BCC Minutes 10/12/2010 R
October 12, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 12, 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
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Office
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
AGENDA
October 12,2010
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."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
Page 1
October 12, 2010
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Charles McCracken - Naples Alliance Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. September 9, 2010 - BCC/Budget Meeting Minutes
C. September 14, 2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting Minutes
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating October 2010 as Domestic Violence Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Linda Oberhaus, Executive Director, The Shelter
for Abused Women and Children. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 2
October 12,2010
B. Proclamation recognizing the United Way of Collier County for their
outstanding contributions to the community and wishing them the greatest
success in their 2010/2011 community fundraising campaign. To be
accepted by Ernie Bretzmann and guests. Sponsored by Commissioner
Henning.
C. Proclamation designating October 10, 11, 12 and 13,2010 as the Italian
American Club Foundation Days. To be accepted by Dr. Charles Lomanto,
President; Raymond LeCatta, Vice President; Marilyn Romeo, Secretary and
Ren Morani, Treasurer. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
D. Proclamation designating October 16, 2010 as Collier County Branch
NAACP 28th Annual Freedom Fund Day. To be accepted by Harold Weeks
and Diane Haynes. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
E. Proclamation designating October 12,2010 as State Representative David
Rivera Appreciation Day. To be accepted by David Rivera. Sponsored by
Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Distinguished Budget Presentation A ward for the current fiscal year from
the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) presented to the
Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark Isackson,
Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services.
B. Recommendation to recognize James Sparks, Environmental Specialist,
Pollution Control Department, as the Employee of the Month for September
2010.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item continued from the September 28~ 2010 BCC Meetin2. Public
Petition request from Mr. Harrison Hubschman regarding water detention
area south of Michigan Avenue at 12th Street.
B. Public Petition request from Ms. Monique Perez Marini requesting
assistance for Chinese drywall remediation.
Page 3
October 12, 2010
C. Public Petition request from Chairman Thomas Cannon regarding East
Naples Fire Control District fire code office building.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to consider adopting an Ordinance amending Chapter 74
of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) by amending the Educational Facilities
(School) Impact Fee rate schedule, which is Schedule Six of Appendix A, to
provide for a reduction in rates, recommended by the District School Board
of Collier County and providing for a retroactive effective date of October 8,
2010.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory
Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
E. Discussion related to the application of reduced Road and School Impact Fee
rates to building permits that have not been issued and are currently in Apply
or Ready status. (Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Report on the status of State and Local efforts connected with the potential
location of a Florida Institute for Personalized Medicine operated by Jackson
Laboratory and the proposed development of a regional biomedical research
campus on surrounding acreage. (Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate
Page 4
October 12, 2010
Financial and Management Services, County Manager's Office)
B. Recommendation to adopt a Bond Resolution authorizing the issuance of
revenue bonds for the Jackson Laboratory project in order to initiate a bond
validation proceeding to determine whether the use of bond proceeds for
such project constitutes a valid public purpose under the laws of the State of
Florida. (Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management
Services, County Manager's Office)
C. Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to reallocate funds in
the amount of $4,000,000 from Reserves to the South Reverse Osmosis Raw
Water Well field Pipeline Project, Project Number 70030, and to declare a
valid Public Emergency with regard to the continued provision of project-
related services by Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator)
D. Recommendation to approve staffs proposed enhancement to purchasing
practices to compel vendors responding to offers to provide services in
response to Invitations to Bid (ITB) and Requests for Proposals (RFP) to use
the Department of Homeland Security's E-verify system to ensure that their
employees meet federal eligibility criteria to work in the United States. (Len
Price, Administrative Services Administrator)
E. Recommendation to grant a one-time exception of policy from the
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance Number 2001-13, as
amended, to provide a wastewater impact fee payment option for the
applicant of Permit Number 2010070017. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administrator)
F. Recommendation to review and approve the proposed Collier County 2011
State Legislative Priorities. (Debbie Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 5
October 12, 2010
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. Recommendation that the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
approve the purchase of two adjoining vacant parcels at the corner of South
9th Street and West Eustis Avenue as part of the downtown Immokalee
portion of the Immokalee Storm Water Master Plan, and authorize all
necessary budget amendments to recognize the total grant award in the
amount of$3,533,124 and appropriate expenditures. This purchase will be
funded by a dedicated Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency
Grant Fund (715) with a subsequent reimbursement from the CDBG/DRI
Grant Fund (705) in the amount of $474,000 (plus associated closing costs).
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the
Airport Authority, award Bid No. 10-5498 Marco Island Executive Airport
Construction of Taxiway and Ramp Expansion in the amount of
$5,959,000.02 to DeAngelis Diamond Construction Inc. and authorize its
Chairman to execute the standard contract after approval by County
Attorney.
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 grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Sterling Oaks Phase 4
with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Gridley Medical Building, 12250 East Tamiami Trail,
Naples, Florida.
Page 6
October 12,2010
3) This item reauires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearin2 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 Autozone Store #4885 at
Home Depot of Naples located at 2251 Pine Ridge Road.
4) Recommendation to award contract for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-
5529, Purchase of Limerock and Fill Materials, to Florida Dirt Source
LLC, Better Roads, Inc., Y ounquist Brothers Rock, Inc. and Stock
Development LLC in the estimated annual amount of $350,000.
5) Recommendation to find Waterways Joint Ventures V (Developer) in
default of the Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) between
Collier County (County) and the Developer to construct the Tree
Farm, Woodcrest and Massey alternative roadway project (Project)
approved as a companion item to Summit Lakes RPUD.
6) Recommendation to adopt a resolution requesting that the Florida
Department of Transportation quitclaim to Collier County certain
right-of-way situated in the southeast quadrant of the Immokalee
Road and Interstate 1-75 interchange and declaring that the right-of-
way is to be used for public purpose only. (Project No. 60109.)
Estimated fiscal impact: $35.50.
7) Recommendation to terminate the Fee Payment Assistance Agreement
between Collier County and Arthrex Manufacturing, Inc., at the
companys request; additionally, authorize the reimbursement $47,444
of General Government Buildings Impact Fees (Fund 390) and
$11,510.28 of Law Enforcement Impact Fees (Fund 385) paid by the
property owner related to the building permit which has subsequently
expired and approve a budget amendment to transfer the
$1,054,449.65, paid on behalf of Arthrex Manufacturing, Inc., from
Fund 339 (Road Impact Fee District 5) to General Fund 001, which
was the original funding source for the payment, and upon completion
of the transfer, execute a satisfaction oflien for the subject property.
8) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.4 to Professional
Service Agreement No. 03-3553 in the amount of $950,330.35 with
CH2MHILL, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard Road
Improvements from Davis Boulevard to Golden Gate Main Canal,
Page 7
October 12, 2010
combining this project with FDOT Davis Boulevard Improvements
and Post Design Services, Projects Nos. 60001 and 60092.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve a Request for Proposal (RFP) scope of work to build
single-family homes on CRA owned land; approve the Executive
Directors advertisement of the RFP through the Purchasing
Department and return with recommendations.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to enter into an Interlocal Agreement between
Collier County and the City of Marco Island requiring the City to
adopt the Collier County Recycling Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2009-
56, as amended.
2) Recommendation to authorize sole source purchase of replacement
pumps, warranty related repair and other parts and materials not
available through an aftermarket source for approved submersible lift
station pumps in the estimated annual amount of $500,000 for a
period of five years.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Blessed, LLC, and
accept a Right of Entry for a groundwater monitor well and
environmental monitoring purposes in an amount not to exceed
$4,050.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the conveyance of a piece of land
located at 425 1st Street North, Immokalee, from Collier County to
the David Lawrence Mental Health Center, Inc.; at no cost to the
County.
2) Public notice of intent to consider final disposition of Neighborhood
Stabilization Program residential properties, consistent with the
requirements of Collier County Ordinance No. 2009-63 and
Page 8
October 12, 2010
125.35(3), Florida Statutes.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Assistance to accept funding for the Adult Drug Court Discretionary
Grant Program: Enhancement in the amount of $197,614, and approve
a budget amendment to allocate the funding.
4) Recommendation to accept the Rural Health Outreach Special
Congressional Initiative from the United States Department of Health
and Human Services in the amount of $594,000 and approve the
necessary budget amendment to recognize the revenue.
5) Recommendation to approve a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) agreement between the State of Florida Division of
Emergency Management and the Board of County Commissioners for
a Wind Retrofit project at the East Naples Community Park and
Senior Center in the amount of $74,640 and authorize budget
amendments.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to terminate contracts with Anchor Health Centers,
P.A. (Anchor Health) for Contract Numbers #10-5488 Medical
Director for Occupational Health & Wellness Programs
(approximately $25,000 annually) and #10-5407 Employment
Physicals and Drug Testing (approximately $11,000 annually) and
enter into an agreement with Dr. Julia K. Harris M. D. for both
servIces.
2) Recommendation to reject award for Invitation to Bid (ITB) #10-5511
for Hardware and Related Items and authorize staff to purchase
hardware through more efficient and effective means.
3) Recommendation to approve Purchase Order #4500118122 to
Suncoast Moving & Storage, Inc. under Bid #10-5443, Full Service
Professional Movers, in the amount of$58,728 for moving the County
Property Appraiser's offices and to authorize the continued use of the
referenced contract.
Page 9
October 12, 2010
4) Recommendation to approve a Resolution establishing a policy for the
acceptance of monetary payment and land donations by the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program in lieu of meeting
off-site native retention requirements, as set forth in recent
amendments to the Land Development Code (LDC), Section 3.05.07.
5) Recommendation to approve the Panther Walk Preserve Final
Management Plan under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program.
6) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
7) Recommendation to authorize routine and customary budget
amendments appropriating $8,718,432.18 ofFY20l0 carry forward
for approved open purchase orders into Fiscal Year 2011 for operating
budget funds.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation that the Board approve Agreement #11-CP-03-09-
21-01-000 between the State of Florida, Division of Emergency
Management and Collier County accepting $7,300 for the preparation
of Hazards Analysis Reports for facilities storing extremely hazardous
substances within Collier County and approve the necessary budget
amendment.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
Grant Agreement #201 OCKWXO 1 07 in the amount of $800,000 from
the United States Department of Justice, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Technology Program for public
safety technology equipment and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
3) Recommendation to award Bid #10-54llR to multiple vendors for
EMS Expendable Medical Supplies and Equipment. Fiscal impact
$400,000.
4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
Page 10
October 12,2010
to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget.
5) Recommendation to waive formal competition under Purchasing
Policy Section V.AA and approve a Hosted Application Service and
License Agreement with Sarasota County and a Statement of Work
with Method Factory, Inc. for Implementation and Maintenance
Services to upgrade GovMax budgeting software to version 5.0 for the
total cost of$198,233.
6) Recommendation to approve a proposed policy establishing
operational guidelines for submitting interagency concerns between
County emergency services providers and independent fire
departments to outside authorities.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approve Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(DBE) goals of 2.8 percent for the Marco Island Executive Airport,
and 2.7 percent for Everglades Airpark for Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) funded airport improvement projects (AlP)
during fiscal year 2011.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Urban Land Institute - What is the Future of Master
Planned Communities in Southwest Florida? To be held on September
9, 2010 at The Quarry Golf Club in Naples, FL. $10 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended The Leadership Collier Kick off Reception Leadership Class
2011 on September 23,2010 at The Naples Community Hospital
Telford Center Club, 350 7th St. North in Naples, FL. $25 to be paid
from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
Page 11
October 12, 2010
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended Physician Led Access Network of Collier County
Appreciation Night 2010 on September 24, 2010 at Naples Yacht
Club, 700 14 Avenue, Naples, FL. $25 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Commissioner Coletta attended United Way of Collier County, 2010
Campaign Recognition Breakfast on October 6, 2010 at Hilton
Naples, 5111 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL. $20 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Commissioner Coletta will attend the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 28th Annual Collier
County Freedom Fund Banquet on October 16,2010 at Hilton Naples,
5111 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL. $65 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Commissioner Coletta will attend the 16th Annual Blue Chip
Recognition Luncheon on November 4, 2010 at Harborside Event
Center, 1375 Monroe Street, Ft. Myers, FL. $10 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta'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
September 18, 2010 through September 24, 2010 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
Page 12
October 12, 2010
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 25,2010 to October 1,2010 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
3) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment appropriating
$29,900 that will provide funding for the Legal Aid Society within the
Courts System to cover Article V revenue shortfall for FY2010.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
of$125,000 for the acquisition of Parcels 100FEE, 100SUE, 101FEE
and 101SUE in the lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v.
Waterways of Naples Homeowners Association, Inc., et ai, Case No.
07-41l2-CA (Oil Well Road Project #60044). (Fiscal Impact $65,578)
[Companion to Item #16K2]
2) Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Agreement and Release in
the lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. Waterways of Naples
Homeowners Association, Inc., et ai, Case No. 07-41 12-CA (Oil Well
Road Project #60044). (Fiscal Impact $281,622) [Companion to Item
# 16K 1 ]
3) Recommendation to waive interest and authorize the Chairman to sign
a satisfaction of civil judgment entered against Angel and Blanca
Carrasco, relating to litter violations at 1801 55th Terrace SW, Collier
County, Florida.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
Page 13
October 12,2010
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WmCH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2010-11 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 14
October 12, 2010
October 12,2010
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now session. Would you please stand
for the invocation by Reverend Charles McCracken of the Naples
Alliance Church.
REVEREND McCRACKEN: There's a verse in the Scripture,
Psalm 24 that says, the earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the
world and all who live in it. That means that our commissioners are
the commissioners of God's Collier County. What a tremendous
responsibility. We're reminded to pray for you, so may I do that?
Father, at this time we would ask your guidance, your wisdom,
your discernment, your direction, for our councilors, our
commissioners, their staffs, and those who present business.
We realize that all of this really is yours, and we pray for
guidance that we might do what is best and right and perfect in the
name of the Lord Jesus. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Reverend McCracken.
Please remain standing and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
County Manager, you have changes to the agenda for us today?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Commissioners. These
are your agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners' Meeting,
October 12, 2010.
First change is request to withdraw 16B 1. It's a recommendation
Page 2
October 12, 2010
from the Community Redevelopment Agency to approve an RFP to
build single-family homes on CRA-owned land. That's at the staffs
request.
Next change is to move Item 16E2 to your regular agenda. It will
become Item 10G. It's a recommendation to reject award for
invitation to bid for hardware and related items and authorize staff to
purchase hardware through more efficient and effective means. That
is being moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next change is move Item 16E3 to Item 10H. It's a
recommendation to approve purchase order to SunCoast Moving &
Storage in the amount of $58,728 for moving the County Property
Appraiser's Office.
Final change is to continue Item 16E4 to the October 26, 2010,
BCC Meeting. It's a recommendation to approve a resolution
establishing the policy for acceptance of monetary payments and land
donations by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program.
That is being moved, or excuse me, continued at the staffs request.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Ochs.
County Attorney, do you have any changes?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with the
commissioners on any changes to the agenda and ex parte items, and
we'll begin with Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir, thank you. And good
morning to everyone.
This morning I have no changes or corrections to the agenda.
And as far as ex parte goes, I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Chairman.
Page 3
October 12, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As of this morning I have no
disclosures on either the summary agenda or the consent agenda, and I
don't have any changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
And I have no ex parte disclosures for any item on the agenda
today, and I have no further changes to the agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Good morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I have no changes--
excuse me. I have no disclosures to make, but I do have one item I'd
like to pull because I have some questions, and that's 16A 7.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Manager, that's going to
go to what?
MR.OCHS: That will be Item 101 on your agenda. That's 16A7
moving to 101.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that's it, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, thank you. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte
communication on today's consent or summary agenda, and I have no
changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Do I have a motion for approval of to day's regular, consent, and
summary agenda as amended?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Halas to approve.
Page 4
October 12, 2010
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion to approve the agendas are --
approved.
Page 5
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 12, 2010
Withdraw Item 16B1: Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA) to approve a Request for Proposal (RFP) scope of work to build single-family homes on
CRA owned land; approve the Executive Directors advertisement of the RFP through the
Purchasing Department and return with recommendations. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16E2 to lOG: Recommendation to reject award for Invitation to Bid (ITB) 10-
5511 for Hardware and Related Items and authorize staff to purchase hardware through more
efficient and effective means. (Commissioner Coyle's request)
Move Item 16E3 to 10H: Recommendation to approve Purchase Order 4500118122 to
Suncoast Moving & Storage, Inc. under Bid #10-5443, Full Service Professional Movers, in the
amount of $58,728 for moving the County Property Appraisers offices and to authorize the
continued use of the referenced contract. (Commissioner Fiala's request)
Continue Item 16E4 to October 26. 2010 BCC Meetim~: Recommendation to approve a
Resolution establishing a policy for the acceptance of monetary payment and land donations
by the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program in lieu of meeting off-site native
retention requirements, as set forth in recent amendments to the Land Development Code
(LDC), Section 3.05.07. (Staff's request)
10/12/2010 8:36 AM
October 12,2010
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 - BCC/BUDGET
MEETING AND SEPTEMBER 14,2010 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, for the September the 9th, 2010,
BCC Budget Meeting Minutes and the September 14th, 2010, BCC
Regular Meeting Minutes, are there any changes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those minutes are approved
unanimously.
That brings us to Proclamations, County Manager.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION WAS TAKEN TO ADOPT
ITEMS #4A thru #4D
Page 6
October 12,2010
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2010 AS
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED BY
LINDA OBERHAUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE SHELTER
FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Your first proclamation is 4A. It's a
proclamation designating October 2010 as Domestic Violence
Awareness Month. The proclamation to be accepted by Linda
Oberhaus, the executive director of the Shelter for Abused Women
and Children. This proclamation sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
MS. OBERHAUS: Thank you, Commissioners.
I'd just like to thank you so much for acknowledging October as
National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
As you know at the shelter, we work every day to prevent
domestic violence to protect victims and to prevail over domestic
violence in our community.
As in past months, the shelter will be hosting a series of activities
throughout the month of October designed to educate the community,
promote awareness, and create lasting social change in our
community.
So I would just encourage members of the community who
would like a complete listing of those activities to visit the shelter's
website at www.naplesshelter.org. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 7
October 12,2010
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE UNITED WAY OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY AND WISHING
THEM THE GREATEST SUCCESS IN THEIR 2010/2011
COMMUNITY FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN. ACCEPTED BY
ERNIE BRETZMANN AND GUESTS - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4 B, Commissioners, is a proclamation
recognizing the United Way of Collier County for their outstanding
contributions to the community and wishing them the greatest success
in their 2010/2011 community fundraising campaign. Proclamation to
be accepted by Ernie Bretzmann and his guests. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You pretty much cleared out the whole
room, didn't you? Would the rest of you like to come up?
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BRETZMANN: Don't leave yet.
Good morning. I'm Ernie Bretzmann with the United Way of
Collier County, and thank you so much, Commissioners, for the
proclamation this morning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All your people are leaving now.
MR. BRETZMANN: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aren't they going to stay here and listen?
MR. BRETZMANN: I know. We've already sent the check out
for this quarter.
But thanks so much for the proclamation today. United Way of
Collier County's embarking on its 54th annual community campaign
Page 8
October 12,2010
this year, and we actually kicked it off a couple of weeks ago at the
beautiful North Collier Regional Park with our 5th Annual Walk for
the Way.
United Way provides funds and other assistance to nonprofit
human service agencies that serve people in Collier County. Shelter
for Abused Women and Children has been one of our partner agencies
for over 20 years now, and it's one of 30 agencies that will be
receiving funding and support from this year's campaign.
I also want to state for the record that United Way really
appreciates the collaborative relationship we have with Collier County
Government as we work together to improve lives in our community.
So thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 10, 11, 12 AND
13,2010 AS ITALIAN AMERICAN CLUB FOUNDATION DAYS.
ACCEPTED BY DR. CHARLES LOMANTO, PRESIDENT;
RAYMOND LECATTA, VICE PRESIDENT; MARILYN ROMEO,
SECRETARY AND REN MORANt TREASURER - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation designating October 10,
11, 12, and 13, 2010, as the Italian American Fund Foundation Days.
To be accepted by Dr. Charles Lomanto, president; Raymond LeCatta,
vice-president; Marilyn Romeo, secretary; and Ren Morani, treasurer.
This item sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've got to stay here for the
photograph. Is someone going to say a few words?
MR. LeCATTA: Well, as you know, we've been before you for
Page 9
October 12,2010
many years changing our status, and now that we're a foundation,
we're very, very proud to continue our service to the community.
The Italian Americans of Collier County have contributed a lot
over the years, and we intend to continue our mission and work with
the community to make it a better community for all of us. Thank you
very, very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 16, 2010 AS
COLLIER COUNTY BRANCH NAACP 28TH ANNUAL
FREEDOM FUND DAY. ACCEPTED BY HAROLD WEEKS AND
DIANE HAYNES - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4D is a proclamation
designating October 16, 2010, as Collier County Branch NAACP 28th
Annual Freedom Fun Day. To be accepted by Harold Weeks and
Diane Haynes. This item sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ifhe's planning it, better watch out.
It's going to be fun.
MS. HAYNES: It will be fun.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you'd like to say a few words.
MR. WEEKS: May I say something?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, but she can.
MR. WEEKS: Oh, good morning to everybody. I want to thank
the commissioners for the proclamation. I don't take these
proclamations lightly. I really do enjoy them, and I read them
through, and I always like to have them read by my friend,
Commissioner Coletta, at our event.
We -- also I want to thank not only the commissioners, but the
Page 10
October 12, 2010
folks behind the commissioners. I don't think anybody ever thanks
them. These proclamations don't come automatically. There's guys
like Mr. Ochs and Mr. Sheffield and their secretaries and all the
underlings that are involved in the operation of Collier County and
this wonderful organization we have here.
The -- this is our 28th Freedom Fund Banquet, and the struggle
goes on, the beat goes on. We're still out there, the watchdog for
society, civil right protectors; we keep an eye on racial discrimination.
Any complaints that come in, we try to service those.
And our banquet is our main fundraiser every year. And I'll have
Ms. Haynes say a few words.
Don't forget Jim Coletta. He's the auctioneer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Harold, before you go, I've got
to mention to you. I haven't dropped this on you yet, but there's a
rumor, and it may be true, that both Sarah Palin and Bill Clinton may
be showing up for a surprise appearance at this banquet. So if you're
not sold out, you will be shortly.
MR. WEEKS: They're not booked in the same hotel, are they?
MS. HAYNES: Four-ring boxer rings, huh?
Well, thank you again for this proclamation. I just want to, again,
invite the public to the banquet. Our speaker will be the Reverend
Frank Peterman, Jr., who is the secretary for the Florida Juvenile
Justice Department.
Our mistress of ceremony will be Lisa Reddick, who is with the
shelter for -- Shelter for Abused Women and Children. And again, our
auctioneer, celebrity auctioneer, will be the Honorable County
Commissioner Jim Coletta.
(Applause.)
MS . HAYNES: And there will other wonderful, wonderful
things going on that evening, so please come.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Page 11
October 12, 2010
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 12,2010 AS
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DAVID RIVERA APPRECIATION
DAY. ACCEPTED BY DAVID RIVERA - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
And ladies and gentlemen, I'm happy to announce that State
Representative David Rivera is here with us today to receive a
proclamation sponsored by Commissioner Fiala. In fact, I'll let
Commissioner Fiala present the proclamation to Representative
Rivera.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're very happy to see him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And with your permission, I'd like
to read it. Would that be okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you read it fast?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll try.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And I also wanted to --
MR. OCHS : Would you like to bring the representative up, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please. Representative Rivera,
come up.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also wanted to note that
Representative Matt Hudson is in our audience as well to celebrate
this time. Thank you, Matt.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David, thank you for all you've done
for us. You pulled this thing out of the fire and brought us to the
home plate. And I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.
We were vying for a $6 million grant from the Federal
Page 12
October 12,2010
Government, FAA, to build a taxi-way at Marco Airport, which has
been considered one of the most dangerous airports in the State of
Florida because it had no taxiway -- the planes were coming in and
going out at the same time on the same runway, and it was a very
dangerous thing.
We almost lost it, and thanks to David, who had the foresight to
work with people, not only in our State Government, but Federal
Government, he pulled that thing out of the fire. And today, we are
the recipient of over a $6 million grant to build that taxi-way. And I
can't tell you how much I appreciate all you've done for us, David.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, David Rivera is the
Florida House of Representative Member for District 112 and has
diligently served as the representative since 2002, in which time he
has shown with his integrity and tenacity how, by earning the trust and
respect of both the electorate and his peers, not only in the Estates, but
-- not only in the state, but also at a national level, it is possible to
accomplish much for the district he represents; and,
Whereas, in a district that has a great diversity of cultures,
languages, and income levels, that stretches across the state from the
east coast to the west coast, the challenges of representing and staying
aware of the district's issues has shown David Rivera's dedication in
staying focused and building a support network to provide informed
input, but above all, being accessible and listening. And you are,
you're always there for us, David.
Whereas, at the state level it is after winning the respect and trust
of peers that you become Chairman of the House Full Appropriations
Council, Chair of the Full Appropriations Council on Education and
Economic Development, Chair of the Full Appropriations Council on
General Government and Healthcare, wow, and Alternating Chair of
the Joint Legislative Budget Commission, along with membership on
several other councils and committees; and,
Page 13
October 12, 2010
Whereas, David Rivera was responsible for passing legislation
into law that protected Florida's children and families from sexual
predators with the anti-cyber predator legislation providing stronger
protection for victims and stronger criminal sanctions against those
that would use the Internet to prey upon the children of Florida; and,
Whereas, David Rivera demonstrated his ability with facilitating
events and meetings by bringing together the necessary decision
makers to get the funding for the Marco Island Airport taxi-way
expedited, not claiming credit for the grant, but oiling the wheels of
state government to bring resolution to an aviation safety issue at the
Marco Airport; and,
Whereas, honoring David Rivera with a proclamation is
recognition of the selfless dedication he has given to District 112 in
the eight years as the state representative, and in particular, a
thank-you for the projects he has seen to fruition both directly and
indirectly for the benefit of Collier County.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 12,2010, be
designated as State Representative David Rivera Appreciation Day.
Done and ordered this 12th day of October, 2010, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Fred Coyle,
Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to approve
this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 14
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
(Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: Commissioners, thank you so
much for bestowing this honor upon me. I don't think I deserve it
because I was just doing my duty on behalf of the people of Collier
County who have been so good to me.
I can remember in 2002 when I was first elected and one of the
first doors I knocked on was Commissioner Henning's, had no idea
that I was knocking on his door at home, and Commissioner Henning,
and all of you over the years, have been colleagues and friends and
supporters for many important projects for Collier County.
And I would be remiss without mentioning that in that 2002
election, I came into the Florida House of Representatives with a great
man, Mike Davis, as my colleague who also took me under his wing
and showed me day in and day out what it meant to be a public
servant and to give back to the community, and I will never forget
him. I think about him all the time, and he's been followed in his
footsteps by another wonderful colleague, Matt Hudson -- thank you
so much for joining me here today -- who also shows me day in and
day out what it means to be dedicated to the people of Collier County
on so many important issues. And that's what this service is all about.
My eight years in the Florida House of Representatives, I have
tried my best to always be responsive and accountable and open and
accessible to the people of Collier County. God willing, that will
happen for years to come, but I will never ever forget these eight years
because of all of you -- because of all of you, the people I've served
with, but most importantly, because of the people of Collier County.
Thank you so much for this honor.
Page 15
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman, motion to approve
today's proclamations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve the remaining proclamations, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may.
REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: And John Norman, the great
work that he's done for me here in Collier County. I can't leave here
without mentioning John Norman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My light got on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who is John Norman? Does anybody
know him?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before we take the vote on it, I
just wanted to express my personal appreciation.
Donna Fiala couldn't have summed it up better. You've been the
most accessible person other than possibly my neighbor, Matt Hudson,
who I can reach out and touch in a moment's notice. But you've
always returned my phone call within like 15,20 minutes, you've also
been accessible whenever I've been to Tallahassee or you came into
town, you always sought me out.
I want to personally thank you for Oil Well Road. If it wasn't for
you stepping forward with the power you held in Tallahassee, we
never would have got the state funding and we'd never be able to bring
that road to completion. Thank you so much for that.
REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: Thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, you want to say something
before we take the vote?
Page 16
October 12, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I had my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well he had his on first. It's just, I turned
it off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He turned mine off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, a lot of people
don't realize when David became a legislator; he was one of the key
people who -- of a creation of an idea and implementation, and that
was 101 ideas. Of course, Marco Rubio, Speaker of the House at that
time, asked the legislators to go out, bring back 101 ideas for the
legislators to consider and implement, and I think that is government
at its true form, the way it should be, is representation, listening to the
people.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA: Thank you very much. Thank
you agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to presentations -- no, we
need to complete the vote.
MR.OCHS: We need to vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of approving the
proclamation, 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.
That brings us to presentations.
Page 1 7
October 12, 2010
Item #5A
DISTINGUISHED BUDGET PRESENTATION AWARD FOR
THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR FROM THE GOVERNMENT
FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (GFOA) PRESENTED TO
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. ACCEPTED
BY MARK ISACKSON, DIRECTOR, CORPORATE FINANCIAL
AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND THE BUDGET STAFF-
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Presentations. 5A is a presentation of the
Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the current fiscal year
from the Government Finance Officers Association, to be presented to
the Office of Management and Budget. To be accepted by Mark
Isackson, Director of Corporate Financial and Management Services
and the budget staff.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning. Congratulations to you
and the entire staff.
Okay. Is someone going to say something? Mark?
