. That's the
whole question here.
I don't think that we need to ask our citizens to help us correct a
statement on a ballot. I think that that's our obligation, with the help
of our staff. But--
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please. I understand that our
staff received a correspondence from Department of Community
Affairs that Ave Maria does not have their zoning for such operations.
Is that true?
MR. OCHS: I'm going to ask Mr. Casalanguida to come up, and
he's got that correspondence, Commissioner, if you don't mind him
answering that directly.
Page 33
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR.OCHS: He's got more information on it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, it's Nick Casalanguida from our Growth Management
Division.
No, sir, there is zoning there. The question that came up from
DCA was whether you could internally move some commercial from
one side to the other. The RPC had said that that's possible, our
administrative code allows that. DCA said we need more information
and probably requires a notice of proposed change of what would go
in front of the RPC.
Zoning for a limited phase is there. We've asked DCA to
confirm, if the whole zoning required for the WEG is there, and it is
not. It would require an ADA, which is a further rezoning.
So to answer your question, you could put the lab there now in a
different location on the north side of town if it was to move forward.
Questionable if it could be put on the south side now, and we're
getting confirmation from DCA on that as we speak. And for the
entire project it would require a full rezoning. In other words, when
you say, not the entire cluster that's been proposed in the WEG report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would that require a GMP
amendment?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do not believe so, sir. I believe it
would require an ADA, a full review of the DRI, an expansion of the
DRI. But I can look into that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it would just be Regional
Planning Council, Planning Commission, Board of Commissioners?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any other
correspondence that the board should be aware of on --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm working on that package for the
board, sir, as we speak. I can bring it to the next meeting if you'd like.
Page 34
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How old is this correspondence?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: A couple weeks, sir, before it came
into DCA, and we're reviewing it back and forth with DCA as we
speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, they -- Jackson
Labs has already submitted SDPs --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, not that I'm aware of. They've
called to talk to me about that, and I said, not until I get direction from
the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There is no permitting
from South Florida Water Management that you're aware of?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not that I'm aware of. There is -- that
I'm aware of. There's nothing in our shop for Jackson Labs right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing in Collier County's
shop?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you aware of any other
agencies in the State of Florida?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm aware that they're permitting
something. And 1 don't know if it's Jackson Lab. I believe that Barron
Collier is doing some environmental permitting for their project, but
nothing in Collier County Government is in our application queue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry to get off the topic.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the point is, I think we have
plenty of time to put this on the ballot and let the citizens decide. I
mean, just on the November ballot we have, the board directed, shall
the Board of Commissioners allow a shopping center in Collier
County Estates. It's not unlike the Board of Commissioners to put
issues on the ballot, and I think this is important enough to the
community, and allow the people that are in favor of it help sell it to
the general public. So I'm in -- very much in favor of putting it on the
Page 35
September 14, 2010
ballot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The question still remains. Is it
Jackson Labs only? Ifwe come up with another organization or
concept to diversify our economy -- which we badly need, by the way
-- would the -- is the ballot question going to interfere with in our
ability to deal with any future diversification of our economy, which
we hope will create jobs, or is it targeted only at Jackson Laboratory?
MS. VASEY: I guess it could be done as a -- as a more
overarching, generalized statement and request, if you want to set an
upper limit on the kinds of money that you would spend for economic
development. I think that it's -- it's the amount of money. It's not
who. If you wanted to -- if you wanted to structure the ballot question
to say, we're looking for the ability to borrow money, X amount of
dollars. You'd have to decide, you know, how much you want to put
on there for people to make that decision, and then -- and then if they
say yes, then it can be used for whatever -- whatever purposes come
along.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it's not just Jackson Labs?
MS. VASEY: Personal opinion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Personal opinion.
MS. VASEY: Just one person.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there are a lot of signs that say, no
tax money for Jackson Labs. They're not signs that say, no tax money
for economic diversification. I need to understand that so we'll know
whether or not -- what we're going to vote on.
So it's a very complex issue. It's not really quite as simple as we
have presented here. So it's going to affect the policy in Collier
County dramatically as to what question we place on the balance.
So it would be helpful if we got some more guidance about what
that will be. But -- and I, like Commissioner Henning, I'm going to
have to apologize for getting off the subject, but now is a perfect time
to talk about this. I was going to give a status report under
Page 36
September 14,2010
correspondence today, but we are continuing to try to develop
alternative financing methods, including private financing methods.
And in our discussions, we have found that there's more than one
probably who would be interested in providing private financing for
the building construction, which is most of the money.
And we're -- I was going to ask the Board of County
Commissioners if we could put out a brief little RFP so that we could
treat all of the potential investors fairly to solicit private funding for at
least the building construction.
So we are continuing to develop the agreement and the financing
methods in addition to those financing alternatives that you and the
Productivity Committee defined. I just don't know how long it's going
to take to get that done. But we're proceeding along that path at least.
So in any event, Commissioner Halas now is -- has been waiting
patiently to ask his question or make a statement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, Janet, thank you very
much for all the research you did. That's very interesting when we find
out that we have about 22,000 homes in foreclosure.
It's amazing. Let's think about it for a second. Why are those
22,000 homes in foreclosure? It's because the building bubble has
basically blown up, and the end result is, we have 13-and-a-half
percent of the people here unemployed in Collier County that were
tied to the building industry. A lot of those people have left the area
seeking other employment, hopefully, probably in Texas or probably
still rebuilding from Katrina down in the coast.
But the thing is, I think all of us, the commissioners here, realize
that this building is not going to come back.
There was some statements made this morning about how we
overspent on certain projects. First of all, this wasn't really ad
valorem tax. There might have been a little bit of ad valorem tax
added to the road construction, but most of this was impact fees, and
this was growth that was coming to Collier County.
Page 37
September 14,2010
We also on this board made some hard decisions, and nobody
came here to -- in the vast numbers that we have today in rebuttal for
our Rural Land Stewardship that we tried to put together to make sure
that we were addressing future growth. Nobody came here and said,
hey, we don't want Ave Maria because it's going to be a new town.
And obviously, everybody had anticipated that this was going to
grow to a massive size of25,000 people. Today it's -- nothing's
happening much out there.
We at the Board of County Commissioners decided that growth
as far as building is not going to come back. It was time for us to
make a hard decision and think about the future of this county and the
people that live here.
Now, if you think that you're going to be sustainable under the
conditions you're at today, it's not going to happen. That's why we're
here today, and we've been working on this project. And
Commissioner Coyle has put his whole political career on the line
trying to figure out the direction that this county needs to go so that if
there is another blowup of the economy down the road in the future,
that we can insulate ourselves from the 13 percent of the people that
lost their jobs in this county and of the -- of the decrease in property
values. Why is the property values being decreased? Because we
have all of these foreclosed homes.
It is time that we take a hard stance and figure out the best way to
help get this county on a stable ground, and it's not going to be
overnight, but this is going to hopefully insulate us from years down
the road that we will not end up with the same problem we have today.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Commissioner Halas, that's a hard one to follow, but I'm going to
try.
Page 38
September 14, 2010
I want to encourage the element out there that's opposed to the
spending of money for Jackson Lab to continue. I'll tell you why I
haven't been too outspoken to try to knock the feet from underneath
you. It's very simple. You're the tool to be able to bring this thing
into some sort of balance. It's going to be the very best for the
taxpayers.
At this point in time, if I'm not mistaken -- I'm sure
Commissioner Coyle will be able to correct me if I'm wrong -- the
document that's going to come forward is going to be a couple
hundred pages. We're on like Page 3. We're on the preambles of the
whole idea of what's going to be taking place.
What has come forward from the Jackson Lab contingent, I don't
-- I wouldn't take it as a final offer. I would take it as an offer. It's not
something that I would expect the county would accept carte blanche
right out of the bag.
I'd like to give Commissioner Coyle, I'd like to give the elements
that are working on this for Jackson Lab, a chance to see what can be
done to make this a more realistic venture. By the time this thing got
on the ballot, I can assure you that a lot of these things are going to
change. The $130 million might not be the same. There will be a
whole bunch of things that are going to be completely different.
We're going to be moving through this for quite a period of time.
I don't think the final decision will be made for a long time. But I can
assure you that your actions that you're taking by opposing it with
such vigor is going to have a great effect if this ever goes forward on
what the bottom-line cost is going to be. So thank you for that.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. That's my mother.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you [rom his district?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm from District 2. I can't vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please move.
Page 39
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She can't vote --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Besides, it was -- I had registered
Democrat. I couldn't vote on any of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could have voted for me.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You could have moved to 4.
Okay. All right. We've heard the petition.
And any further comments by the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's all been said, as far as I'm
concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we have a
special mail-out ballot, direct our staff to create a resolution to be on
the board's next agenda, election resolution to go to the Supervisor of
Elections.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To say you don't want Jackson
Labs? To say you don't want 130 million? To say -- what do you
want to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, this is--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I change my sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, but we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is all-- I don't understand
why we're talking about other things. It's always been about Jackson
Labs. Two commissioners went up to Maine to visit Jackson Labs.
The proposal for -- from the legislators, a match, it's all about Jackson
Labs.
So if you're proposing some other business, come forward and let
the public know so that we can get it on the ballot and let the citizens
Page 40
September 14, 2010
decide.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Put it to a vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to -- thank you.
I just wanted to give a report. I've never given you a report from
my visit to Jackson Labs, and I've never given anybody that report.
And as long as you mentioned it, Commissioner Henning, I
would like to take this opportunity to do that.
First of all, the Jackson Labs issue was begun because the State
of Florida wanted to create a year-round economy. And the State of
Florida said, we're going to start contributing money to anybody who
can create a biomedical community. That's what Florida has decided
to choose for us is a biomedical state so that every other state in the
union, when anything has to do with biomedical, will send their
people here, which will, of course, affect our tourism, but they wanted
a year-round industry not affected by weather, not affected by oil
spills, not affected by season, a year-round industry. So -- and the
State of Florida said, and we'll put our money where our mouth is.
When it was -- when they had given us the challenge to come up
with equal dollars that they had dedicated to this particular one,
knowing that Jackson Labs is a premier laboratory, not only without
the United -- throughout the United States of America, but throughout
the world, and their research is admirable. I want to use a stronger
word.
So when it comes to us, then I thought, I really want to go see
Jackson Labs for myself. I -- you know, I went up there really not
knowing what I was going to find and with a totally open mind,
because I really wanted to know what we were doing before I ever got
into this.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That cost a lot of money, too.
Page 41
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm talking now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you please be quiet while people
are speaking?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I asked my secretary to
make some reservations for me, but Jackson Labs was doing
something called Discovery Days at the time, so I said, well, I'd like to
go to that and see what they had to offer. But I wanted to go up early.
I wanted to go up on my own because I wanted to do my own
discovery, not -- not programmed by Jackson Labs, but just
programmed by Donna Fiala.
So I got up there early. I asked the city manager of Bar Harbor to
please make an appointment with some of the people that are right
there within the city. I wanted to talk to the city councilmen. And he
said, you know, one of the city councilmen is a disgruntled
ex-employee. Are you sure you want to speak to him? I said,
absolutely. I want to get an entire picture.
I met with bankers, with restaurateurs, with tourism people, with
chamber people, and with all of these city council. I wanted to get a
whole picture but not a whitewash picture. A picture that I, myself,
can look at as a citizen of Collier County.
And as I was meeting with these people -- and I found some
many, many interesting things. What -- one of the things that I heard
over and over again is, Bar Harbor would not be alive without Jackson
Labs because they completely die in the winter, like we do in the
summer.
They just have no industry, and Jackson Labs is the only business
Page 42
September 14,2010
there that keeps their businesses alive and keeps their people eating
and going to school and so forth in the winter. That was interesting.
And then as we went on -- and I brought my girlfriend Shirley
with me, by the way, because I wanted to hear two -- I wanted to have
two ears hearing this, not just my own, because a lot of times you hear
things differently than someone else.
The disgruntled employee comes up and he said, let me say by
way of disclosure, I'm a disgruntled employee and I just want you to
know that, and if you don't want to speak to me, then that's fine. And I
said, no, I really want to speak to you. He went on to yell really that
he'd been there 45 years, and they laid me off. They laid me off after
45 years, he said. And he said, and ('m very angry about it. And he
says, I don't like the new management, and he went on and on.
And then I asked him how long the management had been there,
and he said about eight years. And he was -- and then he was quiet for
a moment. He said, but that manager is retiring and a new one is
coming onboard and maybe things will change, and then he was very
quiet for a moment. And then he said, but I have to tell you this. He
said, we would not survive here in this part of the country without
Jackson Labs, and he said, you don't know how much it pains me to
tell you that. I don't want to say this because I'm angry with them.
He said, but they bring life to our community, they pump in $220
million a year into our economy. He said, we would die without it. He
says, I resent the fact that they want to expand down there. I want
them to expand up here because we could use the extra money that
they're pumping into the economy. He said -- but he said, if they do
come down there, grab onto it, he said, because you'll never be sorry.
He said -- he said, and do you know how hard it is for me to say that
they are a wonderful company?
I went on to meet with other people. One educator told me -- and
I thought this was very interesting. He said, they bring these scientists
that are -- that are above and beyond most of us, you know, as far as
Page 43
September 14, 2010
brilliant goes, and he said, they bring them in to study certain things.
And he said, what is amazing is, these scientists are all married to
brilliant people, and their kids become brilliant kids. And in the
school system, they actually raise the level of education because the
other kids rise to the top to learn from these kids who are so brilliant.
He said, you'll be amazed. This was from an educator. He said, I
never realized there was going to be this ancillary effect. I was
surprised myself.
I went on to talk to scientists, and one scientist -- there was one
that was dealing in neurological effects such as Lou Gehrig's disease
and Alzheimer's and strokes and muscular dystrophy, and the
advances -- they figure muscular dystrophy is about three years away
from unlocking the secrets to -- I didn't know muscular dystrophy was
carried by women only. Men do not carry the gene for muscular
dystrophy, only women. And you can't tell if the woman has the gene
because it isn't in her family. She just has it.
They're coming up with a test now that women who are -- right
now it's way too expensive for any of us. But they hope within a year
to have this test to be able to be affordable to find out if we women are
the carrier of this particular gene. That was amazing.
Went in to talk to this cancer scientist, and he was telling me that
they have identified a gene -- and this is so neat. I didn't know there
were 300 kinds of cancer. I don't know if any of you knew that, but I
didn't know that. And he said, they've identified one gene, in a mouse.
They can insert this gene into this particular mouse with this particular
kind of cancer, and what happens is, these cancer cells get so angry
that this cell has been inserted in there that they implode, and it just
dies. They're on the brink of trying to test that now in human beings,
and I would love to see that happen here.
This -- another gene that they have found affects about 30 types
of cancers. And what they can do is they can insert this gene, and it
acts like a barrier, a wall, against food and nourishment for these
Page 44
September 14, 2010
particular cancer cells, and because the nourishment can't get to the
cancer cells, they die, and that affects about 30 cancers. And we're
going to see that right around the corner.
To me this is all exciting. The most exciting part is that it is
going to employ many of us. When they begin -- say, for instance,
today we had all of the money in the world and we could just give it to
them and we say, okay, go ahead. And say, for instance, in January
they start building. Well, all of these people that we've been talking
about that are out of work in the construction business, we're going to
have construction going on immediately, not only with Jackson Labs,
but USF who's said that they're going to join in right away, and with
Edison College, who wants to build the high school right away, and
then we've got a couple other companies who have -- who are already
onboard to become a part of this cluster.
I estimate -- and I don't know this for sure -- but I estimate at
least -- and I'm probably estimating low -- 800 people will begin to
work immediately in January. That's people off the welfare rolls or
off the unemployment lines, and I -- I think that that's wonderful.
Yes, they're going to be bringing in some scientists from other
areas. All those scientists need to buy a house. They need to -- they
will be paying taxes. All of their insurance is covered. All of their
health care is covered.
Our low-income employees, we continue to pay for. We support
in our county a lot oflow-income housing and a lot oflow-income
people, and we pay all of their healthcare and we pay for their
schooling and so forth. These people are going to pay for it on their
own.
And by the way, they're also very interested in the arts. As you
well know, I am too. And they're -- from what I understood from the
chamber people, they're very philanthropic.
So I just wanted to give you a little synopsis of the things that I
learned outside of Jackson Labs about the benefits that they reap there.
Page 45
September 14,2010
And I would hate to see us turn our back on a year-round industry
from here on in. It just -- it can be the answer to what we've been
looking for all of these years.
And my bet is, my bet is, if we say to the State of Florida we
don't want any part of it, we can kiss any future industry goodbye
anyway because they're never going to donate to this -- or, you know,
encourage us with their dollars again.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Fiala. That was very helpful.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
MS. VASEY: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, you
covered it quite well. There's -- a lot of people say, how can you
support something like this with unemployment as high as it is, the
devaluation of property, especially the area that I represent as much as
60 percent, plus. The fire department's ready to go in the red at any
moment. They have no idea how they're going to cover their bill next
year, blight that's taken place throughout the community, all sorts of
issues that are out there.
