BCC Minutes 01/25/2011 R MINUTES
BCC
Regular
Meeting
January 25, 2011
January 25, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
January 25, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, 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
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the Bce
Michael Sheffield, Business Operations Manager - CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
January 25,2011
9:00 AM
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Chairman; Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Vice-Chairman; Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Georgia Hiller, BCC Commissioner, District 2
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 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.
Page 1
January 25, 2011
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.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING 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, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Michael Bannon - Crossroads Community Church of Naples
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. November 9, 2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. December 14,2010 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
January 25, 2011
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Edward Musser IV, Wastewater
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) James Mac Hatcher, GMD- Engineering & Environmental Services
2) Frank Terilla, Wastewater
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating February 2011 as K is For Kids Foundation's
Bring a Book, Bring a Friend for Children's Literacy Month. To be accepted
by Karen Clawson, Founder & Executive Director, K is For Kids
Foundation, Inc. (Sponsored by Commissioner Henning)
B. Proclamation designating January 27,2011 as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day. To be accepted by Joan Hogan, Holocaust Museum &
Education Center of Southwest Florida. (Sponsored by Commissioner
Coyle)
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Collier County "Business of the Month" award to GoldCoast
Salads for January 2011. To be accepted by Peter Radno, Jr., President.
B. Presentation by Clarence S. Tears, Director, Big Cypress Basin, regarding
current hydrologic conditions going into the dry season.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 3
January 25, 2011
A. This item reauires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
members. All participants are reauired to be sworn in. A Resolution of
the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the
establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a golf driving range within an
Agricultural (A) zoning district pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01. A.1.c.17 of
the Collier County Land Development Code for 29.6 acres of property
located at 6500 Airport Road North in Section 12, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation that the Collier County Airport Authority rescind Collier
County Airport Authority Administrative Code Policy No. 631 and require
that all rates and fees charged at the airports be set, and all airport related
agreements and leases be approved by the Collier County Airport Authority.
(Commissioner Hiller)
B. Recommendation to direct the Office of the County Attorney to work with
staff to prepare a policy prohibiting the donation of money or tangible
property by vendors under contract with the County to charitable
organizations closely affiliated with Collier County Public Officials.
(Commissioner Hiller)
C. Discussion concerning appointment of Commissioners to selected advisory
boards and/or committees. (Commissioner Coyle)
D. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
E. Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
F. Appointment of alternate member to the Horizon Study Oversight
Committee.
G. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
Page 4
January 25,2011
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to obtain Board direction regarding the initiation of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Restudy process and the funding
required for the project including any necessary budget amendments. (Mike
Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Growth Management Division)
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Conservation Collier Cycle 8 Active Acquisition List and provide the
County Manager or his designee with guidance on suspending all
Conservation Collier acquisitions and preparing a Master Plan to ensure
sufficient management funds in perpetuity for all existing Conservation
Collier preserves. (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
C. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with
Aymee J. Jordana and Carlos R. Molina for 1.14 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed
$12,000. (Melissa Hennig, Environmental Specialist)
D. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Edith
Jackson for 2.27 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program at a cost not to exceed $17,000. (Melissa Hennig, Environmental
Specialist)
E. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Bill
Navarro (formerly known as Isabelo V. Navarro) and Lydia R. Navarro, his
wife, for 1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program at a cost not to exceed $12,500. (Melissa Hennig, Environmental
Specialist)
F. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with
Manuel Palacios and Aida Jauregui for 4.06 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed $25,000. (Melissa
Hennig, Environmental Specialist)
G. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Request to reconsider Agenda Item
Number 10H which was previously heard by the Board of County
Commissioners at the October 26,2010 BCC meeting regarding North
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District's Application for COPCN - motion
Page 5
January 25, 2011
to reconsider and bring back at the next BCC meeting following the Blue
Ribbon Committee's Final Report - heard January 11,2011. (Dan
Summers, Director, Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency
Management)
H. Recommendation to review the proposed legislation created to provide a
process for consolidation of the independent fire control and rescue districts
in Collier County. (Debbie Wight, Legislative Affairs Coordinator)
I. Recommendation to approve the award ofRFP #10-5541 to Paradise
Advertising and Marketing, Inc. for Tourism Marketing Services and
authorize the Chairman to sign the standard contract in the amount of
$2,350,000 following County Attorney Office approval. (Jack Wert,
Tourism Director)
J. Recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory
Committee on how to proceed with the permitting and installation of the
proposed Clam Bay navigational markers based on recent regulatory
findings and agency requirements. (Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone
Management)
K. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to approve award of
Bid No. 11-5633 for Wiggins Pass Maintenance Dredging to Southwind
Construction Corporation for a not to exceed contract total of $750,000 and
authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County
Attorney review and approval. (Gary McAlpin, Director, Coastal Zone
Management)
L. Recommendation to adopt a resolution seeking authority to acquire by gift or
purchase those perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of stormwater improvements for the Outfall 3 and 4 segments
of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. (Project No. 51101.)
Estimated fiscal impact: $1,556,500. (Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation
Engineering)
M. Recommendation to award Contract No. 11-5615 - Royal Wood and
Whitaker Road Stormwater Improvements to Southwest Utility Systems,
Inc. in the amount of $1 ,088, 170 plus a ten (l0) percent contingency of
$108,817 totaling $1,196,987, Project Number 51101. (Jay Ahmad,
Page 6
January 25, 2011
Director, Transportation Engineering)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. Recommendation to amend the Interlocal Agreement with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court to include audit services in the defined scope of services to be
provided and to provide funding for these services for the remainder of
FY11 in the amount of$263,300 and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Community Redevelopment Agency FY20 1 0 annual performance
appraisal review for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive
Director.
14. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
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) Michel Saadeh of the Vineyards Development Corporation is
requesting a clarification of V A-PL2009-1460 Conditions of
Approval Number 6 to accept landscape p1antings between a golf
course maintenance building and an abutting residential district; and
to accept landscape plantings that are located in an abutting residential
Page 7
January 25, 2011
district instead of on the required maintenance building property.
The subject properties are located at 400 Vineyards Boulevard, and in
Clubside Reserve in Section 5, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
2) Request for authorization to advertise a proposed amendment to
Collier County Ordinance No. 2006-56, the Rock Road Improvement
Municipal Service Taxing Unit, to amend the geographical boundaries
of the MSTU to remove properties that no longer derive benefit from
the MSTU's stated purpose and to create an advisory committee to
provide input to county staff as to future projects within the MSTU.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to declare February 25th,
2011 Collier Area Transit's Ten Year Anniversary and to provide
complimentary rides to all transit riders during this day.
4) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the revised final plat of Lakoya, approval of
the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
5) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Valencia Phase One with
the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained
and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
6) Recommendation to grant conditional final approval of the roadway
(private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Quail West
Phase III, Unit Seven. The roadway and drainage improvements will
be privately maintained.
7) Recommendation to approve the partial release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Herbert A. Salgat, Jr., Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CESD20 I 00002534, relating to property located at 3660 23rd Avenue
SW, Collier County, Florida.
Page 8
January 25,2011
8) This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearinl! be held on this item, all
participants are reQuired to be sworn in. This is a recommendation
to have the Board of County Commissioners approve a temporary
construction access into Lely Resort from Rattlesnake Hammock
Road.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve the Satisfactions of Lien for the 1996,
Account Numbers 19017,24167,25933, and 27821 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments where the
county has received payment in full satisfaction of the liens. Fiscal
impact is $58.50 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
2) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is
$18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
3) Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a
Notice of Claim of Lien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee.
Fiscal impact is $18.50 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
4) Recommendation to award Contract Number 11-5625 to Vaccaro
Consulting, Inc. for consulting services and planning assistance.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Grant Agreement Number 10235 from the Florida Boating
Improvement Grant Program in the amount of $13,020 to remove
derelict vessels; and approve all necessary budget amendments.
2) Recommendation to Reject Solicitation (ITB) #11-5622, for the
construction of boat trailer parking and repair of the existing boat
ramp at Port of the Islands.
Page 9
January 25, 2011
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign an
Area Agency on Aging for Southwest Florida, Inc. "Standard
Contract" and approve budget amendments to reflect the actual grant
award for the Older Americans Act Program Title III in the amount of
$934,162.
4) Approve Change Order No.1 to Contract #08-5083 with Heart of
Adoptions Alliance, Inc. for Distribution of Choose Life Funds.
5) Recommendation to approve award of Bid No. 11-5634 for Doctors
Pass North Jetty Rehabilitation to Kelly Brothers, Inc. for $653,200
and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after
County Attorney review and approval.
6) Recommendation to approve award of Bid No. 11-5637 for Naples
Berm Restoration to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC for
$946,167.20 and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard
contract after County Attorney review and approval.
7) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$863,854.48 in revenue generated in the form of program income
when conveying properties acquired under the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program.
8) Recommendation to approve the renewal of the Interlocal Mutual Aid
Agreement between the Independent, Municipal and Dependent Fire
Districts.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve adding the loan option to the 457 Plan
Agreements with ICMA-RC and Nationwide Retirement Solutions,
Inc., and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached
implementing Resolution and other required agreement documents.
2) Recommendation to Reject Solicitation (ITB) #10-5588 for the
Purchase and Delivery of Fungicides, Pesticides and Herbicides and
the associated quotes that were submitted. The annual impact
Page 10
January 25, 2011
associated with this solicitation is approximately $350,000.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution providing for the acceptance
of rebates from Employee Book Fairs.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with the City of Marco
Island for the use of MackIe Park Facility, Room A for a Town Hall
Meeting with Commissioner Fiala.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to accept an awarded Volunteer Fire Assistance
Matching (50/50) Grant from the Florida Division of Forestry for the
purchase of required wildfire protective clothing and fire fighting
foam, and authorize the necessary budget amendments.
2) Recommendation to approve the annual five percent (5%) increase in
Consultant Fees for the Medical Director of Emergency Medical
Services as described in the Emergency Medical Services Medical
Consultant Contract for a total of$110,775 for FY11.
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Change Order #2 for Communications Consultants, Inc. d/b/a BCF of
Florida, Inc. Contract #07-4175 in the amount of $25,000 for a new
Public Relations project to develop and produce the "Journey Through
Paradise" promotion.
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Change Order #4 to Contract #06-4037 with Miles Media Group, Inc.
in the amount of$33,588 for production of the 2011 Visitor Guide.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
Change Order #3 to Contract #07-4169, Research Data Services, Inc.
for additional research projects totaling $25,000 for enhanced Return
on Investment (ROI) reporting and additional focus group studies and
related expenses for the consumer and group meetings market.