(Applause.)
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, thank you. It might seem
rather routine that this award has been received by Collier County for
the last 24 years, but it's anything but routine.
We have a fine staff of fiscal professionals throughout the __
throughout the organization that really contribute to this.
The Board of County Commissioners should be proud and
thanked immensely for your work in establishing the guidelines and
principles under which the budget's prepared. You do that every year
in February. And please don't underestimate how important that
process is as we get into the budget -- to the budget process.
We have a fine staff of professionals in the Office of
Page 18
October 12,2010
Management and Budget. And let me identify them by name; Susan
Usher, Randy Greenwald, Sherry Prior, and Therese Stanley, and, of
course, Barbetta Hutchinson, who is our executive assistant in the
office.
And finally, Commissioners, I'd like to say a few personal notes
about John Yonkosky. John was my boss when this document was
prepared, for which the award was received. John had tremendous
discipline and worked tirelessly in the office, and I learned a great deal
from John in the short couple years that I worked for him.
He was always there for me. He was always there for the staff,
regardless of the situation or the outcome. And I think his mark on
our financial operations, as well as our systems, is -- will certainly be
there and will always be there as we move forward as an organization.
So, once again, thank you for your -- for the award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mark. And your remarks
about John are all endorsed by that board. We all appreciated the job
that John did for us.
We have another presentation, don't we?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR.OCHS: Ready?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZED JAMES SPARKS, ENVIRONMENTAL
SPECIALIST, POLLUTION CONTROL DEPARTMENT, AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER 2010-
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That's item 5B on the agenda this morning. It's a
recommendation to recognize James Sparks, environmental specialist,
Page 19
October 12, 2010
Pollution Control Department, as the Employee of the Month for
September 2010. James?
(Applause.)
MR. SPARKS: Which end?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is your day. You get to choose any
way you want. But I'm going to present this to you while you're here,
and a check to express our appreciation.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I've got to say a few things about
James, if I might. He's been an employee of the county since 2005,
again, working in our Pollution Control Department.
As an environmental specialist, James is focused on protecting
freshwater resources in the county from all sources of pollution. He
consistently exceeds expectations and leads others by setting an
example of his strong work ethic.
He not only works delivering educational sessions to businesses
and the educational institutions in the county, but he also works
internally with our code enforcement staff to assist with unknown
substances, helps with environmental cleanups and waste cleanouts at
abandoned properties, and volunteers for the Household Hazardous
Waste Program hosted by the Solid Waste Department.
James has worked diligently to receive numerous certifications,
attends training, and is also studying to become a hazardous materials
manager.
James is a team player and a constant ambassador of Collier
County and truly deserving of this award.
Commissioners, it's a pleasure to present to you James Sparks,
Employee of the Month, for September 2010.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, James.
Okay. That brings us to public petitions. I would like to make a
brief announcement, a change, a possible change, in procedure.
Page 20
October 12,2010
Commissioners, the County Manager (sic) has suggested that all
people speaking to the board in the public be sworn in. So we have
previously done this on quasi-judicial matters, but it has been pointed
out to me that it is important that we get accurate and truthful
information anytime public speakers speak to the board to the public.
And if it is your desire to do so, we will begin that today with
public petitions. Do I have three nods --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that are -- Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a concern of the
perception, what we're saying to the public.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What is that? That they shouldn't
tell the truth?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, everybody should tell the
truth, and we're assuming public is not telling us the truth by having
them swear in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we should do that also with the
quasi-judicial matters? We should not swear the quasi-judicial
people?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A board member, by our policy,
has the right to ask for anybody to be -- take an oath.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's what we're asking the
board members.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you're asking everybody,
and that's just the perception.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have three nods?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have three nods. Okay.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, before you begin, you mentioned
that I had requested that. Did you mean the County Attorney?
Page 21
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. The County Attorney, yeah.
Did I say County Manager?
MR. OCHS: County Manager, yes, sir. It's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It'll be your fault anyway if it goes --
Okay. Then we have three public petitions today. Will those
three people please stand up and be sworn in by the court reporter,
please. We only have two, okay.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're going to start with
Mr. Hubschman.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MR. HARRISON
HUBSCHMAN REGARDING A WATER DETENTION AREA
SOUTH OF MICHIGAN AVENUE AT 12TH STREET - MOTION
TO BRING BACK AND BE HEARD AT A BCC MEETING-
FAILED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 6A on your agenda. This item
was continued from the September 28, 2010, BCC Meeting. It's a
public petition request from Mr. Harrison Hubschman regarding a
water retention area south of Michigan Avenue at 12th Street.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. Good evening or -- good evening.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Harrison Hubschman,
and I'm here today to talk about a small parcel of land that is located
on Michigan Avenue, and it is just south of 12th Street. And this
parcel of land was dedicated to the county a long time ago as part of
the Bad Axe Development. And this property is -- was meant for use
as part of 12th Street to continue south through that area.
And what has happened through the years is the property for -- to
Page 22
October 12, 2010
the -- just to the south of this property has been vacated and deeded
back to the property owners on either side of it.
And so this piece of property has kind of been just abandoned
there. And approximately three years ago, I purchased the property
next to it in my son's trust for him to build a house at some point.
And this piece of property next door, I went to the county at that
point in time and asked them what -- you know, if they could -- what
was going to -- to find out if it could be vacated.
The Road and Bridge Department said that they would not want
to vacate it, that they wanted to use it for a water detention area. I
asked them, why would they want a small piece of 6,000 square feet
as a detention area in the middle of a neighborhood like this? And
they said, well, we've got bad drainage in the area, they said. The--
there was something wrong with the outfall, I believe, on Goodlette.
They had problems with development to the south of Cypress, I guess,
Hemingway, and so they didn't want to give up that property. They
wanted to use it to detain a little bit of water in case there was some
flooding.
So I listened and I disagreed but, you know, they went ahead and
created a detention area, and it's been there for two years.
There hasn't been any flooding on the streets, but that's because
we haven't had any major storms come through. But the problem is, is
that the correction of the problems in the area -- I got to work -- I got
to figure out how to work this computer so I can get to the next picture
-- this is a larger -- larger picture of the properties.
The two vacant pieces, the one on the right, is my son's property,
and the one on the left is the detention area. And this is the entire area
with the lake there on the right and Goodlette Road on the right and 41
on the left.
The lake is supposed to take up some of the drainage from the
area, and then I guess there's an outfall into Goodlette Road, into the
canal at Goodlette.
Page 23
October 12, 2010
I couldn't find it yesterday. I walked the whole area and could
not find where that lake could drain out to Goodlette, doesn't cross
14th Street, as far as I can tell.
The biggest problem is, in the summertime, this property is wet,
so it can't be cut, so there's weeds that are anywhere from 18 inches to
2 feet tall. There's water standing in it. As you can see, there's a few
little birds feeding. But also there -- it's a mosquito nest. It just
creates a lot of mosquitoes.
And the -- these are different views of the property. The problem
is, is that the culverts on everybody's driveways are pretty much filled
in or covered over or blocked or crushed and nothing's being done
about it to solve the problem for the water to flow to wherever it's
supposed to flow.
I went through the neighborhood and took pictures. There's just
-- this is a culvert that, you know, is completely -- this one's
completely crushed. And I can just, you know, click through all of
these, and -- you know, there's just -- this is just on Michigan Avenue
itself. This doesn't include the other streets that are -- you know, that
might have problems.
And I don't know if it's property owners that are supposed to
maintain these culverts or whether the county's supposed to come
along and do it.
But I did go further south on Cypress, and on Cypress the __
there's the outfall going to Goodlette, but this is on the south -- on the
east side of 14th. There is no pipe to bring the water from the other
side of 14th over to the conditional, as far as I can tell.
Now, this is on Cypress. They just started digging the swales,
and I imagine cleaning out the culverts on Cypress, which is one street
to the south of Michigan, and they just -- they must have just started
this work because this is very freshly dug.
And this is a few from 41. There's no way that the water can
flow toward 41. This is Michigan Avenue on the left, and this is the
Page 24
October 12, 2010
south side of Michigan looking away from 41 to the -- to the east.
So my point is that the property, as far as the detention area, it's
not really solving a problem. It's just creating some other problems.
It's creating mosquitoes. It can't be cut. You guys have to pay to
maintain it, have it cut, and it could be, you know, used as, you know
-- I could use it as property added to mine so that I could have a drain
field for the house for my son at some future point, the neighbor on
the other side could use the property also.
But the major point is that, you know, it's turned into a nuisance,
and the solution to the drainage problem as, you know, the road
department has said, is not this particular piece of property. It's the
entire area as a whole.
So I'd ask that you, you know, possibly consider vacating the
property. And it doesn't have to be vacated today or next week or next
month. The road department could spend the next year fixing some of
the problems in the area to where -- to the point where they would
have not have an objection to this property being vacated, and that
would solve the problem very easily before next rainy season.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Hubschman.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioners, this is a fairly complex
issue that would require some research and report and cost
effectiveness analysis by the staff. I would like to suggest that if
you're interested in hearing this, we bring it back for a full hearing so
that we can get all the information at that time. It will be almost
impossible to get that information today.
So Commissioner Halas, you have your light on, did you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just wanted to see if we
could just ask staff to give us a brief overview.
My understanding, when I talked to staff, that there was a
mistake done some time ago by the county staff by the property to the
Page 25
October 12, 2010
south of this particular picture. That was never to be given up or
shouldn't have been given up because they need it for water retention.
So, as you know, we have stormwater issues that prevail
throughout the county here, and especially in this area where it's
heavily residential and there isn't that many retention areas.
And the gentleman brought up a good point. Those culverts -- it's
the responsibility of the citizens to take care of those culverts. So if
they collapse, they've got to replace them.
Norm, do you -- could you reiterate a little bit about this piece of
property, and then we can make a decision which way we want to go?
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. For the record, Norm Feder, Growth
Management Division Administrator.
What I will tell you is Mr. Hubschman is correct in a lot of his
assertions, and that is that there are drainage problems in the area, and
that this one parcel in and of itself doesn't solve the drainage problems
in the area but it does work to alleviate or to mitigate some of that
drainage.
And what we've done in developing this is not follow the mistake
of the past, as was noted by Commissioner Halas, in taking the
property and, as requested, putting it into private ownership where we
no longer have it as property to relieve some of that drainage.
It's only about a foot or two deep. It is set basically at level of
the roadside swale. It provides an overflow capability at times. It
generally is dry retention throughout the year.
We did get with Mosquito Control District when this came up as
a public petition, as that was a concern, to make sure we didn't have an
issue. They have said that they don't have a problem there, that they'd
treat, and we asked them to pay particular attention.
We feel it's serving the area. It is not solving all the problems.
There's no question you've got a lot of culverts that need to be
addressed by the individual property owners, other work needed, but it
would be a shame to give up something providing relief for this area.
Page 26
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. This is an issue. I took
some time talking to Harrison, and I found some facts out I'd like to be
able to share with you.
It's true that there is a -- this is a water retention area, it's true that
it doesn't solve the whole problems. Also, too, the problem with the
lots in that area is that they're made of a size and everything that
they're not on central sewer. So one of the problems is that you cannot
hook onto central sewer and you do not have room enough within
your lot to be able to locate a septic system that would be able to meet
the public health requirements. The size of the lot doesn't permit it.
You have to install a special type of septic system with a grinder
pump, and it has to be pumped out every once in a while to be able to
keep it functioning.
If he was able to move over into that lot there, to pick up half that
lot, he'd be able to enable himself to be able to build a house someday
that would be able to have that septic system.
Now, I'm not opposed, if there was some way to be able to meet
the drainage issues without spending a fortune, doing away without
the pond. But if we ever come to that point that we're going to vacate
this piece of property, I think it's in the public's best interest to make
sure that we receive a fair value for the property itself that we give up.
Ifwe're going to enrich somebody by giving up the right-of-way or
drainage place, then we have to deal with that issue accordingly as far
as it is, rather than making a gift of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can we get a vote to bring this back for a
full hearing so that we can get the answers to those questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got mine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala is suggesting
it be brought back for full hearing.
Is there a second?
I'll second it. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 27
October 12, 2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
All opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It fails, Mr. Hubschman, sorry.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. Well, just -- the homeowners are
not going to fix their culverts, and that means the drainage is never
going to get fixed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that remains to be seen. We're
probably going to ask the staff to come up with a solution for the
drainage problem.
MR. HUBSCHMAN: Okay. Thank you for listening.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for being here, Mr.
Hubschman.
Okay, we -- another public petition.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Next item is 6B. It's a public petition
request by Ms. Monique Perez Marini requesting assistance for
Chinese drywall remediation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And she isn't here. She wasn't sworn.
Okay.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM CHAIRMAN THOMAS
CANNON REGARDING EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
DISTRICT FIRE CODE OFFICE BUILDING - DISCUSSED
MR.OCHS: Okay. That takes us to Item 6C on your agenda, a
public petition request from Chairman Thomas Cannon regarding the
East Naples Fire Control District fire code office building.
Page 28
October 12,2010
MR. CANNON: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good morning.
MR. CANNON: For the record, my name is Thomas Cannon.
I'm chairman of the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District.
On your September 28th Meeting, right around 11 :59, one of you
County Commissioners accused the East Naples Fire Commission of
possibly misusing funds, government funds, for building a $5 million
station. I'm here to answer those allegations.
First of all, I find it really amazing that you would sit in a public
meeting up on your dais and accuse a fire commission of misusing
public funds.
First of all, Jim, we've known each other for over 20 years. If
you wanted information on that building, you could have picked up
the phone and called me. It's not a $5 million building. Three years
ago, when we were negotiating with South Florida Water
Management to go in a joint building, yes, it was a $5 million
building. When those negotiations broke off, we went ahead and
decided to build one just for the fire code.
But mind you, the fire code consists of the five independent
districts. It's just not East Naples. It's North Naples, Golden Gate, Big
Corkscrew, Immokalee. Four out of the five departments voted to go
ahead and build this building. The total cost for this building, $1.8
million, including engineering fees, architect fees, impact fees,
generators, fire alarms, sprinklers, includes the whole ball of wax.
Also in this meeting we were told that on Horseshoe Drive we
were paying a minimal rent. Minimal to me is a small rent. We pay
approximately $23,100 a year for 1,200 square feet. That's market
rate. Not only that, we pay $39,200 a year to use your computers. So
we're paying $62,000 for rent.
Minimal would be what the East Naples Fire Control District
charges EMS for use of our 951 Station on the road to Marco. What
do we charge EMS to use that? Three hundred dollars a month to help
Page 29
October 12, 2010
with the utilities, water, and supplies. That, to me, is minimal.
$62,300, to me, is not minimal. That's market rate.
Also in that meeting, we were accused of having only two
employees during the hey-days of Collier County. That's totally false
too. The office opened in 1997 with two employees. During the hey-
day we had nine employees. Today we have seven.
If we really want to look at cost of buildings, let's compare our
$155 a square foot to your $222 a square foot for your recycle center,
which is basically an open bay on the bottom and a shell on the second
floor.
In East Naples we are the administrative department of the fire
code officials. But like I said before, it's a joint venture between the
five independent agencies.
This -- like I said, we were in the talks of building this building
for over five years. When our talks with South Florida Water
Management broke down, we went into work on just building a
building for our seven employees in order to do their work.
Also it says with the economic times it's not a good time to build.
Now is the perfect time to build if you have the resources.
Construction cost is down. You guys were even nice and lowered the
impact fees last meeting. We saved $40,000 on that. And we're
putting people to work building this building.
What I hear from your every meeting, we need to get people back
to work. Well, we did that fact. And I don't think it's right to be
criticized in a public meeting for misuse of government funds or
possible misuse of government funds without knowing all the facts,
even though you said, I don't know all the facts. But whoever your
build birdie is, they don't know all the facts.
I thank you for allowing me my five minutes to set that record
straight.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 30
October 12, 2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you very much
for being here, Tom. And you're right, we do have a long-standing
friendship that goes back 20-plus years, and that's completely different
than our roles as commissioners and government officials.
Whenever something like this comes up in the public's best
interest, then we come together and we hear the facts in a logical way.
Did I have all the facts? No. I stated that very plainly when I made
the inquiry of staff and I asked them for a report.
You kind of got on top of it and you came back before I got a
report back from staff.
MR. CANNON: Well, I wanted to save them some work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there's some great answers.
But there's one thing, Tom, that's very concerning. It would have been
great if maybe when it came to some of those rent issues, if somebody
came to the commission, possibly you yourself, and just told us that
the rent was far from market.
We have a surplus of office space over there. How many square
feet do we have, Leo? Do you have any idea.
MR.OCHS: We have probably 1,800 square feet available;
maybe even twice that much over at the Horseshoe Drive facility right
now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we have to keep that space
maintained, we have to keep it air-conditioned, we have to keep the
grounds maintained around it, so there's an ongoing expense.
If we've been charging you an inappropriate amount of rent, then
that's wrong.
MR. CANNON: I didn't say it was inappropriate. I said it was
not minimal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. CANNON: Market value.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess that's something
for another day.
Page 31
October 12,2010
But the thing is, is to try to save every government agency out
there. We're always trying to piggyback with state and federal
government on different issues. We can do something better through
the local municipalities, like help them with their local parks to be
able to meet the needs rather than try to recreate the thing. We do it
all the time. It's always just reinventing the wheel in such a way that
it's going to be more efficient, more economically feasible.
With that many square feet that are empty and being underused,
it's too bad that we couldn't have sat down as commissioner -
commissioner in front of the public and talked about the possibilities;
how could we utilize this space, how could we put that to work so that
you could save your money back for some other time when you may
have need it -- needing it. There is absolutely no reason why we
couldn't have configured those buildings to be able to meet your
needs.
But that's a day for another time (sic), I guess. I appreciate the
fact you came here and that you shared the information that you gave
us today.
MR. CANNON: But you have to remember when this building
was started in the negotiation, we were in our heyday. You guys
didn't have the room at that time. And one of your commissioners
would like us out today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's that?
MR. CANNON: Don't want to name names.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a lot of allegations.
MR. CANNON: He made a couple comments in various
meetings about how we're the Cancer of the industry, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, other than that, we
express nothing but our love and our admiration for you, Tom.
MR. CANNON: I'm sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how about a plug for
swamp buggy?
Page 32
October 12,2010
MR. CANNON: Don't forget, October 30th and 31st.
And just off the record, keep your thoughts and prayers for
Lonnie Chesser, who's very ill right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. I
didn't know that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was that particular commissioner.
I'll step up to the plate and admit it in public. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Now, is there a motion to bring this back for a full public
hearing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think we owe them a little bit
of an apology for accusations that weren't thought out, and it made --
it made everybody look bad. We need to -- we need to check all of
our facts before anything like that happens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala, I'm
going to go back and review the minutes of that meeting. I was very,
very careful when I used my words. As Tom said, you know, I don't
have all the facts, and I mentioned that several times in there. But I
was sharing information that I had. And if any of that was incorrect
and I was out of line in what I said, I'll be sure to issue an apology.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might I suggest, in just a friendly
way, that before we make any other accusations and not have all the
facts, maybe we check all the facts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I resent the word accusations. I
didn't make any.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I really do. You
know, that's incorrect. You heard Tom say it, then Tom corrected
Page 33
October 12, 2010
himself. I will review the minutes, and if I said something where I
actually made a statement saying they did something that was
inappropriate, I'll issue an apology. But I tell you right now, I can
recall -- I'm very careful with my words.
MR. CANNON: I read those minutes four times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I doubt seriously I said
anything that was incriminating.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The one thing I think we have to keep in
mind is that it really isn't any of our business, right? That's what
we've been told before. Right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've been told by the fire
department it's none of our business, right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right. So it's none of our
business.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2010-207: RE-APPOINTING BARBARA SEGURA
AND RICHARD SIMS TO GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to Item 9 on your
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: Board of County Commissioners. Item 9A is
appointment of members to the Golden Gate Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Barbara
Segura and Richard Sims.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve committee's
recommendations, I believe --
Page 34
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Halas -- I'm sorry -- commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We look alike. That's okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I know. I'm sorry.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2010-208: RE-APPOINTING KATHLEEN
DAMMERT AND ROBERT SLEBODNIK TO THE LEL Y GOLF
ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9B is appointment of members to the Lely Golf
Estates Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendation, Kathleen Dummert -- or Dammert, I'm sorry, and
Robert Slebodnik.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve the committee's recommendations, seconded by
Commissioner Halas.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Page 35
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2010-209: RE-APPOINTING ANDREA HALMAN
AND WILLIAM A. DEYO TO IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9C is appointment of members to the Immokalee
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve committee's
recommendations of Andrea Halman and William Deyo.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve committee's
recommendations 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.
Page 36
October 12, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2010-210: RE-APPOINTING RUSSELL D.
RAINEY AND JAMES H. ELSON TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
CITIZENS CORPS - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9D is appointment of members to the Collier
County Citizens Corp.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to reappoint Russell
Rainey and James Elson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Henning to reappoint the two applicants for the two vacancies,
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: It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF REDUCED
ROAD AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEE RATES TO BUILDING
Page 37
October 12, 2010
PERMITS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED AND ARE
CURRENTLY IN APPLY OR READY STATUS - MOTION TO
BRING BACK AT A FUTURE BCC MEETING WITH STAFF
PROVIDING INFORMATION REGARDING RECALCULATION
OF FEES FOR PERMITS - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 9E is a discussion related to the application of
reduced road and potentially reduced school impact fee rates to
building permits that have not yet been issued and are currently in
apply or ready status, and this item was brought forward by
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was that number originally?
MR. OCHS: It was always 9E, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it was?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was 9E.
MR.OCHS: I don't believe there's any backup.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's no backup at all here. It
probably should have been under public petition, but nevertheless.
Is Mr. Anderson here?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, he is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Anderson, would you like to tell us
about your petition, and then we can decide if we want to have a
discussion concerning that?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
F or the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel &
Andress Law Firm. And when my client, Leonard Communities,
asked about using the new reduced impact fee rates when they were
planning to pick up their building permits that had been applied for,
they were told that if they want to use the new impact fee rates, that
the pending applications would have to be canceled and that they
would need to reapply and submit new applications.
My client asked me to look into it. And after they contacted me,
Page 38
October 12, 2010
another client, GL Homes, came to me with the same concern.
I spoke with your staff, and they said that the applicants would
have to reapply because the ordinance definition of impact fee rate
states that the fee is assessed at the time of application for a building
permit. Your ordinance also, however, states that the impact fees must
be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Well, what the ordinance doesn't say is that an applicant cannot
ask for and receive a reassessment after the application has been filed.
But staff feels that their hands are tied absent direction from the board.
My request to you is for an interpretation that would allow
someone to request and have a reassessment of their impact fees if
they have not yet picked up their building permit so that they can take
advantage of the new impact fee rates.
I would respectfully say that forcing a builder to cancel his
application and reapply means a delay and that it's that much longer
that people have to wait to get a job building those new homes.
And I thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
We have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: No. It was Mr. Anderson who was the
speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He was the only one.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I fully understand where you're
coming from. I'm just wondering if that would also apply if -- when
we get back on our feet and we have an increase in impact fees, if
you're willing to pay the higher rate of impact fees at the time that
you're going to pull your permit, such as you want to do here where
the -- where we're going down in impact fees and now you want the
other side of the gravy train.
I think that, myself, I feel that the ordinance that we have is fair
and just and I'm -- myself, I'm for really no change. I think that if you
Page 39
October 12,2010
want to apply for the lower rate, I believe that the -- it's a minimal
charge anyway to cancel and then come back for a lower rate of
impact fees.
But obviously, as you realize, there's -- the door can't swing both
ways, and I think that we pretty much tried to establish a good criteria
for the ordinance, and obviously we have to make sure that we address
our debt service here in the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bruce, what's your
understanding how long it will take to reapply?
MR. ANDERSON: It's my understanding that it takes from 30 to
45 days to normally process a building permit application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll ask the director or
administrator on that.
But how did we apply these prior when the applicants -- the
application, they had an application for a building permit and impact
fees were going up? Did that hold it to that -- the time of impact fees
when --
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: It tied it -- when there was an increase -- and
I think this was written during the hey-day when impact fees were
going up nearly every year, that an applicant -- the fees were fixed at
the time of application.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the real issue is, in order to
receive that benefit, they would have to cancel that permit and then
reapply. That's the real issue here.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I guess -- I mean,
it's a fair question. Do we really want to have people who hold
permits have to cancel them only to reapply? I think that's a fair
Page 40
October 12, 2010
question.
But I want to hear from Nick on the -- how long it takes to go
through the review process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida, Deputy Administrator for the Growth Management
Division.
A typical application is 30 to 60 days. For this type of process
we could do it in less than two weeks. It's pretty straightforward. Our
impact fee office does the recalculation. We get the same set of plans.
Our building department just makes sure that the plans are the same,
and there's just a pretty minimal processing fees. It's based on the
disciplines.
I passed out to the commissioners an outline of what it would
cost approximately.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A hundred ten dollars?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Per discipline. So it could be as high
as 440, and then 2 percent of the cost of the fee for Amy to redo the
calculations, not to exceed $500.
And, again, we mentioned we could do that pretty quickly
because we're not seeing a lot of plans. Staffs position is, we'd like to
keep the ordinance the same.
As one commissioner noted, you know, it's been set at
application fee for a reason, and you're trying to catch that wave on
both ends. But I also do understand that this is a pretty dramatic cut,
and people who will benefit from that cut will look at this either way.
Whether you charge them the fee or not, they're going to probably
come in and go through and reapply if they have to for their benefit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many -- how many --
estimate, how many permits are out there and haven't been picked up?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. We've got about 5,000--
528,000 square feet of commercial and about 126 units, both
residential, single-family, and multifamily.
Page 41
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, I'm sure that you were
talking about a residential for re-reviewing those permits. Is that a
correct assumption?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We wouldn't re-review the permit in
the sense that, if nothing's changed, we would just confirm that the
plans were exactly the same as we've reviewed them before or in the
same stage, whether they be commercial or residential.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about fire plan review?
I'm not picking on them now. I'm not -- you know, if they want to
build a building, they can go ahead and build a building, I don't care.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a -- as long as an outside -- I'll
call it all outside agencies. As long as all outside agencies don't cause
the plans to be re-drawn, we wouldn't review the plans again. But if an
outside agency does require the plans to be re-drawn, then we'd have
to incur more fees as well for the applicant.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have you inquired to those
outside agencies in this particular case?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have spoken to them. Their fees
are about $100. And if the plans are pretty straightforward and
they've seen them once and they feel that they're the same, they would
hold to that. But I can't speak definitively, you know, for every
project that comes in, because obviously they're commercial and
residential.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they don't -- outside
agencies, do they review single-family home?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, they do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They do?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which agencies do that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fire does, and if there was a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have they given you any
indication that it would have to go through a full review?
Page 42
October 12,2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, they have not. They've said
they'll look at it on a case-by-case basis and they'll do a reapplication
fee similar to what we would charge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe you heard a fire
commissioner tell you, they went through the process. They canceled,
took advantage of the rate reduction, and reapplied through us as well,
too, or the City of Naples.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's a valid concern.
I'm not sure what the answer is to the question, because changing
policy, let's say -- Commissioner Halas brought it up, maybe another
-- hopefully soon -- it changes and the costs go up, we -- and in our
impact fees -- our costs are going up and impact fees have to go up.
Do you apply the same policy?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the challenge, sir. Do you
adjust the policy just to catch the benefit of each direction?
I'd also like to add, it will affect other departments in the future
as well, we budget, whether it be public utilities, whether it be parks.
As their fees get adjusted, depending on the amount of the adjustment,
you're going to have the question come up over and over again, and it
does affect everybody's bottom line, so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The issue is a valid concern.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Nick, help me with this
just a little bit. Now, you have how many permits out there that have
already been completed and haven't been picked up?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not -- the ones that are in process and
we're reviewing right now, as Bruce mentioned, we've got 528,000
square feet of commercial and about 126 units of residential,
single- family and multifamily.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, those are permits -- those
Page 43
October 12,2010
numbers there, are they the ones that haven't paid their impact fees or
have already paid them?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They've locked in their rate but they
haven't paid their impact fee because they haven't been picked up yet.
Permits are in review status right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So what we're looking at
is the possibility of an -- allowing them to opt out and then come back
in again?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can do that now --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They can do that. And it costs
like about 600-some dollars?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. The max that you're probably
going to pay is about $1,000, and the minimum would probably be
$200.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's look at it the other
way. What would be the downside with not -- with going with Bruce
Anderson's suggestion?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The downside is you're going to give
an automatic reduction to everybody up front, and you're changing the
time that you were actually adjust- -- you make that decision on the
rate. If you're going to do the same thing on the upswing, I'd say that,
you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I realize that. We're --like has
been mentioned several times today, we're in unusual dire economic
times right now. And so let's think about this rationally. If there's a
considerable amount of money to be saved, and that money on the
impact fees, in some cases, like the school impact fee would be 50
percent, the road transportation fee would be 40-plus percent -- and
there's numerous other ones that have been reduced -- there'd be --
there'd be an incentive there, a real incentive, to spend $600 to be able
to save thousands and thousands of dollars; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
Page 44
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I mean, wouldn't it be logical
to assume that anyone out there that does have a permit that's pending
and if they don't have some sort of rush schedule that they have to
make, that they most likely will cancel the permit, pay another $600,
and then re-file again? Wouldn't that be the most likely alternative?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. On a single-family home, the
savings might be only $1,800 or $2,000, so they may not take
advantage of this. But on a commercial structure that's got -- that has
a large amount of impact fees, I'm sure they would take advantage of
this. So it's going to be, you know, evaluation on that particular
developer or builder.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but I'm a little bit lost.