You look at this and they're trying to make an argument that
bringing in something like this is going to contribute to it. I have the
hardest time in this world trying to understand how you can support an
argument opposed to this type of industry coming in with the fact that
the economy is so bad and you shouldn't do it. If anything, it should
be just the opposite. I can tell you that if this thing hits -- and this is a
prediction -- you're going to see the property values throughout a good
part of Golden Gate Estates stabilize in a very short period of time and
start a line or a direction towards recovery. It's just going to be one of
those things, supply, demand, and where you're located.
Right now it's -- it doesn't have a lot going for it. This would
Page 46
September 14, 2010
give it everything in the world.
So if I tend to be more supportive than against it, it's for that very
reason. I see this, if we could ever pull it together, if the vision could
come true the way it is -- and we've still got a little work to do on it --
it would be a tremendous boom for District 5.
So you need to understand where I'm coming from. A lot of
people are taking a look at this from the wrong direction. We will in
time. We're still in the process of discovery. I'm sure that staff,
Commissioner Coyle, and a number of other people that are working
on this are going to come up with a plan in the end that's going to be
very understandable and very agreeable for everybody that's out there.
But we haven't reached that point yet.
MS. VASEY: Commissioner Coyle, might I answer your
question to me earlier? I have a better answer as to whether I think
this should be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't get a do-over. Go ahead.
MS. VASEY: No do-overs, okay. 1 really think that the issue
should be on -- a ballot question that I would recommend would be
strictly Jackson and the money involved, brought up to date with all
the latest information, everything you know about it, the amount of
money that's actually going to be needed after others contribute if they
do. The rates, everything -- whatever the latest information is, before
you have to make a decision.
At that 120-day mark, you have to make the decision. And just
before that, you can lock in on everything you know and let us do it.
My presentation is strictly on voting, but there are issues out
there, pros, and obviously -- you've identified a lot of pros. There are
a lot cons. But, you know, that's the -- that's the discussion that needs
to be conducted in the public, and let the public decide.
No more do-overs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 47
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning has proposed
that we place something on the ballot. 1 consider that to be a motion
before the board.
Is that right, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion dies for lack ofa
second.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Shame on you. Shame on you.
MR. OCHS: Break?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Yeah. We need to take a
break for the court reporter. Okay. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session,
Commissioners. We have three commissioners.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. We have four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think we have three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have four, all right.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION BY MR. JASON LARSON OF CREATIVE
HOMES XIV, LTD., REGARDING A SHIP LOAN EXTENSION -
STAFF TO ASSIST PETITIONER WITH ALTERNATIVES AND
BRING TO A FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: You're on Item 6D, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: That's a public petition request by Mr. Jason Larson
Page 48
September 14, 2010
of Creative Homes regarding a SHIP loan extension. Mr. Larson
here?
MR. LARSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Mr. Larson.
MR. LARSON: Good morning. My name's Jason Larson. I'm
representing the property owner, Creative Choice Homes 14. We own
Tuscan Isle Apartments, which is located at 8650 Weir Lane, which is
at the end of Radio Road. Weare 298 units of affordable housing at
60 percent of the area median income.
We were constructed and CO'd in 2003 with tax exempt bonds
and tax credits and also a loan from the county for SHIP dollars in the
amount of $200,000. That loan is coming to maturity. We are asking
for an extension on the maturity date of that loan for ten years due to
current, you know, credit environments -- and actually I believe we're
still on a prepayment lockout on the first mortgage.
There's currently no sources of financing available to repay the
county at this time. But in ten years we will be out of our loan
prepayment lockout on the first. We could potentially refi the first to
take out the second, which we would -- the county would have its
funds repaid.
And I'm here to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What's the staffs position
concerning this? I read it in the executive summary, but I'd like to
hear it in person.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir. For the record, Frank Ramsey,
Housing Manager.
Staff is -- has no objection to the request and has verified with the
state grantor agency that it is -- complies with the regulations of the
program.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, how many homes have you
already built?
MR. LARSON: They're rental apartments. There are 298.
Page 49
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LARSON: We've been operational for about seven years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And you have 278 actually
available?
MR. LARSON: Yes, sir. We're 100 percent constructed, leased.
We're about high eighties --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. LARSON: -- which actually isn't too bad for that part of
town.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Very well.
Commissioner Fiala, did you have something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. He just said that part of
town. What part of town? Where are you?
MR. LARSON: It's at the end of Radio Road out by 75 kind of
where Davis --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that that Shadow Wood?
MR. LARSON: It's called Tuscan Isle. It's behind -- it's in the
Saddle brook.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Saddlebrook.
MR. LARSON: Yeah. You know where that is. Weare --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. We've been having a lot of
problems over there with Saddlebrook, haven't we, as far as the other
person in there or not paying or --
MR. LARSON: Well, there's two developments. So we are
Tuscan Isle, and there actually is a Saddlebrook apartment complex in
there, but that's not us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you the good one?
MR. LARSON: We like to think so, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Commissioner Fiala, do
you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
Page 50
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions by
commissioners?
Commissioner Henning, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't know if it's --
what happens to those funds when they're repaid? What are they used
for?
MR. RAMSEY: They go back into the local affordable housing
trust fund for any other eligible use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you're asking for ten
years. You know, if the board is considering doing an extension on
this, I would like to see, you know, five years. They've had seven
years now. That's a total of 12 years, and you're talking $200,000 on
an apartment complex this size is -- understand the economy is what it
is, but ten years, I think it's -- sounds a little bit too much.
MR. RAMSEY: If I could, sir, just -- ifit makes anything -- the
request for ten years is a logical amount of time to select. This project
received tax financing, and also we've imposed on them a IS-year
affordability period. So providing the final loan for the additional ten
years would match up with that requirement, which I believe is the
nature of the request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'd like to clarify one thing with
respect to that. It looks to me, from the dates of the loan initiation,
that it has been seven years to this date.
MR. RAMSEY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So what are we -- what are we
asking for, an increase to a total of 15 years, which only means an
eight-year increase in term, or not? What is it we're really doing here?
MR. RAMSEY: 1 will defer to the petitioner on that.
MR. LARSON: Typically loans come up two years after the end
of the affordability period, and that's just to allow for some, you know,
refinancing under new terms; however, if eight were the choice of the
commission, we wouldn't be opposed.
Page 51
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if we go from the original loan
implementation date, or origination date, that would be 2003, if!
remember correctly.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, yeah. November --I've got November 1,
2003.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Three. And you want to go for a total of
15 years, I think, which is typical in these circumstances; is that
correct?
MR. LARSON: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're really looking for an extension
of eight years.
MR. LARSON: Right. Yeah, we'd requested ten, but we
wouldn't be opposed to eight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. And that would make
the total period consistent with the IS-year policy.
MR. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Since this is on public
petition, we can only -- we should be directing staff.
I heard what Commissioner Henning said, and I tend to agree
with him very much. I also, in reading the executive summary, I see
where it was a special note on the part of the petitioner to remind us
that we're in a secondary position as far as getting paid back against
the bank.
Economy being what it is, I can only surmise that the value of the
property has declined substantially, and it's going to be a little bit of
time before it has a chance to recover. And any effort on our part to
try to force this into some sort of foreclosure action will probably
mean the loss of funds, and the bank will be the only one that will be
made whole.
I think the best thing to do in this case is to have staff bring it
Page 52
September 14,2010
back to us and outline a couple possible scenarios of events, one, to
protect the public monies in a way that will be beneficial to us for the
shortest amount of time as far as getting it paid back and, number two,
to make sure we don't do anything to jeopardize this endeavor so that
it goes belly up and that we're left holding a bunch of worthless paper.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll take that as a motion; is that
okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Halas. And
Commissioner Fiala wants to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Did you -- was that for eight
years then, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I didn't mention any time
length. 1 want staff to bring it back with recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I had a couple questions.
Did you say you're totally rented?
MR. LARSON: Yes, ma'am. Well, we're about high eighties,
low nineties.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. That's pretty good. I
know that your ad valorem taxes have dropped as your property
values have dropped, so that certainly has helped you as well.
MR. LARSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many tax dollars actually went
into building your property?
MR. LARSON: Well, actually it's -- besides this loan from the
county, it's 100 percent privately financed. But it's tax exempt bonds
that come from the treasury that are sold to private investors, and then
there's a federal tax credit which is sold to a private investor, and then
those funds are combined with these county funds, and the
development is built.
Page 53
September 14,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I know we do provide tax
dollars to low-income housing.
And lastly, how about the impact fee repayment? Was -- were
the impact fees waived?
MR. RAMSEY: On this particular project I'm not sure if they
were deferred. I believe so.
MR. LARSON: Yeah. There was a deferral. And we are paid --
I believe there was a 20 -- or maybe a $40,000 shortfall in the amount
projected on the interest earned and the escrow and the actual amount
that was earned. So we've -- upon our agreement with the county on
that piece to pay over a certain period of time, maybe a year or so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can the county attorney give us a
little guidance on this, or are we in the right ballpark here? I just want
to make sure that we're protecting the assets of the money here that's
on the line.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's a local decision. We've got
confirmation from the state from that. We will be bringing it back on
the executive summary. The executive summary will protect the
county's interest.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then the motion was made by
Commissioner Coletta --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and to summarize it -- and seconded
by Commissioner Halas. To summarize, it's to direct staff to bring
back alternatives that are in the best interests of the taxpayers that will
protect our investment and provide the petitioner the best chance of
survival and continuing operation; is that a fair characterization?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast question.
Page 54
September 14,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In the creative choice letter to us,
they stated this was located at 8650 Weir Lane, but in the other
section, also by Creative Choices, it says located at 8587 Harot (sic)
Drive. Which one is it?
MR. LARSON: I believe it's Weir Lane. That's the address of
the clubhouse. There may be more than one addresses (sic).
Originally we were called Heron Cove, however, there were so many
Heron names, we changed to Tuscan Isle. So -- I mean, so there are a
number of different addresses within the development, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, okay. You might want to
clear that up for us, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
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. LARSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #6E
PUBLIC PETITION BY MS. DENISE DENARD REGARDING
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES - MOTION TO BRING BACK TO
A FUTURE BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 6E, which is
Page 55
September 14, 2010
a public petition request by Ms. Denise Denard regarding wastewater
impact fees.
MS. DENARD: Good morning, or should I say--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MS. DENARD: It's still morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's still morning. It just feels like it's
evenmg.
MS. DENARD: Right, okay. First off, I want to introduce
myself. I am Denise Denard. I have been in Collier County for about
25 years now, and I've had a business -- a catering business prior to
this business, which 1 had for 10 years. It was Cinderella Service.
And I don't know, maybe some of you commissioners were at some of
my events that I did.
I sold my business in 2007. And it was a tough time -- excuse
me -- it's a tough time to actually sell your business and to start a new
business. But my husband and I did start a new business, which is
now Fine and Dandy Service, also known as Nap King, and what that
business is is a linen service. We provide restaurant linens to the
restaurants, table clothes, napkins, bar towels, so on and so forth. We
are a small business compared to a national company that does
business here in Collier County and all over, so to speak.
We started this business in 2007 actually on Davis Boulevard and
then relocated to Enterprise Avenue beginning of2008. We've been
in that -- in 2008 -- we've been at 4344 Enterprise Avenue the
beginning of2008 until now.
Weare trying to relocate our business because we want to grow
and we want to reduce our rent, basically, okay.
So back in April of this year, 2010, I went down to the county to
inquire what -- the steps I needed to take to relocate our business.
And I took the plans of the new business and the plans of the business
that I'm currently in, and I showed them to Kristine Willoughby in
zoning. And I said, what is required of me to relocate an
Page 56
September 14,2010
already-existing business from point A to point B approximately 50
yards down the street. I told her what I was doing.
At this time she told me what I needed to do was apply for a gas
permit because we do need gas to run our equipment, and I also
needed to apply for a plumbing permit.
At this time, in April, 1 went ahead and applied for a gas permit,
and that was denied April 30th because I needed to submit an
insubstantial change showing what I was changing to the building, and
basically that was putting propane tanks outside of the building, and
that had to be noted on my application. I did not do this.
So when I filled out this application, I once again asked, is there
anything else that I need to do that I need to show in order for me to
move our business, whether it's plumbing, gas, or what have you.
Those are the only two issues that I was applying for to make this
move.
When I asked -- inquired about the plumbing, whether that had to
show on the insubstantial change as well, I was told no.
So I moved forward and put in the application for the gas permit
and let that go through its systems, and at the same time I went ahead
and got myself a contractor plumber and had him draw up drawings
for the plumbing work that I was going to do.
I went back down to the county and asked if there's anything that
I need again for plumbing or if this would suffice. And I spoke to
Dick Noonan. I actually even took the plumber with me and had him
speak to Dick Noonan so that we made sure that we were in line so we
knew what we were up against as far as fees, so on and so forth.
Really -- approximately about three weeks later, our plumbing
permit was denied. We're now in June. So -- and it was denied for
several reasons, you know, not only for impact fees. There's some
issues that we need to correct, but the main reason was impact fees.
And it wasn't until then that we found out that we would incur
approximately $29,000 worth of impact fees.
Page 57
September 14, 2010
In order for us to get a plumbing permit, we would first have to
pay $29,000 to move forward. And we just feel that that is quite unfair
since I was not aware that I was going to be imposing (sic) these
impact fees. I didn't impose them prior to starting this business. My
business is already an existing business. And now I'm told that I have
to pay $29,000.
I knew that I would incur some expenses. We estimated about
$10,000 in moving expenses, but now it's more like $30,000, or rather
$40,000, if you count $29,000.
So at this stage of the game -- let me just go further -- we don't
quite understand why we are incurring these impact fees. We feel that
the impact fees are based on the impact a business makes. We're
already an existing business. We're moving our business 50 yards
down a street. We're already incurring impact fees or have incurred
impact fees at this stage of the game. It's a business, okay.
So if I'm moving my impact from building A to building B, I'm
not incurring additional impact fees. They're the same. 1 don't
understand why I have to pay for them again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nor do I, Ms. Denard. I'm up here.
MS. DENARD: Where? Oh, very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The speakers come out back there.
MS. DENARD: Okay. I thought you were behind me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Nor do I. And I'd like to get an
explanation as to why you're being assessed those impact fees.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Wides,
Operations Director for Public Utilities.
First off, when we speak of the impact fees, we're speaking to the
property owner, okay, not to the tenant.
Now, we don't have a relationship with the tenant or the property
owner. Whoever comes in to pull that building permit is assessed the
impact fee, but that impact fee cost runs with the land.
So, in fact, the current location where the Denards are habitating
Page 58
September 14, 2010
their business, that business, that area, will receive an impact fee
credit, that owner, for the next business that comes in and replaces the
Denards, which could be a bigger business or could be a smaller
business. But that impact fee stays with the land.
Likewise, the new owner or the owner of the business where the
Denards are moving, will retain the benefit if they again move their
business later on. They will retain the benefit of that impact fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The building where she's moving is a
building that preexists. I mean, it's there, right?
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She didn't build a new building.
MR. WIDES: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That building is there. So at some point
in time somebody paid an impact fee on that building.
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, are you charging her an
incremental impact fee, or are you charging her an initial impact fee?
MR. WIDES: This is an incremental impact fee. You're exactly
right in what you said. When that building was built, a base amount
of impact fees were charged, because at that point in time we nor the
owners would have known exactly what kind of businesses would be
going in. So we charged a base amount of impact fees.
In this incremental or marginal amount of fees that we're
discussing, we're giving a credit. Even in there, there's a credit for that
initial fee that was paid.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So she's not -- on the street where she is
now operating and where she will be operating at a new location, no
additional water service usage is going to occur; is that not correct?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, I don't -- I don't know that.
Someone will take the place of the Denards' business, I have to
assume, and whoever takes that place will consume either more or less
or a different amount of water.
Page 59
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well--
MR. WIDES: In this case, it's wastewater.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, we encountered this
with medical facilities, and I think we're going to have to deal with it
again with other kinds of facilities, because I think it's ridiculous,
particularly in these economic times. We simply cannot charge
people these kinds of costs, when I don't see financial impact for the
county.
Who was next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we have an understanding
here. First of all, we have an ordinance in regards to impact fees, and
I believe, because of the nature of this business, which is going to be a
catering business --
MS. DENARD: No, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's going to be food service,
right?
MS. DENARD: No. It's a linen service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's a linen service.
MS. DENARD: Yeah. I had a catering business.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're going to use more water.
MS. DENARD: No. Excuse me. I'm already an existing
business, sir. I'm using the same amount of water today that I would
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is, you didn't -- the
property that you were at, okay, there was an impact there. That--
those impact fees go with the property there. They can't be transferred
to another property, okay.
So your requirements to use additional water, or whatever you're
going to do here -- because this is the assessment that utilities looked
at and looking at the type of business -- obviously, this is why there's
Page 60
September 14, 2010
an additional impact fee.
The building you're at right now, you made an agreement -- my
understanding is, you made an agreement with the building owner that
you would pay the impact fees, that the building owner actually
should be paying this impact fee, but you decided to pay this, and that
the requirements that were on that particular building do not cover the
type of business that you're going to have in there.