6) Recommendation that the Board approves a prepayment of the Naples
Park Area Stormwater Improvement Assessment Bond, Series 1997 in
Page 11
January 25, 2011
the amount of $175,000; plus interest accrued.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association Annual Banquet on
January 24, 2011 at Naples Lakes Country Club in Naples, FL. $40 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Opera Naples Tea with Lucia Presentation on January
12,2011 at Brambles Tea Room in Naples, FL. $35 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta's proclamation presentation to the NAACP for
their 14th annual Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Parade and Celebration.
Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended East Naples Civic Association Annual Banquet at Naples
Lakes Country Club in Naples, FL. $40 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend Cato Perspectives 2011 at the Ritz Carlton Golf Resort in
Naples, FL on February 9,2011. $100 to be paid from Commissioner
Henning's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 12
January 25, 2011
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 25, 2010 through December 31, 2010 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
1, 2011 through January 7, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) Pursuant to Florida Statute 318.18(13)(b) the Clerk of the Circuit
Court is required to file the amount of traffic infraction surcharges
collected under Florida Statute 318.18(13)(a)(1) with the Board of
County Commissioners.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve Amendments to Agreements for Legal
Services relating to Contract No. 06-4047 Eminent Domain Legal
Services with the law firms of Fixel, Maguire & Willis and
Bricklemyer, Smolker & Bolves extending the expiration dates to
April 22, 2013. There is no new fiscal impact associated with these
Amendments.
2) Request by the Collier County Industrial Development Authority for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue revenue
bonds for healthcare facilities at Naples Community Hospital.
3) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit,
on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
against DAD Development Corp., regarding Pebblebrooke Lakes, for
failure to comply with the Developer Agreement dated October 14,
2008, which requires the Developer to extend a wall and install a
landscape buffer within a preserve area bordering adjacent residential
properties.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against
RODNEY R. BONARD, in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida, to recover the damages to County owned
Page 13
January 25, 2011
guardrails in the amount of $2,988.99, plus costs of litigation.
5) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, against
JUSTINA T. MENACHIO and RANISHA L. KNOWLES, in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, to
recover the damages to a County owned fence in the amount of
$2,935.30, plus costs of litigation.
6) Recommendation to approve a schedule for submission of non-routine
documents by staff to the County Attorney for legal review prior to
submittal for Board action.
7) Recommendation to approve release of the order recorded in the code
enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Dale
and Keri Ann Ochs, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CEVR20090000974, relating to property located within the Big
Cypress National Preserve, Collier County, Florida.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance 92-60 as
amended, the Collier County Tourist Development Tax Ordinance, in order
to reduce the Tourism Emergency Reserve Fund 196 ceiling and eliminate
the year end sweep of funds from Tourism Administration Fund 194 to Fund
195 and 183, and redirect those funds to Tourism Promotion Fund 184 for
Page 14
January 25, 2011
tourism marketing and promotion.
B. 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 15
January 25, 2011
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioners meeting is now in session.
Would you please stand for the invocation to be delivered by
Pastor Michael Bannon of the Crossroads Community Church of
Naples.
Item #lA
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PASTOR BANNON: Good morning, and thank you for this
privilege.
Psalm 91: 1 and 2 says: He who dwells in the shelter of the Most
High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the Lord,
my refuge and my fortress, my God in whom I trust.
Let's pray together. Father, thank you for this promise of refuge
and safety. Lord God, I pray that you would teach us how to trust you
in all things; not just in cases of emergency, but to be a trusting people
who look to their God.
Father, I pray that even in this time that you would bless our
County Commissioners with the wisdom that they need to govern
well.
Father, I pray that you would bless each one of us as citizens of
this county, that we would not be a source of problems but rather a
people who are part of the solution that we would work together for
the betterment of our community.
So Father, I pray that you would glorify yourself greatly in our
midst. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Please be seated.
Page 2
January 25, 2011
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
(CHANGES NOT ACCEPTED: ADD ON ITEMS #9H, AND #91,
NO CHANGE TO TIME CERTAIN SET FOR ITEM #IOK FROM
IIA.M. TO 4 P.M. AND NO APPOINTMENT OF TIME CERTAIN
FOR ITEM #IOJ TO 2) P.M.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, do you have any
changes to our agenda? That's a silly question, isn't it?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, I have quite a few.
Good morning, Commissioners. These are your agenda changes
for the Board of County Commissioners meeting January 25,2011.
First change is to add item 9.H. It's a report regarding economic
health and viability of Collier County. That item is being requested to
be added to the agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
Next item is a request to add item 9.1. It's a motion that the
county stops all further action with respect to Jackson Labs. That item
is being requested be placed on the agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
Next change is to move item 16.C.4 from the consent agenda. It
would become item 10.P. It's a recommendation to award contract
11-5625 to Vaccaro Consulting, Incorporated for consulting services
and planning assistance. That move is made at Commissioner
Henning's request.