Why do we want to put them through the whole process again? In
other words, money's already been spent, even though it's only $600
more. The money's already been spent. This already went through
review. Nothing's going to change other than the recalculation of the
impact fees. Wouldn't it make more logical sense just to come up with
some sort of realistic number to recalculate the impact fee and put that
on as an additional cost, recognize the permits that are already in place
and go forward with (sic) there? And maybe put a moratorium on it of
one year or 18 months where it would revert back to where we were
before or else be able to re-evaluate it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that's the Board's
discretion if you want to charge a recalculation fee. There's nothing in
our -- right now our fee schedule that has that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, this is not
something we would really decide today. It would be something we'd
have to bring back, I would assume.
Am I correct, J efr?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're best off, if you want to,
bringing this back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to bring it back
Page 45
October 12, 2010
with that little scenario that I mentioned whereby we recognize the
fact that there is a little extra work as far as the impact fee refiguring
part of the whole thing and be able to keep the permits in place, allow
commerce to be going forward, let them realize the savings that's
going to be there. They're going to anyways. I mean, it's inevitable.
The only thing is, we're just going to make it a little more difficult for
them. And I'd like to see it come back for consideration.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you want to
see it come back?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I'll just -- then I don't need to
say gOIng.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got enough nods to see this come
back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't want to see it come back.
I'm for no change at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I don't -- my
understanding is, they want both going up and coming back down.
And you've got to realize that we have commitments also for debt
servIces.
So I'm concerned in the direction that we're going with the board
here. But that's my -- if there's not enough votes --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There are -- okay, let's take a
formal vote. Is -- who made the motion to bring it back?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I made the motion.
Commissioner Fiala seconded.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta made the
motion to bring it back, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 46
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, clarification. You
want me to bring back an item where we have like a recalculation fee?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you bring us back a complete
analysis of the financial impact for us to do that as well as an
indication as to how long it's going to take you to go through a review
of one of these -- these permits that has already been approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And a sunset, too, that we
mentioned.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And give us all the information we need
to make a rational decision about this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think what Nick is
saying, on a recalculation fee, it's really not a review.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it takes time, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it takes time, and it needs to
be put in our fee resolution for CDES. I think -- after what Nick said, I
think that may capture what the majority of the board wants to do.
Do you have to advertise a fee resolution?
MR. KLATZKOW: We generally do. I'm not sure where we're
going. If we're going to amend the ordinance, then we would have to
advertise that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or if we're just going for board direction to
go this way until we change the ordinance -- and I would recommend
Page 47
October 12,2010
you change the ordinance if you're going to do this. But I do think it
does need to come back, perhaps with several alternatives to the board
as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- so you would say it --
just give direction on some sort of a recalculation fee and then change
the ordinance and --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to take a while to change the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the resolution?
MR. KLATZKOW: You'd want to do both at the end of the day,
because you want to give people notice that they have this -- I know
Bruce Anderson's clients were aware of this, but I don't know if
anybody else's clients were aware of this, and you want to give people
notice that they have this opportunity, and that's how we would do it,
by the fee change and resolution by the impact fee change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. I just wasn't sure what
the process on the resolution was. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Very good.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a fast note. You know, I
can understand both sides of this. And I'd love to get people back to
work, as all of our staff would. We want to see things start moving
forward in our economy.
At the same time, the other day I bought something from Joanne
Fabrics, and I left the coupon in my car. And darn it, I had already -- I
was checking out and I forgot the coupon. So I said, can I have a --
can I have a, you know, can I run out and get my coupon and then can
you give me the money back? They said no. You have to take
everything back in, have it all recalculated so that we can take it off
for, I guess, administrative purposes so they can see what was
happening and why there was a discount on the little things.
And I thought, I can understand where Nick is coming from,
Page 48
October 12,2010
because they also need all of these figures just to make sure
everything is clean and they can see why the discounts were applied
and where the -- where the impact fees were taken. So, you know, I
can understand both sides of it.
I think if you can do this and if you can make it turn around real
quickly so that you don't put any delay and work with Bruce, I think
we could come to a happy medium so all of your needs are answered,
our policies are adhered to and yet, at the same time, we're looking at
the development community to make this a smooth process, and I'm
sure you can do that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe I have the pulse of the
majority of the board. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have 13 minutes before we're
going to take a break. Do you have something you promise we can do
in 13 minutes, County Manager?
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE STAFF'S PROPOSED
ENHANCEMENT TO PURCHASING PRACTICES TO COMPEL
VENDORS RESPONDING TO OFFERS TO PROVIDE SERVICES
IN RESPONSE TO INVITATIONS TO BID (ITB) AND
REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO USE DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S E-VERIFY SYSTEM TO ENSURE
THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES MEET FEDERAL ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES - STAFF TO
ASSURE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK IS TURNED IN WITH
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PROVIDING A REPORT
REGARDING MONETARY FINES FOR CONTRACTORS THAT
Page 49
October 12,2010
DO NOT COMPLY WITH RFP STANDARDS - APPROVED
Let's move to Item 10D. That would be a recommendation to
approve staffs proposed enhancement to purchasing practices to
compel vendors responding to offers to provide services in response to
invitations to bids and requests for proposals, to use the Department of
Homeland Security's E-verify system to ensure that employees meet
federal eligibility criteria to work in the United States. And Ms. Len
Price, your division administrator for Administrative Services, will
present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a brief overview, Len, three minutes
or less.
MS. PRICE: Much less than three minutes.
Good morning. Len Price, administrator for Administrative
Services, for the record.
You asked us to tighten up our procedures, and that's what we're
recommending to you today. We will not only ask for the affidavit
that we've been asking for, but strengthen the language to ensure that
they comply fully with the MOU with E-Verify, that they send us a
copy of it so that we can validate that they have, in fact, signed up
with E-Verify. I think that's -- that's about as much as we can do to
ensure that they're following all of the rules and doing what we want.
We do ask you to clarify for us, please. We have been requesting
this information from contractors who have employees who are
performing services for us. We believe that that's the best group of
people for us to apply this procedure to, but I want to make sure that
that was your understanding as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two points. One of the primary
concerns that the board had was that staff was not asking for and
considering this affidavit prior to awarding contracts to vendors.
MS. PRICE: What we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What are you doing to tighten up
Page 50
October 12,2010
internal controls to make sure you are doing what we want you to do?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, what we had been doing was
asking for the affidavit as part of the award, asking that -- telling them
as part of the award that they were going to have to sign it. As part of
the contract, making sure that they actually signed the affidavit, and
that has been done.
What we've been unable to do is verify that they -- besides
signing the contract, that they have, in fact, signed up with E- Verify.
So in addition to the affidavit, which we have been collecting, we're
going to ask them to send us their contract with E- Verify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you making the contract award
before you're getting this information?
MS. PRICE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Were you doing that before?
MS. PRICE: No, sir. It was -- the question that had come up
was about whether or not we were verifying prior to award when they
submitted their proposals. Once we recommended them for award,
and as part of the contract that you approved, they have signed the
affidavit. That's what we've been doing, and that was our plan to
continue so that when the contract is awarded and signed, part of the
contract documentation is the affidavit and the MOU.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why would you even get that far without
getting those kinds of assurances? Why is that certification not a part
of the contract evaluation process, contract award evaluation process?
Why do you ever get to the point of signing a contract or negotiating
a contract with them without getting that information? You would
have selected somebody else in the process had you done it first.
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, as part of the proposals, they've
signed a document telling us that they will sign up with E- Verify. If
they don't sign that affidavit, we don't even consider them as being
responsive. So we don't consider those vendors to get the award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm a vendor. I tell you I will
Page 51
October 12,2010
sign an affidavit if you select me for the contract. I sign the affidavit.
You say I'm the best bidder, most qualified bidder, I get in the contract
negotiations, and I tell you, well, you know, I haven't signed up for
E- Verify yet. What are you then going to do? You're going to go back
and go through the process again, aren't you? It's a waste of time.
The vendor who is selected should meet all of the qualifications
for being a contractor at that time, and if you don't get this decision
making process out in front of the contract evaluation process, you're
wasting your time and the time of a lot of the bidders.
So I don't understand why there's so much reluctance to do this.
I've bid on thousands of government contracts, and I can tell you that I
never got to the point of negotiating a contract if I didn't meet the
requirements of the bid itself, okay?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, I understand what you're asking
for, and we will make that change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we need to make sure that the
commissioners agree with that. But okay. It's just still not clear to me
that staff understands what we're trying to do here.
MR. CARNELL: Sir, let me -- Steve Carnell. Let's just be really
clear here. Since 2007 we have been getting an affidavit from the --
all bidders, all construction bidders, initially, that -- all bidders on
construction contracts that they were in compliance with the
immigration laws of the United States.
In 2009 the board directed us to modify -- effectively modify that
affidavit from all bidders, the time you tender a bid, saying that you
would sign up for E- Verify. It's a representation. It's not a proof. It's
a representation, and that's what we were directed to do, and that's
exactly what we implemented in the summer of 2009.
What we're now proposing -- and just so everybody's clear,
people represent that they have -- will or have signed up for E-Verify,
but there is not an immediate independent way of verifying an
E- Verify that somebody signed. E- Verify does not show the names of
Page 52
October 12,2010
nonfederal contractors. It only shows people that are federal
contractors and county contractors, if we were attempting to verify it
independently ourselves, going on the software directly.
So the change that we're making to address that is, what Len's
telling you is, that we're going to now make them prove to us they've
actually signed up for E- Verify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At what point in time?
MR. CARNELL: At the time they tender the -- well, prior to
bringing the award to you. It's actually going to -- we're going to ask
for it with their bid, but we'll let them give it to us before -- if they
give it to us the day after they tender their bid, that's acceptable, but
before it comes to you for award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why wouldn't you say that in order to be
a qualified bidder, you have to present evidence that you have signed
up for E- Verify?
MR. CARNELL: This is purely paperwork. What we don't want
to have is a situation where somebody omits the form, they signed up
months ago and omitted the form, we'll take the form the day after if
they have it and just didn't submit it. And stuff like this happens, sir.
And we don't want to minor on the majors to the point where we're
kicking somebody who's a hundred thousand dollars less who's more
than capable and is fully compliant and fully signed up but didn't
submit the form, and the only issue was the paperwork.
But bottom line is, I think we get exactly where you want to be.
By the time that the recommendation comes to this board and gets
voted on, we will have the necessary documentation in hand or we
will not recommend them for award.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first? Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, does this pertain to
companies that bid for landscaping on the right-of-ways of the
county?
Page 53
October 12,2010
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does it -- going to pertain to
whereby the staff is out doing ajob and goes to a hardware store and
buys something; do we have to have an E- Verification of the
employees at that hardware store, too?
MR. CARNELL: No, sir. And -- no, sir. It would apply to any
county contract that's in place through the formal competitive process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just a contract, whether it's
landscaping, whether it's replacing sidewalks or anything of that
nature, they have to have an E- Verification; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just hope that we're not
getting ourselves overly burdened here with government regulations.
MR. CARNELL: Understood.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who's next?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Henning.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're asking them to sign up
for E- Verify but we don't know if they're going to use it or not?
MS. PRICE: When they sign the MOD with the Federal
Government, they are required by that MOU to use E-Verify for all of
their new hires and rehires. There is no way for us to go in and ensure
they are complying with that. But by signing up for E- Verify, they're
promising the Federal Government that they will do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if that's really a
checks and balances for what actually the community is asking us to
do.
What kind of process would it be for the potential contractor to
submit their employees' lists and social security numbers and that?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, there's laws that protect the
privacy of employees. Employers are not permitted to give out the
social security numbers of their employees to another firm. Only the
Page 54
October 12,2010
employee themselves can do that.
Under our MOD with the Department of Homeland Security, we,
ourselves, are only permitted to verify our employees, not anybody
else's employees.
And so at that point, I believe that we are overstepping our
boundaries to actually check those employees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how about -- how about if
we ask the Sheriffs Department to verify that the employees of a
potential contractor, their employees are -- have legal status?
MS. PRICE: They don't have that authority either.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if we give them that
authority?
MS. PRICE: We don't have the authority to give them that
authority. That comes from the Federal Government.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That doesn't make sense.
MS. PRICE: And I share your frustration with that. It's a line
that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you provide us more
information of what you're saying, what our boundaries are?
MS. PRICE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we gave you some
direction and, of course, you're limited legally what you can do.
Before what was happening is they were required to it (sic), you had
no proof afterwards that they complied. And if I remember it
correctly, what happens is, there's a -- there's a web page out there that
shows who is listed under E- Verify, correct?
MS. PRICE: There's a website out there that shows us who is
listed as a federal contractor under E- Verify. It is updated quarterly,
and it's about two months behind that. So it's about five months after
somebody signs up --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
Page 55
October 12,2010
MS. PRICE: -- if they're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's an extremely ineffective
too I.
MS. PRICE: It is not--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can't really rely on that. So
there's a certain amount of trust that's going into it with the way you
have it put together here. There's some legal limitations of what we
can do from what I understand you're saying.
And I can understand the frustration. We've have numerous
people -- and Commissioner Coyle has been a champion for this
particular issue and other related issues on this forever, and I
understand his frustration on it.
But maybe there's another way to look at it. This -- and I'm going
to ask Jeff this question first before I go to the rest of it.
Jeff, is this the legal limits of what we can do, plain and simple?
MR. KLATZKOW: Plain and simple is the policy of the Federal
Government to allow cheap illegal immigration into this country from
Mexico. And what they do is, when there is criminality involved,
that's when they get involved. And that's what they say in their own
briefs. And they've been attacking local governments and states who
have been trying exactly what you're doing right now. The federal
government does not make it easier.
We can find out who's registered for E-Verify. We have no idea
if they're actually using it. We have no way to compel them. In fact,
what they do is they sign a little affidavit that they've checked their
employees, but all the background information, they are not entitled --
they are not required to keep nor do they keep them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a sham what is going on with the
Federal Government, and I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it is, there's no doubt about
it. But going back to the question --
Page 56
October 12,2010
MR. KLATZKOW: And you are very limited, what you can do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very limited. And we're about
at the outer limits of what we can do within this particular --
addressing the situation through our local ordinances.
But now, let's look at it another way. We have another item up
on the agenda that's coming up later, and that's our state legislative
outreach which can to help, hopefully, get us to the new point.
Arizona has a law on the books that allows for E- Verification,
allows for a lot of checks. The problem is, is it's being challenged in
Federal Court. No one knows which way it's going to go at this point
in time. If they prevail, then there'll be a whole new day as far as
where we can go in the future with checking the legal status of people
in the community as far as taking jobs away from our legal citizens.
So why don't we give it real serious consideration when it comes
under our state legislative items for priorities and, also, we'll talk
about it when the time comes from our federal priorities in the fact
that we support the Arizona initiative that's taking place and being
challenged in court?
I think that's where we're going to get -- where we need to be.
Do we really want to put ourselves in a precarious legal position
where some organization with more funds than common sense will
challenge us and take us to court, and the next thing you know, we'll
be tied up and we'll spend untold thousands of dollars, if not hundreds
of thousands of dollars, of taxpayers' money trying to prove some
point that, by the time it's proved, the supreme courts will have
challenged it.
So the way this is put together at this point in time, I wouldn't
mind changing it in some minor fashion, but I think we need to deal
with it mainly on the legislative end.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just one further question to the County
Attorney. Do we have the authority to apply any monetary sanctions
for people who violate our contractual requirements?
Page 57
October 12, 2010
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, but if you do that, you will be
challenged.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't care.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. If I'm challenged and they
win, we'll quit doing it, but up until that time, why can't we do that?
You know, I'm as tired of dealing with this as all the other people
are. That the Federal Government has just flatly refused to carry out
their responsibilities, and I'm willing to do something to try to stop
what's happening here. And -- but County Manager, you told me this
would be over by 9:30 (sic), or I'm sorry, 10:30.
MR.OCHS: No, not 9:30, 10:30.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What happened?
MR.OCHS: You're four minutes over, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, I believe that, you know, staffhas
taken this as far as our legal limits will allow. The only thing we
could do beyond what we proposed -- and Commissioner Coyle
suggested this -- is that we could require this certification and
agreement to abide by the MOD at the time of bid submission as
opposed to at -- prior to the contract award.
The only downside, as Mr. Carnell cautioned, was there -- you
may run into a situation where you have a low bidder who is qualified
and responsive but the paperwork comes after the time that they've
actually signed and certified with E- Verify. We don't have that on
file, or they fail to submit it, and you're going to pay, you know, 50- or
$100,000 potentially to go to the second low bidder.
If we're willing to operate under that risk reward, fine, we can
make it at the time of bid submission as opposed to verifying it prior
to bringing the award of the contract to the county commission. But
other than that, I think we've gone as far as we legally can.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, and then we're
Page 58
October 12,2010
going to take a break -- either vote on this, or we're going to take a
break and postpone it till this afternoon, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. First of all, I was going
to back up what you said initially way, way back when you started,
and that is, we should -- and of course Leo just said it, submit -- these
should be submitted when the time -- at the time that the bids are
submitted. And our people over in purchasing, you know, they have
real close contact with everybody. When they receive a bid, they
could just say, have you included the E- Verify statement with this bid,
because we can't accept it until; that's simple enough to do, so then we
won't lose out on those things, and I think that that could be taken care
of.
And here it says staff is requesting clarification from the board to
expand the proposed policy to also include vendors that provide
commodities such as materials and supplies, computer hardware and
software equipment and so forth. And that was something we were
also supposed to consider at this time, and I -- I didn't know if that's
something you were doing.
MR. OCHS : Yeah. I think we had that discussion.
Commissioner Halas brought that up, that we had proposed to use this
in all formal contract bids and awards but not in individual
procurements of individual items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like the hardware store --
MR. OCHS: Like the hardware store.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that Commissioner Halas
mentioned.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir -- yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Why don't we approve this as it is
written with the guidance that staff is going to exercise diligence in
assuring that the appropriate affidavits are received with the
submission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 59
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor -- all in favor -- by the way,
it was -- motion was made by me, seconded by both Commissioner
Coletta and 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 a like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
And I would just like to ask for a report from the County
Attorney about whether or not we can assess monetary penalties for
people who violate the terms of our contract in this respect. That's just
a report. And then we'll make a decision as to what we do with it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. We're
going to take a ten-minute break. We'll be back here at 10:48.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
And you're going to take us to what item next, Jackson Lab
update?
Item #10A
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS
CONNECTED WITH THE POTENTIAL LOCATION OF A
Page 60
October 12,2010
FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
OPERATED BY JACKSON LABORATORY AND PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
CAMPUS ON SURROUNDING ACREAGE - MOTION BY
COMMISSIONER HENNING FOR COST ANALYSIS TO
EVALUATE THE IMPACT/BENEFITS TO TAXPAYERS-
MOTION WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR LACK OF A SECOND;
MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: This moves us to Item 10 on your agenda, sir. lOA
is a report on the status of state and local efforts connected with the
potential location of a Florida institute for personalized medicine
operated by Jackson Laboratory in the proposed development of a
regional biomedical research campus on surrounding acreage.
Mr. Isackson, your director of Corporate Financial and
Management Services, will be the principal presenter, assisted by Mr.
Casalanguida and myself, the County Attorney.
Just to set the stage real briefly, the board had asked at a recent
meeting that the staff bring a status report on this item back. The
report in front of you, sir, represents the staffs best effort to date to
gather current information based on our own analysis and research as
well as discussions with representatives from state agencies, including
Enterprise Florida and the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic
Development.
I've also had discussions, obviously, with representatives of the
landowner and the Jackson Laboratories, as well as our staff at the
Economic Development Council.
So with that, I'll ask Mr. Isackson to take you through the
presentation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And how many public speakers
do we have, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: Three, sir.
Page 61
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. ISACKSON: Thank you, County Manager Ochs. Good
morning, Commissioners. For the record, Mark Isackson, your
director of Corporate Finance and Management Services in the County
Manager's Office.
Before I begin, I wanted to acknowledge both Steve Miller from
Nabors Giblin, our bond counsel representative, and Sergio Mazbidol
from Public Financial Management, our independent financial advisor,
both behind me to, to help the board through some of the questions
that I anticipate will come up after the -- my brief presentation.
We were asked to brief the board on the most current
developments associated with the potential location of Jackson
Laboratory and the greater biomedical research campus. A lot of the
information contained in the information we're going to provide to the
Board is based on conversations with state officials, conversations
with our bond counsel, county's financial advisor, our County
Attorney, and staff conversations.
I'd first like to walk you through our information relative to the
state legislation and the potential flow of State funds associated with
this project. Why is that important? Because this board has indicated
in the past that Collier County will not get out in front of the State in
terms of financing for this particular proj ect.
On May 28,2010, the governor signed into law the state's budget
would set aside $50 million in year one within the Innovation
Incentive Fund as part of a maximum three-year, $130 million
commitment subject to annual appropriations.
Now, that first bullet point is interesting, and it has provided
substantial debate amongst staff as to what it really means. When will
we get the money, how much will be set aside, things of that nature.
State efforts are underway, which may lead to the actual deposit
of funds within the Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic
Development's Economic Development Trust Fund.
Page 62
October 12,2010
Upon completion of the economic analysis by Enterprise Florida,
the project is forwarded to OTTED for their review and sign-off prior
to submitting the project to the Legislative Budget Commission.
It is anticipated that the LBC will consider the project within the
next 60 days. That's our best information after talking with
representatives from Enterprise Florida and OTTED.
As I mentioned earlier, the concern on the local level continues to
focus on how State funds will be disbursed. The answers to these
questions have yet to be received from the state, making it difficult to
know the specific requirements for our local funding commitment
should the board decide that this proj ect is going to proceed.
Now, I apologize for the eye chart, but it's the best staff could do
to pull something together here. What I did -- what I tried to do was
provide some information to the board in terms of what we've been
doing to try and provide information and position the financing
commitment at least on the local level based on what we know right
now.
So the first assumption, let's assume the state releases the full $50
million for immediate draw, which would then compel, based on the
legislation that the state passed, a local match by Collier County
supposedly within 120 days.
What are our options? Well, from a bonding standpoint, we have
-- we have a few. Number one is, we could issue general obligation
bonds. That requires a referendum. Those general obligation bonds
will be backed by property tax revenue. Second -- the second option is
issue revenue bonds under what we call a covenant to budget and
appropriate.
That would require bond validation according to our bond
counsel. There's an item on your agenda, lOB, I believe, that provides
for the initiation of that process as directed by the Board. We brought
that back before you for your consideration.
Under a covenant to budget and appropriate, the funding sources
Page 63
October 12,2010
are all legally available non-ad valorem revenues. This -- this option
will require a new non-ad valorem revenue source. That source has
been -- which has been talked about has been a franchise fee.
We take level annual debt service on $50 million at 5 percent
over 15 years, about 4.8 million a year, that equates to $72 million to
repay the $50 million that you borrowed.
Now, let's talk about how we secure our investment. That hasn't
been talked about before. I think there needs to be some consideration,
and the staff has talked about this in regard to the -- what the -- in
regard to the local developer trying to secure the public investment,
and that security, which has been talked about in the past as being a
building, we might want to extend that security to include the
exchange of land, cash remittances at building permit, or some other
form of security that we can utilize to help secure our particular
investment with respect to this project in the event the laboratory is
not successful.
Now --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mark, could I just point out one prob- --
one issue here so that the people are not misled. When you say that
the $50 million that the state is considering would require a local
match of $50 million within 120 days, the -- I believe the legislation
provides that if the funds are not secured or identified by March the
1 st, that the funds go back into the general revenue and are no longer
allocated to this particular project.
So if it takes 60 days for OTTED and Enterprise Florida to work
out their agreement, then we'll have less than 120 days to identify a
source of funding for this project to meet the state's requirements.
MR. ISACKSON: I think -- I believe that's correct, sir. Now,
the real interesting question is -- again, is what, if any, of the $50
million -- how much would be released up front versus --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
MR. ISACKSON: -- how much would be released over time,
Page 64
October 12,2010
and we're still struggling with that issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And nobody knows, nobody knows.
So we could be in a position that -- if the state delays in making
their decisions, we could be in a position of having to respond to them
within 30 or 60 days if this continues to delay.
So I just wanted to make that point because it is an important
point, and it is the reason we're taking some preparatory steps now
even though no final decision has been made on this issue.
MR. ISACKSON: The -- in July, there was discussion before the
Board about -- because there are no -- there are no funds in this budget
directly appropriated for Jackson Laboratory.
In July we told the Board; you could probably go after -- if you
wanted to do an inter-fund loan and free up some cash to begin
funding the project, assuming the Board approves it, that that -- we'd
have available about $28 million to do that.
Now, that leaves 22 million if you're assuming, again, that we're
being asked to come up with $50 million in the time frame identified.
Where do we get the $22 million? Well, that's -- that's unknown
right now. It would have to come from other local sources, at least as
we've planned for it and looked at it internally within our operations.
Inter- fund loans to be repaid by a separate financing source.
Other new ad valorem -- non-ad valorem revenues within the County's
existing revenue structure, and we also indicated that the repayment of
that $28 million would have to be relatively soon, a one- to two-year
time horizon.
All right. The second assumption that we looked at is state
funding disbursement over time requiring as much as $100 million up
front from non-state sources, contracts -- to construct the personalized
medical facility.
If validation is unsuccessful, referendum bonds are not the choice
that the Board chooses to follow, what are we left with if we have to
raise money like this? That is going out to the private market, county
Page 65
October 12,2010
gets into a pay-as-you-go approach, and we try and finance the facility
this way.
There's a term called P3. It's a public/private partnership
financing. My knowledge of that is periphery. We have experts
though that -- behind me, that are very familiar with it. It's an option
that is not without increased cost of credit; in other words, it probably
would come in higher than what we would normally be able to issue
debt under.
Now, if the -- if that is a preferred choice, ultimately, as we get
through this process, might the County consider capping our credit
exposure at what we would normally be able to issue debt at and ask
other sources, the local developer, the lab, somebody else, to incur
those costs which are above our normal cost of issuing debt. It's
consideration cert.
Finally, local developer constructs the facility. It's an option,
certainly one that we've talked about internally as a staff. That would
-- could also be a derivation of a public/private partnership. Funding
source would be partially secured by annual County payments under a
facilities agreement with the developer, county, and the laboratory.
The County lease payments would come from general revenues,
likely bolstered by a franchise fee.
The investment security would be similar in all of these
approaches, as we've talked about before.
I'll ask Mr. Casalanguida to come up and identify some of the
issues connected with zoning of the site. Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida.
The Ave Maria site that exists right now has a town center on the
east side of the product on Camp Keais Road. It is currently zoned for
the approved land uses considered in this application or for discussion.
So as of today, if they were to come forward with a site
development plan at that location, it would be processed without
Page 66
October 12, 2010
Board review. It would be just a site-build application, and they'd
move forward.
They'd prefer to consider the biomedical cluster on the south side
of the project, on the north side of Oil Well Road. Staff considered an
SRA amendment process with their RPC and further discussion with
the Department of Community Affairs.
It led to a determination that would require a development order
amendment, go through the Planning Commission process and
through the Board review process.
Some of the discussion is, you know, what would that take, and
they're in the process of submitting that application right now.
In that first phase, it is not a regional impact modification.
You're basically taking approved resources or density intensity that's
within the project right now and moving to another side of the project.
In a second phase that they've discussed, you're basically doing
the same thing in a sense; you're taking approved density/intensity and
readjusting the mix.
The third phase, which would be the ultimate biomedical village,
would require a much more advanced application. You'd be looking
at an SRA modification or DRI modification, potentially.
That third phase is very speculative because you don't know the
size, and it could also take in other lands across the street or down the
road, depending on where they wanted to go.
So where we stand right now is, if they were to go on that
northeast side of the project, it would be just a site development plan
like any other process that we go through the county right now. If
they want to continue to pursue the proj ect on Oil Well Road, as
they're doing in terms of relocating town center resources to that side,
you are going to be through a public process through the Planning
Commission and ultimately through the board. And that has yet to be
played out, as we say.
So with that, I can answer any questions the board has.
Page 67
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Nick, going to the issue
of whether it's on the other side of Camp Keais Road or it's a quadrant
near the entrance going towards Ava Maria, on that particular issue,
have they indicated a preference or no?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. Yes, they have. They've
indicated a preference to be on Oil Well Road. Obviously the
County's expanding Oil Well Road. It would provide better access to
that project. That's their preference, to be on Oil Well Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And in order for that
preference to go forward, you'd have to go through a process that
would go four, five months?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. You'd be back in front of the
Board probably in December. You go in front of the Planning
Commission in November and in front of the Board in December for
.
reVIew.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And for some reason if
they couldn't get the necessary alignment the way they want it, they
always could fall back on what they have on the other side of Camp
Keais; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could. But I will tell you, in
staff review of just the proposal, it's a pretty perfunctory review.
There isn't a zoning change in the sense that they're going for new
intensity. They're going for reallocation.
You have not -- you've already gotten confirmation from both
DCA and the RPC that it's not regionally significant; you're not adding
new impacts on a regional level. It's more of a local level.
So staffs review in Phase I is limited to really two things: How
does it -- traffic change if they were to have that location on that south
side, so we're looking at that, and is there objection from the abutter,
and then the Planning Commission review for any other comments
that would be put out there.
Page 68
October 12, 2010
So it's a fairly simple process in that first phase. The third phase
is really where it gets into quite a bit of discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Where would the third phase
kick in? How far down the road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, and it's hard to speculate
based on development demand. So you could be five years down the
road, you could be eight years down the road. It depends on how fast
they developed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's an unknown factor.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ongoing factor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The process you're going
through now, I know there's supposed to be a document put together.