And I make -- 1 want to make sure that I understand clearly
what's happening here, that you can't -- because of the location, that
stays with that particular building, and you rented that building, and
now you want to come to a new building, and you want to up the
service whereby it's a requirement for additional water or additional
sewage facilities. That's part of our ordinance in regards to impact
fees.
Am I correct or am I wrong here?
MS. DENARD: May I interrupt? We are not -- we are still the
same business. The agreement that we have with our landlord when
we moved into 4344 Enterprise is that we were going to pay so much
for rent and so much for water. That's it. We signed a lease. We pay
our monthly rent. We operate our business. We want to grow our
business. We want to move into a larger space so that we can grow
our business, hopefully, you know, create some jobs in our
community. And by doing so, we found a new location 50 yards
down the street. At this point nothing has changed. We're just
moving the location of the business.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I know you are, but the
impact fees stay with that property that you are -- that you are leaving
and now coming to a new property. So the argument is probably not
with the county, but it's with the landlord. The landlord's got to
realize that somebody's got to pay impact fees additional on top of
what has been put there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was next, Commissioner
Page 61
September 14, 2010
Fiala or Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I guess I was. But I was just
going to say the same thing you said already, so you can let that go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Am I correct that you're moving
your business because you're expanding, growing your business?
MS. DENARD: I want to grow my business, yes, in order to
create more jobs and in order to create more money in my --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You clean the linens?
MS. DENARD: We clean, yes, linens, table cloths, napkins, for
the restaurants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to be using
more water?
MS. DENARD: Not at this stage of the game, but eventually,
and actually in our application for the plumbing permit, we went
ahead -- well, right now we have three washing machines, okay. We
went ahead in our application for a permit for future use to potentially
put another fourth washing machine, because we're hoping to grow
our business.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. DENARD: And we are -- the impact fees are based on four
washing machines, whether that fourth washing machine is there or
not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is the -- impact fees --
I'm getting confused. I thought it was per water meter size. No,
you're talking about the use?
MR. DeLONY: No. It's actually -- for the record, Jim DeLony,
Public Utilities Administrator. It's based on the demand. In this
particular case --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. For the use.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, in terms of her demand. She uses what
Page 62
September 14, 2010
she uses. It's what her demand is scheduled to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Demand of use?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, yes, sir, demand for use.
In this particular case, the calculation for the four washing
machines -- and I think you have these numbers -- we calculated an
impact of 8.6 equivalent residential credits or units, which are
subscribed at about $3,400, $3,500 in ERC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if she would stay with three
washers would that --
MR. DeLONY: It would actually be lower.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it sounds like she
doesn't need the fourth one.
MR. DeLONY : We calculated it based on what she provided to
us as her in-state, and that's how we calculate the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if she would revise her
permit, her application, for three washers, her impact fees would stay
the same or go down?
MR. DeLONY: No. They'd go to whatever those three washers
would have for a calculation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: In this particular case, I believe there's a
three-washer scenario -- I'm looking at these notes here -- of 6.4
ERCs. So each washer essentially carries a 1.2 allocation of ERCs,
and that's how you calculate the amount to be paid, and that's how we
came up with the number we have for that.
Now, we did speak to her about an alternative impact fee
calculation in case there was an opportunity where that could be
reduced, and we have that provision in the ordinance to do that, and
she's been informed of that opportunity to do it, and we offered to help
her with that any way we could.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. DENARD: May I interject on that point? In order for me to
Page 63
September 14, 2010
do that, I still first have to come up with the $29,000, okay, to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. DENARD: -- get my plumbing permit, I then have to pay
an additional $2,000, which is nonrefundable, I then have to prove
five other businesses like mine that compare that would use that
amount of water. There is no five other businesses like mine,
unfortunately, in Collier County.
The amount of -- the way I'm classified, the classification I fall
under is for a hotel or restaurant. There is no classification for my
kind of business. A hotel uses probably three times the amount of
water that I would use at this stage of the game. So there is no little
mom-and-pop laundry service out there that I can even fall under.
So again, you know, in this economy, there's no business coming
in after me to do the same thing, and their impact is paid for. If! was
to move again, that means I would have to pay another $29,000?
Every time I move I have to pay impact fees? I'm moving my impact.
There's no new water systems on the street or sewer lines being laid
because of me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can I suggest something? Either
let's make a motion to bring this back and get all the facts -- we can't --
I don't know -- if we're going to have this back and forth all the time
here --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That sounds good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have something to add to
this discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll take Commissioner Coletta,
and then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay with you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason being that there's so
much discussion going on is because this commission really does care.
Many of us have been involved with small business before ourselves.
Page 64
September 14, 2010
I'm a landlord myself with a building, and I ran into a situation some
years ago where I lost a tenant because of a $30,000 impact fee that
they were unwilling to pay and I couldn't afford to pay and -- right off
over the course of a five-year lease.
Just a couple questions -- and I'm pretty sure we're going to end
up -- I'm going to make a motion to bring it back because there's still a
lot of things in play. Maybe there might be something -- 1 want to ask
you one thing. The -- your landlord that you now have, is it going to
be the same landlord you have?
MS. DENARD: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to say, if we
did, maybe there could be some swap where that could follow you to
that building. See, your landlord gets a tremendous benefit from this
that's long-term. You might be in the building for five years. You
may move to a bigger building. You may eventually buy a building.
The landlord still has the benefit of this $29,000 impact fee that's
going to stay with the building. It's going to increase the value of the
property for another tenant similar to yourself or another water user
that would be of similar size. So there's an issue with that.
I'm going to make a motion to bring it back with all sorts of
different objectives we might be able to look at, possibly something in
the long-term where we can recognize the fact that this is a tenant
rather than a landlord and that the use of the impact fee that's going to
be there is going to be a temporary thing that would be billed over a --
every year for -- maybe written off against like 20 years, and that
every year there would be something paid towards it. And then when
she leaves, the building returns back to its original designation.
Just a thought that I want to keep everybody's minds open as we
go forward, trying to find a solution to help a small businessperson
take the next step in life. Thank you for bringing it to us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You didn't make your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made that as a motion that we
Page 65
September 14, 2010
bring it back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion if it
includes the fact that -- when they come back to us, they should
explore what type of business, being that they have no -- no type of
business in their calculations right now for these impact fees. Possibly
this should be adjusted because --
MR. DeLONY: And we would do that anyway, whether -- with
or without that direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. You can understand, we want to
make sure we get this exactly right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas has the last word.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And one thing we have to
realize, that if somebody doesn't pay the impact fees or pay for the
usage of this water, then someone else in the county is going to incur
this charge.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And water is not free anymore and
water is not cheap. In fact, with the water allocations that we have, we
have to dig deeper and we have to use brackish water.
And so this isn't a penalty for business. This is because of the fact
of the government stipulations telling us the type of water we've got to
use and what it costs us in the county to bring new water plants online
that can accommodate this.
So somewheres along the line -- there's no such thing as a free
lunch. Somebody along the way is going to pay. So we're trying to
make sure that this is fair and equitable, because if the commercial
portion property owners don't pay their fair share, then the end result
is, the residential are going to have to pick up the slack. So it has to
be fair for everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we're going to bring this back
for discussion, and you'll come up with some alternatives. And I will
Page 66
September 14,2010
share with you my last thought on this.
This concept is absolutely unintelligible, okay. Nobody in
business or a residential user understands this process at all. We don't
even understand it. It is almost impossible for an individual business
owner to forecast and anticipate what kind of bills they're going to get
hit with when they want to make a simple move from one address to
another address.
And from my standpoint, it does not place any greater burden
upon the government for that to happen. And for us to penalize them
during a time of financial recession is really dumb. And I would like
to see you take a look at how we do things here, because this isn't the
only controversy we've got going with water and water distribution
and charge rates and that sort of stuff. It is extremely complex.
And bottom line, the very least we can do is when somebody
comes in and says, what do I have to do if I'm going to move my
business from here to there and how much is it going to cost me, there
should be a comprehensive list of financial impacts for doing that.
MR. DeLONY: And I agree. In this particular case, I believe
that there are many other facts here, and we will get that in an
executive summary back to you.
I understand your direction clearly. When someone wants to do
business in the county, we want to make it clear. I'm not sure we can
make it simple, but we can make it simpler.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: Now, here's the deal. On this particular issue,
this lady has -- came forward and she made certain representations.
Staff at the community development -- I mean Growth Management
Division gave her the best advice possible.
When we got it over at our side, we did exactly what you'd
expect us to do. So I would tell you clearly that we understand
exactly what it is you expect us to do to help folks through a simpler
process than what maybe is perceived to be fact.
Page 67
September 14,2010
My view is, is that in the case of this particular application, this is
a change in use of a building. That change in use requires a certain
impact fee calculation to achieve that. Impact fee calculations and
fees associated with that building stay with the building. The tenant
does not own those impact fees --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're bringing this back.
MR. DeLONY: -- or that capacity. That's owned by the owner.
So it is -- that's what we do; that's how we do it. And I will take a
hard look at that and have that in, as best I can, to meet your intent,
sir. I just wanted to make sure I got it and make sure you know I've
got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we do.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
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. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas objecting.
Item #10C
RESCINDNG THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW
PREVENTERS ON FIRE SERVICE LINES, AND REQUIRING
RETROACTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REQUIREMENT
TO JUNE 8, 2010 - MOTION TO BRING BACK TO FUTURE
Page 68
September 14,2010
BCC MEETING WITH STAFF DIRECTION - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to your 11 p.m. time
certain a little bit late this morning. That is Item 10C on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: It's a recommendation to rescind the administrative
stay of the requirements for reduced pressure backflow preventers on
fire service lines and require retroactive implementation of the
requirement to June 8, 2010, and Mr. Mattausch will present.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Thank you. Good morning. For the
record, Paul Mattausch, Water Department Director. I do have a
presentation. And if 1 --
MR.OCHS: We've got to, Paul.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Thank you very much.
I would like to make a brief presentation, because we've not had
the opportunity to place on record a few things that this is -- this is
maybe a little bit of a backflow prevention education so that maybe I
can make things a little simpler for you.
If -- there's just really one singular purpose for requiring reduced
pressure principle backflow preventers, and that's a mouthful. You'll
hear them referred to as RPZ's, and RPZ stands for the reduced
pressure zone. And I have a device here, and I'm going to show it to
you so that you can understand what the device is like.
That backflow preventer we require on all connections to the
public drinking water supply system, including fire services. The sole
purpose of that is to reduce the potential risk of contamination of our
drinking water to protect public health.
One of the reasons for this is -- and what we have found, we can't
monitor or control anything that is happening beyond the service
connection at the property line. So if a water pipe goes into the
building, whether it is for domestic use or whether it is for fire service
use, that water line goes onto the property, it's pressurized, it has water
Page 69
September 14, 2010
in it, and somebody -- somebody takes a look at that water line and
says, this is really handy to have water here. It's -- that's advancing.
I'm not sure there was -- okay.
The lack of control over what happens to that water line, we've
found those fire service connections that are specifically supposed to
be for fire service only. We have found those tied to non-potable
water irrigation systems, reclaimed water, surface water systems.
We've found them tied to potable water irrigation systems. We've
found construction usage of fire-service-only water, and we've found
domestic usage.
And that -- we have examples available. I'm not going to go
through those right now. If questions come up after I get done with
the presentation, I'd be glad to answer them.
The -- I really almost need to read these to you so that you
understand. These are really definitions of what a cross-connection is.
A cross-connection is any connection, any connection, between the
public water supply system, the potable water, drinking water, and any
other source of water, any other source of water that has potential to
contaminate the potable water supply through a process known as
backflow, therefore backflow preventers. That's why the devices are
there.
Backflow is a reversal of the flow of the water through a
cross-connection. Any connection between two different water
supplies that can pull -- has the potential to pull undesirable water into
the potable water supply system.
There are two types of backflows. Back pressure can be caused
by the fire suppression system itself. In fact, a standpipe -- which is a
common use in taller buildings. A standpipe pipe in a six-story
building exerts about 26 pounds per square inch of back pressure on
the water distribution system. An eight-story building provides about
35 pounds of -- pounds per square inch of pressure, back pressure onto
the water supply system.
Page 70
September 14, 2010
Low pressure can be caused by a water main break. We do
occasionally have water main breaks. In fact, we run on an average of
about one a week. And it can also be fire hydrant usage, can cause low
pressure. When they're fighting a fire or when they're flow testing a
fire hydrant, that can cause a low pressure condition in part of the
water distribution system.
Negative pressure can be caused by a fire pump on a fire
suppression system itself. And in fact, when that fire pump kicks on,
in the adjoining building there's a low pressure situation, and that can
cause a back pressure or backflow into the system.
And also, hooking up a fire truck to a pumper truck to a fire
hydrant can actually draw negative pressure on the system because the
pumper truck, you know, pumps a lot of water in a short period of
time.
There are two different devices that we're talking about. We're
talking about a double-check device, and we're talking about a
reduced pressure or RPZ device, and I just happen to have one of
these with me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Always carry one around in your
back pocket?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Always carry one around in my back
pocket.
This is a double-check assembly. There are two check valves in
this assembly. When this -- this is -- and the flow of water is from the
water main to the building. And these check valves keep water from
flowing back towards the water main.
Well, when these fail, when these check valves fail -- and they do
fail. All mechanical devices sometime over the period of its lifetime
fail. So when these fail -- and understand that they both have to fail at
the same time -- what happens is water from the building, if there's
back pressure or back siphonage or any of those conditions that I just
described, the water from that system goes back directly into the
Page 71
September 14, 2010
public water supply system, and that's not a condition that we want to
have.
So instead of this device -- you'll excuse me just one second --
this one's not quite as handy. It doesn't fit in my back pocket. This
device also has two check valves just like the double-check device
has; however, the construction is different in that it has a reduced
pressure zone, RPZ, a reduced pressure zone here between the two
check valves, and that zone -- if and when the two check valves fail,
that zone doesn't allow water from the fire suppression system to go
back into the public water supply system. Instead, it has, in the
bottom of these -- you know, you've got to think about, this is a
one-inch device. We're talking about six-inch devices or eight-inch
devices. I couldn't carry one of those in here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why didn't you bring those in?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yeah. I couldn't carry them.
But you see, here's an opening, here's a port. And when this
device fails, it doesn't fail into the public water supply system. It fails
to the atmosphere, okay. So it doesn't contaminate. There's no --
thank you, Mr. Ochs.
There's no way for that water -- because it vents to atmosphere,
there's no way for that water to get back into the drinking water supply
system.
So now that I've given you a short primer on backflow prevention
here -- the American Waterworks Association and the National Fire
Protection Association both recommend that an RPZ, a reduced
pressure assembly, be used in high-hazard situations. That's those
systems, fire systems, that things are added to, like antifreeze.
Obviously we don't have to worry about antifreeze here. Foaming--
anti foaming agents, other chemical additi ves, and those other
chemical additives include chemicals for corrosion control to keep the
fire suppression system from rusting out and also biocides to prevent
biological growth ofthe stagnant water that has sat there in the fire
Page 72
September 14, 2010
suppression system with no flow through for a long period of time. So
those chemicals can be added. But that's high hazard.
A double-check backflow assembly, like the first one that I
showed you, recommend to be used in low hazard situations or
systems without additives. That's most of our systems; however, since
we can't control what a private owner does on their side of that fire
service -- and they may connect it to an irrigation system or use it for
construction uses -- by the way, just a couple weeks ago we found a
residential service being used. There was no backflow preventer on it,
and the contractor was using it and had the end of a hose in a
55-gallon drum, and he was mixing -- using water to mix cement,
mortar, and so we have no control over what is going on beyond the
service connection.
And so because of that, we really consider all service connections
to be high-hazard connections and require a reduced pressure
backflowassembly.
However, different from your executive summary, we're going to
__ we're going to ask this, and I want to make sure that I get this.
We're not asking you for a vote today. We're asking you for a
continuance of this item, because we are working with DSAC at your
direction to address some issues. And there are a couple issues that
have come up that we want -- we want you to allow us some
additional time for some further discussion with DSAC and with the
other stakeholders.
So I'm going to ask you to allow us to take some additional time
to -- to go and continue our work with DSAC on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that it?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a bunch of speakers.
Who was first? I'm going from left to right if I don't hear anything
from you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning was first.
Page 73
September 14,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the direction from the
Board of Commissioners was to get DSAC's input and bring that back
to us. 1 haven't heard DSAC's input, number one, and we also asked
to bring it back at this meeting. We didn't ask staff to bring this back.
We directed staff to put it on the agenda to hear from DSAC.
And I guess since we had a presentation -- and I hope we don't
continue this -- but I don't want to miss it. I'm not -- hopefully we
won't get another presentation of the same thing.
You're saying you want to keep the RPZ, which you stated is a
high hazard -- for high-hazard situations even though that -- we don't
have that here. What other communities have these RPZs in the State
of Florida?
MR. MATT AUSCH: There are very few other communities that
have required reduced pressure zone backflow preventers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you name me the ones in
the State of Florida that have RPZ requirements?
MR. MATT AUSCH: No. We don't have that for you. We'll
find out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. 1 have some other
questions.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying that we have dual
lines going into a building, one a fire line and one for general
purposes; is that true?