Next item is to move item 16.D.8 from the consent agenda to the
regular agenda, becoming item 10.N. It's a recommendation to
improve the renewal of the interlocal mutual aid agreement between
the independent municipal and dependent fire districts. That item is
being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
The next change is to move item 16.F.2 from the consent agenda,
Page 3
January 25, 2011
becoming item 10.0 on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation to
improve the annual five percent increase in consultant fees for the
medical director of Emergency Medical Services, as described in the
Emergency Medical Services medical consultant contract, for a total
of$110,775 for fiscal year '11. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next change is to continue item 16.K.6. It's a recommendation to
approve the schedule for submission of non-routine documents by
staff with the County Attorney for legal review prior to submittal for
board action. That item is being continued at the County Attorney's
request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16.K.7. It is a recommendation of
approve release of the order recorded in the code enforcement action
entitled Board of County Commissioners versus Dale and Keri Ann
Ochs. No relation, by the way, Commissioners. Code Enforcement
Board case relating to property located within the Big Cypress
National Preserve in Collier County, Florida. That item is being
withdrawn at staffs request. We have a little more work to do with
the Big Cypress National Preserve on that item.
We have a few agenda notes this morning, Commissioners. We
had a conversion error occur on a couple of the pages on your printed
agenda. I'd just like to enter the portions that were blacked out into
the record so we have those on the record, if I might.
We had two items. The first was item 9.D. There was a small
portion of the page blacked out on packet Page number 244. The
missing information is as follows: Mr. Herminio Ortega, District 5,
category, regular construction industry. This had to do with the
applications submitted for appointments to some of your advisory
boards.
Also blacked out was Mr. Kenneth Kelly, 42 66th Street, Naples,
Florida. He left an e-mail address in District 5. And the category for
appointment was regular roofing contractor.
Page 4
January 25, 2011
And the other item that was blocked out was on item 13 .A.1, part
of the evaluation of your CRA executive director in
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA. This is part of Commissioner
Fiala's review. The part that was blacked out reads as follows:
Hopefully when the homes are built, they will address the need for
middle income homes in this area, as it is now predominantly low and
very low income.
Those are the two changes. And we are working with the printer
to make sure we don't have that conversion error in the future,
obviously.
Next change, Commissioners, is item 10.J. It's a recommendation
portion of the executive summary. Currently reads: A
recommendation to endorse the recommendation of the Coastal
Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the permitting and
installation of the proposed Clam Bay navigational markers based on
recent regulatory findings and agency requirements has resulted in
consideration of this item yesterday by your Tourist Development
Council as a recommended change as follows: That the
recommendation is to endorse the recommendations of the Coastal
Advisory Committee from the January 13th, 2011 meeting not to
move forward with the permit application or installation of
navigational markers in Clam Bay.
Additionally, the CAC recommends that the county, Pelican Bay
and the CV A community jointly meet and resolve the markings of
Clam Bay to facilitate safety, channel location, maintenance and
overall community acceptance. After resolution of the marking plan,
a recommendation by the CAC and approval by the board, the county
would petition the United States Army Corps of Engineers to close out
the permit.
Next change is item 16.D.6. This was also an item that was
reviewed yesterday by your Tourist Development Council. The
recommendation in the packet reads: The recommendation portion--
Page 5
January 25, 2011
excuse me, recommendation to approve/award the bid number
11-5637 for Naples berm restoration to Eastman Aggregate
Enterprises, LLC for $946,167.20, and authorize the chairman to
execute the standard contract after County Attorney review and
approval.
Based on the TDC review yesterday, the recommendation is
modified to read as follows: Recommendation to approve award of bid
number 11-5637 for the Naples berm restoration for a total unit price
not to exceed sum of $882,264. This will include a not to exceed unit
price of $564,864 to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC for sand
transport and placement, and a not to exceed unit price of $317,400 to
Stewart Mining for sand supply. Also recommend this authorization
for the chairman to execute the standard contract after county review
and approval. This reflects the county's intent to direct purchase the
sand from the sand supplier, saving the contractors markup and sales
tax. All other items remain the same.
Next change is to note that Item 10.0 is quasi-judicial, and ex
parte disclosure is required. All participants will be required to be
.
sworn In.
Next change is item 16.A.8. It's listed for ex parte, but it is not
an ex parte item as originally stated in the agenda.
Commissioners, you have two time certain items on your agenda
today. The first is item 10.0, to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Second time
certain is item 10.K, to be heard at 11 :00 a.m.
And also, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hiller had made a
request this morning that item 10.J be heard at 2:00 p.m. this
afternoon.
Those are all the changes that I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think that was enough. We're good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nothing? Okay.
Then we will start with Commissioner Hiller.
Page 6
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Mr. Ochs, the other request I
made was to move item 10.K to a different time certain. I would like
to recommend that we move it to 4:00 p.m. time certain, given the fact
that I believe that there will be a number of speakers on Item 10.G,
and it would not be fair to the constituents, as well as the employees of
Collier County EMS, to bar them from being able to speak merely
because another item is scheduled at 11 :00 a.m.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do you have any ex parte
disclosure, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do. With respect to both issues
on the agenda that require ex parte, I have meetings, correspondence,
e-mails and calls.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no
changes or corrections to the agenda. And I have no ex parte on the
consent or the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda, and I have no ex parte for the consent agenda or the
summary agenda.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, good morning. I have
no changes to the consent agenda or the summary agenda, and no ex
parte on those items.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no further changes and
no ex parte communication.
I do have a clarification. Normally, I believe what we do when
we have a time certain item, or in this case two time certain items, we
will stay with the first one until completion before going to the other
time certain; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is correct.