There's one going between Jackson Lab and the State to be able to
release the money, and the local -- the statewide economic
development --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: OTTED.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- yeah, is involved in that
process. In order for us to go forward, I -- Commissioner Coyle was
just talking about it -- we also have to go through a negotiating
process with Jackson Lab and it would concern the Colliers also. I
would assume so.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, there's so many balls in
the air right now, and I can see a possible time crunch, as
Commissioner Coyle was mentioning.
I would like us to give discussion here or have discussion about
the possibility of starting these negotiations now just to be able to see
where we stand and how we're going to be able to pull it together.
All these other things start to fall into line. A lot of time and
effort's being put into it. And if we can't reach an agreement with
either Jackson Lab or the Colliers that's in the best interest of Collier
County, at that point everything else that's been done on the front end
Page 69
October 12,2010
is going to be for naught.
So wouldn't it make sense to be running these things parallel and
doing the negotiations towards a final product now rather than wait for
a 60-day window of time to try to complete it and have a mad rush to
try to comply with everything that needs to be done?
It takes a lot of time for just normal projects to go through all the
discovery you need to do, and I'm concerned that 60-day window
might not be enough.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, the Chairman has had some
discussions in that regard with representatives from the laboratory.
He's probably a better person to answer that than Mr. Casalanguida.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
These discussions have been going on for months. Then the
problem is that we just don't have answers to a lot of them.
To give you some idea, we can't even decide what funding
mechanism to use until we know what the state is going to do with
respect to leasing funds. Yes, they have identified $50 million, but
they are planning on releasing that over time based upon the
achievement of certain milestones by Jackson Labs.
Well, that's exactly what we would want to do, too. And we've
been talking with OTTED and Enterprise Florida, we've been talking
with Jackson Labs about all of that, because what we need to negotiate
is dependent upon the milestones that the State demands.
And here's the problem. The State has a certain protocol. I
mean, they've done this now for four, five, or six different business
clusters of this type in Florida. And so they're following a template,
and their template requires certain things, and they are less sensitive to
what we want to do in Collier County's interests. They're following
their template.
So we're not going to change their template. We can't. So we're
trying to find out what the template requires and what they are
Page 70
October 12,2010
negotiating with Jackson Labs and make sure that we don't negotiate
something that is contradictory.
If they negotiate certain milestones and achievements for Jackson
Labs, well, we need to make sure that ours will be consistent with that
because they would expect us to make matching disbursements.
So we are doing that. And as a matter of fact, we are getting
closer to something that could be presented in the public hearing and
so that everyone could understand where we're going, and then the
board would have a chance to hear all that, and the public, too, and
they could say, okay, we understand what you're trying to negotiate,
and it might make sense, but we still don't have all the things decided
at the state level, so we can't sign a contract.
So -- we would never want to sign a contract until we see what
the state has done because we don't want to be placed in a position that
is disadvantageous.
But we are doing these things. We've been trying to go on a
parallel track. What we've done is we've said, we understand that the
state has to do their thing and we're going to have to do our thing, but
it's going to be slightly behind what the state does. And as soon as the
state begins to firm up their positions on these, we are prepared to firm
up our positions on these. And then when that is done, hopefully
shortly after the state makes a decision, we will have something that
can be presented to the board for consideration and review and
modification or whatever and public debate. And I think we'll be
prepared to do that shortly after the state makes a decision.
But I will tell you that it's natural in these circumstances that the
state's interests could be different than the county's interests, and both
of those interests could be different than Jackson Labs' interests.
So trying to carry on the negotiation in that kind of an
environment is complex and time consuming. But it's -- it's the way
it's required to be, and we're trying to do the best we can with it.
But we are not dragging our feet. Just as this next decision we'll
Page 71
October 12,2010
have to make about the bond certification process, you know, that's a
preparatory thing that. We're doing that because we won't have time
to do it later on. We're doing it now so it'll be there if, in fact, we need
to use it, and we may not use it.
So we're trying to keep ahead of the curve, and I think we're in
good shape to do that. But it's a challenge. But you'll hear all of that
soon, I think, and we'll have answers to a lot of those questions.
And then the board will have, I think, at least 60 days to consider
a contract, okay. So that will give us time to massage it and make sure
it meets everyone's requirements, okay.
And there are a lot of positive things that are happening there,
things that I think you'll find that are comforting and are protective of
the interests of Collier County.
Okay. That's the best I can do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have several questions. This
one is a new one. The State, if it's not -- the deal doesn't come
together by March 1, it goes back in the General Fund? Who wrote
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The legislature.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, here's a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who wrote, after the State
makes their commitment or OTTED, the County shall identify the
funding sources in 120 days?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's State Legislature.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The State Legislator's did that.
So they make -- they give us 120 days, and you want to back it down
to 60 days?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So no. They want to -- they wrote it so
that it's back down.
Page 72
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's their problem. Why
make it our problem?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's your alternative?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One hundred twenty days. Let's
make sure -- because we have really no new information about
Jackson Labs and partnerships. We have a commitment from a
college to build a high school there, a charter high school, which they
will get the money from the School Board, more tax dollars, we have a
university commitment to partnership in with Jackson Labs as long as
the State gives them money. What else is new? There is nothing new.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the point?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what's the point is, we're
not going to rush this because we don't have all the information. We
have something on the agenda to commit the taxpayers to $130
million, but we don't have any new information. I mean, that's the
same excuse of why we couldn't put it on the agenda, or on the ballot,
for people to vote on because we didn't have enough information.
So why rush -- at least why rush what the State has said to the
local government in this bill? We didn't approve a shorter time period
of 60 days. It's 120 days. Why would you want to shorten it down to
try to get more information and make, what I'm hearing from my
colleagues, is a logical decision?
I don't want to shorten it down. The Legislators convene in
March. They could change that.
Anyways. Question for staff. You provided the Board of
Commissioners terms of grant agreement from Jackson Labs, and in
there it states Jackson Florida will use reasonable best efforts to create
240 direct high-wage jobs and salaried positions within first ten years
of operation. Is that a firm commitment? We will use reasonable best
efforts?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, that was a proposal from the
Page 73
October 12,2010
laboratory. It was never agreed to, obviously, by this Board. So I
would suggest to you that that's an area we certainly want to get more
specific on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Is that -- those specifics
going to include in Collier County, or they were just going to create
them? Is that the goal of the Board is to create these jobs in Collier
County?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want answers to these questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's what contract negotiation
process is, and that's what the milestone designations are for, so that
Jackson Labs is required to achieve certain goals that are beneficial to
Collier County before we would sign a contract with them, and that's
why we will present to the Board such a draft agreement before any
funding is approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then my next question
is, if you want to have a benefit to Collier County, wouldn't you want
staff to do a cost benefit analysis to justify the expenditures for this
project?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who says they haven't been doing that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Ochs, have you done a cost
benefit analysis of spending $120 million for this proj ect?
MR.OCHS: No, sir. I have not done a formal cost benefit
analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, if we want to
benefit the citizens in Collier County, wouldn't we want to direct staff
to do that before going any further, making any commitments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I disagree that it hasn't been done.
The Productivity Committee did a part of that before the business
participants, collaborators were identified.
There is another economic benefit analysis going on by
Enterprise Florida --
Page 74
October 12, 2010
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and it will not -- they will not approve
their funds for the proj ect unless they can -- they can determine that it
is of economic benefit to Florida, and we will not sign a contract with
-- I wouldn't vote for a contract for Jackson Labs if it didn't show a
benefit for Collier County.
So as I said, the milestones have not been identified by the State,
and as a result, we can't identify them here yet. Okay. And when we
do, we will have the answer to your questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think we're going to have
the answer to the questions because Enterprise Florida is a
not-for-profit. Not -- there's no accountability. The WAG Report that
was done was done by, I think, the EDC. The advisory board, the
productivity, they do a great job, but they are volunteers. I think it's --
would be of benefit to have our staff to do a cost benefit analysis and
present that to the Board of County Commissioners. After all, we are
potentially committing $120 million plus costs to service this loan.
Wouldn't you want to do that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I would, and that's exactly what's
going to happen in this process. You can't do that until you know what
the contractual obligations are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But not a cost benefit?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you can't determine a cost benefit
until you understand what the contractual obligations are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I make a motion that we
direct staff to do a cost benefit analyst for committing the taxpayers of
$120 million and present it back to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And when do you want to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give that direction right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I mean, when do you want it
presented to you?
Page 75
October 12, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we make a commitment
of $120 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it will happen at the time that the
contract --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There's a motion. Is there a
second?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS: Wow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where's the accountability?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what is the purpose of your
question? Do you want -- do you want a presentation made to the
Board of the business decisions and the contractual obligations of
Jackson -- Jackson Labs and the amount of money that will be
provided and for what purpose, over what period of time, with what
kind of collateral? Do you want that kind of presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do, and I also want a cost
benefit analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be a cost benefit analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many cost benefit analyses have
you done for organizations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you're saying is a
contractual obligation of Jackson Labs. That is not a cost benefit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The contractual obligation from Jackson
Labs will obligate them to provide certain salaries at certain -- a
certain number of jobs at certain salaries in Collier County. That is
part of the overall financial analysis. It will also determine what our
contribution has to be over time. That is our contribution to this.
As we look at the collaborators who intend to locate here, we will
make judgments about how much of that is real, whether or not there
are any commitments, and if so, how could we depend upon them.
That will all come as we begin to pull together the business -- the
Page 76
October 12, 2010
agreement between us and Jackson Labs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can agree to disagree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And move on, because we're not
going to get anywhere on that item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last thing, and I could -- can
wait till lOB if we're going to have a -- yes, I will wait til' lOB on
those questions of the Bond validation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Commissioner Coyle, I know
you've had -- you're the person that has been going with these ongoing
conditions in regards to Jackson Labs.
My question is, to you, have you had any direct contact with
Barron Collier and what they plan to do as far as getting involved in
commitments in regards to building this out there?
Are they going to help build this campus? Have they made any
gestures in this manner? Also, have you had any contact that you can
bring forth at this time of any private sector money that may also be in
the wings?
And, I guess, my other -- third question is, do you know where
the State is at this point in time in going through the contract, which
you said is basically a boilerplate?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, let me take your first
question first, and that relates to Barron Collier. I've had lots of direct
contact with Barron Collier Corporation. There was some initial
interest in participating perhaps in building the building, but that since
seems to have evaporated. That is one of the reasons that we directed
the staff to prepare an RFP to solicit proposals for private financing of
the construction of the building.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And yes, I have had informal contacts.O
Page 77
October 12,2010
I've had people contact me about the possibility of bidding on that.
They're waiting for the request for proposal to be produced.
We asked the staff to do that within 30 days from the meeting,
which we provided the direction, and that is fast approaching.
And I would ask that we reemphasize our need to get that done as
quickly as possible so we'll have an idea of whether or not there's
private financing available. If there is, then we put that in the hopper
and we can consider it as an alternative as we move forward, and then
we have to determine the financial impact on Collier County of that
alternative. So we've got a lot of work to do with that -- with respect
to that.
It is critical to identify all of the sources of funding in order to
make any reasonable judgments about the return on investment for
this particular decision.
So we haven't got that done yet. And if we issued the RFP
tomorrow, it will probably be at least 30 days before we get any
responses. So it's very important that we do that.
And did I answer all of your questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think basically this, again,
hinges on the cost benefit analysis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because if you don't know who all
our -- who all the players are going to be in this, there's no way that
we can come up with something that's concrete or give a good
justification in regards to the money that's going to be spent on this
endeavor.
So I think that we need to -- hopefully we can get people to step
up to the plate. I'm hoping that there's a lot of people on the sideline,
and I'm hoping that the landowner out there realizes that the time has
come to get in the game here and they can't continue to sit on the
sidelines.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you. And you're
Page 78
October 12,2010
absolutely right. We've got to get all this information pulled together
as quickly as possible so that we can get -- make a reasonable decision
of any kind.
Okay. We have public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker.
Just a moment. We're going to swear them in. Okay. Anyone--
anyone intending to speak on this item should stand up and be sworn
in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's one, two, three, four, five. Do
you have five speaker slips?
MR. MITCHELL: I have three speaker slips.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then read the names of the three
speakers who are going to be coming up.
MR. MITCHELL: Scott Bonham, followed by Noreen Murray,
followed by Duane Billington.
MR. BELIVEAU: Excuse me. I have a slip in there.
MR. MITCHELL: And your name is, sir?
MR. BELIVEAU: Albert Beliveau.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What item is that, A or B?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you've signed to speak to Item lOB.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. BONHAM: My name is Scott Bonham.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you pull that mic over a little
closer to you, please.
MR. BONHAM: I can -- I can talk louder if you need. Is that
okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fine, thank you.
MR. BONHAM: I want to start out by telling you that I am not
in my comfort zone physically or emotionally. I say that to let all
Page 79
October 12, 2010
know how concerned I am about this subj ect, about the results of this
subject.
The United States of America is a representative republic
currently under the control of the Democrat regime in Washington,
D.C. Our country is rapidly advancing on the route to socialism.
The next thing in line is communism. Don't smile at me. We can
see it all over the world. Not one nation has ever succeeded with a
socialist government. That can't happen here. It is happening now.
Examples: Obama-Care, GMC -- that's Government Motors -- student
loans, Chrysler Corporation, and others I can't remember.
There has been talk of a Bill that might come around about
increasing the costs of our electricity, and you folks are considering
using our electric bills to tack on a payment to payoff this debt, this
proposed debt.
There's absolutely no reason for public money to be spent or -- to
be spent to the benefit of private business. Jackson Labs is the
beneficiary of this proposed action by this Board. Why should we
citizens be required to finance a business?
Collier County is a very desirable area to live in. You folks don't
need to bribe business with our money to move here. Tax credits
would do it. Why do you imagine that you are authorized to gamble
with our money?
At a previous meeting I asked two questions. They were not
rhetorical questions. I would like an answer to both now.
How many hands-on employees work for Jackson Labs now?
How many medically associated companies are clustered around
Jackson Labs in Bar Harbor now?
Well, not to use my time. That's -- thank you for hesitating.
One hundred and thirty million is an erroneous number; 260
million, one quarter billion, that's with a B. We pay State and Federal
taxes as well.
Every personal decision has a consequence. I remember Stadium
Page 80
October 12,2010
Naples. Do you-all? I assume my time's up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Yes, it is. And I'll try to answer at
least a couple of your questions.
First of all, the number of other companies clustered around
Jackson Labs in their current location is an interesting bit of
information but is irrelevant, but I'll try to answer it.
There are a number of smaller companies clustered in the area
because of Jackson Labs. And as you will recall from hearing
Commissioner Fiala's report on her visit there, the local government
has said that they could not survive without Jackson Labs being there.
The point of Jackson Labs' decision to move elsewhere for their
institute for personalized medicine is because they are surrounded by
State and Federal property which prohibits them from expanding.
Secondly, they are somewhat isolated. They don't have a good access
to scientists, the scientists they need for the research they want to do.
So they've made a decision they're going to create a new
business, not the same business they're doing in Maine, but to transfer
their 80 years of knowledge of genetics research from breeding mice
to be used in research to translating the information they have gained
into providing better healthcare for people.
So that's -- that's the reason. It's not a direct comparison. You're
not taking what's in Bar Harbor, Maine, and bringing part of it down
here. You're creating an entirely new business segment which is the
emerging interest in providing personalized healthcare for individuals
based upon the genetics of that particular individual.
So I don't know. Did -- was there something I missed that --
MR. BONHAM: The other question was, how many employees
do they have now? Hands-on employees, not administrative, not --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I -- I'm sorry. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I asked that question. They have
1,200 employees up there in Bar Harbor, and some of the other
Page 81
October 12,2010
ancillaries businesses that are not located on the property because of
the state owned properties, so -- things I would have never recognized.
Like, for instance, there's a place that makes gloves for the
cryogenics lab. Who would have never -- who would have ever
thought that?
There was -- there are other places that create -- or make all of
the cages that they use for these mice. There are companies in that
area who create parts that are needed for the cryogenics, like the big
things that they keep the stuff in.
I watched them use this cryogenics stuff. It was amazing how
many other ancillary businesses go to support a huge lab like this. So
-- but it's kind of hard to say. There's not -- they're not located on the
property, yet they are all -- what do you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In the surrounding area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- manufacturers for parts that are
needed to run the lab.
MR. BONHAM: Well, they won't need any manufacturer of
cages for mice, because they're not going to do mice anymore.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But you asked for there. I'm
just -- here we've got colleges that are coming onboard and a teaching
hospital and things. But they can't do that on their property up there.
MR. BONHAM: Excuse me. I asked for medically associated
companies. That was my question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You got an answer.
MR. BONHAM: I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that this is a very,
very touchy subject, but let me tell you, in the last four or five years,
we've lost a huge amount of tax base in Collier County.
All of us realize that right -- we have very reasonable taxes at this
point in time. Ifwe go through with this idea of Jackson Labs, there
Page 82
October 12,2010
might be a slight increase in taxes, all right.
Now hear me out.
If we decide to abandon this whole thing, I want to know from
you, the people here, how we're going to get sustainability. Now, I've
read a lot of emails saying that -- well, there could be other companies
that will come down here. Even in the height of the building boom
down here, there wasn't that many people that wanted to move here to
Southwest Florida. The reason being, it's at the end of the line.
And I'm telling you, what we put into -- for the infrastructure for
you for the quality of life that you have here, we cannot retain this
unless you want to pay a lot higher rates in property taxes in the
future. It could be five years from now, it could be two years from
now.
We're looking at this as saying, we have to figure out a way to
reinvent ourselves. It's like the auto companies. Now, one in
particular that did not take money -- and I happened to work for that
company -- was Ford. They went out and basically reengineered
themselves, and now they're benefit -- they're making reaps and
benefits from what they have accomplished.
That's what we here in Collier County are trying to look out for.
We also are -- want to make sure that young people that move into this
community can also have sustainability here and make sure that, as
they have families, that those families are retained here in this area.
So, you know, we can take a lot of flack all day long on what's
good and what's bad, but unless you have all of the information on
what's coming down the road when we look at our budget and
everything else -- we have to make sure that we can continue to have
the wonderful amenities that we have here in Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: It will be Noreen Murray, followed by Duane
Billington, and we can use both podiums, please.
Page 83
October 12,2010
MS. MURRAY: Good morning. My name is Noreen Murray,
for the record.
Many of you should have -- all of you should have received an
email from me regarding some questions that I think are really critical
and need to be answered.
I'm quite distressed to hear that the entire discussion this morning
has to do with the funding. How are we going to get the money to get
on with the State -- match the State Funding or go out in front of the
State Funding if they disburse in increments?
I don't think you did nearly enough research to discuss and find
out the real probability of the success of Jackson's experiment in
personalized medicine and the viability of their business plan.
The Productivity Committee study was fabulous, and it told you
the assumptions that were input into that study were overly optimistic,
so the return on investment couldn't be validated.
The addition of the University of South Florida and Edison
College would have had no impact on that, Commissioner Coyle,
because that study already assumed 7,000 jobs would be created, and
neither of those institutions bring real private money.
With respect to Jax alone though, forget the cluster. Jax's
business plan is dependent on NIH, National Institutes of Health
money for sustainability in the future.
Given that, can you answer these questions?
They're new to this business, Commissioner Coy Ie. You just said
that. Who are the major competitors in the proposed field? How
many years have each of the major competitors been conducting
research in this field? How much experience does Jackson currently
have in this field? We know that answer. None.
How many scientists does Jackson have currently on staff in --
directly involved in this research? Answer to that is none.
Will any scientists currently on staff be transferred to Collier
County? No. How much grant money has the NIH allocated to the
Page 84
October 12,2010
proposed field in each of the last five years? Which research
institutions received those funds? Have any of those institutions
already in the field agreed to partner with Jax?
How many grants requests did the -- in the proposed field about
the NIH receive? How many did they turn down? How many how
many did they choose not to renew?
Can you name the research institutions, the out-of-state
prestigious ones, that Jackson has had discussions with over the last
six months, none of which have signed on as yet?
Without the answers to the probability ofNIH funding -- and for
those of you not familiar with the national institutes, they're funded by
Federal Money in the domestic discretionary budget, the budget that
both Democrats and Republicans have targeted for cuts.
Without understanding the funding potential or risk in the
potential for the other funds, Jackson Labs could become a dependent
of the County of Collier in perpetuity.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Billington?
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioner. My name,
for the record, is Duane Billington.
I've been to every Productivity Meeting on this. I've been to
every Commission Meeting on this.
We've been told time and time again that this was vetted by the
Legislature. They looked at this carefully, otherwise they wouldn't
have voted to fund it.
Now we're finding out that that's not exactly totally correct, and
I'll read directly from the backup. Enterprise Florida officials have
indicated their economic analysis is still in process, and their data
analysis is only associated with the laboratory and not the biomedical
cluster contemplated in the WAG Report.
Well, that's really interesting because if they're just looking at
Jackson and Jackson's going to promise us 240 employees for the 260
Page 85
October 12,2010
million, it shouldn't take a real long time to do the math and determine
whether or not that's a viable situation.
It also poses a question; does this mean that none of the money
coming from the State can be used for the biomedical cluster? And if
not, who funds it?
The local sales jobs for Jackson was substantially predicated on
the findings of the WAG Report that included the cluster. Well, there
was an analysis done by the Productivity Committee, and they
determined that even with the entire cluster at total build out, best case
situation, it wasn't economically viable.
And I'm amazed we keep hearing the same kind of baseless
arguments here in favor of this situation. You know, we're using
gloves and critters cages to help justify spending $260 million. This is
the height of ridiculousness.
You have zoning problems out there, and this stuff just can't be
done administratively, and some of it is real questionable whether it
can be done by a vote of this board or whether it's really going to
require a DRI. Your exposure to legal challenge on this is absolutely
huge. And I -- I hate to see government by lawsuit. I would have
hoped we learned our lesson back when we had a little situation there
with the Clerk of Courts, but time will tell what -- how much we've
really learned here in Collier County.
That's really all I have to say on this particular item. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Okay. Last speaker,
right?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir. We've finished now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. What do you need,
County Manager? Do you just need us to accept the report?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. That's the staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to accept the report.
Page 86
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to accept the report by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
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: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2010-211: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A
BOND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE JACKSON LABORATORY
PROJECT IN ORDER TO INITIATE A BOND VALIDATION
PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE USE OF
BOND PROCEEDS FOR SUCH PROJECT CONSTITUTES A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA - ADOPTED
. MR.OCHS: Commissioner, that takes you to lOB on your
agenda. It's a recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the
issuance of revenue bonds for the Jackson Laboratory project in order
to initiate a bond validation proceeding to determine whether the use
of bond proceeds for such project constitutes a valid public purpose
Page 87
October 12,2010
under the laws of the State of Florida.
Mr. Isackson will present.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, I really don't have anything
to add to that. I think the information contained in the report is
self-explanatory. We're here really to answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, one thing you can add to it is that
this does not get a bonding authority approved. It does not mean we
are bonding anything. It does not mean we have made a decision to
bond anything. It is merely an attempt to find out if it is legal to do
that. Laying the groundwork if we have to make a decision later on,
right? Not waiting till the last minute, okay.
MR. ISACKSON: All of which are provided in your
information, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the -- what's the payment
-- repayment source?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, that hasn't been determined at this
stage of the game.
MR. MILLER: If you will, I think, Commissioner, what you're
asking is, this particular resolution, for simplicity, pledges your
half-cent sales taxes. You have an existing master bond resolution
that pledges half-cent sales taxes. It's one of the easiest pledges to
understand, and it's been used the most throughout the state.
And as the County Manager pointed out, it's way too soon to
know exactly how the credit would be structured if you decide to
move forward, if you decided you had to issue bonds to fund a portion
or all of this project.
There's a lot of steps to go to determine how the structure of a
bond would be and what the credit would be.
So for purposes of validating the key legal issue, which we're
concerned about, the public purpose issue, this was the most
Page 88
October 12,2010
straightforward way to accomplish that and to start the validation
proceeding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think we all know that
we don't have enough revenue coming in from, you know, the sales
tax, gas tax, whatever -- what tax, gas taxes?
MR. MILLER: This is -- this was your sales tax resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sales tax -- sales tax revenue.
We know we don't have enough. That's already obligated out to pay
this bond.
MR. MILLER: Well, I don't know how much capacity you have
for a sales tax bond, but we also don't know how much you're going to
be asked to bond. I mean, if you're asked to bond 50 million, you
might have the capacity. I don't -- I don't have the financial analysis
of that.
When you issue the bond, whether you do it over 30 years, 40
years, whether you secure it with another layer on another revenue
source later. So I can't answer that question.
But for bond validation purposes, the court doesn't look at credit
worthiness of the bonds. They look at the legal issues related to the
bonds, which is what we're concerned about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. This -- are you -- this
should not the -- actually issuing of the bond, this language in this
resolution?
MR. MILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has to be a separate action
that comes back to the Board of Commissioners.
MR. MILLER: Correct. What we've done with this resolution,
again, to try to resolve the one fundamental legal issue that we believe
is out there, is to do the minimum authorization, to give some
preliminary authorization to issue these types of bonds or to issue
revenue bonds for this project. Okay.
If the validation were successful and the board decided to move
Page 89
October 12,2010
forward and one of the funding alternatives resulted in you having to
issue bonds, there would be several other steps for the board to make
before that could be done, before bonds could actually be issued.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if this is not -- it's confusing.
Who's to say that a bond will not be challenged in the court? Because
we're really not putting in -- it's not the bond being issued.
MR. MILLER: Well, it's -- again, we are -- what the validation
process is for is to determine --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we know that we can do
economic development, correct, under the Florida Statute?
MR. MILLER: I'm not sure I understand the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's irrelevant.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anything else you need to tell
us?
Any other questions?
How many public speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Will those five speakers -- call
out their names and have them stand. We'll swear them in.
MR. MITCHELL: Scott Bonham, Noreen Murray, Duane
Billington, Pat Humphries, and Albert Beliveau.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't see any of -- well, okay. Have--
well, two of you have already spoken. You don't have to be sworn in
again. Only the two that have not been sworn in will be sworn in.
One that is remaining.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was Pat Humphries sworn in?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, she was sworn.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Scott Bonham, and he'll
be followed by Noreen Murray.
Page 90
October 12,2010
MR. BONHAM: I spoke. If you want me to speak again, I can
say more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. We heard it the first time.
MR. MITCHELL: Noreen Murray, and she'll be followed by
Duane Billington.
MS. MURRAY: Still Noreen Murray.
A couple of comments. I commend Commissioner Halas for his
earlier remarks about his concern for debt service as that came during
the discussion of impact fees and the possibility of reducing them for
permits already in the pipeline. I wish you were showing as much
concern for the $130 million of debt that you're suddenly considering.
I understand completely and I support the commission's efforts at
economic diversity, and I am not opposed to public funding, but what
I am very skeptical about is this particular proposal.
I heard Commissioner Halas speak this morning and also at the
previous meeting as if this is the only hope, nobody else has ever
wanted to come to Collier County. And if we don't do this, we will
become a backwater.
Well, have we thrown hundreds of millions of dollars at other
businesses in the past and had them refuse our invitation? I don't think
so. I really don't think so. I certainly have not seen that.
I mean, there was discussion over funding the Economic
Development Council to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars.
Well, if we put our steam behind -- the money behind an effort to
recruit taxable for-profit businesses to Collier County -- a tax exempt
cluster does not increase our property tax base at all.
Jackson Labs, a hospital, a medical school, no property taxes.
Yes, they might bring some out-of-state employees in who might
pay property tax. I thought this was about getting jobs for Collier
County residents who are already living here and paying taxes.
Do we want to expand the commercial and industrial tax base? I
couldn't agree more. I just think you've focused all of your energy and
Page 91
October 12,2010
so much of our future revenue on a project that isn't going to
accomplish your objectives.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BILLINGTON: For the record, my name is still Duane
Billington.
Under Section G of findings, there's still determinations that
haven't been made. I touched on that earlier. What we really need to
look here is at Section 7 where it talks about an interest cap of 8
percent.
So on top of however many dollars we bond, we'd have to pay it
off at 8 percent. Well, let's look at what 8 percent does here. At 8
percent, if we borrow 50 million, it's going to cost you $86,040,000 to
pay that off over 15 years, which is a previous time frame referred to
in these reports.
If you were to borrow 130 million, it's going to cost
$223,704,000 over that same 15-year time period.
So we're not looking at 130 million or 50 million. Now we're
talking a little bit more serious money here. And what we're -- also
has -- what has been ignored time and time again in this chambers is,
that to take that money out of the economy, you are creating a hole in
the economy.
I asked Vladimir Ryziw, your Productivity Committee member,
to run some numbers on that, and this is something where he has a
special expertise.
By doing that, you're going to experience an annual loss of $78
million out of the economy because of productivity and the multiplier,
which Commissioner Halas was kind enough to mention in one of the
meetings. So that 78 million a year over 15 years is 1.17 billion.
So let's really look at the cost of this proj ect and decide how
many jobs we need that are high paying, creating -- making gloves
and critters cages and things of that nature.
Page 92
October 12,2010
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Pat Humphries, and
she'll be followed by Albert Beliveau.
MR. BONHAM: Mr. Chairman, could I speak just briefly?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. Are you signed up to speak for this?
MR. BONHAM: Yes. He called my name.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, wait your turn and you'll get to
speak.
MR. BONHAM: He called my name to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Initially, and then he said, I already
spoke.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I called his name first, and he declined to
speak. N ow he wants to speak.