MR. MATTAUSCH: In most instances, yes. We do have some
combination systems, some combination connections, where it's both
domestic and fire. But for most cases, yes, two separate lines.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's a requirement of the
county, correct?
MR. MATT AUSCH: There is an option that is included in the
Page 74
September 14, 2010
ordinance to combine the two systems.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And use a double-check valve?
MR. MATT AUSCH: No. That would be an RPZ because of the
situation. That would be an RPZ. That would be a metered service
connection, fully metered.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MATTAUSCH: An RPZ.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why not just have a single
line servicing for the fire protection and service?
MR. MATT AUSCH: That -- sir, that is an option that is
available through the ordinance, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And to just do away with all fire
systems, separate metered fire system?
MR. MATT AUSCH: That is a -- that is a design decision that's
usually -- that decision is made by the developer of the building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the purpose of -- you
say that if these dual backflow preventers fail, the water goes back
into the system? What is the hazard of that?
MR. MATT AUSCH: The water has -- the water has stood for
long periods of time in an uncontrolled situation. Biological growth
can happen in that water. The corrosion can take place in the fire
system. That -- that is undesirable in the drinking water supply to
introduce that potential risk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You flush the system out,
correct? Well, you don't, but the system gets flushed out.
MR. MATT AUSCH: The chloramine residual -- chloramine is
what we use for a disinfectant. The chloramine residual, typically we
require a developer to show us what happens to the chloramine
residual in 100 hours, and at that -- at the end of the 100 hours, we're
required -- or they are required to show us that they retain 0.6
Page 75
September 14, 2010
milligrams per liter of the disinfectant residual in the water. That
water stands in fire suppress systems much longer than 100 hours.
And so the residual -- the disinfectant residual is gone and, therefore,
there is no control by disinfection over what is happening in the fire
suppression system when the water stands in that system for a period
of time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about a house that's
vacant for a long period of time?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Same -- exactly the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you only have a
double-check valve on those systems.
MR. MATTAUSCH: No. In fact, we have RPZs on those.
MR. DeLONY: This is atypical.
MR. MATTAUSCH: One stands in front of my house. Where in
our -- in our Capital Improvement Program, we are --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you only have one -- you
only have one -- well, let me say a commercial building. You have a
vacant commercial building, you have one RPZ for the fire
suppression system, and then you have the dual check? No. They're
all --
MR. MATTAUSCH: No. Other way around.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, the other way around.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Under the old -- under the old ordinance,
the original existing conditions, we required the double-check on the
fire services. Weare now going to upgrade to the RPZ under the one
that was passed two years ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And have a dual meter. You're
going to be dual metering the use of --
MR. MATTAUSCH: No. We're not talking about metering
right now. We're talking about backflow prevention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. Is there a meter on the
fire suppression system?
Page 76
September 14,2010
MR. MATTAUSCH: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Finished?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, it's Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Are all these RPZs
aboveground and are the double-checks below the ground?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Most of the double-checks in the
commercial facilities and all of the RPZs are aboveground. Anything
__ anything over 2 inches in size typically are installed aboveground
whether -- if it's a doublecheck. RPZs are required to be installed
aboveground because it has to vent to atmosphere.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's -- with that little hole
there, I was just wondering if that was the case.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Let's see. You had
mentioned that there were many incidents, and you were saying in
different cases. Can -- were there a lot of them, or were they at
random? Can you -- can you tell me exactly how many in each one of
those cases and over what period of time so I get a general idea of--
you know, sometimes, especially in this economy, we want to make
sure that we're not -- we didn't get -- we don't get into the overkill
mode, and sometimes we do that. So I just wanted to see what you
were talking about.
MR. MATT AUSCH: Well, let me just say that one
cross-connection is one too many because of the potential risk to
public health, and once there is a cross-connection and if it backflows,
we have no control over what goes on in the water distribution system,
so we're trying to eliminate all of them. That's why in 1997, the Board
of County Commissioners passed a program, a cross-connection
Page 77
September 14, 2010
control program, to go forward to make sure that we had
cross-connection control prevention on all services in Collier County.
And we have -- we have determined on a -- on a hazard basis,
risk-management basis, that RPZs need to go on all services.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But in this economy right
now, Paul, have we had a serious problem with this?
MR. MATT AUSCH: No, and that's exactly the way that I need
to keep it. I've not had. However, if I have -- if I have just one, one,
water -- drinking-water-supply related illness, anything that's linked to
the public water supply system, then the confidence of everybody that
has drinking water in their home has been -- has been ruined.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that.
MR. MATT AUSCH: And so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And, you know -- and that's very
dramatic. But if right now we're not having a problem, is it something
that maybe we should start thinking about in a little bit more of the
future?
Do double-check valves always fail at the same time? You had
said, you know, one --
MR. MATTAUSCH: No, ma'am, they don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They don't. So one could fail, but
then the other one might not?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. On the double-check, which
is standard right now, right?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Yes, that's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's where the double-check
comes in, okay. I -- do you have a risk analysis on this?
MR. MATT AUSCH: That is very difficult to do, because we
don't know -- we don't know if there are any occurrences of illness
related to public water supply or to cross-connections. That's not
something that we have the ability to find out.
Page 78
September 14, 2010
Some of the -- some of the cross-connections that were found,
Sam's Club, the Mercato, Pebble Creek, Sand point, Crescent, there
are a number of places that we've found cross-connections on fire
protection systems that are supposed to be for fire protection only.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's my questions for now.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I insisted that the
county manager let staff make this presentation. This has come before
us, this is the third time, I believe, and both times before staff was not
allowed to make a presentation, and I felt that we needed to get the
whole picture on the board.
But I can tell you, Fellow Commissioners, that there were some
instances of -- the importance of this is that there were a couple of
instances where private homeowners that lived in gated communities
whereby the association, homeowners' association, had asked a
previous homeowner if they could tap into the water system to irrigate
their common areas.
And I think you recall where one individual had bought a home
and couldn't understand why there was such a high water bill. And
after -- upon staff going out and investigating, they found out that they
had tapped into the water source, and there was no RPZ that was
attached to that system and so, therefore, the potential is there for --
where the water would be then brought back into the water system that
feeds the rest of the county.
As you'd probably know that -- every tap that you have on the
outside of your home has a breaker valve which is basically an RPZ so
that you shut it off, it automatically lets that water flow out and takes
__ relieves the pressure so it can't go back into the system.
The thing here is that, even in commercial buildings, I've -- we've
found that people were tapping into the fire lines and using that supply
of water for either irrigation or, as it was brought out, for commercial
Page 79
September 14, 2010
use such as construction with the intent of not paying for that water in
a sense.
And I think this is one of the problems that we want to make sure
that we don't have a contamination of the water system.
I know there's been people that lobbied me and says, well,
where's the body count? I guess it's like taking an airline trip and
finding out that you have a crack in the fuselage and you're saying,
well, I think we can get ten more flights out of it and we may not have
a failure. Maybe you don't get the ten flights. Maybe you get 100
flights out of it.
But the end result is, ifthere's something that is potentially
harmful for the citizens in this county, I think that we have an
obligation to make sure that we take care of the health, safety, and
welfare.
So I think that these RPZs are -- or RPZs are needed to make sure
that there isn't any contamination of the water systems throughout the
county, especially if it's under our control.
And that's all I have to say on the subject.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, sir. I've been
listening very patiently to everybody as we went back and forth, and a
couple of things that come to mind is, we directed staff to meet with
the DSAC to be able to come up with some determination as to what
they want. We've got their determination here and it says, it has not
been demonstrated the potential health and safety risk is imminent,
and it has not been demonstrated that installing the RPZ in lieu of a
double detector check assembly is warranted since no empirical data
was submitted to substantiate the requirements.
You know, we asked staff this very question over and over again
several different ways, and we never came up with a definitive
answer. One, they haven't demonstrated a -- I'm sorry, Jim, you
haven't. I kept listening to your replies and everything. And I'm not
Page 80
September 14,2010
saying that there isn't a danger, but I mean, how sterile can we make
this world, at what cost, before we get to the point of no return?
We're talking about an enormous cost to retrofit some of these
things. Yeah, the check valve might only cost $700, but if you have to
retrofit the rest of the building to make it work, you're talking about
quite an expense at a time, for something, that really isn't justified.
What I'd like to hear at this time is from the speakers. Do we
have any speakers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we've got some.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's hear from them and then
make a decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, did you have a -- is there a question there I
need to ask (sic) for you -- answer for you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I'm not asking any
questions. I'm making a statement and an observation.
MR. DeLONY: All right, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have four speakers. But I want to
make a statement concerning this myself. You can't do something just
because you want to do it, okay. Just because you think it's the right
thing to do, you just can't do it that way. And to keep coming back to
us with that same kind of justification undermines the credibility of
your argument.
So what I want to make sure of -- happens is, you give us a cost
benefit analysis of this thing. These things are expensive, particularly
when you get into 7-inch lines. And without the data to demonstrate
the risk and the cost that we're going to put people through in -- under
these economic circumstances, I don't think you're going to get
majority board approval, and I think you know that, too.
So either we start getting some specific information about cost
benefits of making this decision along with a good rational argument
about why now is the time it has to be done, then I don't think you're
Page 81
September 14, 2010
going to get anywhere with this.
So with that, let's call the public speakers, and we'll see what they
have to say.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Bill Varian.
MR. VARIAN: Good morning. Thank you, Commissioners.
For the record, I'm Bill Varian. I'm the chairman ofDSAC.
At your July 27th meeting, you had directed DSAC to put the
subcommittee together to discuss the issue at hand. We did put a
committee together. It included at least two members from DSAC, we
had members from the CBIA, we had East Naples Fire District, we
had the Fire Code Officials Office, we also had industry-specific fire
sprinkler designers as well as site designers involved with fire lines.
So we had a pretty diverse group that met.
We met three times is all we could fit in before the DSAC
meeting before this meeting. So in total we had about six hours of
discussion on this issue.
We asked questions and requested information from utilities
staff, who attended the meeting, but never received any pertinent
information to support the need for RPZs.
We also asked for information from utilities on whether any
double-check systems have failed and caused health and safety issues,
and not one example was given to us.
For the record -- and I believe Paul also mentioned this -- NFP A
does require inspections and I believe testing of these double-checks
and RPZs on a -- I think a yearly basis, and those tests are done by a
fire sprinkler company or whatever. Paul or utilities wouldn't get a
report that says, hey, one failed, but they would get a report that said
that everything was okay. And it's the fire departments that follow up
on that. So the double-checks are inspected that are installed.
So with that basic information, the committee came to the
conclusion that the system connections that already exist and for
future development will actually penalize property owners who make
Page 82
September 14,2010
their -- who, by code, make their buildings more safer.
You'll see in the letter -- I think you've all referenced that -- that
there were three recommendations for your consideration from DSAC.
One, that it was not demonstrated that the potential health and safety
risk was immediate or imminent. Two, that it was not demonstrated
that installing an RPZ in lieu of a double-check assembly is warranted
since no empirical data was submitted to substantiate the requirement.
So DSAC asks that a permanent stay of this section of the
ordinance is put in place and that the subcommittee is given more time
to discuss the issue of inline meters and the appropriateness of charges
for fire lines.
Also, as part of this, we would ask the consideration given to
fund a staff person from a source other than 113 dollars; 113 being the
Building Department permit fees. So we'd like you to give that.
Also want to clarify something. As you know, DSAC is a
IS-member committee that's appointed by you guys, the BCC, to
provide technical and industry-specific experiences on a variety of
items. There are -- out of the 15 members, three of them are civil
engineers or in that discipline. Others include general contractors like
myself. We have attorneys. We have land developers. So we have,
you know, a wide variety of people.
But when you look at that, there's probably only two or three
members of DSAC that really know intimately how an RPZ and a
double-check will work.
Do I have a couple more seconds? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two seconds.
MR. VARIAN: Anyways. Again, there's only two or three
members that would really fully understand the utilities ordinance and
how it really works. It is very detail oriented, so keep that in mind.
So back in 2006 when it was decided that this subcommittee
would be disbanded, it wasn't because DSAC didn't care about the
issue. It was that the people that would be best interested in it didn't
Page 83
September 14, 2010
have the time to give back. I mean, we are all volunteers, and we're
stretched pretty thin, especially in 2006, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. He's got a
question for you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Bill.
MR. VARIAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thanks again for being here today.
As you and I discussed, I'd like to get a breakdown of -- from the
engineers and maybe from the fire quadrant of exactly what we're
talking about, because one of the discussions in one of the previous
meetings was how much we were losing in pressure because of these
items that we want to insert into the line.
MR. V ARlAN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think it's very important that
we have a full understanding exactly if the -- what the pressure losses
are and how that equates to the cost of putting this into -- the
apparatuses into the line. Okay?
MR. VARIAN: There is another member of DSAC who does
have some of that information for you, and I believe he's listed as a
speaker for you guys.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. V ARlAN: Okay, thanks.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Dave Dunnavant, and
I think he's deferred his time to David Hurst.
MR. HURST: For the record, David Hurst from WilsonMiller,
Stanteck, part ofDSAC. Actually, I do have some information for
you, Commissioner Halas, if I could run over there real quick and put
it on the projector.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you just make the
presentation from over there, and you can manage everything.
MR. HURST: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Give it to me, Dave.
Page 84
September 14,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a little closer to the mike,
please.
MR. HURST: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or louder.
MR. HURST: Yes, sir. Is the better?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's better.
MR. HURST: Okay. And I apologize. I threw this together real
quick right before the meeting.
What this represents is kind of an order of magnitude calculation
of where we are specific to commercial buildings, dedicated fire lines
only. Residential systems are required to have RPZ connections per
DEP. Nobody's arguing that. So what we're talking about specifically
are commercial connections dedicated fire line.
The question was raised whether we had the choice or whether
there was a choice to do a compound system versus a dedicated fire
line system, and we do have a choice during the design process, and
that's typically analyzed based on, you know, a cost analysis, which
one's more cost effective, compound versus private, dedicated fire
line.
What this represents is a dedicated fire line for -- pick a project. I
used the same information, the only difference being, one uses a
dedicated -- or a double-detector check assembly. The other uses the
RPZ. So the delta being -- and I'm going to walk up there real quick
and point it out. The delta being the pressure drop across the backflow
preventers. And let me point that out; 8 PSI versus 14 PSI.
MR. DeLONY: Hey, Dave. Test, one, 2 two.
MR. HURST: Thank you. Okay. Again, thank you.
This is an order-of-magnitude number. They may vary
depending on the flow through the backflow preventer and the actual
model of the backflow pre venter, but this is kind of an order of
magnitude of the pressure differential, a negative 8 PSI drop across the
backflow preventer versus a 14 PSI drop.
Page 85
September 14, 2010
Now, what that means is when it translates to the actual building,
as you go through the water main, at the very far end here you can see
the minimum required delivery pressure is 20 PSI. That's what we're
required to deliver to the building.
With the double-detector check assembly, based on this
calculation, you would end up with 27 PSI available. With the RPZ,
you would end up with 21.06, which, you know, equates to a loss of 6
PSI, which is the difference between these two.
What -- I'm sorry. What that means is -- can we go to the second
one. I'm sorry. I'm back here. Is this working?
MR.OCHS: No, turn it on.
MR. DeLONY: You've got to turn it on.
MR. HURST: Okay. One PSI equals roughly 2.31 feet of head
or elevation. So when we talk about 6 PSI difference, what that
equates to is roughly 14 feet of building elevation. So the order--
what that translates to in terms of the cost to the building would be
that -- where you normally wouldn't have to put in a fire pump until
the third floor. In this case you might have to put it in at the second
floor.
So that means that your typical building construction here might
require a fire pump in this -- in the proposed scenario where it
normally wouldn't.
And, you know, the order of magnitude, the cost, I mean, they're
__ it's going to vary, but we estimated, depending on what needed to be
done in terms of the water main upsizing versus the fire pump,
anywhere from 15- to $45,000, just a ballpark.
Okay. So backing up. You know -- and I agree with what Paul
said about backflow prevention is required. It's necessary, it's
important. What we need to evaluate, and I think some of the
commissioners hit on this, is whether or not there's been a cost-benefit
analysis done, what that benefit is versus the cost, and what the
immediate danger is.
Page 86
September 14,2010
And what we're dealing with at this point is a situation where, if
we implement this code requirement right now, it's not going to
improve the system one bit from this day forward -- or from -- as it
stands right now, and it will only improve the system very minimally
moving forward because it's -- it hits a very small portion of projects
within Collier County.
So what we're talking about is a minimal improvement to the
overall integrity of the water supply system but a significant cost to an
individual project. So I think that needs to be considered as we move
forward. And that's essentially it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Question by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me that -- I think
the county right now provides about 40 PSI.
MR. HURST: Yes, sir. That's the requirement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Which is -- pardon?
MR. HURST: That's the requirement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the state requirement is 20
PSI.
MR. HURST: What we're required to model for fire flow would
be 40 PSI, per the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What happens if the county decides
that the system is capable of handling 50 PSI?
MR. HURST: From a site design standpoint, that's beneficial.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. HURST: And there are mitigations that we have talked with
utilities staff about and, you know, that's -- I think that might be the
direction that they were heading with the request for an extension.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And -- because the most important
thing is still making sure that we take care of health, safety, and
welfare of the rest of the citizens, how it affects the water system
throughout the whole county.