Page 7
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The other clarification I
have, Commissioner Coyle, is it still our practice not -- for the board
not to put items on the agenda unless they're publicly advertised?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is still my suggestion that they not be
placed on the agenda unless they're publicly authorized. We serve the
public. We do not serve the public well when we surprise them the
first thing on Tuesday morning at 9:00 about changes to the agenda or
changes to time certain. So I will oppose any changes or additions to
this agenda that have not been properly advertised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I think that's a great
policy to adopt. And I agree with that. As long as it's not an
emergency, I see no reason to have some transparency.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. That's exactly right.
So my suggestion to you was for both item -- the additions by
Commissioner Coletta, item 9.H and the proposed addition by
Commissioner Hiller of 9.1, that they be disapproved by the board.
And by the way, that does not mean I oppose them. I will
probably vote in favor of both of them. But let's put it on the agenda
so that people know what's going on.
With respect to changing the time of a time certain item, it's just
unprecedented to do that as a change to the agenda. And it is too late
to properly communicate to the public about a time certain of 10.1. So
it just doesn't serve the public's interest to start making changes at the
last minute here. So I would oppose those.
And I would make a motion that we approve the agenda with the
changes as noted by the County Manager and not approve the addition
of item 9.H, the addition of item 9.A, the proposed change to time
certain for 10.K and the proposed time certain for 10.1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion, if
you include all requests by board members for items to come off the
consent to go on the regular agenda.
And also out of respect to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, if you
Page 8
January 25, 2011
don't mind, I would like to ask Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Hiller if it's okay to continue those two add-on items
that they requested.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no objection to continuing
the motion that I'd like to carry forward.
If I may make one comment. I would like to ask the County
Manager in the future to schedule time certains in such a way that it
doesn't obligate the citizens of the county to sit here at length when we
know we're going to have an item that is a time certain that will carry
on for more than what is expected with respect to the calendaring of
the item that follows it.
So now unfortunately we are going to have residents that are
going to be sitting in the audience at 11 :00, expecting a time certain,
and more likely than not they will not be heard until after lunch.
We also have the Clam Bay marker issue, which was the other
time certain I requested this morning. And the reason being, we
expect a lot of citizens. It's going to require those citizens to have to
sit in the audience pretty much all day trying to figure out when their
agenda item will come up.
So in the interest of the citizens of Collier County, I ask for better
time management of scheduling time certains in the future. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of the
things we have to be careful with with that scheduling time certains is,
remember the time when we scheduled trying to -- it was me that did
it, trying to make sure we had plenty of time. And here we scheduled
it, but our meeting ended so early we all had to come back and we had
to just postpone the meeting for a couple of hours until the time
certain was there, because, you know, we were done very early. So
you never can tell really how lengthy the conversation will be, how
long the items will be.
Sometimes people will fill the audience and you just have three
Page 9
January 25, 2011
speakers and yet everybody will stand up to join in. So it's kind of
difficult to tell how long something's going to be, actually.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think adequately spacing agenda
items that involve material public participation is really not a difficult
issue. And the public's time ought to be considered. They have lives
that they would like to lead and they shouldn't be forced to sit here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Hiller, thank you
very much for your guidance. And nor should they be faced with a
last minute change when they show up at 9:00 in the morning. So
we're all trying to work for the best interest of the public.
So Commissioner Henning, you have seconded the motion, and it
includes all of the items mentioned by Commissioners and/or the
County Manager, with the exception of the four items I have
identified. I recommend we not add 9.H, we not add 9.1, we not
change 10.K to 4:00 p.m., and we do not establish a time certain for
10.1 at 2:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, do we have any
speakers on today's agenda?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, if I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we need to do the speaker--
MR. MITCHELL: Yes sir, we've got Mr. Don Pickworth, and
he's speaking to item 16.K.3.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth. I represent DAD Development
Corporation in this matter of Pebblebrook Lakes, as you know, that's
been going on for some time.
I just saw on the agenda this morning, we did not know they were
going to put it on for an authorization to file a lawsuit.
I've spoken to Mr. Klatzkow. We would like the opportunity to
take a couple weeks to discuss this with them. We think this can be
resolved without the necessity of a lawsuit. I know there's things that
Page 10
January 25, 2011
have been going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of, but
from our view we think at least we'd like the opportunity to attempt
that before we get into a lawsuit that's going to drag on for a couple of
years.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Chairman, we've got some people
whose lights are on. But does it pertain to Mr. Pickworth?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sure does.
Mr. Pickworth, your client entered in an agreement with the
Board of Commissioners over two years ago to make those
improvements. Today they're not done. I am very disappointed in
your client not getting this done, and I want to move forward to
protect the citizens around your commercial development.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that all you wanted to say --
MR. PICKWORTH: Could I respond to that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've got a couple of Commissioners
who want to speak.
Commissioner Fiala, did you want to have -- to say anything
else?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what,
Commissioner Henning said it eloquently. I couldn't say it better, so
I'm with him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to address another issue,
so don't hit the light too.
But pertaining to this one, I would agree with Commissioner
Henning, except that I do want to ask the County Attorney, in order to
avoid the cost of litigation, is there a possibility this thing could be
resolved in two weeks?
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, I was hoping this thing would be
resolved some time ago. I'm very hesitant in suing anybody, as you
know. If they can get this stuff done, you know, I'm okay with that.