MR. BONHAM: Just very briefly, from here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. You can't speak from there. We've
got to get you on the microphone. Let this lady speak, and then we'll
let you speak. Okay.
MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries, Golden Gate
Estates resident and active member in that community.
While you are deliberating on how to fund Jackson Labs, please
consider the following; Social Security has not paid a cost-of-living
increase in two years. Homeowners in the Estates are facing flood
insurance fees, and the economy is still in the tank; therefore, I believe
that Estates residents are not in a position to pay the tab for a non-
profit organization.
I would, however, seriously consider paying for the tax increase
requested by the Big Corkscrew Fire District that addresses the safety
and well being of the Estates residents rather than a biomedical facility
that will address an economic advantage for Ave Maria, and at least I
can vote on the fire district increase.
Page 93
October 12,2010
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Okay, sir. If you want to speak.
MR. BONHAM: Thank you for bending the rules a little bit. I
wanted to come up here to thank Commissioner Henning for not only
his -- having his head on straight, but that he has guts enough to say
what he believes.
Getting old is not for sissies, folks.
I was speaking to a friend of mine the other day, and we were
talking about losing our memory, and I am a culprit. I am one of the
victims. But he pointed out that there's one positive thing about losing
your memory. You keep meeting new people.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, did you
have anything? Your light's on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I do. Have we heard from all
of our speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: No. We -- there's Albert Beliveau.
MR. BELIVEAU: And I thank you for pronouncing my name
correctly.
MR. MITCHELL: It's being English.
MR. BELIVEAU: I beg your pardon?
MR. MITCHELL: I said it's with being English.
MR. BELIVEAU: I wish that some of the displays that were
here today had been published. I came here as an observer, and when I
read lOB -- and I was an attorney in my past life, which I lived in
Maine. I'm familiar with Jackson Laboratories. They're good citizens
up there. I have nothing to say bad about them as they're located up
there.
My only concern about lOB is that this is not a way in the
general obligation bonds. If this resolution is solely for revenue bonds
and revenue bonds means revenue that's coming out of the project
Page 94
October 12,2010
itself, I don't have a problem.
And if you as the Board can tell me that's what you're looking for
in that particular resolution, I don't have a problem. But I do have a
general problem about general obligation taxes being raised without
the people's right to vote.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to address the general
obligation issue, Mark?
MR. ISACKSON: Yes, sir. The resolution has nothing to do
with general obligation bonds. And we all know by Statute that any
issuance of general obligation bonds requires a referendum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay. Now we've got
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I was first, yes. And I just
wanted to say, Duane Billington talked about 78 million a year that is
lost on Bar Harbor. They pump $220 million a year into their
economy. They might not pay taxes because they're a not-for-profit,
nor does anybody's church in this organization, but they pump $220
million a year into their economy which keeps them alive, by the way.
And I'm sorry that he had to make fun of the small businesses
that have sprung up because of Jackson Labs. I think nothing is wrong
with making gloves for cryogenics. And if you think that that's
wrong, then I disagree. I think small businesses are the backbone of
our country.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so that I get some clarification.
What's on the table right now with the -- Item lOB is nothing
more than to take this to a court of law to see if this has a public
purpose for the people here in Collier County. That's all we're doing
at this point in time.
Page 95
October 12,2010
MR. ISACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So at that -- at that I make a motion
to move this on forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Halas
to approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- item lOB, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
And we have a question by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do.
County Attorney stated that you need to find a valid public
purpose. My question to the motion maker, is it the creation of the
50-acre Jackson Lab biomedical, or is it the medical village for a valid
public purpose?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whatever that's in the -- presently
in the resolution, and all we're doing is putting the paperwork forward
so that the court can determine whether this is a valid public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, do we need to find a valid
public purpose?
MR. KLA TZKOW: The resolution is the board's findings that
there is a valid public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. My last comment is, I
think Duane Billington did make a great observation. The repayment
of this money is taken out of monies that are already in the economy.
It's a very, very, very true statement. And those people who spend
those monies that we're going to take out of the economy are the
people that we serve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I feel compelled to remark
that most of what Mr. Billington has said is untrue.
As a matter of fact, there is no way that he can take that
information and generate a 1.5, 1.7 billion dollar cost to Collier
Page 96
October 12,2010
County.
So -- the other point is that the $130 million that the state is going
to put into this project here in Collier County is not a cost to you. It's
a cost to you only if you don't get it.
You've already paid the taxes for those $130 million, and you're
not going to get that money back from the state unless we get it for a
project such as this here in Collier County.
If we do not proceed, and we might not for a whole lot of
reasons, including zoning, the -- that money is going to go to other
research firms in other counties. That's your money; much of it is
your money. Weare a donor county in Florida. We have to fight to
get back some share of your taxes every single year.
So don't think that that $130 million is an additional cost to you.
It is not. So what would happen if we proceeded would be that $130
million of money that you'd never see again would be spent in Collier
County, not in some other county.
So there are a lot of problems with the analyses that people like
Mr. Billington perform and, in fact, some members of the Productivity
Committee perform because they, in essence, don't want this project to
succeed, and they will present whatever information is necessary to
undermine its credibility.
So when you take into consideration the fact that we are
negotiating provisions which will provide us with a share of any
royalties from the sale of products from Jackson Labs and we will get
a share of the revenues of any spinoff corporations that are created as
a result of this business cluster, then you begin to get an idea of how
we secure our investment, and the fact that we will continue to own
the building itself and the fact that the money that is spent on building
that building will create jobs in Collier County immediately. That's
not taking money out of the local economy. So to represent it
otherwise is simply not true.
So there are lots of things that have to be evaluated before we can
Page 97
October 12, 2010
make a determination, but much of the information related to this
money that is somehow going to disappear out of Collier County is
just an absolute fantasy.
So with that, I'll call the question.
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. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
And we are breaking for lunch, okay.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We ready to go?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're back in session.
And where are we going to go now, County Manager?
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2010-39: RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER
ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES
(THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE) BY AMENDING THE EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES (SCHOOL) IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE,
WHICH IS SCHEDULE SIX OF APPENDIX A, TO PROVIDE
FOR A REDUCTION IN RATES, RECOMMENDED BY THE
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AND
Page 98
October 12,2010
PROVIDING FOR A RETROACTIVE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
OCTOBER 8.2010 - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: We're going to your advertised public hearings,
Item 8A. It's a recommendation to consider adopting an ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
by amending the educational facilities' school impact fee rate
schedule, which is Schedule 6 of Appendix A, to provide for reduction
in rates recommended by the District School Board of Collier County,
and provide a retroactive effective date of October 8, 2010.
Ms. Amy Patterson is here to present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What do we need to hear other than the
fact that the school board's recommended a 50 percent reduction and
we're going to vote on it?
MS. PATTERSON: That's about it. I'm sorry. Amy Patterson,
for the record.
We have the same issue with the reduction in the school impact
fees related to permits in apply or ready status, those that have yet to
pay their impact fees, and how any new rule might apply to them, a
slightly different twist because this is the school district's money, not
the county's. So any potential loss affects another agency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that won't really be decided by that
particular item. That is an item that we're going to be hearing again at
a future meeting, right, that Nick is going to bring forward, but what
we decide there will affect your forecast for impact fee revenue; is that
correct?
MS. PATTERSON: It will, and we also would need to reach out
to the school district, as they didn't give a recommendation on any
kind of retroactive application or change in date that we used to
calculate the impact fees. This will have an impact on them as well as
far as those permits.
Page 99
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's bundle that with the issue
that Nick is going to bring back to us, and we'll deal with both of them
at the same time, and we'll restrict our actions on this one merely to
either approving or rejecting the school board's recommendation to
reduce the impact fee by 50 percent --
MS. PATTERSON: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- right? Is that acceptable?
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just for full disclosure,
have Amy just tell you the timing of the actual indexing study on the
school impact fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: We're in a full update cycle of the school
impact fee study. The last one was completed in 2006. We're
expecting the first draft of the study to be handed over to staff anytime
in the very near future, the next week or so, from the consultant.
What we would do then is proceed through our advisory
committees. And an additional step in the school study would be
taking the findings of that study to the school board for their
recommendation to you.
We anticipate that happening in January. So we'll move through
the advisory committee process here this fall and into the winter and
to the school board by January and then back to the Board of County
Commissioners.
In the event that you elect to adopt these reduced rates, we'll still
need to come back to you with that study so that it can be formally
adopted and we can make any needed adjustment if the rates turn out
to be lower than this threshold set here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just like to get the opinion of the
other commissioners. Is it not appropriate that we act upon the school
board's recommendation now and then let the update go through its
normal course, and then if we need to go back to the school board
sometime in the future, we do that?
Page 100
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Most appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay?
MR.OCHS: That's what we're recommending. That's consistent
with our recommendation, yes, sir. I just wanted you to know what
the next step in the process is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the school board will have an
opportunity to look at the results of your impact fee update, and if they
have a different opinion at that point in time, they can forward their
recommendations to us and we can act on it then, okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So in this case, I will entertain a
motion to approve the staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I make a motion that we
approve staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve staffs recommendation, second by Commissioner Coletta.
There must be some discussion. So who was first? Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Amy. I need a little bit of
help with this. Usually the statistics make total sense, but in this case
it shows revenue generated, Page 2 of our Executive, by school impact
fees for the last six years. Starts out in '05 with 8 million, 6 million for
'06, 9 million again for '07, 5 million for '08, and then you can see the
effects of the recession. It drops down to four-and-a-half million for
'09, but then there's this unbelievable jump of7.6 million for '10. How
can we have collected so much money in such a down economy?
Page 101
October 12,2010
MS. PATTERSON: Compared to the two prior years of 2008
and 2009, we've had an uptick in residential activity. This is a
residential only fee, so it does not feel the effects of the continuing
deterioration in the commercial side.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I wished I could -- so, let me
see. I'm going to repeat back what you just told me. You're telling me
that we're seeing an upsurge in residential development that's equal to
or nearly equal to going back to 2005/2006?
MS. PATTERSON: There's a slight variation there, and let me
explain what happened. In 2006 you had a very significant increase in
impact fees rates. So in 2005, would represent much greater activity
than 2010, but the rate increase has brought the revenue close
together.
So you may have half the number of units, but you're charging
three times the fee, or twice the fee. So that's why there's money. But
compared -- if you just look at the past two years, we have more
residential permits right now than we have had -- than we had in 2008
or 2009. And we have seen this in some of the other residential only
impact fees, too, a slight uptick.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what this is telling us is that
it's far from dead out there, that there is quite a bit of activity taking
place? And this is the first time I've heard somebody actually tell me
that.
MS. PATTERSON: There's a few developers out there in the
bigger communities that are continuing to build or have started
building again, and that's represented here.
So we have, as you know, Marbella Lakes, Lely, Heritage Bay,
some of those are now building, a little bit. Nowhere near the 2005
level, but better than the past two years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you very much
for that.
MS. PATTERSON: You're welcome.
Page 102
October 12, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My question is, the
recommendation that the School Board gave us, there was no
substantial consultant that came up with this recommendation, right?
MS. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So -- and I would take it that as we
go through the process of looking at the impact fee for the schools, are
we also going to take into consideration their debt load that they
presently have?
MS. PATTERSON: The School District staff, when they were
anticipating this item and when the School Board made this
recommendation did do an analysis of their debt, and they did explain
to the school district that they need to maintain an impact fee
collection of about $4 million a year to pay for the impact fee portion
of their debt.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And do we know whether
they have anything scheduled in the next five, six years as far as
increased debt?
MS. PATTERSON: Their Capital Plan over the foreseeable
future is fairly limited. There's not any new schools coming on line in
the near future, but they are working on a sizeable debt that they're
paying off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But we will take into
consideration their debt service and also the value of the impact fee,
whether it's 50 percent or only 40 percent or whatever else; is that
correct?
MS. PATTERSON: We'll bring to you the findings of the study,
which will be the maximum impact fee based on current conditions,
and that amount of reduction may meet the 50 percent, it may not be
that much, it could be more. When we have the findings of the study,
we'll bring that to both the School District and to the Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic. Okay.
Page 103
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a little additional information
concerning the source of the impact fee revenues.
Are you seeing a -- an increase in single-family home building or
in planned development on building?
MS. PATTERSON: They're in planned developments, and
they're a mix of single- family and multifamily.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. All right.
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 passes unanimously.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO REALLOCATE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,000,000 FROM RESERVES TO THE SOUTH REVERSE
OSMOSIS RAW WATER WELLFIELD PIPELINE PROJECT,
PROJECT NUMBER 70030, AND TO DECLARE A VALID
PUBLIC EMERGENCY WITH REGARD TO THE CONTINUED
PROVISION OF PROJECT- RELATED SERVICES BY
MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC. - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us back to Item lOon
your agenda. 10C is a recommendation to authorize a budget
amendment to reallocate funds in the amount of $4 million from
reserves to the south reverse osmosis raw water well-field pipeline
Page 104
October 12,2010
project, project number 70030, and to declare a valid public
emergency with regard to the continued provision of project related
service by Malcolm Pernie, Incorporated.
MR. SUNY AK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a short
presentation, if you'd like, to update you--
MR.OCHS: For the record, you are?
MR. SUNY AK: -- on the progress of the project.
MR. OCHS: Identify yourself.
MR. SUNY AK: For the record, Mark Sunyak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is anyone unfamiliar with the project?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I even saw it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe, and correct me if I'm
wrong, this is a project that was done along Collier Boulevard. We're
going back in there and fixing it?
MR. SUNY AK: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I understand it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The -- I think just the short story,
is, that a pipe failed, our investigation forensic evaluation determined
that the cause of the pipeline failure was the fault of a number of
contractors and equipment that was supplied and perhaps the method
of installation, that we are pursuing those contractors to recover the
costs of the repair, but we've got to get the repair done right now.
MR. SUNY AK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so the only thing that's missing, I
think, from the fiscal impact is that it is your belief that the total cost
of repairing this failure will be recovered from the contractors,
although we're having to advance the money now to do it; is that a fair
statement?
MR. SUNY AK: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 105
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That -- second. That's what I was
going to do. That's why my button--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. That's all right. I
wish everybody could see the pictures, because pictures are worth a
thousand words --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You betcha.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to see how it exploded and
everything corroded in just a year's time. It's amazing to see that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you have some of those pictures that
you could show us real fast? There we go. There's also some bolts--
attachment bolts for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look at that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There, yeah. And there are the bolts.
That's after what, barely over 12 months.
MR. DeLONY: A little over.
MR. SUNY AK: Little over 12 months.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the
transfer of the money to accomplish this repair.
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.
Page 106
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. Good presentation.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT A ONE-TIME EXCEPTION
OF POLICY FROM THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NUMBER 2001-13, AS AMENDED,
TO PROVIDE A WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT
OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT OF PERMIT NUMBER
2010070017 - MOTION APPROVING OPTION #1 AS AMENDED
- APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to 10E. It's a
recommendation to grant a one-time exception of policy from the
consolidated impact fee ordinance, ordinance number 2001-13 as
amended, to provide a wastewater impact fee payment option for the
applicant of permit number 201007001 7.
Mr. Wides will present.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record,
Tom Wides, operations director for Public Utilities.
The discussion this afternoon is related to a public petition you
received at the last board meeting from a Ms. Denard for the NapKing
Linens Facility. They are moving from one location to another
location, which triggered impact fees. I'd like to note that I believe
Ms. Denard will be here in just a moment, but I think she's out for just
a moment, but she should be back here --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
MR. WIDES: -- just in terms of sharing.
Page 107
October 12,2010
If I can take you to our discussion. The items that we're looking
for the board direction on today is concerning the impact fees due for
the permit that's been generated to a new location that they're trying to
move their business to. There's also a permit in question from 2008
for their current location.
And then finally, we want to reaffirm with you the Collier
County water-sewer district's exclusion from the ordinance that, in
fact, waives the impact fees for change of use by other -- on your other
impact fees.
Our recommendation to you today is to grant a one-time
exemption of policy from the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance to
provide a payment option for the location that we're talking about
under permit 2010.
We're asking also that you direct staff not to -- to not collect the
unpaid impact fees for the wastewater on the -- on the permit from
2008 at their current location. No impact fees were paid. We're
suggesting and requesting that we go ahead and waive those.
Finally, as I noted just a minute ago, we want to request that you
reaffirm the water-sewer district's position as exempt from the change
of use ordinance for impact fees.
The first option, the one that is being recommended in the
executive summary, basically suggests that in order of -- in our order
of March on this option, would be to place a Certificate of --
Certificate of Occupancy hold on the permit at the new location that
the business is moving to.
We further request that we waive the $2,500 alternative impact
fee calculation review fee, but we would proceed with the alternative
fee calculation.
Finally, we would then suggest that we would either receive the
alternative impact fee in full or enter into a five-year payment plan for
the impact fee payment. And if a payment plan is selected, we would
suggest that we would initiate a lien against the owner of the property
Page 108
October 12,2010
at the location that the business is moving to. And in fact, that would
run with the land for the five years, as would the impact fees. So that
benefit would stay with that property as they do in other cases.
Finally, we would remove the CO hold when either full payment
is made or the payment agreement is in place.
There is a second option that we're presenting to you today. This
would be similar that we would replace -- we would place a CO hold
on the permit for 2010 at the new location. We would enter into a
five-year payment plan based on the calculated impact fee, which is
approximately 29 -- excuse me, $29,000 plus the AFPI. Again, a lien
would be initiated, and then finally the CO hold would be released
once the payment was made or a payment plan was in place.
The basic difference between these two options, number one is to
go throughout the alternative calculation process which may well
result in a lower fee. The second option is to stay with what was
calculated using the Florida Administrative Code.
Option three is a one-time exemption to the specific
circumstances related to the 2008 permit basically forgiving that
permit and forgiving the 2010 permit. We would waive the water
impact fee and the wastewater impact fee for 2008 permit and the
2010 permit.
The fourth option would be to, in fact, require the water-sewer
district to participate in the impact fee deferral pro- -- excuse me -- the
impact fee program related to change of use.
In our case, we've actually calculated that, in fact, the
water-sewer district, if we were part of that program in 2009, there
would have -- we would have had to forego $1.2 million of revenue
that would have fallen. We have two choices to go for funding. We
have impact fees and user fees.
In 2009, that 1.2 million would have gone to the backs of the
users. In 2010, we've actually calculated that number as a half a
million dollar additional.
Page 109
October 12,2010
And you've just heard what Amy had to say about what's going
on with the impact fee world. The residential side's stronger evidently.
You're not seeing the change so much in the commercial side, but we
do see that we've documented what the lost revenue would be.
Finally, once again, I just note that our recommendation is option
one, and that option is to provide a payment option to go through the
alternative impact fee calculation and, in fact, then set a payment plan
in place or take full payment. And if there's a payment plan in place,
then we will, in fact, release the CO hold.
Commissioners, that's my presentation for you today. Are there
questions?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
A little bit of concern. By any chance is the property owner here
today that actually owns it, the landlord?
MR. WIDES: No. I believe he -- I don't believe he was planning
on attending. I have had meetings with him though.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But has the landlord said that he
would agree to having a lien placed against the property?
MR. WIDES: The landlord has not agreed to place a lien against
the property. He has not agreed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't, in my mind, know of any
reason why you'd want to put a lien against his property for almost
$35,000. You know, in paying it back on a yearly rate would be
$7,000 if it's no interest, or pretty close to it.
The landlord, I don't think, is ever going to agree to it. And I
don't -- I don't think it'd be right for us to really sign his name on the
line saying that we're putting this in place, and if your tenant fails to
pay, that's going to stay with the property.
One, if he didn't agree to it, and number two, his next tenant
might have absolutely no use for this excess water capacity. So I
think it's a great idea if we could string it out over five years, but
Page 110
October 12,2010
trying to find some sort of assurance that we're going to be paid by
having some magic bullet to be able to hang over everyone, I don't
think this is it. That was a concern.
Is there -- has that been discussed with the County Attorney's
Office?
MR. WIDES: No. I think we just discussed that the other day;
however, we don't -- we don't have privy with the tenant. We only
really have privy with the property owner, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. I understand that. I
understand that, fully. And it's kind of between a rock and a hard
place, but I don't know if it would even be legal for us to obligate the
landlord without his willingness to do it.
MR. WIDES: We don't anticipate that we would do it without
his willingness. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
MR. WIDES: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be a conditional
thing for the landlord?
MR. WIDES: This was an option we pursued and was the
closest that we could come to trying to find away.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. WIDES: Now, there are other options --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I understand that, too.
MR. WIDES: -- okay, within these options. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. WIDES: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My feeling is that if this individual
is going to move from the place they're located now, which they
basically circumvented the impact fees, and want to move to this new
location -- and maybe instead of putting a lien on the property and
things, this person needs to go and see if they can get a small business
Page 111
October 12,2010
loan or maybe go to Bank America and see if they can get a loan in
regards to the impact fees.
I'm very concerned about giving these people any type of a
break, because the end result is, to make up the losses, you have to
then charge that to the other users in the county. And obviously water
is not getting cheaper. It's getting more expensive.
And I believe that the utilities is an enterprise within itself and
that you follow the guidelines of what our ordinance is, plus I think
you follow the guidelines of the state standards in regards to this.
So I believe that instead of us acting as a bank, that they may
have to look at other options so that there isn't a lien put on this
property by that particular owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I truly feel that we need to
encourage business. I loved the fact that you were trying to reach out
give them a payment plan, give this person a payment plan while she
tries to get her business improved by having these extra washing
machines. I think that is -- that is great. In one and two -- and so I'm
in agreement with that.
In one and two, tell me how option one and option two would
affect not only the property owner, but also the business owner
differently. They seem so similar to me.
MR. WIDES: Okay. Commissioner, the option two -- excuse
me. Option one is to the greatest benefit to both the property owner
and to the business owner. It basically results -- it's an alternative
calculation based on actual use, which we don't normally have, and it
would be of greatest benefit to them.
Option two is only laid there because that was the option we had
to originally calculate the impact fee on, and so it's an option. By no
means would I call it the ideal option for the business owner nor for
the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you recommend option
Page 112
October 12,2010
one; is that correct?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, I recommend option one in this
case to try to resolve this situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. WIDES: We have spent a lot of time and a lot of money, as
we normally would, on these alternative calculations, and we're saying
we'll waive that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have a speaker on this?
MR. WIDES: They said --
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is not in the room at the moment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then I'd like to make a
motion to approve option one.
MR. WIDES: And Commissioner, if I may, in all fairness, they
did say they'd be back by 1 :30 here. So I know they intend to be back.
MR. OCHS: Are they registered to speak?
MR. MITCHELL: They're registered to speak, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala's made a
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To approve option one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To approve option one. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it for discussion, but I'd
like to make sure that we're not opening Pandora's box for other
people that are going to come in here with the same -- with the same
idea saying that that -- hat in hand saying, I need some help because,
you know, we have to look at the fact that you guys have got a big
debt service to payoff, and that even though the infrastructure's in the
ground, it takes a lot of money to maintain that infrastructure.
So I just want to make sure that we're not opening the gates here
for this to be a continuation that we're trying to help people. But let's
be realistic; we can't give away the store here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion and a second
Page 113
October 12,2010
by Commissioner Halas.
Then I'm going to make a statement, and it's essentially the
statement I made to our Utilities Department people, Mr. DeLony and
the staff yesterday.
What we're doing is essentially putting this business out of
business. I don't see how they could possibly survive this, because
number one, if they stay where they are right now, they're going to
have to come up with an impact fee because the impact fee was not
assessed last year, and so they owe an impact fee in the building
where they are now, which our Utilities Division is saying they'll
forget about if they pay the impact fee when they go to the new
location.
But the owner is unwilling to have a lien placed against the
property, so that means that the business is going to have to get a loan
for roughly $34,000 or so, and I don't know how that business can
survive under those circumstances. And the owner of the building is
not going to permit a lien to be placed on his property.
So the only option the business, I think, has is just to go out of
business or go to Lee County or go somewhere or find somebody
where they can get the impact fee -- where the impact fee has already
been paid.
Now, bottom line, here's the situation. If this -- if this business
were to pay this impact fee and then cease operations six months or a
year from now, even if they had begun to pay the impact fee and they
cease operations, that impact fee would still have to be paid, and even
though some other business that moves in there that uses one-tenth of
the water this company did, the impact fee will still be due, and I think
that is a ridiculous situation.
You pay the money because you're going to -- you're anticipated
to use a lot of water. And then if I stop using a lot of water, the impact
fee is still -- still has to be paid. And maybe through the entire
lifetime of that building they'll never have a tenant who uses that
Page 114
October 12,2010
amount of water, and the utilities director or the Utilities Department
is essentially saying, well, yeah, that's okay because it all equals out
over the long-term.
I don't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you give us another
recommendation maybe that isn't even written here?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I was looking for from our
utilities people, and that's what they refused to provide. They don't
know of another alternative, and I'm not familiar enough with the
business to really be able to give them guidance as to what they should
do.
I can tell you that from my perspective it is fundamentally unfair.
In every other area where we assess impact fees, when the costs go
up, impact fees go up, when the costs go down, the impact fees go
down. In the Utilities Department, it never goes down. It never goes
down. It always goes up. There's only one way, and that's up, in
they're charging mechanism, and they believe that is a value that's
added to that building, and then they can -- they can somehow get
higher rent and get that money back over time.
I think it's a ridiculous argument, but I don't have an alternative.
That's really where -- and I'm disappointed that the staff can't get more
imaginative about how to deal with a problem like that.
But I've gone through this with Mr. DeLony. We spent 30
minutes debating this, and we got nowhere, okay. So I just want to let
you know that I think there's a problem here. But we might not have
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm willing to pull my motion if we
-- you know, after I hear the other commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, for the record, Jim DeLony.
Our impact fees have gone down in the last study. I believe our
impact fee assessment went down 4 percent in our last study, and
Page 115
October 12,2010
we're currently undergoing, as was discussed at the last board meeting,
and I anticipate them going down again in terms of their calculation.
The challenge is in assessing an impact fee for capacity that has
to be there at the time of service. We can't work on average day,
because that means 50 days a year there's not service. Fifty days there
would be; 50 days there wouldn't.
So I have to -- we have to deal with the calculated total demand
at peak of that demand. So if you have a business that comes on and
there's -- say there's one demand in the pipe, and they come on, they
need three, that means now I have to have four on that pipe. Then
they may go away after a while, but that four has to be serviced to the
period of time of demand.
And that's the part that Commissioner Coyle and I spoke to at
length yesterday trying to see if there was a way to address that
differently than we are now.
The constructed capacity of the plant is there, has to be there the
minute the demand is asked for by the customer, and it must remain
there throughout the period that the customer has the demand. When
the customer leaves, we just -- we can't decommission that part of the
plant or decommission the debt load associated with building that
capacity. Once it's built, it's there.
Now, as we do our A UIR and we look at our total system
capacity over time, certainly if demand goes down, we have capacity,
we don't have to build any new plant. Obviously that's where we are
today. We'll be up in front of you in December to discuss where we
are in terms of planned expansions, and we're in good shape based on
the information that we've received on population demand in the near
term and maybe even in the mid-term in terms of any new plants.
But that's the dilemma. That's what we're up against is, I have to
have that plant ready to go, those pipes in the ground. Those assets
have to be in place and paid for, or at least the debt service for those
facilities in place to serve that customer's need. And every customer
Page 116
October 12,2010
has a tailored need based on calculations through the Florida
Administrative Code.
Your home has one need, a business would have another in terms
of its demand on the water or the wastewater system. And we do our
very best to make sure that that is fair and equitable to that demand.
And that's where -- that's where we're at, and that's what we've done
for as long as I've been here and before I came here in terms of
allocating these fees and these costs.
I hope I've tried to explain as best I could that situation.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the speaker's in the room, and she is the
owner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Before we take a vote, can we
hear from the speaker?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely, and I think you have
a couple more commissioners yet.
MR. MITCHELL: Denise.
MS. DENARD: Good afternoon. Sorry I'm a little late. I didn't
expect to speak till about 2 o'clock or 2:30 actually.
I've heard and read the executive summary that the -- and the
presentation that the staff has proposed. The staff today has proven to
you that I was not aware nor was I told when inquiring at the time of
application that I would incur these impact fees.
When I applied for permits in 2007, I followed the exact same
procedures as noted by staff as I did when applying for permits for my
relocation. It was obviously a huge surprise to us to expect to pay
these fees prior to being issued a permit.
It is noted that apparently it was an error on the part of the county
for the oversight of imposing these fees. I did not realize the county
made an error until the recent investigation regarding my case.
I still would have no knowledge today had I not wanted to
relocate and grow my business. Having said that, I'm now faced with
several options.
Page 11 7
October 12,2010
Number one is to stay where I am without the ability to increase
and grow my business and incur fees that should have been imposed
three years ago.
Number two, to waive the fees at my current location, since there
will no longer be impact, move within 90 days, ask the new landlord
to place a lien on a 22-year-old building already paid for and pay the
fees over a period of five years. This option was presented to the
landlord, and he disagrees.
Neither of these options provided will help me stay in business.
In fact, it will put me out of business. Option one will put pressure on
my existing landlord who will ask me to pay and force me to evacuate.
Option two, any landlord would certainly not incur $30,000 to lease
their space when they can lease to anybody else but me.
The county is imposing -- a small business owner as myself
cannot open this type of business in a zoned industrial area for proper
use without incurring additional impact fees. The only way to start or
move forward with a business like mine is to build your own building
and pay the fees allocated.