Page 87
September 14,2010
MR. HURST: Sure. And I, myself, I'm a professional engineer;
health, safety and welfare is the code that we abide by.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we could work together and
come up with a situation whereby, if we think that we have the
adequate infrastructure to give you 50 PSI, then I think it might be
able to work then.
MR. HURST: Yes, from a site design. There is a fire component
which needs to be discussed separately, and I -- you know, again, I
think public utilities is willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. HURST: But I think it can -- yes, sir, it can be worked
around.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Rebecca Acx.
MS. ACX: Everything that I had was said. I'm fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: She's waiving.
MR. MITCHELL: She's waiving. Sir, this is at your discretion,
but David Aldridge representing the CBIA, he asked to speak --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He's waiving.
MR. MITCHELL: He's waived, so that's the end of the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioners? What's your
pleasure?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that -- oh, sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to set this up so
that our staff and the people on DSAC, along with the fire, can see if
they can work out their differences, and hopefully we can come up
with a good compromise that fits the -- fits all aspects of what needs to
be done here, and also it's a cost benefit and also a health, safety, and
welfare benefit for the people here in the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I would agree, but I'm
getting tired of having this come back, okay? One more time, and
Page 88
September 14, 2010
that's going to be it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's going to be twice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I want to -- well, yeah, it probably will
be by the time we make a decision on it.
But Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Did DSAC suggest that we
continue the stay and then continue to discuss, or did DSAC agree that
we should vote on it at this meeting?
I got the impression from their letter that they were inclined to
say it's okay to continue it, but make sure that you continue the stay as
well.
MR. VARIAN: That is correct. Yeah, we want to continue the
stay --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. VARIAN: -- and then we would like some more time to
discuss with utilities, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And that was the staff recommendations that we
made in our presentation today, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Going to have to change the
ordinance requiring to do away with the RPZs, so you're going to get
it twice. All right?
MR. DeLONY: I would -- yes, sir. We'll have to get direction at
the next -- the next time we bring it, and then we'd bring the ordinance
back based on that direction. You're exactly correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We would not need--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know I'm correct.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't need you to tell me that.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, thank you.
Page 89
September 14,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was just telling Commissioner
Coyle that.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I know you're correct, too, but we
don't need to go through this for the second meeting. We need to go
through this to make a decision to change the ordinance, and the
ordinance can come back on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, fair enough.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fair enough. But another issue
is the charges they are charging for the fire lines, and that has to be
looked at and provide the empirical data for those charges. Those are,
you know, another -- another issue that needs to be looked at.
So I would like -- if staff is wanting to continue this, conditions
that they will bring back two things; the issue about the check valves
and the issue about what is being charged for a fire line.
Also, I think Mr. Varian brought up a very good point is, this is
coming out of the building fund, and it really should be coming out of
the utility fund. Two different enterprises to take a look at that. That
would be the direction that I would like to see the board do. And if
you'd like that in a motion, I'll do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've already got one motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, I thought we already have one, but
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was -- who has a motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's get back to ground zero.
You're in agreement that this can come back, that we're supposed to
look at it again; is that correct?
MR. VARIAN: As a committee, DSAC did, in our letter to you,
ask for it to come back, more time to discuss the issue, yes, as a
committee.
Page 90
September 14,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that's what your
recommendations were?
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, it took a long time to get
here, didn't we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- well, I still don't feel that we've
got a good idea about what you should be doing. But when we talk
about a cost-benefit analysis, that means all costs, okay, not just a
couple of costs. It means all costs. It means the cost of the fire pumps
that we're going to have to put it in if, in fact, we do incur a reduction
in pressure at the building. It includes the cost of the valves. It
includes all of the things that might be associated with this kind of
change.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about risk analysis?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's what I was just getting ready
to say. And then you've got to compare that with the potential risk of
contamination, and you've also got to justify why you need to do it
right now, okay.
So that's something that we should have already had, and to keep
bringing it back and saying the same thing is just very frustrating.
So let's -- if that was the intent of your motion, Commissioner
Henning, then I will second it. But is that -- was that your intent?
Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought you were saying there
was already a motion on there. I was trying to figure out whose
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I thought Commissioner Coletta
had made one earlier.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I didn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. That's a part of my motion,
but also, again, I think Mr. Varian is correct that this should not be on
the backs of 313. It should be on the backs of the Water and Sewer
Page 91
September 14, 2010
Department to provide the oversight and the feedback from members
of the public that brought this to our attention.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't even know what that means, but
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't know what that
means?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know what that means. What do
you mean it ought to be on the backs --
MR.OCHS: It means -- excuse me, sir. That means that we're
not going to charge the staff time against the Fund 1- -- or 31- -- or
excuse me, 113, which is funded by your building community, that it
would -- instead the staff time would be assessed against your Public
Utilities Division, and I think that's appropriate under the
circumstances.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well-- Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just the point that I'm --
concerned about. Suppose the -- we have someone that's off the
county utilities system, either in private utility or they're on wells?
How would that figure in? Would the utility still pick up the cost of
this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a factor.
MR. OCHS: You don't regulate those.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, we do. This is a county-wide ordinance,
and the prescriptions associated with this ordinance are not just unique
to the water/sewer district, but they're unique -- they are countywide in
terms of their prescription. So there is a consistent development
requirement in terms of conditions to be built in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but we charge the
ratepayers of the county utility service for something that's outside of
their jurisdiction?
MR. DeLONY : Well, I didn't -- no, sir. In this case we provide
staff to provide information. But this ordinance is countywide. It's not
Page 92
September 14,2010
just for the water/sewer district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's clarify that.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you have a commercial building that is
using well water, these -- this ordinance would still apply.
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, because --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would not?
MR. DeLONY: -- there would be no interconnection to a potable
water system, a distributed system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So it does not apply to anyone
who is not connected to a countywide or county water/sewer district.
MR. DeLONY: A potable -- a distributed system.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, okay.
MR. DeLONY: A distributed system, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it could be -- it could be ours or it
could be Lee County's?
MR. DeLONY: Right. It would -- I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It could be -- it could be any other utility
that is operating in Collier County?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, in the unincorporated county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: These are development standards, just like any
other development standards, wherever you built within the
unincorporated area.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: It's the same deal. And so there's development
service's fees, you know, in theory, to take for that. But I don't
understand the comment about 113, whatever. The staff from public
utilities that had participated in this have all been paid out of the
public utilities enterprise funds.
Page 93
September 14,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- DSAC has somebody that
takes minutes.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that comes out of--
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Fund 113.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. What about water systems
where a new community comes up and they handle their own water
before they turn it over to the county?
MR. DeLONY: Property utility.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Does this apply to them?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. Like, for example, these
standards would apply to any utility that operates for the
unincorporated county -- part of the county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, whether -- okay.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any utility?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: And that's -- you know, it's just like, you know,
all the other building codes that are in -- they apply to structures or
operations or facilities in the unincorporated county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right, thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Yeah, it's countywide. It's not just -- you know,
we're the largest, obviously. You know, we serve the largest network
of customers, but there are other smaller ones as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But countywide doesn't apply to the
cities?
Page 94
September 14, 2010
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though it's countywide, it isn't
MR. DeLONY: No, ma'am. They have their own --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just in -- on unincorporated?
MR. DeLONY: -- development. Yes, ma'am. They have their
own development codes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I'm going to die from contaminated
water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well-- and I'm on city water, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's probably their intent anyway.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, was that a question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, it was not.
We have a motion. All in favor of the motion, 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: Okay. It is done. We are breaking for
lunch.
MR. OCHS: One p.m. time certain, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll be back here at one p.m.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1 :07.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Or 1 :07 time certain, okay.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, Board of County
Commission meeting is back in session now.
Page 95
September 14,2010
That brings us to our time certain.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item # lOB
AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 92-60, AS
AMENDED (TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX) AND
ADVERTISE THE AMENDING ORDINANCE AT A FUTURE
PUBLIC HEARING TO REALLOCATE ON A ONE TIME BASIS
$1,000,000 FROM TDC CATEGORY A BEACH PARK
FACILITIES FUND 183 TO TOURISM PROMOTION FUND 184
FOR TOURISM DESTINATION MARKETING AND ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- and that is Item lOB. So we'll go
to lOB.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. For the audience, that's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners direct the county manager or
his designee to amend Collier County Ordinance 92-60 as amended,
the tourist development tax, and advertise the amending ordinance at a
future public hearing to reallocate on a one-time basis $1 million from
TDC Category A beach park facilities, Fund 183 to tourism
promotion, Fund 184 for tourism destination marketing, and authorize
all necessary budget amendments. Mr. Jack Wert will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They don't want to listen to you,
Jack.
MR. WERT: I guess not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know why? The reason is that
you've done a good job of vetting it.
MR. WERT: Thank you, sir.
Page 96
September 14,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've vetted it with all the
organizations that had a stake in this, and I don't know of a single one
of them that objected.
MR. WERT: No, sir, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So everybody thinks this is the
right thing to do under the circumstances.
MR. WERT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I've --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's true, that's true.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, ifany of you have any
questions, we --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is the public speaker?
MR. HILL: I'll waive that.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, he's waiving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now we can change our mind.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Maybe staff can just enlight
me a little bit. With that million dollars transferred, is this going to
have any effect on some of the projects that have been slated, such as
down there at Tigertail Beach, things of this nature?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, the projects for improvements in
your beach access points are still funded. This was reserve funding in
183.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Not specifically allocated for any project at this
point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're building up the
beach renourishment fund in case of emergency.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, in accordance with your ordinance, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this complies with
everything, except just the change in the ordinance in regards to the
Page 97
September 14, 2010
million dollars; is that correct?
MR. OCHS : Yes. In order to move that, we need to make a
minor amendment to your ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I think that this is a
wonderful thing to do, especially in this economy, to do anything we
can to invigorate our tourism in our community. They just pump more
money into our community than we would ever be able to do, and I
think this is going to be money wisely spent. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. No other comments?
There is a motion made by me to approve, seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
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: And that -- any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 5-1 (sic) because Commissioner
Henning is here.
MR.OCHS: 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 5-1? Who's the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. 5-0. It's unanimous. I'm
sorry. Crystal was the one who opposed it. That's it. But no, 5 --
. .
unammous, unammous.
MR. WERT: Commissioners, thank you very much. We really
appreciate your confidence in us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Jack.
Page 98
September 14,2010
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if! might, just before you move off
that subject, the board did ask as a Phase II of this discussion back in
July that the staff come back at this -- the next meeting to bring back
some stakeholder feedback on the prospects of a complete reallocation
of the TDC funds.
And I would ask if the board might allow staff a little bit more
time than next Tuesday because, as you just pointed out, there's quite a
bit of stakeholder feedback and input that we need to gather, and we
really want to vet this, perhaps even at a board workshop if the board
would prefer at some point.
But if we could get maybe till the end of the calendar year, if the
board doesn't mind, to give us a little more time to pull all the
stakeholder input together, because that's a fairly contentious pot of
money, as you all know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. And when you're talking about
later in the year, it will have to be early December.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He said or at the end of the calendar
year.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's going to be it. Early
December will be your last meeting.
MR.OCHS: We're only meeting once in December, so we'll
have to come back -- if you want us back before the end of the
calendar year, it will be that December meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Anyone have any objections to that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas, except for you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Yeah, you can --
MR. OCHS: Any interest in a workshop, or you just want to deal
with that at a board meeting?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you --
Page 99
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it should be a workshop,
because I think it's got contentious items. Last time we discussed this
whole thing, it took a lot of time, and I think it would be better to have
a workshop so everybody knew exactly -- and everybody then could
come to the table and tell us the importance of this tourist money and
how it should be spent.
MR.OCHS: Pleasure of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- you know, I'm -- I don't want
to disagree with Commissioner Halas. If you want to have a
workshop, we can do that. I'm just thinking that we just had an
example of where something was properly vetted with all of the -- all
of the participants. It would be good if you worked out the details,
and that way we could work with your recommendations, I think.
And if we want to do that during the workshop, that's okay, too. But I
would -- I would at least rather have the staff work out the details,
come up with the alternatives, and let us choose among alternatives
than to actually --
MR.OCHS: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- go through it twice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I kind of like the
workshop idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you? Okay. Anybody else like the
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I think we learn a lot more
about what's happening. You know, one of the things we never see
other than the chairman, we never see what actually is going on in the
Tourism Department, or we don't see the statistics or anything, and I
would really like to be updated, because I think that's a vital part of
our entire community, and we don't learn enough about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, it's a lot like
watching sausage being made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I like sausage.
Page 100
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm for a workshop also.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we've got a majority for
workshop, so we'll do a workshop, okay?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Pick a time, and we'll check our
schedules --
MR.OCHS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and see what we've got.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. All right.
Where does that take us now, County Manager?
Item #9 A
APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL - MOTION TO RE-ADVERTISE-
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: That takes you to item --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 9A.
MR. OCHS: -- 9A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Tom
Cravens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You may.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to ask us to readvertise.
I think it's kind of disappointing, we only have one person to choose
from. And we're just coming back from summer vacations for a lot of
people, and see if there would be some more interest.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, I'll second
that.
Page 101
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta to readvertise for that position, seconded by Commissioner
Halas.
Any other discussion?
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion to readvertise passes
4-1 with Commissioner Henning dissenting.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2010-171: APPOINTING BARRY MICHAEL
KLEIN (COMMISSION DISTRICT #3 CATEGORY FOR A TERM
EXPIRING OCTOBER 1,2011) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Takes you to 9B, sir, appointment of member to the
Collier County Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If! may?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Gary Klein.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just -- I just wanted to
bring something to your attention is that I think it's been a
misconception of quite a few people out there that the only people that
could apply for a planning position, commission position, were those
that live within that particular district.
Page 1 02
September 14,2010
And I sent a -- I copied you on an email I received from Bill
Barton there regarding, ifhe knew this was available, he would have
loved to have applied, too. He's in District 5, but he thought it was
just limited to District 3.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. Okay. Then we
need to clarify that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- once and for all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the ordinance. It's very
clear. There shall be representation -- two Planning Commission
members from District 5, two from District 1, two from District 2, and
two from District 3.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so -- thank you,
Commissioner Henning, for clearing that up. So what we're saying is
that anybody that applies for these positions has to be from the district
that's represented; in other words, from District 3 they have to be from
District 3, they can't be from outside the district?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I'm kind of curious to why
we're taking applicants from people outside the district. But that's not
your problem. I guess that's a staff problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's important because District 4 is
left out, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: District 4 has one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you've just enumerated them, and
you didn't mention one for District 4, but nevertheless.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. See, you left District 4 out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can I make it up to you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By giving up one of your District 3
positions.
Page 103
September 14,2010
Okay. What are you going to do about it? You've -- we have a
motion by Commissioner Henning to approve Barry Michael Klein as
the -- for the District 3 category.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did he have a second? I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I got the second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, you got the second. All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
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 is approved unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2010-172: APPOINTING SHEILA A. DUGAN
(TERM EXPIRING MARCH 13,2013) TO THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 9C, appointment of a member to the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I recommend that we accept the
committee recommendations and appoint Sheila Dugan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And -- okay. We have a motion by me,
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Page 104
September 14, 2010
And 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: Okay. It's done, unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2010-173: APPOINTING JOHN KERNS, CHERYL
PAVLICK AND LESLIE PRIZANT (TERMS EXPIRING
FEBRUARY 4, 2011) TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9D, appointment of members to the Collier County
-- excuse me -- County Government Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the
recommendation by the committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's John Kerns, Cheryl
Pavlick, and Lisa (sic) Prizant.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leslie--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Leslie.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Prizant, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, please signifY
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 105
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2010-174: APPOINTING MELISSA MARTINEZ
(TERM EXPIRING APRIL 4,2013) TO THE IMMOKALEE
ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9E is appointment of a member to the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve committee's
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve the
committee's recommendation of Melissa Martinez by Commission
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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 #9F
Page 106
September 14, 2010
RESOLUTION 2010-175: RE-APPOINTING JOHN J. AGNELLI
AND ROSS P. OBLEY TO THE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9F, appointment of members to the Educational
Facilities Authority.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The committee has recommended
the reappointment of John Agneli and Ross Obley.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll make mine a motion, and
seconded 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: It passes unanimously.
MR.OCHS: 9G is a request--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all right. Go ahead.
Item #9G
NAMING THE DRIVER'S LICENSE BUILDING AT 725
AIRPORT ROAD AS THE GUY L. CARLTON DRIVER'S
LICENSE BUILDING - APPROVED
Page 107
September 14, 2010
MR.OCHS: 9G is a request by the Collier County Tax Collector
to name the driver's license building at 725 Airport Road as the Guy
L. Carlton Driver's License Building.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
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.
MR.OCHS: Congratulations to Mr. Carlton. Well deserved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well deserved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He should have to work there at least
one day a week from here on out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At no pay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As a volunteer, as a volunteer. That's
right.