Page 11
January 25, 2011
But it really took the threat of this lawsuit to get him here to say we'll
get it done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may ask the next question,
sir. Commissioner Henning wants to proceed with the lawsuit. It
would take a little while to put everything together. So if they were
able to resolve this at the next meeting, you would be able to come
back and make a report, then we might be able to take a different
action.
In other words, is that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- carrying a stick--
MR. KLATZKOW: You can authorize me to bring suit. That
doesn't mean we will bring suit right away . We can speak with Mr.
Pickworth.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leave my light on, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support Commissioner Henning's
interpretation of what's happened, and I would have to agree with him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay, I will now entertain a
motion to -- oh, you want to do something before we approve the
agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir, I wanted to speak
earlier, but you missed the light, I guess.
Regarding the issue I have on there that we're pulling, I have no
problem with it. Now, what I plan to do between now and the meeting
two weeks from now or three weeks from now is I'm going to have
numerous meetings within the community, proceed with the idea that
I'm going to be doing a little more fact finding. You'll have a more
comprehensive report to be able to evaluate when I come forward
Page 12
January 25, 2011
again the next time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. And we're not
pulling it, we're merely not adding it to this agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. But it was on the
agenda on Friday, it wasn't today that it went on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right, I'll entertain a motion
for approval of the agenda with changes as we have discussed.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so Commissioner Fiala has --
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: I motion to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As a matter of fact, I've already made the
motion, and Commissioner Henning has seconded it. So we have a
motion on the table. Please signify by saying aye if you support it.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye, with reservation on the
record as to the time certains, as I commented on earlier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That is a yes vote in favor, I presume.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you very much.
It passes unanimously.
Page 13
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
January 25, 2011
Add Item 9H:
request)
Economic Health and Viability of Collier County. (Commissioner Coletta's
Add Item 91: Motion that the County stops all further action with respect to Jackson Labs.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16C4 to lOP: Recommendation to award contract number 11-5625 to Vaccaro
Consulting, Inc. for consulting services and planning assistance. (Commissioner Henning's
request)
Move Item 16D8 to ION: Recommendation to approve the renewal ofthe Interlocal Mutual
Aid Agreement between the Independent, Municipal and Dependent Fire Districts. (Commissioner
Hiller's request)
Move Item 16F2 to 100: Recommendation to approve the annual five percent (5%) increase
in Consultant Fees for the Medical Director of Emergency Medical Services as described in the
Emergency Medical Services Medical Consultant Contract for a total of $110,775 for FY11.
(Commissioner Hiller's request)
Continue Item 16K6: Recommendation to approve a schedule for submission of non-routine
documents by staff to the County Attorney for legal review prior to submittal for Board action.
(County Attorney's request)
Withdraw Item 16K7: Recommendation to approve release of the order recorded in the
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners vs. Dale and Keri Ann Ochs,
Code Enforcement Board Case No. CEVB20090000974, relating to property located within the Big
Cypress National Preserve, Collier County, Florida. (Staff's request)
Note:
A conversion error occurred at time of printing on Item 9D, Packet Page 244 and Item 13A1,
Packet Page 506. The missing information is as follows:
Item 9D:
Mr. Herminio Ortega
District 5
Cate20rv: REGULAR - Construction Industrv
Mr. Kenneth Kellv 435-0014
4260 16th Street. N.E. 354-2021
Navies FL 34120
E-Mail: ken~kellvroofinf!.com
District: 5
Cate2orv: REGULAR - Roofinf! Contractor
02/14/06
01112/10
02/14/07
02/14/13
1 Year
3 Years
Item 13A1: Hopefully, when homes are built they will address the needfor middle income homes
in this area, as it is now Dredominantlv low and verv low income.- Commissioner Fiala.
Item 10J - The Recommendation portion ofthe executive summary reads: Recommendation to
endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on how to proceed with the
permitting and Installation of the proposed Clam Bay navigational markers based on recent
regulatory findings and Agency Requirements.
Recommendation to change as follows:
Recommendation to endorse the recommendations of the Coastal Advisory Committee
(CAC) from 1/13/2011 not to move forward with the permit application or installation of
navigational markers in Clam Bay. Additionally, the CAC recommends that the County,
Pelican Bay and the Seagate community jointly meet and resolve the markings of Clam Bay
to facilitate safety, channel location, maintenance and overall community acceptance. After
resolution ofthe marking plan; a recommendation by the CAC; and approval by the BCC;
the County would petition the USACE to close out the permit.
Item 16D6 - The Recommendation portion of the executive summary reads: Recommendation to
approve award of Bid No.11-5637 for Naples Berm restoration to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises,
LLC for $946,167.20 and authorize the Chairman to execute the standard contract after County
Attorney review and approval.
Recommendation to change as follows:
Recommendation to approve award of Bid No. 11-5637 for the Naples Berm restoration for
a total unit price, not to exceed sum of $882,264. This will include a not to exceed unit price
of $564,864 to Eastman Aggregate Enterprises, LLC for sand transport and placement and
a not to exceed, unit price of $317,400 to Stewart Mining for sand supply. Also
recommended is authorization for the Chairman to execute the standard contract after
County Attorney review and approval. This reflects the County's intent to direct purchase
the sand from the sand supplier saving the contractors markup and sales tax. All other
items remain the same.
Item lOG is quasi-judicial and ex parte disclosure is required, all participants will be required to be
sworn in.
Item 16A8 is not an ex parte item as originally stated in the agenda.