All warehouse owners are limited to only leased space to
businesses that would not incur additional fees unless they are willing
to pay them to let a new tenant in. Had I just moved or not pulled any
permits and renewed my license with the new location, I may have
incurred a few fines or an error could have been made and the whole
thing could have been overlooked.
I chose to follow procedure because I inquired as to what it
would take to relocate my business, and I did not want to incur any
fines. Now I feel I have opened up a can of worms. And it states in
Attachment G, the agenda item of 2009, that quote, Collier County --
Collier County in coordination with other appropriate entities, will
support the establishment and retention of small businesses throughout
the county. I do hope that this is the case and the commissioners will
support our very small business. We are the backbone of Collier
Page 118
October 12,2010
County .
I'm asking the County Commissioners to choose the third option
to waive these fees at both locations. Weare planning on putting in an
additional water meter to pay for overage. And the fate of our
business is in your hands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta, were
you first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I believe I was.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My -- the reason I turned on my
light originally was I was going to ask if we could delay the vote till
we had the petitioner come forward again. But since you're here --
and the reason we're having so much trouble with this is we feel your
pain, but we have some -- we have some problems with this whole
thing that just doesn't end with a decision.
You know, wiping off the impact fees for you at this point in
time --
MS. DENARD: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- would probably seem
extremely easy except for the fact that the repercussions through the
whole thing, as far as other users that are out there, similar situations --
we already got a -- my staff has told me we have two other people that
are already lining up if this one succeeds as far as the waiver of it,
going to ask for the same thing.
And the problem being is, is that every year when they reevaluate
what they have to do to make costs work, they're going to have to
increase the rates to every other user in the system across the board,
and so the cumulative effect is never ending.
And so we're trying to find a way to make it work for you. Your
landlord can't be held responsible for this debt. How can we get
assurance that if we'd like to extend it out over a number of years that
we'd get reimbursed?
Page 119
October 12,2010
Like Mr. DeLony brought up -- I believe it was Mr. DeLony--
the fact that it's not a case so much of a fee that has no particular
direction it's going, it's just paid for the sake of paying, it's paid to be
able to help meet a capacity. Even though the capacity might only be
for a short period of time, the only way you can supply that capacity is
have your plants up to par so they can produce that water.
Now, if someone drops off and they decide they don't need it
anymore, you might have some reserve capacity, but the problem
being is that you've got to be able to produce the water in the first
place.
So whether you're there for a year or you're there for 20 years,
that capacity of the plant is dedicated to you.
And this is one of the things we're wrestling with. You know, if
there was some assurance that it'd be paid back, we'd probably spread
the payments over a number years, but then that opens another
problem because now we'd have to do it with every commercial user
out there. This just doesn't end.
And forgive me that I'm burdening you with all this, because I
hear what you're saying, and I do feel your pain. I'm a small
businessperson, and I do have a commercial property. At one point I
was unable to get a renter -- an absence of renters for like a year and a
halfbecause it was going to be a $30,000 impact fee that had to be
paid for a gymnasium, a girl's gymnasium to be built into the place
because the impact would take place. Of course, the tenant that went
in had no intentions of paying it and there was no way I could absorb
it over a three-year period or even a five-year period as the lease went,
so that whole deal just went away.
So there's always repercussions for what we do that are never
ending. So bear with us as we wrestle through this. I can't promise
you the results are going to make you happy though.
MS. DENARD: Okay. Well, is there -- I mean, if there is a way
that we can pay some impact fees -- not obviously all up front -- I
Page 120
October 12,2010
mean, I'm not trying to get out of the puzzle here. The thing is, is that,
you know, we were just not made -- made aware of it. And now that
we are made aware of it, I feel like, okay, now they're going to come
down on our existing landlord, and they're going to force us out of
business completely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's talk turkey just for a
minute. Now, I'm just one commissioner. I can't make a deal with
you. But I can certainly enter an idea out there that might be able to
make this a little easier for my fellow commissioners to get their arms
around. Could you pay one-third of the impact fee up front and the
balance over a five-year period?
MS. DENARD: Yeah, I guess it would depend on what that is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would that be? Now, once
again, I'm not making a deal with you. I don't have that power. I'm
just offering another alternative for my commission to look at. How
would that work out?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, I can tell you what option two
would be because we've calculated that. So it would kind of give you
the bookends, all right.
Option two is $35,000 in total. So a third of that, let's call it--
you know, call it $12,000 be paid up front and the last 24-, 23- would
be paid over a five-year period. That's the upper bookend.
I don't know what the option one will result in until we actually
do the alternative calculation. I'd be purely speculating.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and forgive me, but I just
wanted to put an idea out there. It sounds like something that would
work out. Now I'm going to turn it back over to my fellow
commissioners to hash this deal out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, before I go to Commissioner
Halas, I can tell you that's a worse deal than the staff is offering here.
Why make her pay 30 percent up front?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason being is because of
Page 121
October 12,2010
the difficulty of trying to recoup it over a five-year period, the fact that
business might not be there for five years. Trying to get more on the
front-end. We haven't agreed to any particular deal. I was just trying
to make it to the point where there was some reasonable assurance that
we were going to end up with the majority of the impact fee, if not the
whole thing. There's no guarantee the business will be there in five
years.
The majority of businesses don't make it five years. Most -- out
of all the businesses that start, something like 30 or 40 percent of them
fail in the first year. Well, this is a tried and true business, so the
chances of success are probably more likely. I was just trying to give
ourselves a little more liquidity as far as giving protection to the rest
of the ratepayers out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concern is that this is
not only just water. This is sewer, too. If you remember a few years
ago, because we didn't keep up with capacity, we ended up with a
consent order.
And we're not here to try to punish any business owner. It's the
idea that we want to make sure that we build the infrastructure, the
infrastructure is there when business comes here to take care of that,
but somebody has to pay the amount of money that has been put forth
to build all this infrastructure, and that's the debt service.
So I understand what's going on here, but it's not only just water,
but it's also the sewer, and that's part of the impact fee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any other questions by
commissioners? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Option one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Option one was what was suggested.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we read option one off
agaIn.
Page 122
October 12,2010
MR. WIDES: Option one is to place a CO hold on the permit at
the new location. We would waive the $2,500 alternative impact fee
calculation and work with the business owner to come up with an
alternative fee.
Once we receive the alternative impact fee in full or enter into a
five-year payment plan that would trigger our next step, okay. If the
payment is made in full, we would immediately release the hold. If
the payment plan -- if we -- excuse me. If the payment is made in full,
we'll immediately release the holds.
If we enter into a payment plan, we would propose to put a lien
on the property owner's location, okay, and then we would remove the
CO hold when full payment is received or the payment plan is in
place.
And yes, as I said, in our discussions with the property owner,
he's not interested in that piece of it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So.
MS. DENARD: Which doesn't leave me an option,
unfortunately, you know. I would be willing to pay something, but I
certainly don't have $12,000 to come up with up front. And, you
know, I could make a payment plan over 20 years, but what guarantee
do you have that I'm going to give you that money? That's something
that we would have to figure out, you know.
And I just want to say also that I -- you know, we started this
business from scratch. We -- you know, three years ago, and knock
on wood, you know, I think we can see it through for Collier County.
I've been in business here before and, you know, so far so good. And
you know, for us, this is what we want to do, we want to grow and we
want to get new jobs to the community as well. I don't want to be
evicted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just can't think of another answer.
I mean, we want to see them stay in business.
Page 123
October 12, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At the same time we don't want to --
we don't want to do anything to set an example for all of the other
businesses in Collier County because, you know, everybody has an
impact fee to pay, and these people have tried to come about doing
that legally and legitimately, and that's great. But it is a high fee.
How can we work this out so everybody's a winner? Nobody
wins completely, but everybody wins something. There's got to be an
answer here that we're not seeing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's exactly my position, too.
You know, in the meantime, while this company is forced out of
business, we've got surplus water capacity.
MS. DENARD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not going to make a -- one difference
if these people start using that water tomorrow morning. We've got
plenty of water capacity because our growth has slowed. We don't
have people placing additional demands on it, as much as we
anticipated.
So for this business, and probably for any other business we
could identify in the next six to 12 months, it wouldn't make a single
bit of difference if this impact fee were not paid.
Yes, over the long run it would have an impact because we have
to build reserves and the capability to build new plant capacity. Right
now we don't need new plant capacity, but we're going to drive you
out of business just on principle. That's what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about something like this.
Because I realize you can only make so much money washing
napkins. I mean, it's not like it's selling a car or something like that.
Is there a way if we stretched it out a little bit further that you could
make a payment every year and still meet your obligation and yet
spread it out so that it -- you know, it doesn't drive you out of
business?
Page 124
October 12,2010
You know, it's not like you're going to make a profit very
quickly, but at least you can get this thing paid off but stretched over a
longer period of time so it doesn't cripple you. Would that work?
MS. DENARD: I have no objection to that. I mean, we've got to
figure out what the actual fee would be. Thirty-four thousand seems
awfully high at this stage of the game. I would have no objection to
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I had a laundromat years ago.
MS. DENARD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And let me tell you, you use water
going in those machines and you use the sewer service going out.
And it doesn't matter whether you've got a full load or a half load;
you're still going to use about the same amount of water and you're
going to use the same amount of sewer capacity.
Now, the commissioner here says we've already built that.
Everything's taken care of. The problem is, we're -- we built the
capacity with the intent that we were going to meet future growth, and
all of a sudden it collapsed, but we were trying to catch up, because at
one time we had a consent order in this county.
Now, if we're going to do a favor for commercial in regards to
not having to pay the impact fees to payoff our debt, I can tell you as
a resident -- in the residential area, I'm not -- I want to get my impact
fee paid back to me because I think I paid too much. I mean,
everybody --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not talking about paying the
whole thing. We're just --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're talking about impact fees
where people do not want to pay the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They never said that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They made it very, very clear that
they would like that -- they would like to not even have to pay any of
it.
Page 125
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think they're just as disappointed
as we would be if we went to the county and asked what was
necessary and they say, here it is, and you go do that, and then they
tell you, whoops, we're going to charge you $34,000. I would be very
upset about that, too. That's--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, obviously there's two sides to
every story. They didn't come up with the -- they didn't tell the
community development services exactly what their intent was, and so
they didn't have any idea what kind of facilities were at this particular
building, whether they had to pay impact fees or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think that happened at all, but let
me -- let me give you an example of a kind of solution that would
make some sense. Let's suppose you pay for your demand, okay, the
water that you're using. You don't have a problem with the user fee,
do you?
MS. DENARD: No, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you also -- each month we required
you to pay us a portion of an impact fee.
MS. DENARD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so for all the years you're in there,
you're going to be paying us an additional amount of money over the
user fees, and that additional amount of money is your contribution to
helping us support our debt service and to build future capacity, even
though your -- the capacity you're using is not going to be significant
enough to cause us to do that for another 40 years or 50 years.
But nevertheless, if you paid a little bit each month, even if you
left early, it doesn't cause any harm to us because if you go out of
business in six months or 12 months, we will what have collected
some incremental amount of money, and the demand on the system
will go back down, maybe disappear for a while.
Another company comes in, then their demand will be assessed,
hopefully properly by our staff up front, and they'll pay the proper
Page 126
October 12,2010
impact fee.
What I'm -- I've been looking for is a way that you can pay a
reasonable amount of money on a monthly basis without having to
place a lien on the property, which the landlord refuses to do, okay.
But if we charge you a small amount each month, we're getting
from you directly a reasonable payment based upon your usage. And
I don't see why that won't work. But I know what I'm going to hear
from the other side over here, okay. We've always done it this way,
and it's the only way we know how to do it. So--
MS. DENARD: I have no objection, again, like Donna Fiala
mentioned, to come up with some kind of payment, you know. I don't
-- I don't want to be the missing link of the puzzle, you know. I'm not
trying to get around it.
I said that, you know, I would like all impact fees waived
because I was given three options in an executive summary, and that's
how that came about. So I'm in agreement with that. I would be in
compliance, because it will put our business in compliance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think there's one other option
here, and I believe that would be to go to a small business -- go to the
bank or to get a small business loan whereby you'd end up setting up a
payment plan there.
MS. DENARD: Nobody's going to give me a loan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nobody gives business loans these
days.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think there are small
business loans out there, or possibly go to a bank and tell them what
it's for here. So -- I just don't think it's fair to waive impact fees totally
for a commercial business and then have that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not talking about doing that, I
don't think, anymore, are we?
MS. DENARD: No, we're not.
Page 127
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're talking about a payment plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we've got option one. I
mean, that's basically where we're at.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that forces them out of business
because you can't put a lien on it and secure your money, you know.
So they're gone.
So if we find another way of getting money paid over time that
reflects their demand requirements on the system, and if they leave
early for some reason, they go out of business or they go somewhere
else, then their demand is gone but they paid us for their portion of the
demand.
And I got to go to Commissioner Coletta next, County Attorney,
and then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- then Commissioner Fiala, and then
you, but let's make this the end of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're getting close to it.
We're talking all the same language. And I can see the County
Attorney's holding his head. It looks like you could use a couple
ibuprofen to take away the pain.
Jeff, can we recognize this as a very unique situation because of
the lack of communications that took place, the lack of response from
the staff in a timely fashion?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And just be able to say, this is
the one exception to the rule, this can't happen again because our staff
is fully aware of what they've got to tell people in the future, that we're
never going to have a problem like this again, and then we can go
forward with this in a way that would be equitable.
I have no problem with a payment plan that's tied into the amount
of water usage and maybe even call this an experiment. It may be
something, as we get into, we find works even better. Who knows?
Page 128
October 12, 2010
Our whole objective's going to be, in the future, is to encourage
businesses to come to Collier County. And the impact fees have
always been a deterrent. And I'm not too sure all this will all work,
but this may be the avenue of a new day, too.
So I think we ought to either -- I don't know if we can give
enough direction to staff now that we can end it, but I'd at least get it
back to staff with our direction that they come up with an additional
user's fee.
Mr. DeLony has the answer.
MR. DeLONY: This is what I believe we can do. First of all, we
want to make sure that we get this fee correct, and so looking at option
one, we'd stay with option one with the proviso there would be no lien
on this property, and we'd leave it at that.
With regard to terms and conditions of payment plan, the amount
would be determined by the alternative impact fee calculation, the
total amount, the gross amount. And then as far as the payment plan,
we'll sit down and we'll work with her, and we will work it out.
I'd like to have some latitude from staff -- from the commission
to extend it out as far as ten years if that is suitable to the
arrangements. Now without advice of attorney, I do not know what
we can do to secure this, but we will take the prudent measures to
secure our interest of this amount whether she's in business a day or,
we hope, forever.
MS. DENARD: Me, too.
MR. DeLONY: Forever, and employing a lot of people doing it.
But if you'll give me that latitude to work this one-time exception, I
believe we could come up to a conclusion that I could bring that back
to the board at the next meeting, and we'll have that for your approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if it's contingent upon her
having to get a small business loan --
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- or get another loan out there,
Page 129
October 12,2010
that isn't going to happen. I can tell you right now--
MR. DeLONY: We understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- the market's not going to
accommodate it.
MR. DeLONY: The principal -- the principal that's involved;
that would be the impact fee, the alternative impact fee calculation,
that principal has to be the basis of the deal. I understand that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So my motion will be
modified to say -- you know, that's such a good plan. I think it works
for them. It's a -- it's about the best thing you could have come up
with, and I'm really, really pleased to hear that.
And you feel that way, too?
They've been in business here for a long, long time --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because she's cooked at some of
the parties I've attended.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they're not going anyplace.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would appreciate you working
with them. So I modify my motion to state everything that you just
said.
MR. DeLONY: Really, the only thing different here that's being
proposed, if I may, is that we're going to make a one-time exception
for this business and this business only to go into a deal with a tenant
instead of the landowner; therefore, we'll be waiving our ability to lien
against assets. But in this case, given this situation and the
representations that have been made here today, I'll come back with
that deal working with County Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. And you were going to
work with her with a payment plan and --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. We'll sit down with her work and
Page 130
October 12, 2010
we'll work with her on that.
And I would ask the Board to give me the indulgence to at least
take that payment plan to at least ten years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Before I'll modify my second, I'd
like to hear from CDES, and I want to hear from the County Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I was just going to recommend
you do just that, I mean, just get rid of the lien, negotiate something;
five-years, ten-years. If she goes out of business, whatever was paid,
you'd credit to the next person that comes in.
MR. DeLONY: That's exactly correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's all. So--
MR. DeLONY: Those would stay there.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- it runs with the land.
MR. DeLONY: It runs with the land either way. And we'll have
to set that up, even though their agreement is not with the underlying
landowner.
Now, there -- if I may. There's some issues here with the fact this
has been fed by a master meter. If she does not pay her bill, we
cannot effectively cut her off without affecting seven other tenants or
six other tenants.
So it will be difficult to administer. It will cause some extra
work on everyone's part to make this work. I've got your intent
though that that's what you want us to do, and we'll accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for working with us.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. I understand that. And, sir, if that's
-- Mr. Attorney, I think I got it.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think it's an excellent result.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Nick, do you have anything
to add to this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I just -- I can't speak for what
happened in 2008. All I can tell you is in 2009, based on the
Page 131
October 12,2010
information -- I'm sorry, 2010, this was routed. The initial
information came in, we send it to utilities. They do a review, and
they send that information back. We don't calculate that in-house. It's
sent out for review.
So I don't know what happened in 2008, why it wasn't reviewed.
I looked at those plans. It said proposed washers, so I think they just
ignored it as some future development or some future permit. But I
know in 2010 it was routed after we received it and we looked at it.
So I don't want the misconception out there that we didn't do what we
were supposed to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you. My mot- -- my
second remains.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, I'm going to just suggest to
you, County Attorney, you know that this is not the only case that's
going to come to us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We just deal with it on the circumstances
of that time.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes. I also think we're living in
exceptionally unusual economic circumstances and that, you know,
hopefully as seen by the residential pickup, these issues are going to
go away.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, yep. Well, that's what we all hope.
Okay. Then all in favor of the motion as amended, 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.)
Page 132
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes. Good luck.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I had one other question. I had one
other question. Is this going to open Pandora's box?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It better not, because I'm telling
you that --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Staff can't do this without the Board's
authorization. The next person who comes in here, the Board will --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because everybody comes in here
whining and crying about -- that they can't pay impact fees, you know,
I got a real problem with this. And we spent an awful lot of money to
build the infrastructure in this county. And we've got a huge debt
service, and that's got to be paid one way or the other.
So if we want to give up impact fees, then I think we're going to
have to look at increasing ad valorem taxes or rates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're getting our impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're not losing them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. She will be paying more
than her impact on this thing over time. And if she leaves early, she
will have paid it and lost it to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not only that, she's paying taxes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And she's a resident of our county.
We're not losing a thing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I might want to come in here
and get my impact fees back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just try that, Frank.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Come on in, come on in.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioner, just one thing on that. You
know, when those capacities go back to the system like, for example,
what he's suggesting -- Commissioner Coyle's suggesting, when we
Page 133
October 12,2010
recalculate the impact fees, we take into account those return credits,
if they will, in terms of what's there and available, and then that's how
we recalculate the impact fee.
So there is a recapture of those -- of those impacts and those
impact fees to the system and discounted future users. So it's not
totally lost, but we got your intent. We understand and we'll get this
done and bring it back to you at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we on, 6G (sic) now --
no, lOG.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We should be on 24F.
MR.OCHS: We're only on 10F, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #10F
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE
PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY 2011 STATE LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES - MOTION TO PRIORITIZE AND APPROVE:
PROPERTY INSURANCE, ILLEGAL ALIENS/BORDER
PROTECTION, TABOR (REVENUE & EXPENDITURE CAPS),
IMPACT FEES, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, CCNA, OFF-SHORE
DRILLING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND
TRANSPORTATION AND THE REMAINING PRIORITIES
FOLLOWING - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: You ready to move forward?
Item 10F is a recommendation to review and approve the
proposed Collier County 2011 state legislative authorities. Debbie
Wight, your legislative affairs coordinator, will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Debbie Wight,
legislative affairs coordinator.
You have before you a list of proposed Collier County 2011 state
Page 134
October 12, 2010
legislative priorities. There are six, and they -- which is about half,
less than half of the list from last year. They are all the same with the
exception of E- Verify, which I believe it was at the September 14th
board meeting you asked to have -- unanimously voted to have that on
your list.
I just wanted to tell you that at the F AC conference in --
September 23rd, Steve Carnell and I, with you -- the commissioners
that usually go, since you had a budget hearing, you weren't able to go
-- on your behalf we brought that up at the F AC Conference, since you
did unanimously vote to have it on your list, and unfortunately, they
did not support it. But I would just suggest we discuss it at the
delegation meeting tomorrow at the workshop and see how it -- how
they feel in that conversation.
Would you like to go through each item or do you just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, I think we've all read it. I just have
one question. Why do we want to put hometown democracy,
Amendment IV, assess the impacts of the election? I mean, you
know, by the time they get into session, the results of the election will
be known. I don't see this as a legislative priority.
MS. WIGHT: No. It's just on the monitor list, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I don't know why we even have to
get into it, quite frankly. It's going to be decided on the ballot, and
whatever happens happens. We can't ask our legislators to do
anything about it because they don't even go into session until next
year.
MS. WIGHT: You're right. You're absolutely correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So I don't know why we're going to
bother them with that. I think one of our -- one of our, probably,
errors is, in the past we've put too many of these things in there.
But Commissioner Henning was first actually. Okay.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Insurance,
Page 135
October 12,2010
homeowners' insurance is continually up-ticking and being a burden
on residential properties. I would like to make it our -- one of our
priorities for our delegation to see what the legislators can do to give
relief to the citizens on their homeowners' insurance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a great idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: To add it back onto the main list?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And could I suggest we go back -- with
respect to the homeowners' thing, go back to the previous resolutions
we have made and forwarded to our Legislators and pull out some of
that -- those same requests?
We had specific requirements that we wanted them to work on,
one of which was the single-most important thing they can do for us
for homeowner insurance rates is to expand the pool beyond state
boundaries.
Now, I do know that there are some -- there's some reluctance at
the federal level to do that because people in, let's say, Kentucky don't
want to pay for hurricane insurance, but certainly all of the Gulf States
and all of the Atlantic States, if they were able to reach agreement on
pooling, then we could substantially reduce our risk and the rates our
citizens have to pay, because all of those states don't get hit by
hurricanes every year. And so the more we can spread the loss so it's
not contained just within our state, the better off we're all going to be.
But there are some other recommendations in the resolutions that
we have previously sent to our Legislators. And I do, like
Commissioner Henning, feel that's one of the most important things
we can do for our citizens right now, because wind insurance is
absolutely horrendous. It makes up, at least in my part of the county,
about 80 percent of the entire insurance bill. So anything you can do
to minimize wind insurance rates is going to be a big benefit to a lot of
Page 136
October 12,2010
the people.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of wind in the
neighborhood, I hear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, particularly up in District 2.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MS. WIGHT: And if I may say, Senator Richter's Bill last year
was vetoed and -- the insurance bill, and he'll be at the delegation -- at
the meeting tomorrow, so it will be a good conversation to have with
him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But try to get those resolutions to us so
that we are refreshed on what we have suggested before, okay.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it goes back five, six years.
MS. WIGHT: I think you're right, because I don't recall the last
two or three years the insurance resolution. I'll look for it though.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think I'm next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. In conjunction with your
comments about hometown democracy, last night I went to the Collier
Republican Club, and our state representative, Matt Hudson, gave --
stood up and gave a brilliant synopsis of hometown democracy or
Amendment IV and who the sponsors were. I was quite amazed to
hear who some of these sponsor were.
And I've spoken a little bit to Bill Poteet back here also. We had
the other -- some of the other municipalities in Collier County making
a statement they are against Amendment IV, and we have not done
that yet, and I think it -- I think we should step up to the plate and state
that we're against it as well, if indeed, I get, you know cooperation
from the other commissioners, because that's one thing we can do
right now before the election.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you want to make that a
Page 137
October 12,2010
motion, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make it a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You want to respond specifically to her
motion?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I think the motion is very
inappropriate. We're talking about one item, and then we're jumping
to something not relevant to the discussion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we discuss this and then
come back to that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. Can we do that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, put the motion on the table.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're done, okay.
All right. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to make sure that
-- there was a couple of items here that I think need to be really
hammered home, and that's unfunded mandates and also the TABOR
Amendment, if that comes up.
There's one individual who is running for governor who's already
claiming he would like to see a 19 percent decrease in property tax.
And I think right now we've hit the limit as far as rollback of property
taxes.
The other thing I'm concerned about is where there was talk
about eliminating a little over a billion dollars in state prisons.
And I'm concerned that when we have a huge rollback of that
nature, that this might be another unfunded mandate for the counties in
regards to picking up the slack in their jails. So I just have some
concerns we make sure that we address any type of unfunded
Page 138
October 12,2010
mandates that may be coming down. Okay.
MS. WIGHT: In addition, Commissioners, we have a good
indication that the pretrial detention and release though, there will be
legislation against -- again this session. So we've got that on the issues
to monitor list. Because whenever they do something to change those
programs, that's another increase in jail population.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To try to organization our thoughts on
this, can we just go down these in sequence and talk about them.
MS. WIGHT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you mind? Do you need
to say something right now or do you want to wait?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually if -- when you
come to the first one, transportation, you can use me at that point in
time. I'd like to have some comments.
MS. WIGHT: This -- your -- this board asked for a state law
mandating it. And what -- the feeling that -- I can just tell you what
F AC said.
There were -- the former president, Rodney Long of Alachua
County said, you know, they were a little bit offended at the word
mandate, which is why I changed it to require. They said, you know,
we spend an awful lot of time trying to get away from the state
legislature mandating local governments.
And Broward County was the one, frankly, that were so, I don't
know if offended is the right word, but were so against just the fact
that we wanted the state legislature to impose legislation forcing us.
They said, it's federal law to follow the immigration law. It's up
to governments to make sure it's enforced and that we are not hiring
illegal immigrants.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What you're saying is supporting what I
suggested, right.
Page 139
October 12,2010
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That it really is not a Collier County
priority issue. And I can -- you know, if I tried to place myself in a
position of the legislators, you know, you're saying to our legislators,
go up to Tallahassee and tell all the other counties that they need to do
the same thing we're doing, and I'm not sure that a legislature --
legislator is going to feel comfortable doing that.
So what I'm really trying to do here is to see if we can't get some
priorities that they can latch onto and agree with and move forward
on. If I'm wrong, tell me.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, the only reason this is on the list is
because this board asked us to put it on here previously.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we said so.
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well--
MR. OCHS: You can take it off as easily as you put it on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anybody disagree with that? I
mean --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You think it does help Collier
County if the other counties do this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, very much so, and I'll tell
you why. This is all from the bottom-up. This case, if there's enough
counties out there within the State of Florida to make an issue of it,
our state legislative body is going to take a stand, and then they'll start
to force the issue farther and farther ahead.
With unemployment where it is today, I think it's very important
that our aim and direction should to be preserve the jobs that are out
there for our citizens that are legal and for our residents that are legal.
It's that simple. It's a simple statement. Now, if they take it to the
next level or they don't take it to the next level, that's up to them. But
it's just, you put it out there, you say, this is something that's important
Page 140
October 12,2010
to us, and it's important also to the Regional Planning Council. I serve
as their chair for the legislative issues there, and that's on our -- our
docket this year, too. It's important to counties all the way through
South Florida. So I really think it should be kept on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, can I suggest an alternative then?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How's that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we suggest that our legislators
support any action at the state level that will reduce the number of
illegal aliens in the State of Florida? And that would -- that would be
not only E-Verify. It would mean the sheriffs' Illegal Alien Task
Force.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's an excellent idea, if
we can also include the words such as -- as an example would be
E- Verify; in other words, to capture the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I really think it's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Make it a broader kind of thing. Well,
we've already seen that there are some people who are moving toward
that objective in Tallahassee. And if we support a broader anti-illegal
alien policy and ask that the state do more to try to protect our borders,
then maybe that will provide them a little more --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's an excellent idea,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- support.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if we could add at the end,
with programs such as E- Verify.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, E-Verify and the criminal alien--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you go. I've got no
problem with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 287(g).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 287(g) program, because I think Collier
County was the first one to implement that criminal alien program.
Page 141
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was your driving influence
that made that happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it was actually the sheriffs, but I
was very supportive of his efforts.
But the -- and if there's any other examples we can think of, we
should put that -- but those two are very, very important.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with everybody?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we'll just replace E-Verify
with a more general statement, but use E- Verify as an example of the
kinds of programs we would like to see them support.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad we're hitting this so
strongly. That's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. And offshore drilling in the
Gulf of Mexico, I think we're okay on that one. Libraries, of course
you still want state aid. Does anybody have any problem with that
one? Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who would have problems with
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Revenue and expenditure caps.
We're going to oppose those. Anybody want to change that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Revenue enhancements. I would love to
enhance the revenues, but that's -- how about gas tax indexing?
They've told us they're not ever going to support that. Is there any
point in continuing that debate, or do we want to keep after them
about that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from Mr. Feder
on that. He's been our expert for the past eight years at least on this
particular issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Has he achieved any success over
Page 142
October 12, 2010
eight years?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have you weakened them a
little bit? Are they ready to cave?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We only rate on success, not attempts.
MR. FEDER: No success, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. FEDER: I haven't been -- I haven't been--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've answered my question.
MR. FEDER: -- the only one trying, but no success.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And do you anticipate any success
anytime in the future?
MR. FEDER: I think raising it now when they're looking at
alternatives might be viable. But again, as a major emphasis, I don't
think you have to. If it's going to come up, it will come up on its own.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You want to take it off?