Item #10A
BID #10-5555, ISLES OF CAPRI WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT
PHASE II IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,161,922 TO HASKINS INC.,
Page 108
September 14, 2010
TO COMPLETE THE REHABILITATION OF THE POTABLE
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM THAT SERVICES THE
ISLES OF CAPRI, PROJECT NO. 71010.7 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: There you go.
Commissioners, that takes us to Item lOon your agenda, county
manager's report.
lOA is a recommendation to award bid number 10-5555, Isles of
Capri water main replacement, Phase II, in the amount of $1,161,922,
to Haskins, Incorporated, to complete the rehabilitation of the potable
water distribution system that serves the Isles of Capri. Is Mr.
DeLony here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was a competitive procurement and --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you're rewarding it to the lowest-cost
qualified bidder. I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
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. Excellent
presentation. Thank you very much.
MS. DUERI: Thank you.
Page 109
September 14, 2010
MR.OCHS: Well done.
Item #10D
THE RENEWAL OF THE GROUP DENTAL INSURANCE
PROGRAM THROUGH CIGNA DENTAL PLAN, INC. WITH NO
INCREASE IN THE RATES OR TERMS FOR A ONE (1) YEAR
PERIOD EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,768,900 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that moves us to 10D. It's a
recommendation to approve the renewal of the Group Dental
Insurance Program through Cigna Dental Plan, Inc., with no increase
in the rates or terms for a one-year period, effective January 1,2011,
in the amount of one million, seven hundred sixty-eight thousand, nine
hundred --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
I would merely like to point out one thing for any member of the
public who has bothered to read this. It says that we have an average
enrollment of 1,938 employees. That includes all of the constitutional
officers who participate in our healthcare program. It is not the
employee headcount for the Collier County Commissioners, okay.
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is something that was constantly
misrepresented throughout the most recent election period, and I'm
going to continue to emphasize the proper headcount as we move
forward. Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 110
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion, 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's passed unanimously.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you.
Item #10E
ACCEPTING REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS -
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item WE was formerly Item 16E8,
moved at Commissioner Henning's request --I'm sorry.
Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
Mr. Carnell is here to present or answer any questions, whatever
the pleasure of Commissioner Henning and the board would be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, let Commissioner Henning
explain to you what his concern is, and give him the right answers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about the truthful answers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the right answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A lot of citizens are concerned
about the continuing landscaping of Radio Road within the MSTU.
Item 14 says the original amount was $172,000, but yet the one
previous to that is -- the original amount is $203,000. That's the
Page III
September 14, 2010
question number one.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. Let me address that one. Steve Carnell,
purchasing general services director.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. Could I just ask what
page that is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, actually -- take a look at
Page -- it would be 13 or Page 52 of97.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then look at Page 60 -- I
apologize -- 60 of97.
MR. CARNELL: Thank you, Commissioner, for clarifying the
page number.
On the page that Commissioner Henning's referring to, there's
Items 13 and 14. If you'll look at the project descriptions, these two
are different projects. Number 13 is Radio Road, Phase II, from
Livingston to Airport, and then 14 is Radio Road MSTU phases 2B
and -- I'm sorry -- IB and lA. So that's the reason you see the
difference in numbers, Commissioners.
They're actually -- there's actually four change orders related to
Radio Road projects on this report, items 10, 12, 13, and 14, and three
of them are one project. One is a different project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 17?
MR. CARNELL: Okay. Then there's five, yes, sir. And that's --
number 17 would be the other project, the Livingston Road project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. That's phase -- Radio
Road, Phase 11, part A -- oh, then you have part B.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. There's different projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This was bidded out separately?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. I'm going to have Ms. Lulich address
that for you.
MS. LULICH: Yes. Commissioner Henning, Pam Lulich.
Radio Road, Phase II-B and I-A is from Radio Road turn lane to
Page 112
September 14, 2010
Briarwood, and Radio Road Phase II is from Kings Way to Briarwood
entry. Phase III is from Livingston to Airport-Pulling, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for that clarification.
MS. LULICH: -- three projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't go away. Let's talk about
13 with -- I believe it's Hannula. It is the landscaping section? You're
MS. LULICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A whole bunch of different
changes of material there.
MS. LULICH: Yes. There was an existing main line that failed
the pressure test, and the bores were also short. So there were issues
with the existing irrigation lines, and it was cheaper to rebore them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, the -- okay. That's amazing.
All right. Motion to approve Item 16E8.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 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.
Page 113
September 14, 2010
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item lion your
agenda, public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we have a public speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, we do, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The first speaker will be John
Schmiedling (sic).
MR. SCHMIEDING: Schmieding, for the record.
MR. MITCHELL: Schmieding.
MR. SCHMIEDING: That's okay, I'm sure. It's not an easy
name to pronounce.
Good morning, Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Schmieding. I'm general
counsel and an officer of Arthrex, Inc., located here in Collier County,
Naples.
I'm not here today to discuss the merits of the Jackson Labs
project. It was very interesting earlier hearing the discussion. We all,
I think, know there is some speculative nature to the whole project.
It's intended to relieve some very serious economic woes. No one
really knows whether it's going to succeed or not, but what we do
know is it's raised a lot of passions in this community, considerable
passions, whether you're in favor of the Jackson Labs project and in
favor of their genetic research or whether you are angry against a view
of failure to represent your -- a proper taxpayer or even moral
objections related to stem cell support and research conducted by
Jackson Labs.
Well, let's take those passions, because we've all discussed them
and heard them, and put them aside for a moment. Let's focus right
Page 114
September 14,2010
now what the decision was today for you.
You may not know, but in the beginnings of the state of Virginia,
Thomas Jefferson was the first Founding Father to support
referendum, legislative referendum. Now, Thomas Jefferson held this
view in light of objections similar to this whole process. This view he
held was based upon the idea of individual sovereignty, individual
sovereignty which is very similar to what a local municipality is
duty-bound to protect. It is your duty to ensure, much greater than our
Washington, D.C., paternal government, to ensure you're reflecting
proper voter sentiment.
And how do you do that? Well, what Thomas Jefferson, this
board itself, as Mrs. Vasey or Ms. Vasey has accurately reflected, held
voter referendums, and that clearly shows you know the value of that
tool.
Well, Arthrex is waiting. We've been waiting. And unfortunately
today we're on the cusp of a county losing jobs. Arthrex will refuse to
add any further jobs to Collier County if this county board does not
utilize that tool it so properly has used in the past and which could not
be more ripe in a situation than this Jackson Labs issue.
These are not jobs from an economic analysis or jobs proposed.
These are jobs similar to the 500 jobs we created over the last year
here in Collier County, similar to the 100 jobs we created or want to
create in the next 12 to 18 months. They're not going to be here.
They're not going to be here because we've been waiting for this board
to stand up. People want to see this board stand up and say yeah,
there's a sun rising on Eastern Collier County, a sun not of economic
diversification or big business feeding at the trough of big
government, but a son of liberty and a son of sovereignty and a son
that reflects voter sentiment.
So we wait for this county board to stand up. You still have a
second chance. We're leaving you with no excuse. We'll pay for the
referendum right here, right now. Let's do it. Why not? The only
Page 115
September 14, 2010
objection you can have is you feel you will not win the referendum.
And if that is the case, that's an improper basis for that judgment.
Let's hold the referendum. So let's resolve these passions.
There's passions on both sides. Someone's right, someone's wrong.
Let's just have the voters reflect what the truth is and what they really
want to pay for, and then we can all go on about our business of
creating jobs and making Collier County an effective economic
powerhouse that it can be.
That's all I have. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I ask you a couple of questions,
Mr. Schmieding? Since we're using history as a guidepost for what
we should do in the future, would you please refresh my memory
about the referendum concerning the purchase -- the Louisiana
Purchase, the referendum concerning the purchase of Alaska, the
referendum which gave the railroads land and money to open up the
West? Those were transformative events. Was there a referendum for
those?
MR. SCHMIEDING: There are referendums for those, but
you're completely missing the focus of the duty of a small
municipality. You are not Washington, D.C., you are not charged
with that type of, as I mentioned, paternalistic republic gone astray
that doesn't reflect voter sentiment. You're charged with properly --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And my next question for you is, what is
the business impact on Arthrex if Jackson Labs were to be funded and
come to Collier County?
MR. SCHMIEDING: This isn't about Arthrex. This is about
individual voter and taxpayer burden that's either right or wrong.
Arthrex has passionately expressed positions, the other side has
passionately expressed positions. I'm not here to defend either of
those positions. I'm here to say that we're standing up for liberty and
saying, well, maybe we're wrong, maybe we're right, but let's let the
voters decide that question. Isn't that why a referendum would be
Page 116
September 14,2010
more appropriate than not?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Since when did Arthrex get involved in
advising local governments how they should conduct their business?
We have not suggested that we advise you how to conduct your
business, have we?
MR. SCHMIEDING: Well, if you're rejecting my right and our
right to speak up --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I'm not rejecting any rights. I'm just
suggesting that -- why have you chosen this time?
MR. SCHMIEDING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why were you not there when Stadium
Naples was being considered? Why is it now with Jackson Labs that
you now become very, very interested in the rights of businesses to do
certain things?
MR. SCHMIEDING: Because it's never too late. It's never too
late to stand up. And if you notice, the national sentiment is also very
passionate. So I think you have reflected in the national economic
times, the national sentiment of passion and offense to big government
involvement in taxpayer burden. You have that reflected right here
locally, and that's the answers I can give you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.
Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you want to
ask a question now or later?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know ifmy
colleagues had the opportunity to read Mr. Schmieding's email to the
Board of Commissioners yesterday. I think the issue is, is it the duty
of local government to fund either a not-for-profit, which we haven't
done before, or private business? I think that's the real question.
What I got out of the email was.it.s very expensive for the
employees of Arthrex to live in Collier County. There's -- it's
Page 117
September 14,2010
impossible to do this without raising some sort of taxes. That's the
issue; he said it quite clearly. My employees cannot afford to live in
Collier County with the ever-increasing costs. I think that's the real
Issue.
And I -- you know, I think that Arthrex pays more taxes than all
five of us sitting up here combined. I think they have just an equal
voice of what their government does. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, I can't imagine what the
foundation of that argument might be. The property tax rate here in
Collier County is the same as it was in 1999 . We haven't increased
the property tax rate. Property values are falling, and so are the
commercial taxes, dramatically, by 12, 15 percent every year for the
past three years.
So I don't see any increase in costs of living. As a matter of fact,
I see dramatic decreases in the costs of living here, as evidenced by
the devaluation of our homes.
So -- unless Arthrex has reduced the salaries of its employees, I
don't see any rational nexus between that -- those decisions.
So I think the real issue goes a lot deeper than that, but I'll leave
that up to Arthrex to work out. Arthrex has, in the past, done a very,
very good job of making the business decisions that they think are
necessary for their company, and I think they will continue to do so,
whatever we do, and -- but in any event, we've heard the comment. Is
that all for -- we've got to have at least one more.
MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington, but he doesn't appear to be
here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MITCHELL: So there's C. Quista (sic)? Nope. So that's the
end of your speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. That brings us to the county attorney's report. I thought
we took care of this earlier today.
Page 118
September 14, 2010
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. We don't --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's gone, right? We don't-
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: You're onto Item 15, staff and commission general
communication.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff?
MR.OCHS: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: Nothing to report this afternoon, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Attorney?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Nothing to report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. County manager
forwarded something to me in talking to Keith Arnold about the
funding for Jackson Labs that the legislators were appropriated, and
those monies were supposed to come from the Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage.
And the specific language was the nonconcurring (sic) of the sum
of $75 million is to be appropriated from the general revenue fund to
the executive -- no, I'm sorry. Let me read the next paragraph. The
funding provided for this section is contingent upon the enactment of
federal law which extends the enactment of Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage rate as provided under the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act from December 31, 2010, through
June 30, 2011.
Page 119
September 14, 2010
And Keith Arnold was telling me, what happened is, it's being
funding (sic) are under the previous FMAP, or the existing FMAP, not
the future FMAP, because that wasn't allotted.
Now, the confusion in Tallahassee by some is, well, this isn't,
you know, in accordance to the legislators, and others say it is. And I
just don't want the county to be -- we're basing all this on if the state
comes through.
So I think it's appropriate for this board to write the governor and
ask him if the funding from the state is going to happen for Jackson
Labs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the problem is, it isn't the governor
who really is going to be working out that problem. And the bottom
line to answer your question is, we simply don't know, and that's the
problem. Without knowing what happens with state funding, we're
not even negotiating an agreement with Jackson Labs. There is -- has
been essentially nothing done with respect to negotiating an agreement
or doing anything other than just trying to define the whole range of
funding options, including private funding, private investor funding.
So you're right, there is nothing certain at the state level.
And it's my understanding -- and I don't know any more about it
than any of you. But it's my understanding that the legislative budget
committee is supposed to be working out the details on that and we're
-- and are trying to determine whether or not this is a glitch in
language by the legislature, and if so, does the legislative budget
committee have the authority to resolve this glitch, or must it come
back to a special session of the legislature and have the legislature
resolve the glitch? And I don't think any of us knows what they're
going to do about it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we do want something in
writing from the state, is that correct, some kind of commitment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I would never recommend that this
board commit to this project or to the funding of this project without a
Page 120
September 14, 2010
very strong written agreement from the state about how they're going
to fund it. But my concern goes further than what you just brought up.
My concern goes to the issue of the fact that the state has only
approved $50 million, end of story. They said they might appropriate
80 million more dollars in future years, but we don't have anything in
writing that shows that.
And so the most I would be willing to say is that we would -- if
we reach a decision to do it -- I mean, if this board reached the
decision to do it, we should do no more than to say, we will match
what the state has put into the project, and then the participants in the
project have to make a decision as to whether or not that's enough
money for them to go ahead.
But I have steadfastly maintained that we should never get out in
front of the state on funding of this project or any other project. And
that's one of the things I was going to elaborate on in correspondence
today, too. I don't know if that addressed your question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you're looking -- if it's
the position of the board that we want something in writing from the
state of their commitment, I think that's a good, positive step forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely. That's exactly what we're
doing. And if you don't mind, I'll just continue to elaborate on that.
The story that we get is that there will be -- if this glitch is ironed out
by the legislature, that the Office of Trade, Tourism, and Economic
Development at the state level will finalize an agreement with Jackson
Labs.
Now, we don't want to create an agreement with Jackson Labs
until we see what the state has signed, because that's going to commit
the state to the funding.
So when we see what the state has -- is going to sign with
Jackson Labs, then we can start deciding what our role is going to be
in this process and what monies we will have to commit and when we
would have to commit them if we were going to participate, and that
Page 121
September 14, 2010
will determine the source of funding that we use.
So that's why we haven't decided on any sources of funding and
no recommendations have been made to you other than to say, all of
these options are available. And so if we find out that the funding can
be met from internal operating funds on a pay-as-you-go basis over a
period of years, you won't even need any bonding requirement.
If we find out that it requires lump sum payments early on, we'll
have to consider a bonding requirement or private investors who
would pay to build the building. And under those circumstances, you
would require no bonding probably.
So there are a lot of things that we can't determine until we see
that contract and we know what the state is going to commit to, how
they're going to commit to paying it out, what our matching
requirements are, and over what period of time we would be expected
to pay money out.
And none of that can be determined by us until we get this
process underway, and right now it's stuck up in Tallahassee.
So that's basically where we are. And that -- if you don't mind
me skipping you for just a minute, I'll come back to you,
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's appropriate to ask for board direction
to begin -- or continue to evaluate funding opportunities. There are
two things we need to do. One is, we need to get a small, simple RFP
out as quickly as possible to private investors who would be willing to
invest in this project.
Staff has already had a preliminary meeting with one of those. It
is unfair to meet with those people and talk with them sequentially
because of the concern that one of their competitors will find out about
their information and come in and make a better -- better deal. We
want to do it like an RFP and be fair about it and have the proposals
opened at a specific time, and everybody's proposals would be
Page 122
September 14, 2010
evaluated on a fair and equitable basis.
So what we want to do is send out an RFP. Now, what will that--
what will that require, County Manager, in terms of time commitment
of staff?
MR. OCHS: Thirty days max, possibly sooner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd rather see two weeks max, but okay.
MR.OCHS: Well, I said max. We'll try to get in under that.
We're -- you know, we just have to coordinate with the financial
advisor and our procurement staff and pull the specification together.
But we'll move as quickly as you'd like us to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. So the county manager's
looking for nods from three commissioners to say okay, let's put out
an RFP and see if some private investors want to put some money into
this thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Henning, you
have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm sure you're talking
about the county would repay -- repay this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The county or somebody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So if the county's
involved in it, remember the language, legislative language, said, give
the county -- actually, local government, 120 days to respond to the
match. Why would we want to rush this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because, again, we don't have
all the facets to the Jackson Lab or the medical village. Why do you
want to rush this?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not saying it's rushing it. I'm saying
we're probably behind schedule. People have always been talking
about, can't you get some private money involved in this thing? Why
don't you get some private investors to finance this thing? We've been
Page 123
September 14, 2010
out beating the bushes to try to do that. We found that there are some.