Time Certain Items:
Item lOG to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 10K to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
1/25/2011 8:41 AM
January 25, 2011
Item #2B and #2C
NOVEMBER 9,2010, BCC REGULAR MEETING AND
DECEMBER 14,2010 BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
That brings us to the approval of the November 9th, 2010 BCC
regular meeting minutes and the December 14th, 2010 BCC regular
meeting minutes.
Do any of the board members have changes to the minutes?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: None. I motion
to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala. A second by?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion for approval of the minutes
passes unanimously.
Item #3A
Page 14
January 25, 2011
SERVICE AWARDS -20 YEAR ATTENDEE, EDWARD
NUUSSERIV,WASTEWATER-PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to service awards, County
Manager.
MR.OCHS: Sir, we have our first service awardee this morning
with 20 years of service in the wastewater department, Edward
Musser, IV. Edward?
(Applause.)
Item #3B
SERVICE AWARDS - 25 YEAR ATTENDEES, JAMES MAC
HATCHER, GMD-ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES AND FRANK TERILLA, WASTEWATER-
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, we have two 25-year service
awardees this morning. The first is James Mac Hatcher, Growth
Management Division, Engineering and Environmental Services.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our next 25-year recipient is Frank
Terilla from your wastewater department.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: That concludes your service awards this morning,
Commissioners.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT BOTH
PROCLAMATIONS (ITEM #4A AND ITEM #4B)
Page 15
January 25, 2011
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 2011 AS K IS
FOR KIDS FOUNDATION'S BRING A BOOK, BRING A FRIEND
FOR CHILDREN'S LITERACY MONTH. ACCEPTED BY KAREN
CLAWSON, FOUNDER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, K IS FOR
KIDS FOUNDA TION~ INC. - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Takes you to item four on your agenda,
proclamations. Item 4.A is a proclamation designating February, 2011
as K Is For Kids Foundations Bring a Book, Bring a Friend for
Children's Literacy Month. To be accepted by Karen Clawson,
founder and executive director of K is for Kids Foundation,
Incorporated. She is joined by two of her students today, Hayley
Lamb and Amber Velcante. And this item is sponsored by
Commissioner Henning.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
MS. CLAWSON: The Little Engine that Could, it's a classic tale
of overcoming the odds, right, with a little help from our big
supporters.
MR.OCHS: All line up for your picture, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Clawson
handed me a flyer. They are having a book drive February 12th at
Barnes and Nobles Waterside Shop from noon to 4:00. It's free to the
public.
MS. CLAWSON: Yes, it is. It's called Kids Celebrate Reading,
and it's all about just donating a book to a child we place in a school
library. A lot of the men in the audience will remember they didn't
always find a great book to read, were moving fast a lot of times, or if
you wanted to joke, anything to grab children's attention to get them
reading. They will read if they have great books. So please support
Page 16
January 25, 2011
your school libraries and communities' libraries in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 27,2011 AS
INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY.
ACCEPTED BY JOAN HOGAN, HOLOCAUST MUSEUM &
EDUCATION CENTER OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, item 4.B is a proclamation
designating January 27th, 2011 as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day. There's a change in the acceptance this morning.
We have instead of Joan Hogan, we have Ann Jacobson, who is the
founder and president of the Holocaust Museum. And she is joined
this morning by Mr. Charles Dauray, founding member of the board of
directors. I'm sorry, and Fred Hirschovitsz, president.
And this item is sponsored by Commissioner Coyle. Thank you.
MS. JACOBSON: As the founder/president, I wanted to say--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll have to get you on the mic,
everybody can hear you much better. So we'll take the picture first
and then we'll get you on the mic. Okay?
(Applause.)
MS. JACOBSON: I wanted to say to the Commissioners, thank
you so much for recognizing us. And especially to Commissioner
Coyle, who's been a faithful member of our advisory committee of the
Holocaust Museum. I am the founder/president, and it amazes me
what has happened to our museum in the last 10 years. We have
become a destination point for Collier County. People come from far
and wide, Europe, the county, et cetera.
And I just want to say that we appreciate the support we get in
this county, and are delighted that we've grown to the size that we are.
Page 1 7
January 25, 2011
And last year alone we touched the lives of over 20,000 school
children. And we had at least 5,000 visitors to our museum. Thank
you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's you who deserves the thanks.
You've done a wonderful job. The museum has developed
wonderfully. Your educational outreach program is very successful,
and you're all to be congratulated for the work you do.
MS. JACOBSON: And I'll put in a plug. We're going to have a
fantastic exhibit called Curious George. And whether you're an adult,
but the child in you, you'll enjoy it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner, may I make a
comment, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, by all means.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I would also like to
commend you for all you've done. My mother -- I get a little
emotional when I say this, but she was a Holocaust survivor,
Auschwitz. And my grandmother and my grandfather. So thank you
for all you do, and not letting people forget. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the
proclamations as presented today.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Fiala to accept the
proclamations.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 18
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They pass unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF COLLIER COUNTY "BUSINESS OF THE
MONTH" AWARD TO GOLDCOAST SALADS FOR JANUARY
2011. ACCEPTED BY PETER RANDO, JR. PRESIDENT-
PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to item 5 on your
agenda presentations. 5.A is a presentation of the Collier County
Business of the Month Award to Gold Coast Salads for January, 2011,
to be accepted by Peter Radno, Jr., the president of the company.