Remember, the more you spread it--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. But you want to stay
after the dot.coms and the sales tax revenue that we're losing as a
result of a --
MR. OCHS: Gas tax is off.
MS. WIGHT: Gas tax is off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the Consultant's Competitive
Negotiation Act?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, keep that on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm in favor of that, but what are the
chances of success?
MS. WIGHT: We're making great progress.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MS. WIGHT: Actually I shouldn't say we. Steve Carnell,
Page 143
October 12,2010
purchasing director, has been the champion on this. At the F AC
Conference in -- on September 23rd, he actually got the industry
representatives to sit down at a meeting, and they actually were very
gracious. I don't know if Steve wants to talk to you about it a little bit
or if you're in a hurry and don't want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Steve, I think we're all universally
behind you on this. But you feel you're making some progress in
getting this resolved and we'll --
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, we do. For the record, Steve Carnell.
As Debbie said, we had a meeting with representatives from
Architectural Engineering, Landscape Architectural, and the Survey
Mapping Group. And I can't say that we walked out of there all ready
with a deal, but what we had was -- they got a chance to layout some
of their concerns about the reform. We got a chance to, I think,
explain the reform and try to take some of the horns off of it, and they
agreed to keep talking.
And we're looking at an opportunity to maybe go talk to them in
Tallahassee next before session.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Good. Okay. We leave it there, all right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Everybody? Okay. All right. Now let's
go to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We add on insurance there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we add on insurance there?
MS. WIGHT: I've added that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, you've already got -- all right.
MS. WIGHT: Do you know which order you want it in, or --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, I think insurance should be
up near the top. But I'll tell you what we could do, if you wanted to.
We could create our own order about the presentation or the
Page 144
October 12,2010
discussion tomorrow.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe we do that after we go through
the whole list.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's do that after we get through
everything, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Let's go into -- you say
already enacted legislation and issues to monitor, transportation.
With respect to transportation, rather than just a general
statement that opposes raiding of the Transportation Trust Fund, why
don't we put in there some support for specific projects like the new
interstate connection?
MR. OCHS : Well, that will be in your federal legislative agenda.
MS. WIGHT: That will be in your federal legislative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ah, yes, that's right.
MS. WIGHT: And I did, in your books for tomorrow, I put that
the raiding of the Transportation Trust Fund was 160 million in
FY2011, but the governor vetoed that, and in 2000- -- FY2010, it was
120 million.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, Commissioner Coletta is
getting sort of excited about this because he wants to put in lime-rock
roads in here, but -- so let's just go on beyond that one. We
understand what you're saying, okay.
All right. Go ahead.
MS. WIGHT: And then --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. And I appreciate
the pitch for lime-rock roads. Your support on that issue is always so
appreciated.
You know, there is -- we just mentioned the fact that -- for the
federal issue we said for the interchange. That was more federal than
it was anything else; however, I disagreed totally with that. It is the
biggest issue, and the funds do come down from the federal.
Page 145
October 12,2010
If we don't have our state legislative body behind us and they
don't know where we're coming in at such a top priority, we're going
to lose out at the end.
I -- we've recognized it as our top federal priority for, God
knows, five, six years now. The MPOs, the joint -- our MPO and the
one in Lee County have both recognized it as the top -- one of the top
priorities in Collier County. The Regional Planning Council has given
it recognition as one of the top priorities. And the list goes on.
Now, I would like to be able to get this out in front of our
Legislative Delegation how important it is, and see if somewheres
down the line, even though they're not the ones that personally
dedicate the funds, if they would write letters of support for us to the
Transportation Department.
We're having a real big issue now -- I'm going to let Mr. Feder
get into it a little bit -- regarding a no-build theory that's taken a new
life for the Everglades Interchange, and it's really serious. We have
three state agencies that have forced us into an environmental study on
steroids.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Steroids?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Steroids?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This study is going to require an
environmental assessment going back to the '40s as a base date, and
it's going to cover a 20-mile radius from where the interchange will go
In.
We're hearing from these agencies and some people in the
environmental community that the Everglades Interchange is never
going to happen. They're mustering their forces now to try to bring it
to an end. And if we don't get really serious and start pushing back,
we're going to lose out on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you have a -- you have a meeting
scheduled in November for all of those representatives. Why don't we
start there and then maybe set up a meeting with our federal legislators
Page 146
October 12, 2010
and see what we can do to get them moving? But let -- why don't we
wait until after that meeting in November to make a decision
concerning that? I don't think we get much by trying to get our state
legislators to petition Washington.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I won't push it, but I will
bring it back later after that meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: After that meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: November 4th; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: Yes, November 4th.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the letters probably went out today
already. But the -- you're going to be cheering that group so -- just so
you know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So transportation, you
just want to make a general statement to oppose raiding of the
transportation fund, okay.
MS. WIGHT: If I may, I think Mr. Feeder and I have heard
whispers of -- that there might be a movement toward regional MPO' s
in the 2060.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Another--
MS. WIGHT: Yeah, in the 2060 transportation plan, and I know
that you are not supportive of that. So we need to talk to our lobbyist
as well as it might be something to discuss with the delegation, at least
let them know how -- you're feelings about it tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's put on here oppose regionalization
of --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: MPOs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- ofMPOs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, sir. Just so the
public knows what we're talking about -- because in a lot of cases
regionalism is a great thing. In this case, years ago when we first
looked at it, I thought it was a great idea until we had joint meetings of
Page 147
October 12,2010
the MPO of Lee County and Collier County. Now, their MPO
consists of slightly more members. I think they have three more
members than we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, a lot more.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. A lot more than that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, quite a bit more--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They have Sanibel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- because they have the
municipalities, right. Well, they way out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Cape Coral.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- they out- numbered us when
we had the joint meetings. And when the votes came down that had to
deal with a county aspect, they always were voting as a block to try to
keep Lee County completely in the mix, in other words, for the
funding, and we realized at that point in time, the idea of ever joining
these two MPOs together was unworkable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Ifwe had -- if we had agreed to
form the joint MPO, 1-75 would be a toll-way right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or it would end in Lee County.
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. It wouldn't have ended. It would
have been a toll-way because the regional MPO would have approved
that entire thing.
MS. WIGHT: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we need to make sure that we hit that
pretty hard.
Next item is -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to just -- yeah. I'd just like
to also reiterate that if you have a regional MPO, the areas that have
the greatest population are going to have the largest voice, and
therefore, regional MPO' s are going to cause suffering for other areas
Page 148
October 12,2010
that don't have the population. So the money's going to go where the
screaming's the highest.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Impact fees. There is absolutely
no question in anybody's mind that the were-wolf is going to rise from
his grave in Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's even rising here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well-- yeah -- and propose that impact
fees be eliminated. He laid low this year because he didn't want to
generate any support for Amendment IV.
MS. WIGHT: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And he was told by a lot of other
legislators to quit trying to take away impact fees, and the Supreme
Court, I think, told him that his last growth management bill was
unconstitutional.
MS. WIGHT: Yes. It's been expunged from the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yeah. So he's going to start all over
again next session.
MS. WIGHT: Yes, he is, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we need to hit this one pretty hard,
because we know what's going to happen on this one.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's got the timer? I got a
piece of cake I want to award somebody.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I've got one right here.
Now, growth management, same thing. I don't see anything
wrong with that. Does anybody see anything wrong with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Non-judicial foreclosures. I don't
have a problem with that.
MR.OCHS: We are essentially reiterating positions that you
took last year.
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
Page 149
October 12,2010
MR.OCHS: And we're going to continue to monitor if they
.
come up agaIn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And pretrial detention release programs,
okay. Ochopee EMS and fire station on 1-75, we understand what that
means. We just want some funding for the work they do to keep 1-75
safe, right?
MR.OCHS: We're trying to get a facility out there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's expensive. All right. So that's the
bunch. And we've added homeowners' insurance to this list. All right.
MS. WIGHT: I wanted to tell you one more thing,
Commissioner. The EDC, as you've had an economic development
priority on here, they're supposed to be bringing you a priority before
the legislative delegation hearing, which means your November 9th
meeting. They've assured me it will be here for that.
MR.OCHS: They didn't get theirs in in time to include it in this
list prior to your workshop tomorrow with your delegation. They still
want to bring something forward for your consideration prior to the
delegation meeting and hearing on the 23rd of November. So we'll
bring that to you separately on the next -- on the board meeting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And who's going to do this?
MS. WIGHT: The EDC.
MR. OCHS: The EDC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's dangerous.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, I sure would like to have
some advance notification of what that is. What are they going to --
MR. OCHS: Well, we're going to bring it to you on your
meeting on November 9th.
MS. WIGHT: The Board Meeting.
MR. OCHS : You still have time to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public petition.
MR. OCHS: However -- however you want to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whose agenda is it?
Page 150
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It means they'll have to be sworn in.
MS. WIGHT: I know. I gave them advance notice. It happened
last year, and then -- they have to get their board to meet and review
and approve, and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. So now let's go
through these and prioritize them. And by the way, I have twice used
the wrong terminology. It's not homeowners' insurance. It's property
Insurance.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Because it applies to homes as well as
commercial. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We also have speakers, I think.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you do have one public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who is that?
MR. MITCHELL: William Poteet.
MR. POTEET: I'LL wait till you prioritize.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You don't have any
recommendations for priorities?
MR. POTEET: Nope.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Who has an objection to
putting homeowners' -- property insurance as the number one item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that affects the most number of
homeowners, or the most number of people in Collier County.
What do you want to do for number two?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: TABOR.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have disagreement with
putting TABOR as number two?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How about growth management?
Page 151
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Growth management or impact
fees; either one of those two.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: Do you want those two to come off the monitor
and go on the full list; is that what you're telling me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah. Let's make that -- those the
full list thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As a combination?
MS. WIGHT: Separate or together?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We could put them separate. Three--
impact fees three, and growth management four; how does that sound
to you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. And I think we ought to --
the next one should be consultant competitive negotiations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: Number 5, CCNA?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about offshore drilling as number
six?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either that or transportation.
MS. WIGHT: The Washington Post wrote this afternoon that
President Obama this week is lifting the moratorium on deepwater
drilling in the Gulf.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's the consensus, offshore drilling
or what?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Offshore drilling is six, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And then you want to have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Transportation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: E-Verify, seven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. E-Verify's going to be included--
Page 152
October 12, 2010
oh, I'm sorry . We completely missed that one. Yeah, E- Verify is
going to be a broader statement concerning protection of our borders
and reducing the number of illegal aliens in Florida through the use of
E- verify and the sheriffs --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 27--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, 287(g).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 287(g).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let's back up. Do you want to make
that number two or three?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that'd be better.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll just bump the other--
others down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So let's move them down
accordingly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Two or three?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you want to go two or three?
MS. WIGHT: Two or three?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two or three? Okay, two or three.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two.
MR. OCHS: Two. Two it is.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. So then TABOR is three?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Bump them down.
And then you have revenue enhancements. Let's put that -- that
will be what, seven now?
MR.OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Revenue enhancements would be seven,
I believe, or eight.
MR.OCHS: Seven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You sure? Okay.
And then you could just put all the others under enacted
legislation and issues to monitor; how does that sound to you?
Page 153
October 12,2010
MS. WIGHT: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then you'll have non-judicial
foreclosures, pre-trial detention and release programs and Ochopee
EMS and fire station on 75.
MS. WIGHT: Transportation -- is transportation pulled out?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry.
MS. WIGHT: Did you pull transportation out?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. I didn't intend to. Let's keep it in
there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about Commissioner Coletta's
comments about the interchange at Everglades?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's -- that will be under
transportation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And the support -- state
support from our representatives on the interchange, which will be
under transportation, tell them, don't rob the trust fund.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah, make sure to put that
I
in there so that it's clear. '
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right. And that will be
under enacted legislation and issues to monitor.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that pretty much covers it,
right?
MS. WIGHT: Yes, sir.
MR.OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. WIGHT: That's seven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then is -- do we have three nods to
accept this?
Page 154
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR.OCHS: Get a motion to approve the priorities?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MITCHELL: Do you want to -- you've got your speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, that's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make up your mind now.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Poteet.
MR. POTEET: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
the opportunity to speak before you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for spending the day
with us.
MR. POTEET: Yes. I have spent the day with you. It's been
very enlighting.
I'm here for two reasons. First of all, you just brought up about
insurance in your priorities there, and the realtors who I represent, the
Naples Area Board of Realtors, are very much in favor of national
catastrophic insurance. Also, there's one other component that really
needs to be addressed, and that's the actual soundness of our Citizens
Insurance policies or company that the state has set up.
Right now, if we had a hurricane and we each had to start paying
out claims, we have a real financial nightmare to look forward to, and
we can avoid that with some sound business practices. And so I
would like to see that as part of your reasoning in this.
But the other reason I'm here today is to talk about Amendment
Number IV and ask the commission to take a position on this opposing
Amendment IV, and I ask you to do it for a reason, because, you
know, you need to send a -- some type of real strong message to our
community about how bad this would be for the community.
Page 155
October 12,2010
I mean, no one wants to go say we shouldn't vote on things.
There are times when referendums are very appropriate, but under
Amendment IV, you would have to vote on every comprehensive land
use change that comes across the board. In the State of Florida in the
last four years they've averaged 10,000 compo plan changes.
And Commissioner Halas was talking about unfunded mandates,
he does not want them. This is one of them, because it specifically
states in the amendment that there is no financial impact on the State
of Florida, however, there will be a financial impact on the local
communities; they have to run the referendums. It will not say how
much. It's just a big question mark.
And I remember the bullet train and all the other things that are
out there that had the big question mark. Nobody knew. This is just
something that you don't put in the constitution of the State of Florida.
You want to put in things that you know are going to be there and that
you can live with, and this one has too many questions that are up in
the air.
And then finally, what I want to say is, you know, in St. Pete
Beach they tried this program. It was a model, and it's been a disaster.
And not only did the city government have to pay for the elections,
then afterwards they had to go pay for defending the results. So
they've already spent, you know, a half million dollar in legal fees
defending the results. This is something Collier County does not
need. It will kill jobs.
And you know, I ask you to make a strong statement to let the
voters know the direction they should go. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bill?
MR. POTEET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Make a deal with you. Ifwe support or
oppose Amendment IV, do you think we can get the realtors to
support us in maintaining our own growth management programs and
impact fee determinations in Collier County?
Page 156
October 12, 2010
MR. POTEET: Well, we want to be at the table in the discussion
on that and try to find ways to do that. I mean, you know, I don't want
to go into the specifics now because it's really not the appropriate
place. There's a lot of issues that are in that.
But, you know, the Growth Management Act, you have to ask
yourself, has it worked in Collier County? I mean, I live in Collier
County because I like living here. It's the type of community I want to
be in, and I think our county government has done, by far, a very good
job at it. There's some exceptions, and everybody's going to have
their own, you know, I like this and I don't like that.
I mean, the perfect example would be the Northern Trust
building. Years ago Gulf Shore Life Magazine had a contest for the
prettiest building in town and the ugliest, and it won both categories.
So, you know, everybody's got a different opinion.
But in general Collier County is a wonderful place to live, and
you've done a good job. I mean, the citizens have gone out there and
they created Conservation Collier, which we are requiring lands for
preservation. I mean, we're putting the whole mix together.
The realtors believe in smart growth. I mean, that's one of the
premises that we live on. So, you know, we see urbanization as one of
the coming trends in there.
And that's the other problem with this amendment. It doesn't take
into consideration how people are doing things at the time. I mean,
this is across the board forever. And like everything in the world,
there is change, and it does not accommodate change.
And so if they want to fix growth management, fix the bill, but
just don't go out there and create a system that's going to be chaotic
and have every person try to vote on every issue. Because if you ask
me today about the issues in Immokalee on their redevelopment plans
and all the compo plan changes that go along with that, I couldn't tell
you whether I knew anything or not, and I shouldn't really be the
person making that decision because it doesn't affect me.
Page 157
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, Bill, really what I'm making
reference to is that Amendment IV is saying we turn over all of the
growth management decisions to the general public. Without
Amendment IV, we're going to be getting people in Tallahassee
agitating to take away our growth management responsibilities and
give it to them.
So our choice is, give it to the people in Collier County or give it
to the legislators in Tallahassee, and I think we ought to keep it.
MR. POTEET: Oh, I do, too. We have a representative form of
government. It's very effective. Pure democracy did not work in
ancient Greece. It certainly didn't work up in St. Pete Beach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's not going to work in Tallahassee.
MR. POTEET: So you know, it definitely won't work in
Tallahassee. So you know, there's got to be a balance. I mean, there's
a checks and balance system. When you have DCA, they look at
everything that we do. They send it out to seven different agencies
and they get their review on it, and they try to challenge us on what
they think should be good and what should be bad. And then we work
it out.
It's a matter of agreement and modifications and coming to
consensus. But you won't have that with Amendment IV. It's across
the board. It's black and white. And it ties everyone's hands. It's just a
bad system, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now one final question, then
Commissioner Halas gets to ask a question.
MR. POTEET: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm timing myself, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She looks ready for a break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's right. It is past time.
County Attorney, can we take an official position on this and
publicize it without being in violation of the state law that the
legislators passed to keep us from supporting legislative issues?
Page 158
October 12,2010
MR. KLATZKOW: You can clearly make a resolution of the
board either in support or opposition to this. What you cannot do, for
example, is take out newspaper articles and start advocacy for that.
MR. POTEET: I will do that for you, at my cost.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- this is -- we're talking
about legislative issues. We're not talking about taking a position on
the general battle. It doesn't belong in this item.
MR. POTEET: Commissioner, I did not know where it
belonged. I just wanted to make sure that the commission addressed
it. If you want to do it at the end of the meeting, we can do it at the
end of the meeting. I don't care, as long as the commission makes a
decision.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't understand why it's not relevant
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, being that he's talking about
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We would obviously mention it
to the legislators. We have approved a resolution concerning property
insurance in the past. We have certainly expressed our opinions on
growth management and impact fees. I don't know why we can't
consider it in this item.
And Commissioner Halas -- Fiala, I think you were the one who
wanted to make a motion concerning that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did, and so let me just say --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already have a motion
on the floor, don't we?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. We tabled it until we got
done with this discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I was the second, wasn't I?
Page 159
October 12,2010
MR. POTEET: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll have to find that out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we have a motion on the floor, but
you want to speak anyway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the things I'm concerned
about in regard to this Amendment IV, I'm concerned if this doesn't
pass -- and I'm not saying I'm for or against it. The concerns I have is
that the legislators up there may find that this is a good opportune time
to get rid of DCA. And I think that DCA needs to be there as a buffer
zone. So that's some of the concerns I have as we move through this
process.
If it fails, then this gives the opportune time for, as Commissioner
Coyle brought up, for the legislatures -- the legislator up -- the
legislators up there to probably move in the direction of taking more
power away from DCA or totally eliminating it.
So there's where we're between the rock and the hard place in
regards to making sure that we can have the ability to control our
growth management.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's exactly right. But you don't even
have to eliminate DCA to do that. All you've got to do is get rid of
Tom Pehlam and get somebody who is more amenable to the interests
of the senators and representatives up there who want to take over
growth management for the entire state.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we are going to need a lot of
support to stop that effort, because it will be as disastrous as
Amendment IV would be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who puts Tom Pelham in office,
and how do we help him?
Page 160
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it's -- the Governor does, and any
way you look at it, you're going to have a new Governor, and it's
going to be hard to figure out what's going to happen. There's already
been an effort to push him out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I knew that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's already been an effort to
eliminate DCA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hang on just a moment. We're having a
discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, you sure are.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you're anxious to leave, just please
don't let the door hit you in the rear end on the way out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, look. I just want to stay
on the topic on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we are on the topic, and the topic
is what we're going to tell our legislators tomorrow, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
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: All opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. POTEET: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're going to take a break so that
Page 161
October 12,2010
you can rest.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're back in session. We have a
quorum.
We're going to go to 1 OG.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT THE AWARD FOR
INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #10-5511 FOR HARDWARE AND
RELATED ITEMS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PURCHASE
HARDWARE THROUGH MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
MEANS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. That is a recommendation to reject award
for invitation to bid for hardware and related items, authorize staff to
purchase hardware, and this was pulled at the Chairman's request.
Steve Carnell's here to respond to any questions, sir, or he can
make a presentation, whichever you prefer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't need a presentation. The only
reason I pulled it is to give you an opportunity to describe the internal
controls that you have, so when somebody goes off to a hardware
store to buy a drill or a power saw we've got some assurances that it's
properly accounted for and it's returned as government property and
secured.
MR. CARNELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So if you'll briefly describe that, then
that's the only thing I have.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. And just remember that we have
30-some-odd departments of different shapes and sizes, so the process
is not 100 percent uniform in every single department, but the
fundamental concepts are, that in every department there is an
Page 162
October 12,2010
authorization to buy that is granted by a supervisor or responsible
person before a purchase is made, then an individual in this type of
purchase, a hardware retail purchase, would go and pick up the goods,
and they would be given some kind of prior authorization before they
go, then they return with the goods and a receipt, and there is a
reconciliation that is conducted by a separate person in each
department so as to segregate the duties and to ensure that the goods
purchased were, in fact, received, and they match what the payment
due is.
And then from there, there's a separate process to forward the
payment through the system or -- and/or to put items into inventory or
to put them -- install them in place, whatever the case may be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Halas.
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: Okay.
Item#10H
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE PURCHASE ORDER
Page 163
October 12,2010
#4500118122 TO SUNCOAST MOVING & STORAGE, INC.
UNDER BID #10-5443, FULL SERVICE PROFESSIONAL
MOVERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,728 FOR MOVING THE
COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICES AND TO
AUTHORIZE CONTINUED USE OF THE REFERENCED
CONTRACT - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Your next item is Item 10H, was formerly 16E3, and that's a
recommendation to approve a purchase order to SunCoast Moving &
Storage for $58,728 for moving the county Property Appraiser's
Office and to authorize continued use of the referenced contract.
This item was moved off the consent agenda at Commissioner
Fiala's request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and let -- I'll just cut right to
the chase here and -- because everybody's already read this.
My concern was, as I read through the letter from SunCoast
Moving -- and they stated very clearly, this is a turnkey relocation,
that they -- they're -- the cost was derived from the on-site visit and
instructions received, and again, following the turnkey price estimate.
So they knew what they were bidding on, and yet they come in after
the fact and want 35 percent more.
And I just -- I just don't feel comfortable about approving
something like that, to be perfectly honest with you. I figure this --
they already knew what they were dealing with. They said they came
in, they sawall the parts and so forth. That's what they bid on. I don't
know where this bid came from, but I don't agree with it.
So I would like to pay them what they -- what they won the bid
for, the amount that they won the bid for.
MR. JONES: For the record, Hank Jones from Facilities
Management.
This got to be a little bit more involved than that, and I believe if
Page 164
October 12,2010
you look through Sun Coast's proposal, it does use the word estimate a
number of times. Also, the word turnkey -- there's been a lot of
conversation about the use of the word turnkey, and I've done a little
bit of research in that, and in my experience in construction, the word
turnkey does not refer to a lump sum price. It refers to all
. .
encompassIng servIce.
And that was the intent in this thing. The word turn-key came up
because we had asked the proposers to give us a proposal to not only
disassemble and reconfigure the modular furniture but also to supply
all the moving services from A to B, also to move all the computer
equipment, which was substantial in this case, of the property
appraiser. They had quite a large amount of computer equipment that
had to move.
And honestly, we got the bids back. One company refused to bid
when they heard the computer equipment. This gentleman was
successful at being the lowest offerer. And we had some concerns, but
he assured us at the time that he could handle the reassembly, and we
went with the low bid in the attempt to save the county some money.
It was significantly low. And we found through the course of the
move there were many, many changes that came up because of
reconfiguring the used furniture, things that had been modified
unbeknownst to us when the property appraiser moved across the
street here, and then when we disassembled it, parts and pieces were
damaged, cut, broken, didn't fit. There were quite a few changes.
It's also important to note that the second low bidder, his bid was
about $56,000. And we would have had the same change orders
conceivably with the second low bidder, which would have put him
even higher than this gentleman finally came in at.
Another important note is, the move, as I say, proved to be more
complicated than we all expected. And the gentleman, SunCoast, did
spent 12 days labor, which he substantiated to us, as opposed to seven
days, which was the original estimate to do that job.
Page 165
October 12,2010
And we checked out all of his expenses and all of his requests.
We've approved -- prior to this last one, we had already approved a
number of changes that brought the number up to $49,000. And it was
only this last one that put us over the 50.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask, has he moved anything
else for us?
MR. JONES: The answer to that is yes. In the past when we
moved the Clerk of Courts into the annex he was, but he was not the
prime contractor. He was not the turnkey contractor. We -- in those
cases we utilized the services of furniture dealers to be the turnkey
contractor, and the furniture dealers hired, in fact, this outfit SunCoast,
to supply the labor. But in many cases -- in subsequent cases, he
claimed that he could do it, and we had to take him -- at that time we
took him at his word that he could do it, and he did a good job. It just
became a lot more complicated because of the circumstances.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Skip, do you have something to talk
to us about?
MR. CAMP: Yes. For the record, Skip Camp.
I'd like to add something to make it a little clearer. These extra
services were not contemplated in the original scope. The owner, us,
and the occupant, the Property Appraiser, approved these during the
project because they were not anticipated. That's probably an
important point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. It did not say that in here.
MR. CAMP: Exactly.
MR. JONES: Well, it -- no, there were -- yeah, it says it in the
beginning that there were a number of changes in reconfigurations that
took place during --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But it didn't say that they
weren't contemplated when the bid went out.
MR. JONES: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
Page 166
October 12, 2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I just say something about it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you want to make a motion to
disapprove this, I will second it, because this is outrageous, and I
appreciate you bringing this up.
If you want to award the contract, then the thing to do is to put
out another bid and let the people who know what is involved, bid on
it.
I will -- I will not vote to give somebody who has already been
selected as the vendor a 35 percent increase over and above its bid.
MR. CAMP: Commissioner, these were things that were not
contemplated. We were already in the move. It was a very big move.
We were already into it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you telling me you've already paid
this person or he's already done the business -- the move?
MR. CAMP: No. What I'm saying is, during the move these
things came up, while the work was already being done. So we
couldn't rebid it at the time.
These were unexpected things that we -- we were doing along
with the property appraiser, making these changes during the actual
move. So we couldn't bring in any bidders after -- or during that
point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just so that he wasn't jacking
up his -- I mean, he wasn't low-balling his bid and then jacking it up
afterwards to set, you know, a standard as to the way other people bid.
These were all things that were not contemplated originally in the
original bid. He did everything that he was supposed to do in the
original bid, but then these are things that you, us, we, added on to it
as the move took place.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. It was not clear in this.
MR. JONES: That's fair.
Page 167
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it was not clear. Okay, fine.
I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
Aye. It is really a bad deal, okay? Should never ever let that
happen.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION TO TERMINATE THE FEE PAYMENT
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND ARTHREX MANUFACTURING, INC., AT THE
COMPANY'S REQUEST; ADDITIONALLY, AUTHORIZE THE
REIMBURSEMENT $47,444 OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT
BUILDINGS IMPACT FEES (FUND 390) AND $11,510.28 OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES (FUND 385) PAID BY
THE PROPERTY OWNER RELATED TO THE BUILDING
PERMIT WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPIRED AND
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER THE
$1,054,449.65, PAID ON BEHALF OF ARTHREX
MANUFACTURING, INC., FROM FUND 339 (ROAD IMPACT
FEE DISTRICT 5) TO GENERAL FUND 001, WHICH WAS THE
ORIGINAL FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE PAYMENT, AND
UPON COMPLETION OF THE TRANSFER, EXECUTE A
Page 168
October 12,2010
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY-
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, the next item is 101. It was
formerly 16A7. Moved from the consent agenda by Commissioner
Coletta, and it's a recommendation to terminate the fee payment
assistance agreement between Collier County and Arthrex
Manufacturing at the company's request.
I won't read the title, sir. It's very lengthy. But the gist is to -- I'll
let Ms. Patterson take you through it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The project wasn't pursued.
MR.OCHS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Right? Arthrex didn't want to go ahead
with it?
MR.OCHS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They had paid some impact fees. We're
going to return their impact fees because the proj ect isn't going
forward, and you're going to reimburse the General Fund for the funds
that were provided to give them an impact fee deferral?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: And Commissioner Coletta brought this one
forward, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did. And if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I realize the horse is
out of the barn and it's probably way too late to do anything, but
there's a lot of controversy going on with Arthrex and the Jackson Lab
issue, and it really shouldn't have to be that way.
And just a stab in the dark. This is a considerable amount of
money that we came up with; a million-some dollars to try to be able
Page 169
October 12,2010
to move this thing forward. And I understand the economics of the
whole thing with the devaluation of real estate down there in North
Naples. Just made it more advantageous for them to stay there in
North Naples and expand to the other plants. It just makes total sense,
rather than move all the way out to Ave Maria; however, with that
said, I was wondering if there would be any interest on the part of this
commission to approach the owner of Arthrex to see if there may be
anything else they'd like to do anyplace in Collier County as far as
building goes that we could apply this money to before we put it back
in the General Fund.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I can tell you that I have personally
talked with him about that, and I've also sent him a proposal in writing
that if he wants to expand anywhere else in Collier County or conduct
any business activities and we can be of some service to him, that we'd
be happy to sit down and talk with him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle, if
there's any way you could copy us when you do that, I would never
have pulled this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't think anyone thought of
that, but I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I like the idea of the
outreach, and it looks like you already made it to try to see if there
was some way that we could --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: He initially had an interest in creating an
institute for accelerated learning -- or healing, and I thought that was a
wonderful thing, and he sent me an email suggesting we do that. And
I sent him an email saying I would be happy to discuss that with you.