Now we want to formalize the process for soliciting proposals.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the county paying it --
paying it -- paying it back, or the taxpayers. To me that sounds like a
commitment way in advance of the state coming through with their
commitment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, if I might, I think the concept is that
if we went out for this RFP, we would at least get a general indication
of what the -- what the financial commitment would be on an
annualized basis, and that would then allow us to come back and
provide that information to the board. It may be an amount of money
that allows you then to make a -- a pay-as-you-go funding decision if
you move forward on the project. It may be so large that you have to
consider some financing, some bonding or some borrowing internally.
So I think the idea is, if we went out with this RFP, we could get
some general indication of what the financial terms would be from
these private financiers, and that would give us an idea of what kind of
budget implications we would have to address as a board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but 120 days is three
months. And, you know, the public's perspective, from what I hear is,
damn the public. We're going to do what we want to do. And I'm just
saying, why would you want to further this commitment of staff time
for funding so far in advance of the state commitment? Simple. I
guess it's damned if you do. It's going to be -- four ofyou's are going
to go ahead and make this commitment without knowing what the
state is going to do, and the public outcry out there is, we want to
make that decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The public wants to make the decision as
to which private investor contributes money to finance this project?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commitment from the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who said anything about commitment?
Page 124
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did earlier. You said you
would be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I didn't say that. I've said, we're not
going to commit anything until we hear from -- get something in
writing from the state. How can a public request for proposal be
construed as trying to keep it from the public?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I said --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Next?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said -- I asked you, who's
going to be the payback on there, and you said the county and/or
private concerns. If it's private, we don't need to get involved in it. So
otherwise it's the county. And all I'm saying is, why do you want to
get so far out ahead of it when you have three months to make those
determinations when the -- when the state makes those commitments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wow.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think any of us on this board
that are obviously in favor of Jackson Labs are going to do anything in
committing any type of money until we find out what the state is
going to do. And it's my understanding that the state is going to start
looking into this or addressing this issue come about September the
15th, and hopefully that -- they'll have something by the end of the
month that will give us a determination of what's -- what the state's
commitment is going to be on the money, if at all.
Secondly, I believe the reason that there's so much uproar in the
community, at this point in time, nobody's stepped forward, private
sector has not stepped forward, and it's because they don't know what
the state is planning on doing.
And I think once there's a fulfilled commitment by the state one
way or the other, I believe that there are some people out there that are
going to get behind this. But they're not going to jump on this
Page 125
September 14, 2010
bandwagon until they find out; just like we, the county, we're not
going to jump on this until we are sure that we have a strong
commitment from the state that they're going to help through this
situation, not just this year, but the next three to four to five years,
however a long this commitment is going to be put in the process.
And I think that the -- hopefully the end result is, as
Commissioner Coyle stated, if we put this RFP out there -- and once
the state has finalized either they're going to go with it or they're not
going to go with it, then that will be the determining factor in regards
to this whole process with Jackson Labs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. My concern is the 90-day
window. Is that what you said, 90 days?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One hundred twenty.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One hundred twenty.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One hundred twenty. Even 120
days. Is that enough time to really be able to do due diligence, or
should we be doing something ahead of time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what we're trying to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We've been doing due diligence
all along. We've been collecting a lot of information. In fact, having
the Productivity Committee take a look at the economic projections,
that was due diligence. So there have been a lot of things that have
been going on, but there are certain things we can't do, and that is to
select a funding option without the state making some decisions.
And we -- even if the state made some decisions, we can't decide
on funding options until we've got all the funding options before us to
look at. And a funding option by a private investor is certainly a key
element of that.
So if we don't get some proposals from key investors to consider,
we won't know what funding options would best meet our needs. And
if we -- if it takes 30 days to get the RFP out, it takes another 30 days
Page 126
September 14, 2010
or more to get the responses back in, then it takes a couple of weeks or
maybe even 30 days to evaluate that, that puts us in -- way into the
process. So we -- to remove any concern that people might have that
putting an RFP out on the street is an obligation to accept something,
we can merely say in the RFP that we're soliciting your proposals, but
no decision will be made on this until such time as funding from the
state is solidified to the satisfaction of the Board of County
Commissioners. And even then we might reject the proposals and go
with another funding option.
We just want to have it available to us so we know what to
expect, and we don't know right now. So if we've got three --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- three nods, then you can proceed with
that.
Now there is one other similar issue. In the event we need a bond
issue if we're going to go forward, the last thing you want to do is get
into the point of making a decision and then somebody say, well, you
know, it's not legal to do that. You want to find that out in advance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the way that we can do that is to take
the issue to the Court and ask the Court to validate it as a public
purpose. If the Court says it is a public purpose, then we know our
chances are pretty good that it's legally proper to proceed along those
lines.
So that help -- puts us in a position so that if we -- if we needed
to go to bonding, we will have cleared the legal hurdle to do that. It
doesn't obligate us to anything. We've made sure -- I've talked with
the bond council myself. They have assured me it is not necessary that
the Board of County Commissioners approve a bond issue and a
financing mechanism to get this interpretation from the courts.
So we have to make no commitments. We don't have to identifY
any taxing whatsoever. We merely have to tell the courts we want
Page 127
September 14,2010
you to tell us if this serves -- if this kind of financing and this kind of
bond is legal and it serves a public purpose. End of story. No
commitments on our behalf at all.
And so what we're asking is the board's approval to at least start
doing that. It should not be very expensive; is that correct?
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's going to be fairly easy for you to do,
I think, correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got a nod here.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, it won't be -- it will not be that
expensive, no.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Give us a ballpark.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know, 15-,20,000, something like
that, tops.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So do we have three
nods to give that guidance to staff to at least proceed, again, making
no commitments, enacting no taxes, not creating any ordinances or
anything of that nature.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this going to be just a letter to
the Court, or is it going to be a hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: It will be a public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is it going to be identified,
the bonding source?
MR. KLATZKOW: From what I'm hearing, no. The primary
issue on this one's going to be whether or not there's a valid public
purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For a bond.
MR. KLATZKOW: For a bond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would be to fund a
not-for-profit organization?
MR. KLA TZKOW: It would be to fund this particular
Page 128
September 14, 2010
transaction. We'll make it specific to this particular transaction,
Jackson Labs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or anything that's close to Jackson
Labs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the bond may not -- may be
okay, but what about the debt service on it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, ifit's going to be ad valorem, you
have to take it to referendum. If it's not going to be based on ad
valorem, you don't have to take it to the public referendum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But that -- that commitment --
that's not going to be the question of the Court?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The question of the Court is going to
be very narrow, whether or not this is a valid public purpose. And I
was a little hesitant on the cost, because if it's opposed, you know,
those costs could be higher and, ultimately, the procedures to go into
the local superior court here, and if it's opposed, it could go to the
Supreme Court of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And who would oppose it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know. I don't know. I've heard a few
voices today and other days, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three nods?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. County Manager, you have
everything you need?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're finished? Okay.
Did we cover everything that you needed guidance on, County
Attorney (sic)?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 129
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't quite finished with my
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The proponents of Jackson Lab,
I understand that they're opposed to putting this on the ballot. Does
anyone know why?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I never heard that they were
opposed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think everybody knows why. Nobody
gave us any language that was understandable to put on the ballot. If
we try to create our own language and put it on the ballot, I know
exactly what's going to be said: You're trying to phrase it in a way
that nobody will, you know, understand it or whatever, or you're not
meeting our objectives.
In every case where somebody has come to us with a public
petition, they have asked us for a specific -- to take a specific action.
When the fire department straw vote was brought to us, we were given
specific language.
Now, what we got today was not specific in any way. The first
thing we received -- I don't even believe the people who wanted to put
something on the ballot would want to put that on the ballot. And I
haven't seen anything to replace it.
And all I heard was, well, you guys can probably come up with
some language that will do something. And I can tell you exactly
what will happen right now. We come up with language, and people
will be arguing about that language.
So that's why you can't make a decision to put something on the
ballot unless you've got some specific language, unless you can
inform the public about what the impacts are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody else?
Page 130
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I have something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
I'm off of those subjects, by the way. Onto something
completely and totally different.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Many years ago, not many, but a
number of years ago, we all discussed building the FP&L greenway, if
you remember; it was along the FP&L lines and -- but, you know, we
had some money but we didn't -- didn't go forward at that point in
time, but we did discuss naming it possibly after Rich King. I guess
you all recall that conversation actually.
And then at the time we said, well, the road isn't built and we
haven't done that, but we were talking about it at the time, and
everybody seemed to be in agreement, and I've got some of the
transcripts from the meeting there.
And now they're going to build it, and I was just wondering if I
could ask you if it would be all right with you now to have our county
attorney draw up a resolution to name the FP&L greenway after Rich
King.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- I'd, quite frankly, like to see an
alternate proposal, name it the Donna Fiala Greenway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think Rich King would be
more deserving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you've done an awful lot of
work for that group down there, and I think Commissioner Coy Ie is
correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, that's so nice, but this one
is for Rich King. Thank you anyway.
Page 131
September 14, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we do it Donna Fiala and
Rich King.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think Rich King would be
good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Goodlette-Frank Road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fiala-King Parkway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, there you go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, so it would be all right
with you? We have some nods to have the county attorney draw up a
resolution?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got my nod.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As long as we've got Fiala included
in it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. That was it
for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else? Then we are --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, my goodness, 2:05. Do we get
prizes or anything for getting out at 2:05?
MR.OCHS: No, ma'am. I'm so sorry. It's a tight budget. No
prizes in this budget this year, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to adjourn by -- okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that staff, I
thought, did a great job today in their presentations, and thanks very
much for all their hard work. And as I said, motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to adjourn by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 132
September 14, 2010
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's unanimous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stop by the side door; pick up your
prizes, early recess.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR BROOKS VILLAGE - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item # 16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR UNITARIAN CHURCH - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2010-163: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 133
September 14, 2010
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF AVE MARIA PHASE THREE WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
DONATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM FOUAD AND
F ADY F ARID BETWEEN 40TH STREET NE AND THE F AKA
UNION CANAL IN UNIT 43 OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES.
(FISCAL IMP ACT: RECORDING FEES NOT TO EXCEED $27) -
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE DITCHES
Item # 16A5
PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL NO. 379RDUE) WHICH IS
REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEV ARD FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES
BETWEEN WILSON BOULEVARD AND DESOTO
BOULEVARD (PROJECT NO. 60040) - FISCAL IMPACT: $7,780
- CONSISTING OF 5,882 SQUARE FEET OF AN IMPROVED
2.34 ACRE P ARENT PARCEL
Item #16A6
PURCHASE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT (PARCEL NO. 429RDUE) REQUIRED
FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES BETWEEN WILSON
BOULEVARD AND DESOTO BOULEVARD. (PROJECT NO.
60040.) ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $10,200 - CONSISITING
Page 134
September 14, 2010
OF 4,515 SQUARE FEET OF AN IMPROVED 1.64 ACRE
PARENT TRACT
Item #16A7
PURCHASE OF A PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE, ROAD
RIGHT -OF - WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
(PARCEL NO. 166RDUE) CONTAINING 8,100 SQUARE FEET,
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE WIDENING OF SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD BETWEEN COPPER LEAF LANE
AND GREEN BOULEVARD. PROJECT NO. 62081 PHASE 2
(FISCAL IMPACT: $9,800)
Item # 16A8
FINAL PLAT OF BLOCK ERE-PLAT QUARRY PHASE 1 LOTS
30-33 AND QUARRY PHASE 2 LOTS 34-42 AND LOTS 57-81 -
DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A9
PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED
FOR THE INST ALLA TION OF ANOTHER TURN LANE ON
PROGRESS AVENUE AT LIVINGSTON ROAD. PROJECT NO.
60188. (FISCAL IMPACT: $93,027) - PROPERTY OWNED BY
COASTAL BEVERAGE AND UPS
Item #16AI0
FOUR PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
Page 135
September 14,2010
RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
OIL WELL ROAD. PROJECT NO. 60044. (FISCAL IMPACT:
$145,100.) - PARCEL NOS. 221, 224, 225 AND 227
Item#16Al1
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
V ANDERBIL T GALLERIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIA TI ON
FOR THE CONVEYANCE TO COLLIER COUNTY OF A
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RELATING TO
THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD SIX-LANING PROJECT
FROM EAST OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO AIRPORT-
PULLING ROAD. PROJECT NO. 66065. (FISCAL IMPACT
$35.50)
Item #16A12
THE TERMINATION OF DEVELOPER AGREEMENT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CORRADI AIRPORT INC.,
REQUESTED BY CORRADI AIRPORT INC - DUE TO THE
CANCELLATION OF THE ALZHEIMER'S FACILITY
Item #16A13
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDING FROM
THE TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313)
IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,125 TO THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
FUND (163) - FOR THE NAPLES BOTANICAL GARDENS
SIDEW ALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Item #16A14
Page 136
September 14, 2010
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
OLYMPIA PARK OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE
CONVEY ANCE TO COLLIER COUNTY OF A TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT RELATING TO THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD SIX-LANING PROJECT FROM
EAST OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO AIRPORT-PULLING
ROAD. PROJECT NO. 66065. (FISCAL IMPACT $18.50)
Item #16A15
AFTER THE FACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF
FIVE 2010 TIGER II DISCRETIONARY GRANT
APPLICATIONS, SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $87,839,075 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A16
THE RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF ORDERS IN THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC) VS. T & A DOCKSIDE,
INC., AND RELEASE OF CIVIL JUDGMENT IN THE ACTION
ENTITLED BCC VS. CHARLES ALDERMAN, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2891 BA YVIEW DRIVE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA- WAIVING $1,660 IN ACCRUED FINES
Item #16A17
THE RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 13 7
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONERS VS. AGA THONICOS G. P AMBOUKIS,
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CESD20090011000,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 SANTA CLARA
DRIVE, UNIT 9 IN BUILDING 201, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - WAIVING $10,600 IN ACCRUED FINES
Item #16A18
DIRECT THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO
ADD TO THE 2009-2010 COMBINED CYCLES OF GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS AFFECTING THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y
TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT POLICY 5.1, OTHER PORTIONS OF THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, SO AS TO MAKE BOTH
SUBSTANTIVE AND HOUSECLEANING REVISIONS TO THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - AS DET A TILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A19
THE COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. PL
20090000616, EX 59.814-1 "EAST NAPLES MINE, LOCATED IN
SECTIONS 21 & 22, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST:
BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND WEST BY EXISTING
QUARRY OPERATIONS AND VACANT LAND ZONED
AGRICULTURAL, AND ON THE WEST & SOUTH BY VACANT
LAND ZONED AGRICULTURAL - A(ST/WS4) - ISSUED TO
JAMES A. BROWN
Item # 16A20
Page 138
September 14, 2010
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,117.69
FOR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REIMBURSEMENTS, PROJECT
#60076.1, AND RECOGNIZING REVENUES FOR FUTURE
REPAIRS - LANDSCAPE PROJECT FUND #112
Item #16Bl
LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS AND CRA STAFF
ATTENDANCE AT THE FLORIDA REDEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATION 2010 ANNUAL CONFERENCE; AUTHORIZING
PAYMENT OF ATTENDEES REGISTRATION, LODGING,
TRAVEL AND PER DIEM FROM THE IMMOKALEE CRA
TRUST FUND (FUND 186) TRAVEL BUDGET; AND DECLARE