There were no details. I didn't know exactly what he was doing, but I
said we'd be happy to discuss that with you.
And as a matter of fact, I invited him to make a presentation at --
Page 170
October 12,2010
before the commissioners at the time that he was awarded the
Business of the Month Award. I told him that we could give him
some additional time for that presentation. He chose not to make that
presentation at that time.
And later, in the exchange of e-mails, I again assured him that we
would be happy to work with him on whatever proj ects he might have
in mind, including creating more jobs in Collier County.
And then his response was that, we'll only do that if you
terminate the Jackson Labs Project. And I told him that I didn't think
the two were mutually exclusive, that there was an opportunity to
work with both organizations, and shortly thereafter he decided that he
didn't want to participate in any government assistance programs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't think there's any
chance for one more outreach, or you think we've kind of exhausted
that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd be happy to have you do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make a motion
we continue this to the following meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Continue what, this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This item. If you want me to do
an out-reach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. It's okay with me.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Board -- all the Board
members received an e-mail on Arthrex's future in Collier County. I
don't think that's going to change. I don't know why we would want to
continue this item. I'm going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's one motion out
there, and I guess it failed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, did everybody hear his motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta's motion to
Page 171
October 12, 2010
continue this item until he can have an outreach to Arthrex to see if
there's any intention of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- any possibility of working jointly to
help Arthrex do whatever it is they want to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think they already opened
their other plant, so I don't think that that's -- you know, that's a viable
thing concerning this one, but I'd love to see him -- I'd love to see
Commissioner Coletta do outreach with him anyway. If there's
anybody that can do it, it's he. So I would love that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then what Commissioner Coletta has
said is, then let's post-pone --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we don't need to post-pone
this until he does outreach, right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We don't have to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, just for clarification's sake. What
you're doing here is taking the money out of the road impact fee and
putting it back into your General Fund reserves. So if they come
forward again in the future with another project application for
incentives, which Amy's already explained to them, we'll be happy to
process that.
And that money is not going anywhere. It's sitting in your
reserve. So if they do come forward with a project that's eligible
again, you can apply that fee payment assistant just like you did in the
past.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But with your
permission then, I would like to be able to see if possibly someone
from the EDC could join me and we could go down there and have
one last talk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You'll have to talk with the people at
EDC about that, but I would encourage you to do that.
Page 1 72
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Henning has a
motion to approve this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 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 motion to approve the item is
unanImous.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
MR.OCHS: Sir, that takes you to Item 11, public comments on
general topics.
MR. MITCHELL: There's no public comments.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) APPROVE THE
PURCHASE OF TWO ADJOINING VACANT PARCELS AT THE
Page 1 73
October 12,2010
CORNER OF SOUTH 9TH STREET AND WEST EUSTIS
AVENUE AS PART OF THE DOWNTOWN IMMOKALEE
PORTION OF THE IMMOKALEE STORMW A TER MASTER
PLAN, AND AUTHORIZE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO RECOGNIZE THE TOTAL GRANT AWARD
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,533,124 AND APPROPRIATE
EXPENDITURES. THIS PURCHASE WILL BE FUNDED BY A
DEDICATED IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY GRANT FUND (715) WITH A SUBSEQUENT
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE CDBG/DRI GRANT FUND (705)
IN THE AMOUNT OF $474,000 (PLUS ASSOCIATED CLOSING
COSTS) - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: That moves us to Item 14A. It's a recommendation
that the Community Redevelopment Agency approves the purchase of
two adjoining vacant parcels at the corner of South 9th Street and
West Eustis Avenue as part of the downtown Immokalee portion of
the Immokalee Stormwater Master Plan, and authorize all necessary
budget amendments to recognize the total grant award in the amount
of $3,533, 124 in appropriate expenditures.
This purchase will be funded by a dedicated Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency grant fund with the subsequent
reimbursement from the CDBG DRI grant fund in the amount of
$474,000, plus associated closing costs.
Mr. Brad Muckel, project manager from the Immokalee CRA, is
available to present --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
MR.OCHS: -- or answer questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Question by Commissioner Henning.
Page 174
October 12, 2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I've got a question. Are
we sure that we're going to get a reimbursement from CDBG funds?
MR. MUCKEL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. 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. MUCKEL: Thank you.
Item #14B
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
AWARD BID NO. 10-5498 MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION OF T AXIW A Y AND RAMP
EXPANSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,959,000.02 TO
DEANGELIS DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND
AUTHORIZE ITS CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STANDARD
CONTRACT AFTER APPROVAL BY COUNTY ATTORNEY -
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 14 B is a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority,
award bid number 10-5498, it's the Marco Island Executive Airport
construction of taxiway and ramp expansion in the amount of
Page 175
October 12,2010
$5,959,000.02 to DeAngelis Diamond Construction, Inc., and
authorize its chairman to execute the standard contract after approval
by the County Attorney.
Mr. Chris Curry, your executive director of the airport, is here to
present or answer questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa, good. I make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to put anything on the
record, Chris?
MR. CURRY: Well, for the record, it's always good to come into
a position and have money to spend. Chris Curry, airport director.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't get used to that.
MR. CURRY: Well, that's why I'm so happy about it today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
No further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify 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. Good
presentation. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Chris, would you tell them when
you hope to begin this -- the construction on this runway, or I'm sorry,
taxiway?
Page 176
October 12,2010
MR. CURRY: Yes, Commissioner. We're hopeful to begin
construction in January of2011. We expect the project to take about
12 to 15 months to complete.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can't be any sooner?
MR. CURRY: January is fairly soon, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Where does that take us now?
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Item 15, staff and commission general
communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have any
communications, County Manager?
MR.OCHS: No, sir. Nothing today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Happy Birthday, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. OCHS: Happy Birthday, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, one thing, and I copied all
the commissioners on it. It's a one-way communication.
It concerns the -- an effort that's going to take place in
Immokalee. It's going to involve about a thousand volunteers from the
Page 1 77
October 12,2010
Texas Roadhouse Restaurant Corporation that are going to be down
here for a seminar and also the community, Immokalee Foundation, to
be able to build a plaza, one of the two plazas that's planned in
Immokalee, and hopefully be able to complete it in this one day.
And what I'm looking for is support from the commission to be
able to take it to the next step.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What's that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Money?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. It's -- what it is, it would be
-- Parks and Rec. had agreed some time ago that they would be able to
maintain these plazas once they're built, and it would be to allow that
to go forward. Parks and Recs. -- Marla, would you come up front,
please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, while she's coming up,
let me make a comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we all ought to be taking a
trip out to Immokalee like every two months. Things are changing so
fast and things are going so quickly, we want to make sure to see each
step of the way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We could have every other
meeting out there. That would be wonderful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we could just take a trip on
our own.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They've got a great Mexican
restaurant there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Marla, are you familiar
with this effort that we're talking about? I would assume that Penny
Phillippi has been communicating with you.
MS. RAMSEY: Can you repeat that agreement?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, this has to do with the--
Page 178
October 12,2010
an effort that's taking place in Immokalee, and it's going to be the --
1,000 volunteers from the Texas Roadhouse Restaurant Corporation.
They're coming down here for a -- oh, a seminar, whatever you want
to call it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Convention.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And one day's going to be
dedicated to doing some projects in Immokalee. And they want -- they
said they wanted something that was far reaching rather than some
simple little project like painting the outside of buildings.
So what they came up with was the creation of one of the plazas.
And the Immokalee Foundation is going to be in there. And I guess
some time ago the Parks and Rec. had agreed that when the plazas
were put into place that there would be a small amount of maintenance
that has to be done to them and they would take on the responsibility
of it.
And what I'd like to do is get that confirmed and get this
commissioner support for this proj ect.
MS. RAMSEY: I can confirm the second part about the--
talking with the CRA and helping with the design of the plazas and
discussing helping with removal of the trash and cutting of the grass.
We have meant to do that. I'm not aware of the first event element of
it. But, yes, we are -- the event.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The other element, the
building of it, has nothing to do with Parks and Rec.
MS. RAMSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're going to need some
help when it comes to getting the proper permits to be able to move
everything forward if there's any permits involved for it.
What I'd like to do is get the support from the commission that
we can use these two resources out there to complete this, providing,
of course, that we don't have any exorbitant expense other than some
staff time.
Page 1 79
October 12,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't they have a CRA in the
area that can --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They sure do, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- assist you -- assist you in
what you're asking?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they can, but the CRA in
itself isn't going to be doing the proj ect, and they have asked -- the
Immokalee Foundation has asked for the commission's support to
show that they're behind this proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we can prepare a resolution to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Proclamation, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think the permitting and stuff
has to be -- maybe this is where the CRA needs to get behind this to
pay for all the permits and everything.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure that part will be
taken care of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the big thing was is to
reconfirm Parks and Rec., because, I mean, to build a plaza and then
everybody walks away from it, and about four months later they say,
why are the weeds growing up through the cracks? Why hasn't
somebody emptied out the dumpster or whatever's on the site there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But how big is this commitment
going to be? I'm trying to -- I got your email, but I don't fully
understand the magnitude of what we're trying to build out there and
how much time it's going to take Parks and Rec. to address the issues
that need to be taken care of after this is built.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. From what I understand,
this agreement was some time ago with the understanding, of course,
Page 180
October 12,2010
it would be ratified by the commission. It's a -- you can explain it
better than I can.
MS. RAMSEY: Again, we've only had one meeting so far, and
so we're in the preliminaries of it. There are two plazas, as I
understand it. The plan is to have a green open area with an
amphitheater and restroom facilities and picnic shelters, and one of
them is near the corner of 29 going toward the Guadalupe Center and
the other one is more in the downtown area, which is a smaller plaza.
Again, we haven't gotten in -- I don't even know what the final
design of it looks like to see how much grass there is to cut, how much
landscaping is available, et cetera, and we haven't even gotten into
whether there will be some cost reimbursement from CRA in
exchange for the manpower or vice-versa.
So again, we're talking very generically yet about a partnership in
Immokalee to help with recreational activities at the two plazas.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, what I can imagine is that
you're going to have not only landscape maintenance, you're going to
have restroom cleaning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Trimming of the trees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and you're going to have to take
care of any deteriorating portions of this construction. Those are all
maintenance, okay. That's what I'm trying to identify.
And the interactive fountain is going to use water. Are you going
to be charged for the -- paying the water bill? Is that the way that's
going to work?
We need to find out what is logically a CRA expenditure and
what is a Park and Recs. expenditure. And we need to treat the CRA's
consistently in that respect.
So we -- why don't we say that you're going to -- going to talk
with them and get an understanding of the magnitude of the effort here
and then define what you think should be a Park and Recs.
responsibility and what should be a CRA responsibility; would that be
Page 181
October 12,2010
a fair thing to do?
MS. RAMSEY: Absolutely. That's --like I said, we've only had
one initial conversation, so far, just to kind of look at a schematic plan,
and that was, you know, maybe three months ago, four months ago
that we did that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, who's going to sweep this plaza
area and clean up and make sure things are picked up off the ground
and put into the trash cans? That's not a Parks and Rec. function, is it?
You don't sweep the other streets in Immokalee, do you?
MS. RAMSEY: No, not the streets, but we do take care of the
park facilities which are public areas as far as recreational purposes,
and there has been some conversation about a partnership with the
CRA to help with these and also with the recreational planning of
some of the events there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this going --
MS. RAMSEY: Playgrounds, et cetera.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this plaza going to be given to you as
an asset for Parks and Recreation?
MS. RAMSEY: We haven't -- we haven't discussed that yet.
Again, just very preliminary, you know, how can -- in essence,
what is it that we can help them with in order to be successful on this
particular project. Some of it had to do with park design as we started
off to sit down to talk a little bit about maybe not that shape of
building. You know, we talked about how much grass, what kind of
grass, that kind of stuff, but we really -- to be honest with you, I didn't
know it was this far down the road so far.
The first one was just preliminary discussion as to how we could
partner and use resources that we currently have to the benefit of the
proj ect.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may offer comments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
Page 182
October 12,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is comments. So I mean,
the only thing I was supposed to do was bring it to you--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to start the whole process
going. Hopefully at the next meeting we'll have enough information
to be able to nail it down.
But the concept -- you know, of course, money's also an issue,
and what the long-range commitments are going to be is always an
Issue.
But the basic concept is somebody donating their labor and the
money to be able to make something happen. It's something I think
this commission can agree as an acceptable practice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep, yep. I'd sure vote for that part.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, we don't have to
vote for it. We just have to understand it. But what I'd like to do is
have it brought back the next meeting with a little more meat behind it
so you have a better idea, with your permission.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, what I was going to suggest is that
we continue to meet with the CRA and put together a memorandum of
understanding between the two agencies, bring that back to the board
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- for a presentation and formal consideration if that
works for the commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR.OCHS: That would layout all of the issues and the cost.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the one thing we have to be
cognizant of is the fact that there's some long-range planning that's
going on with the Texas Roadhouse, how they're going to use their
resources, and also the Immokalee Foundation.
So we need to be able to line up everything at a reasonable
fashion to be able to get it to these people so they can nail it down.
Page 183
October 12,2010
That's going to be the event they're going to handle.
MR.OCHS: Sure. We'll move quickly, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas, do you
have anything else on it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I thought we had a
commitment, verbal commitment, that the first priority would be the
park in Commissioner Fiala's District that she's been working on.
Why are we taking on something new?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't think there's any
money being spent here. They're just asking parks to do it. I really
appreciate you mentioning that, because I've stated that, but I don't
think this has anything to do with money that's taking away from
parks.
MR.OCHS: This isn't a capital construction project for the
parks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maintenance is -- I thought
maintenance cost. I'm sorry. My mistake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But thank you. I really appreciate
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do I have anything?
MR. OCHS: No, sir. You don't have anything.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't get mine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. But I only had one
Page 184
October 12, 2010
thing. Happy Birthday, Jim Coletta, and Happy 46th Anniversary as
well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty-fifth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forty-fifth, oh, 45th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forty-five years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Same woman?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He hardly looks like he could have a
45th anniversary. Look it, he's so young. He doesn't even have any
gray hairs yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got married when I was four.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Then that's it. Motion to
adjourn?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we're out of here.
****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2010-203: FINAL APPROVAL OF ROADWAY
(PRIV ATE) & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL
PLAT OF STERLING OAKS, PHASE 4 WITH THE ROADWAY
Page 185
October 12,2010
AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR GRIDLEY MEDICAL BUILDING, 12250 EAST TAMIAMI
TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A3
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF AUTOZONE STORE #4885
AT THE HOME DEPOT OF NAPLES LOCATED AT
2251 PINE RIDGE ROAD - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A4
CONTRACT FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) #10-5529,
"PURCHASE OF LIMEROCKAND FILL MATERIALS", TO
FLORIDA DIRT SOURCE, LLC, BETTER ROADS, INC.,
YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS ROCK, INC. AND STOCK
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $350,000 - FOR COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO
USE AS NEEDED
Item #16A5
FINDING WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE V'S (DEVELOPER)
Page 186
October 12,2010
IN DEF AUL T OF THE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT (DCA) BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
THE DEVELOPER TO CONSTRUCT THE TREE FARM,
WOODCREST AND MASSEY AL TERNA TIVE ROADWAY
PROJECT (PROJECT) APPROVED AS A COMPANION ITEM TO
THE SUMMIT LAKES RPUD - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2010-204: REQUESTING THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION QUITCLAIM TO
COLLIER COUNTY CERTAIN RIGHT -OF - WAY SITUATED IN
THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE IMMOKALEE ROAD
AND INTERSTATE 1-75 INTERCHANGE AND DECLARING
THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS TO BE USED FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSE ONLY; PROJECT NO. 60109. (ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $35.50) - THE INTERCHANGE RAMPS HAVE BEEN
REDESIGNED CAUSING THIS LAND TO NO LONGER BEING
REQUIRED
Item #16A7 - Moved to Item #101 (Per Commissioner Coletta
During Agenda Changes)
Item #16A8
CHANGE ORDER NO.4 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT #03-3553 IN THE AMOUNT OF $950,330.35
WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF THE COLLIER
BOULEVARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, FROM DAVIS
BOULEVARD TO THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL;
COMBINING THIS PROJECT WITH FDOT'S DAVIS
Page 187
October 12,2010
BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS AND POST DESIGN
SERVICES, PROJECTS NO. 60001 AND 60092 - EXTENDING
THE CONTRACT TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
Item #16B1- Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO APPROVE A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) SCOPE OF WORK TO BUILD
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON CRA OWNED LAND; APPROVE
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ADVERTISE THE RFP
THROUGH THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND RETURN
WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
Item #16Cl
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND REQUIRING THE CITY
TO ADOPT COLLIER COUNTY'S RECYCLING ORDINANCE,
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-56, AS AMENDED -INCREASING A
COUNTY-WIDE EFFORT TO CONSERVE LANDFILL SPACE,
ESPECIALLY BY THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR
Item #16C2
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF REPLACEMENT PUMPS,
WARRANTY RELATED REPAIR AND OTHER PARTS &
MATERIALS NOT A V AILABLE THROUGH AN
AFTERMARKET SOURCE FOR APPROVED SUBMERSIBLE
LIFT STATION PUMPS IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $500,000 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS - FOR
THE OPERATION OF MORE THAN 750 LIFT STATIONS THAT
Page 188
October 12,2010
INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 1.600 PUMPS
Item #16C3
AGREEMENT WITH BLESSED, LLC, AND ACCEPT A RIGHT
OF ENTRY FOR A GROUNDW A TER MONITOR WELL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PURPOSES IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,050 - FOR A TEN-YEAR
PERIOD AT 5TH STREET NE IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND
IS REQUIRED BY SFWMD FOR COMPLIANCE OF PERMIT
CONDITIONS
Item #16D1
CONVEYANCE OF A PIECE OF LAND LOCATED AT 425 1ST
STREET NORTH, IMMOKALEE, FROM COLLIER COUNTY TO
THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.;
AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY - WITH RESERVATIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BY THE BOARD AND
INCLUDES A REVERTER CLAUSE IN THE EVENT THE
FACILITY IS NO LONGER OPERATED AS A NON-PROFIT
MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY SERVING THE PUBLIC
Item #16D2
FINAL DISPOSITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION
PROGRAM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, CONSISTENT WITH
REQUIREMENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO. 2009-63 AND S125.35(3), FLORIDA STATUTES - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D3
Page 189
October 12,2010
AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF mSTICE-
BUREAU OF mSTICE ASSISTANCE TO ACCEPT FUNDING
FOR THE ADULT DRUG COURT DISCRETIONARY GRANT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $197,614,
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ALLOCATE
FUNDING - FUNDING USED TO IMPROVE DRUG TESTING,
FOR CASE MANAGEMENT/COURT COORDINATION,
PARTICIPANT COMPLIANCE INCENTIVES; ALSO NAMING
THE DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER AS SOLE SOURCE
SUBRECIPIENT OF THE CONTRACT AWARD
Item #16D4
ACCEPTING THE RURAL HEALTH OUTREACH SPECIAL
CONGRESSIONAL INITIATIVE FROM THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $594,000 AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE REVENUE -
FUNDS WILL BE USED TO IMPLEMENT A NEW PRIMARY
CARE SERVICES PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE FOR LABORATORY SERVICES, PHARMACY
ACCESS AND IMPLEMENTATION AND LICENSING OF A
NEW DATABASE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS THE PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATOR, PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK,
(PLAN) TO TRACK, IDENTIFY AND SERVE THOSE THAT
QUALIFY FOR INDIGENT HEALTHCARE AND OTHER
SOCIAL SERVICES
Item #16D5
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Page 190
October 12,2010
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR A WIND RETROFIT PROJECT AT THE
EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK AND SENIOR CENTER IN
THE AMOUNT OF $74,640 AND AUTHORIZE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - WILL BE USED TO INSTALL HURRICANE
ROLL-DOWN SHUTTERS AND PROTECT THE SENIOR
CENTER & PARK BUILDINGS IN THE EVENT OF A STORM
Item #16E1
TERMINATE CONTRACT WITH ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS,
P.A. (ANCHOR HEALTH) FOR CONTRACTS #10-5488,
MEDICAL DIRECTOR FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
WELLNESS PROGRAMS (APPROXIMATELY $25,000
ANNUALLY) AND #10-5407, EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS AND
DRUG TESTING (APPROXIMATELY $11,000 ANNUALLY)
AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH DR. JULIA K.
HARRIS M. D. FOR BOTH SERVICES - DUE TO DISSOLUTION
OF ANCHOR HEALTH CARE CENTERS FOR THE CONTRACT
ENDING SEPTEMBER 30~ 2011
Item #16E2 - Moved to Item #10G (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E3 - Moved to Item #10H (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16E4 - Continued to the October 26,2010 BCC Meeting
(Per Agenda Change Sheet)
ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF
MONETARY PAYMENTS AND LAND DONATIONS BY THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
Page 191
October 12,2010
IN LIEU OF MEETING OFF-SITE NATIVE RETENTION
REQUIREMENTS, AS SET FORTH IN RECENT AMENDMENTS
TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). SECTION 3.05.07
Item #16E5
THE PANTHER WALK PRESERVE FINAL MANAGEMENT
PLAN UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM - AS DETATILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E6
ACCEPT REPORTS & RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS - FOR THE
PERIOD AUGUST 23. 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 20. 2010
Item #16E7
ROUTINE AND CUSTOMARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
APPROPRIATING $8,718,432.18 OF FY2010 CARRY FORWARD
FOR APPROVED OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS INTO FISCAL
YEAR 2011 FOR OPERATING BUDGET FUNDS - ALLOWING
PAYMENT OF PURCHASE ORDERS ISSUED ON OR PRIOR TO
THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30.2010
Item #16F1
AGREEMENT #11-CP-03-09-21-01-000 BETWEEN THE STATE
OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AND COLLIER COUNTY, ACCEPTING $7,300 FOR THE
PREP ARA TION OF HAZARDS ANALYSIS REPORTS FOR
Page 192
October 12,2010
FACILITIES THW AT STORE EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY AND APPROVING
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - THE DIVISION
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WILL VISIT AND REPORT
ON ALL THIRTY (30) HAZARDOUS SITES IN COLLIER
COUNTY BY FEBRUARY L 2011
Item # 16F2
GRANT AGREEMENT #20 1 OCKWXO 107 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$800,000 FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
mSTICE, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING
SERVICES (COPS) TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT AND APPROVE ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FUNDS WILL BE
USED TO PURCHASE NEW RADIO EQUIPMENT TO IMPROVE
COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SHARING
CAPABILITIES BETWEEN THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
CENTER, THE 911 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, FIRST
RESPONDERS AND TO IMPROVE THE COPS PROGRAM
Item #16F3
BID #10-5411R TO MULTIPLE VENDORS FOR "EMS
EXPENDABLE MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT"
(FISCAL IMPACT: $400,000) - WITH ZOLL MEDICAL CORP.,
MIDWEST MEDICAL SUPPLY, SCHOOL HEALTH CORP.,
BOUNDTREE MEDICAL AND PMI MEDICAL EQUIPMENT &
SUPPLIES
Item #16F4
Page 193
October 12,2010
RESOLUTION 2010-205: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FY 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16F5
WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION UNDER PURCHASING
POLICY SECTION V.A.4 AND APPROVING A HOSTED
APPLICATION SERVICE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
SARASOTA COUNTY AND THE STATEMENT OF WORK
WITH METHOD FACTORY, INC. FOR IMPLEMENTATION
AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO UPGRADE GOVMAX
BUDGETING SOFTWARE TO VERSION 5.0 FOR THE TOTAL
COST OF $198,233 - CURRENT AGREEMENT EXPIRES
OCTOBER 30,2010 AND NO RENEWALS ARE BEING
GRANTED FOR THE PREVIOUS VERSION. GOVMAX 4
Item #16F6
PROPOSED POLICY ESTABLISHING OPERATIONAL
GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING INTERAGENCY CONCERNS
BETWEEN COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICE PROVIDERS
AND INDEPENDENT FIRE DEPARTMENTS TO OUTSIDE
AUTHORITIES - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16G1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE
AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE DISADVANTAGED
BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) GOALS OF 2.8 PERCENT FOR
THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, AND 2.7
Page 194
October 12,2010
PERCENT FOR THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK FOR FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) FUNDED AIRPORT
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (AlP) DURING FISCAL YEAR 2011
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTES - "WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF MASTER
PLANNED COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHWEST FLORIDA?" HELD
SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 AT THE QUARRY GOLF CLUB IN
NAPLES, FL.; $10 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 8950
WEATHERED STONE DRIVE~ NAPLES~ FL
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE LEADERSHIP
COLLIER - KICK OFF RECEPTION - LEADERSHIP CLASS
2011 ON SEPTEMBER 23,2010 AT NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL'S TELFORD CENTER CLUB, 350 7TH ST. NORTH
IN NAPLES, FL; $25 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED PHYSICIAN LED
Page 195
October 12,2010
ACCESS NETWORK OF COLLIER COUNTY - APPRECIATION
NIGHT 2010 ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 AT THE NAPLES
YACHT CLUB, 700 14TH AVENUE, NAPLES, FL.; $25 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE UNITED WAY
OF COLLIER COUNTY 2010 CAMPAIGN RECOGNITION
BREAKFAST OCTOBER 6,2010 AT THE NAPLES HILTON,
5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, NAPLES, FL.; $20 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
COLORED PEOPLE (NAACP), 28TH ANNUAL COLLIER
COUNTY FREEDOM FUND BANQUET OCTOBER 16, 2010 AT
THE HILTON NAPLES, 5111 T AMIAMI TRAIL NORTH,
NAPLES, FL.; $65 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND THE 16TH
Page 196
October 12,2010
ANNUAL BLUE CHIP RECOGNITION LUNCHEON ON
NOVEMBER 4,2010 AT THE HARBORSIDE EVENT CENTER,
1375 MONROE STREET, FT. MYERS, FL.; $10 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'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 197
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 12, 2010
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District:
Resolution 10-025 adopting final millage rate for FYI 0-11;
Resolution 10-026 adopting final impact fee rates for FY 10-11;
Resolution 10-027 adopting Final Budget for FY 10-11 General
Fund and Inspection Fee Fund; Resolution 10-028 adopting Final
Budget for FY 10-11 for Impact Fee Fund; Budgets for FY 10-11 for
General Fund, Impact Fee Fund and Inspection Fee Fund; Annual
Financial Report for FY ended 9/30/09; District's Audit for FY
ended 9/30/09; District Map; Registered Office and Agent Form;
Meeting Schedule FY 10-11; Public Facilities Report; Five Year
Strategic Plan.
B. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of July 12,2010.
2) Airport Authority:
Minutes of August 23,2010.
3) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of June 16,2010.
Minutes of June 16,2010; August 25,2010 no quorum.
4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of August 12,2010.
5) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of June 15,2010 special session; July 1,2010.
6) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of August 18,2010 regular session;
August 18, 2010 workshop session.
7) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of August 25,2010.
Minutes of July 7, 2010.
8) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of September 14, 2010.
Minutes of August 10, 2010
9) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of June 7, 2010.
Minutes of June 7, 2010.
10) Immokalee Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of August 25,2010.
Minutes of June 23, 2010.
11) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of July 12,2010.
12) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of September 16,2010.
Minutes of August 19,2010.
13) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Agenda of August 18,2010.
Minutes of June 16, 2010.
14) Tourist Development Council:
Minutes of January 25,2010; May 3, 2010; July 26, 2010.
C. Other:
1) Collier County Special Magistrate:
Minutes of August 6,2010.
2) Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council:
Adopted Annual Budget for FY 10-11,
October 12,2010
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 18,2010
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2010
THROUGH OCTOBER 1, 2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
BUDGET AMENDMENT APPROPRIATING $29,900 THAT
WILL PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
WITHIN THE COURTS SYSTEM TO COVER ARTICLE V
REVENUE SHORTFALL FOR FY2010 - EXTENDING THE
(PARTIAL) FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE LEGAL AID
SERVICE OF COLLIER COUNTY TO SEPTEMBER 30~ 2013
Item #16Kl
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN AMOUNT OF $125,000 FOR
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 100FEE, 100SUE, 101FEE AND
101 SUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA V WATERWAYS OF NAPLES HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 07-4112-CA, OIL WELL
ROAD PROJECT #60044 (FISCAL IMPACT $65,578)
Page 198
October 12,2010
(COMPANION TO #16K2)
Item #16K2
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
WATERWAYS OF NAPLES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.,
ET AL, CASE NO. 07-4112-CA, OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT
#60044 (FISCAL IMPACT $281,622) (COMPANION TO #16Kl)-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K3
WAIVE INTEREST AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN A SATISFACTION OF CIVIL JUDGMENT ENTERED
AGAINST ANGEL AND BLANCA CARRASCO, RELATING TO
LITTER VIOLATIONS AT 1801 55TH TERRACE SW, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - WAIVING THE ACCRUED INTEREST
BECAUSE OF A CLERICAL ERROR
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2010-206: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-11
ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 199
October 12, 2010
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:46 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
-1 J . I.
I, J i ) I' ;1
I ..', \.^,/ 'J"'::\.'h
FRED COYLE, Chairman.
. I
ATTESr~: :<:', 7" .
,~
, '.
, , (}.(.
D IGI;!J,?!:~. , CLERK
Attut ;; ."""'t
., . ..
........,. -..
These minutes approved by the Board on \ \ \ 5\ '20 \ 0 , as presented
~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER.
Page 200