THE TRAINING RECEIVED AS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE - HELD OCTOBER 13-15,2010 ON ORLANDO
Item # 16B2
AN AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GRANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND THE GREATER
EASTERN COLLIER COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
INC. (ECOC) ALLOWING FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE
HARVEST FESTIV AL
Item #16B3
AFTER THE F ACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF
TWO 2010 COMMUNITY CHALLENGE PLANNING GRANT
APPLICATIONS, SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Page 139
September 14,2010
FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $400,000 - FINAL SUBMITTAL
DATE WAS AUGUST 23.2010
Item #16B4
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACT NUMBER 10-5402,
IMMOKALEE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH WILL REALLOCATE THE
REMAINING CONTRACT BALANCE FROM STORMW A TER
FUND 325 TO CRA FUND 186 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$317.341.08
Item #16Cl
BUDGET AMENDMENTS OF APPROXIMATELY $631,000 TO
TRANSFER A LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
FROM THE W ASTEW A TER CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO
THE 2006 REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS FUND TO
SEGREGATE THE PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE 2006
REVENUE BOND - PROJECT #72549
Item # 16C2
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT TWO TO THE STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN AGREEMENT (DW #1111020)
THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT LOWER
HAWTHORN WELLS NUMBERS 18, 19, AND 20, PROJECT
#71006, REDUCING THE AUTHORIZED LOAN AMOUNT BY
$1.334.909
Page 140
September 14, 2010
Item #16C3
AN AGREEMENT WITH 850 NWN, LLC, AND CG II, LLC;
RELEASE CERTAIN UTILITY EASEMENTS; AND ACCEPT
REPLACEMENT UTILITY EASEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL
ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR THE EXISTING SOUTH REVERSE
OSMOSIS WELLFIELD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$85,400, AND NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - FOR
CITY GATE COMMERCE PARK PUD
Item #16D1
AN ADDENDUM TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENT SERVICES THAT
CLARIFIES THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS START AND
ANNUAL ANNIVERSARY DATES AND PROVIDES THAT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA'S LEAVE POLICIES APPLY AS TO
THE EXTENSION AGENTS GOVERNED BY THE
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
Item # 16D2
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #10-5561 ARRA GREEN
LIGHTING SYSTEM RETROFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$276,096 TO ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.,
FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS AT EAGLE
LAKES COMMUNITY PARK
Item # 16D3
Page 141
September 14,2010
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
AGREEMENT #08DB-D3-09-21-01-A03 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO REALLOCATE $95,613.46 IN UNUSED
PROJECT FUNDS - REALLOCATED TO THE IMMOKALEE
APARTMENTS' HURRICANE HARDENING PROJECT
Item #16D4
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE
ADMINISTRATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,488,228
BUDGETED IN FY2011 TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDICAID
LOW INCOME POOL PROGRAM FOR SERVICES PROVIDED
ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO GENERATE AN
ADDITIONAL $449,227 IN FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS-
ALLOCATED TO COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Item #16D5
AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
(AGREEMENT) FOR DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH
CENTER, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $93,000 USING 2009-2010
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG) FUNDS. THIS AMENDMENT WILL EXTEND THE
TERM OF THE AGREEMENT AND ALLOW PAYMENT FOR
PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES - GRANTING A SECOND
EXTENSION UNTIL DECEMBER 31~ 2010
Item # 16D6
Page 142
September 14, 2010
THE LIBRARY'S TECHNOLOGY PLAN AND THE CURRENT
YEAR ACTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN THE FY 2010-2011 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES
GRANT APPLICATION, PERMITTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC LIBRARY TO APPLY FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES
- PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES SHOW THAT COLLIER
COUNTY LIBRARIES COULD RECEIVE ABOUT $194,000 IN
STATE AID
Item # 16D7
FOUR (4) DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE SUBRECIPIENT
GRANT AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR
SPECIFIC STORMW A TER AND HURRICANE HARDENING
PROJECTS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - FOR GOODLETTE ARMS LLC,
IMMOKALEE CRA, BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA
AND SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D8
AN AGREEMENT FOR INVITATION TO BID #10-5533
MODULAR HOMES TO IDYLL CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR
ACTIVITIES TO BE FUNDED UNDER THE DISASTER
RECOVERY INITIATIVE - PROVIDING ENERGY EFFICIENT,
QUALITY MODULAR HOMES TO PERSONS AND FAMILIES
WHERE REPAIRING STORM-RELATED DAMAGE IS NOT
FEASIBLE
Item #16D9
Page 143
September 14, 2010
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARRA 203.09 AGREEMENT WITH
THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,
INC. AND RECOGNIZING A REDUCTION IN FUNDING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $15,000. THESE FEDERAL FUNDS ARE
PROVIDED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES UNDER THE AMERICAN
RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 - FOR
UNINTERRUPTED SERVICES IN CONGREGATED MEALS
AND HOME DELIVERED MEALS
Item #16D10
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. AND BUDGET
AMENDMENTS REFLECTING AN OVERALL INCREASE OF
$8,337 IN THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM-
CONTRACT PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1,2010 THROUGH
DECEMBER 31~ 2010
Item #16D11
AN AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA
AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND A
BUDGET AMENDMENT DECREASING THE GRANT A WARD
BY $6,346.60 FOR THE NUTRITION SERVICES INCENTIVE
PROGRAM (NSIP) - ANTICAPTED REVENUE IS NOW
$37,157.40
Item #16D12
Page 144
___I
September 14,2010
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ENTITLEMENT FUNDING
AGREEMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIPS (HOME), AND EMERGENCY SHELTER
GRANT (ESG) FUNDS FOR FY 2010-2011 - ENTITLEMENT
FUNDING FOR JULY 1~ 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30~ 2011
Item #16D13
SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (FBIP) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWCC)
FOR A DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT
Item #16D14
AN AMENDED RELEASE OF LIEN TO CORRECT THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK AND PAGE NUMBER RECORDED
ON A PREVIOUS IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL RELEASE OF LIEN
Item #16D15
THREE (3) RELEASES OF LIEN FOR DEFERRAL OF 100
PERCENT OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNITS -
DEFERRING $5,557.70 FOR LOT 40, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II
AND $7,629.98 FOR LOT 43~ JUBILATION SUBDIVISION
Item #16D16
SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE FOR AN OWNER OCCUPIED
Page 145
September 14, 2010
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DWELLING UNIT THAT HAS
SATISFIED THE TERMS OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED - FOLIO
#36610400006~ GOLDEN GATE ESTATES~ UNIT 1
Item #16D17
AN AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY ACQUISITION-REHABILIT A TION-
RESALE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT APPROVED ON
SEPTEMBER 15,2009 (ITEM 16D3) FOR $460,000. THIS
AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW FOR A REVISION OF THE
AGREEMENT'S EXHIBIT A TO REFLECT THE FOLLOWING
LANGUAGE CHANGE; ACQUISITION-REHABILIT A TION-
RESALE TO STATE ONLY ACQUISITION, THE AMENDMENT
WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR A THREE MONTH EXTENSION
THROUGH OCTOBER 31~ 2010
Item #16D18
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #10-5525 FOR HOME APPLIANCES
TO BUSINESS SERVICES SOLUTIONS, AT AN ESTIMATED
COST OF APPROXIMATELY $150,000 OVER A THREE YEAR
PERIOD. PURCHASES WILL BE FUNDED BY THE
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP)
A WARDED TO THE HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERAN
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Item #16D19
RESOLUTION 2010-164: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
(HOME) AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG)
Page 146
September 14,2010
CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND
EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-
2010 AS REQUIRED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), APPROVE THE CAPER
RESOLUTION, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
CERTIFY THE CAPER FOR SUBMISSION TO HUD AND SIGN
THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION
Item #16D20
A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE COUNTY
AND NAPLES FUNERAL HOME FOR CREMATION SERVICES
TO INDIGENT COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTS - $60,000 OF
GENERAL FUND DOLLARS ALLOCATED FOR THIS
MANDATED SERVICE
Item #16El
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ST.
MATTHEWS HOUSE, INC., FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF
PARKING SPACES AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER, AT A
TERM REVENUE OF $50
Item #16E2 - Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
REJECT AWARD FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #10-5511
FOR HARDWARE AND RELATED ITEMS
Item # 16E3
THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PLAN - EFFECTIVE
Page 147
September 14, 2010
SEPTEMBER 14~ 2010
Item #16E4
SPECIAL SERVICE REVENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$34,733.79 AND ALL NECESSARY FISCAL YEAR 2010
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR BUILDING MAINTENACE
PERFORMED BY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
Item #16E5
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM AECOM USA, INC., TO
AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., FOR COUNTY-WIDE
ENGINEERING SERVICES - ATS PURCHASED THE ASSESTS
OF AECOM ON MARCH 17~ 2010
Item #16E6
BID #10-5549 24-HOUR TOWING AND RECOVERY SERVICES
FOR COUNTY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT TO MULTIPLE
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VENDORS IN THREE
SEPARATE TOWING CAPACITY CATEGORIES WITH
EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED AT $35,000 ANNUALLY - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E7
ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM EMC CORPORATION TO
VMWARE, INC., FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SERVICE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE (ITIL SOFTWARE
SUITE) AND RELATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-
VMW ARE, INC. PURCHASED THE ASSESTS OF EMC ON
Page 148
September 14, 2010
APRIL L 2010
Item # 16E8 - Moved to Item # 1 OE (Per Commissioner Henning
During Agenda Changes)
Item #16E9
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE THIRD
QUARTER OF FY 10
Item #16Fl
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS. (IN
ABSENTIA MEETING DATED AUGUST 24,2010) - SEE ITEMS
#16FIA~ #16FIB AND #16FIC
Item #16FIA
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000.00,
REALLOCATING FUNDS WITHIN THE FYI0 MANDATORY
TRASH COLLECTION FUND OPERATING EXPENSE BUDGET
TO PAY FOR DISPOSAL COSTS OF RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE
SOLID WASTE AT THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL
Item #16F1B
AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
Page 149
September 14, 2010
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS - EFFECTIVE
UNTIL THE END OF FY2011
Item #16FIC
AMEND PREVIOUS YEARS' ACTION PLANS; AUTHORIZING
THE REPROGRAMMING OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FUNDS; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
NOTIFICATION TO HUD TO USE REPROGRAMMED
FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE SINGLE F AMIL Y
REHABILITATION (SFR) PROGRAM - ALLOWING HHVS TO
EXPAND THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS ASSISTED BY SINGLE
F AMIL Y REHABILITION PROGRAM
Item #16F2
AFTER THE F ACT APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF A
2010 COMMUNITY CHALLENGE PLANNING GRANT
APPLICATION, SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,000,000 - FINAL
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL WAS AUGUST 23~ 2010
Item # 16F3
THREE GRANT AGREEMENTS FOR FYl1 TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY B MARKETING GRANTS
TOTALING $44,000 SUBJECT TO FUNDING AVAILABILITY -
RECOMMENDED FUNDING FOR ARTSNAPLES WORLD
FESTIVAL ($15,000), CORRIGAN SPORTS ENTERPRISES
Page 150
September 14, 2010
($5,000), INC., AND UNITED ARTS COUNCIL OF COLLIER
COUNTY ($24~000)
Item #16F4
FIVE (5) FYll TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY C-
2 NON-COUNTY OWNED MUSEUM GRANT AGREEMENTS
TOTALING $295,000 SUBJECT TO FUNDING AVAILABILITY -
FUNDING FOR THE CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF NAPLES, INC.
($100,000), FRIENDS OF ROOKERY BAY ($50,000),
HOLOCAUST MUSEUM OF SW FLORIDA ($32,500), NAPLES
ART ASSOCIATION, INC. ($37,500) AND NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDEN~ INC. ($75~000)
Item #16F5
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO CONTRACT #09-5174 MANAGEMENT
SERVICES FOR PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION WITH
DORRILL MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$18,960 ANNUALLY - DUE TO THE INCREASED HOURS
NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER THE PBSD
Item #16F6
COOPERATIVE PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES PATIENT CARE REPORTING SOFTWARE
PACKAGE AS AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT WITH
IMAGETREND~ INC. - AGREEMENT #10-5557
Item #16F7
RESOLUTION 2010-165: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
Page 151
September 14, 2010
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. BALANCE OF HOTEL CHARGES AND CAR
RENTAL CHARGES FOR ATTENDING FACT FINDING TRIP
TO THE JACKSON LABORATORY ON JULY 15,2010 IN BAR
HARBOR, ME. $638 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 40 HOLLAND
AVENUE
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2010-166: CORRECTING AN APPOINTMENT TO
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY
BOARD
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. WILL ATTEND THE 2010
EXCELLENCE IN INDUSTRY AWARDS LUNCHEON AT THE
NAPLES HILTON IN NAPLES, FL ON SEPTEMBER 21,2010.
$50 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
Item #16H4
Page 152
September 14, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
V ALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE CBIA MIXER
EVENT JULY 14, 2010 AT 1450 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH,
NAPLES, FL. $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET
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 153
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 14,2010
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Big Cypress Stewardship District:
FY 10-11 Meeting Dates.
B. Minutes:
1) Airport Authority:
Minutes of April12, 2010; May 10,2010; June 14,2010.
2) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of May 27, 2010.
3) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of May 20,2010; June 3, 2010.
4) County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of June 2, 2010 Special Meeting; June 7, 2010 Special
Meeting; June 11,2010 Jackson Labs Financing Subcommittee;
June 16,2010; July 7,2010 Jackson Labs Financing Subcommittee;
July 12, 2010 Special Meeting.
Minutes of June 2, 2010 Jackson Labs Sub-Committee; June 7, 2010
Special Session; June 11,2010 Finance Sub-Committee; June 16,
2010; July 7, 2010; July 12,2010.
5) Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board:
Agenda of July 21,2010.
6) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of June 14,2010.
7) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 18,2010; March 18,2010; April 15, 2010;
May 20, 2010; July 15,2010.
Minutes of January 21,2010; February 18,2010; March 18,2010;
April15, 2010; May 20,2010.
(
8) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of March 16,2010; April 20, 2010.
Minutes of February 16,2010; March 16,2010; April 20, 2010.
C. Other:
1) Collier County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of June 4, 2010.
2) Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program:
Minutes of June 7, 2010.
September 14, 2010
Item #16Jl
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 17,2010
THROUGH JULY 23, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 24,2010
THROUGH JULY 30, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 31, 2010
THROUGH AUGUST 6, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 07,2010
THROUGH AUGUST 13,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 14,2010
THROUGH AUGUST 20,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J6
Page 154
September 14, 2010
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 21,2010
THROUGH AUGUST 27,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J7
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 28, 2010
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 3,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
RESOLUTION 2010-167: THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
2011 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN,
WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE CURRENT APPROVED PLAN
Item #16K2
A CONTRACT FOR JAMES LALUMIERE OF PDI, FOR EXPERT
CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,500 IN
THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN CARLO,
INC., CASE NO. 09-8724-CA (RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK
ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 60169) (FISCAL IMPACT
$85,500)
Item #16K3
A CONTRACT WITH JAMES LALUMIERE OF PDI, FOR
EXPERT CONSULTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$87,500 FOR THE CASE STYLED JOHN CARLO, INC. V.
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 07-311-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 66042)
Page 155
September 14,2010
(FISCAL IMPACT $87~500)
Item #16K4
A CONTRACT WITH SAM LEE, HHCP, FOR EXPERT
CONSULTING SERVICES TO THE COUNTY IN THE AMOUNT
OF $75,000 FOR THE CASE OF KER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
D/B/A ARMADILLO UNDERGROUND V. APAC-SOUTHEAST,
INC. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 09-8724-CA
(VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051) (FISCAL
IMPACT AN ADDITIONAL $75~000)
Item #16K5
RATIFICATION OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS C.
CURRY
Item #16K6
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL GLOBAL
RELEASE WITH AND TO EMBARQ, INC., EMBARQ
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (NOW KNOWN AS
CENTURYLINK), AND WORKMAN SERVICES, INC. THAT
SETTLES IN FULL THE LITIGATION STYLED: BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. EMBARQ, INC., EMBARQ
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND WORKMAN SERVICES, INC.,
CASE NO. 10-00090-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT
COURT FOR THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #16K7
Page 156
September 14,2010
RESOLUTION 2010-167A: FORMALLY ACCEPTING THE
IMPROVEMENTS BUILT BY THE MARCO ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY WHICH NOW COMPRISE THE
MARCO ISLAND MUSEUM COMPLEX, INCLUDING THE
ROSE HISTORY AUDITORIUM, AND AUTHORIZES THE
LEASING OF THE ROSE HISTORY AUDITORIUM BACK TO
THE MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY; AND (2) TO
APPROVE BOTH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AND A LONG-TERM LEASE WITH THE MARCO ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW
MARCO ISLAND HISTORICAL MUSEUM
Item #16K8
ORDER BY BRENDA C. GARRETSON, SPECIAL
MAGISTRA TE/ HEARING OFFICER, AND AWARDING A
MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE COLLIER
AREA TRANSIT (CAT) FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT
PROGRAMS TO LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,
DOING BUSINESS AS TECTRANS, INC., FOR AN ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $6~092~167
Item # 16K9
INCREASING A PURCHASE ORDER TO HAHN LOESER TO
ADD AN ADDITIONAL $150,000 TO THE CURRENT $100,000
CAP FOR THE HUSSEY V. COLLIER COUNTY LITIGATION
CASES, PAID BY FUNDS CURRENTLY WITHIN THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S APPROVED BUDGET - DUE TO CONTINUED
LITIGATION SERVICES IN THE CASE OF HUSSEY V.
COLLIER COUNTY
Page 157
September 14, 2010
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2010-35: A SCRIVENER'S ERROR, SE-2008-AR-
13623, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 07-34, FOR THE
KAICASA RPUD. THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR RESULTED IN
THE OMISSION OF SECTION 12 OF THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 12
AND SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2010-168 (DISTRICT 1) AND RESOLUTION
2010-169 (DISTRICT 2): THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
ROLLS AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND ADOPTING
SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS
FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA
STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE MUNICIPAL SERVICE
BENEFIT UNITS, SERVICE DISTRICT NO. I AND SERVICE
DISTRICT NO. II, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST
CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY
PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-54, AS
AMENDED. REVENUES ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE
$18~319~000
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2010-170: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
Page 158
September 14, 2010
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 ADOPTED
BUDGET
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:06 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'1uJ-- w. ~
FRED COYLE, Chairman
A TTES~'~'~";"7'-'>'~;J
Dw~~f~Y.~&QK,CLERK
~ ~~/\n~:-;..';'.:?'..'~"~.....':.t%?y\'IJ" 'j
~ ~.', :'1-. ,. "-'~'i,,:: :
. .~... 'I'. ...
.,",.; - .,'\i. ' :--
. :::..;-.j.:'.'. ff. .-.,,-
,
;h;~~~~~pproved by the Board on l-e(~b.v IZ as presented
V or as corrected HJ 1'\ · .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 159