Please come forward.
(Applause.)
MR. RADNO: First of all, thank you very much. It's a great
recognition from Collier County and the EDC. So I want to thank you
to start off.
We were established in 2002, started supplying Costco
Wholesale and Publix in 2002. We started off with three employees,
and it's a family run business, me and my father and Adam Radno.
We manufacture three seafood spreads which we supply Costco
Wholesale and Sam's Clubs. We manufacture right here in East
Naples. We manufacture a Maine lobster spread, a blue crab spread
and a smoked salmon spread.
I'm sure you recognize these products if you go to Costco or
Sam's Club. On the left is the Maine lobster spread, in the center is
the blue crab spread, and the smoked salmon on the right.
Here locally you can find it at Costco Wholesale, Sam's Club,
and in independent grocers. We have it in Wynn's Market also.
With being in the food business we are heavily regulated with the
FDA, USDA, and we have a passive program, which is a food safety
Page 19
January 25, 2011
program that our suppliers ask us to be audited yearly so we produce
safe products so people can eat.
On the left is actually Wynn's Market. That's one of our
demonstrations going on. And we're typically there Wednesday
through Sunday, so you can come in and grab a sample. And on our
right is our production facility with some of our workers making the
products.
Here's our facility . We're actually back in White Lake
Commercial Park, back behind the landfill.
We continue our distribution in the southeast and in the northeast.
And what we're looking to do in the future is build a second facility
back in White Lake Commercial Park, which is going to have two
businesses: One will be our manufacturing facility and one will be a
cold storage facility. And hopefully with that we can continue to
create more jobs for Collier County.
We do some community involvement with sponsorships with
baseball teams, little league, and we also give to charities.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Will you go back to that first slide and
tell us about the number of employees you have? Maybe it's the
second slide. There we are.
MR. RADNO: Yeah, we currently have approximately 260,270
employees. That ranges from the northeast all the way down into
Collier County and Florida. In our manufacturing facility between
workers and management and office staff, it's approximately about 30
people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Thank you very much. Great job.
We're glad to have you here.
MR. RADNO: Thank you very much. Thanks for the
recognition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller's light was on first,
but did you want to -- was that from before?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was earlier.
Page 20
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to tell
you, I tasted the crab and I tasted the lobster. Man, I couldn't stop
eating them. They were wonderful. So glad you're here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those weren't gifts. She paid for them.
MR. RADNO: I was going to bring some samples, but I couldn't
get through security. Thank you very much again.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you for being here today.
Appreciate your work.
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY CLARENCE S. TEARS, DIRECTOR, BIG
CYPRESS BASIN REGARDING CURRENT HYDROLOGIC
CONDITIONS GOING INTO THE DRY SEASON - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to item 5.B on your
agenda this morning. It's a presentation by Clarence S. Tears, Director
of Big Cypress Basin, regarding current hydrologic conditions going
into the dry season.
MR. TEARS: Good morning, Commissioners. Thanks for letting
me be here today to talk about our most precious resource, water. As
you're probably all aware of, we currently have a La Nina in the
Pacific Ocean which creates conditions that allows for dryer than
normal weather. And you could see that during the end of the season.
As an agency, the South Florida Water Management District has
to protect the water resources. We have to encourage conservation,
and we have to plan for existing and future water supplies.
As a water shortage team, we deal with hurricanes. Also we have
an emergency team that deals with droughts. And this year we're
currently stepping up our communication because it is a dryer than
normal year. In some areas of the agency we've actually issued
Page 21
January 25, 2011
warnings because the water supply is so low.
As you can see on this chart, you know, every year is different.
Some years are above normal on rainfall, some years are below
normal for rainfall. And this year was an abnormally dry wet season.
So going into the dry season this year we were extremely dry. We
didn't have any tropical storms this year, which replenishes the water
supply in Collier County.
In addition, we're starting into the dry season, and we've had a
few small rain events, but it's been extremely dry.
So we're really pushing conservation this year with all our
residents, especially in our local communities, to really be
understanding and try to use the water resources wisely.
This is the current water levels in Collier County. And you can
see where the red is, you know, a 10 to 30 percentile, below normal.
So there are some areas of Collier County that are extremely low,
other areas are stable. And with the recent rain we had last week,
actually some areas are, groundwater levels rose a little bit. However,
it is extremely dry. And we just all need to do our part.
Some of the things that we do and we've done over the years is
we deal with flood control and water supply. So we have a lot of
structures throughout the system. We've replaced most of them. We
made the gates larger. In addition, we raised the gates so at the onset
of dry season we can hold back the water instead of losing it. I think
this helps us a lot, because when you keep the gates closed it actually
forces the water into the ground, and when you open the gates it pulls
the water from the ground and discharges it.
So this time of the year we try to hold the water as high as
possible to protect the resources.
Currently in post-emergency water shortage restrictions this
would be the next step if we go into a severe drought. We're ready.
We're asking for the Collier County Commission's support if we do go
into water restriction. Currently we're asking for your support to just
Page 22
January 25, 2011
increase, maybe, some of your awareness to the public. The current
conservation ordinance you have in place, make sure it's being
enforced. I still see a lot of people watering their lawns on Fridays,
and Friday is a no watering day in Collier County based on your
current conservation ordinance. So I really ask this Commission to
really support that and make sure that people are following our
conservation measures that we have in place.
As a municipality and support to the South Florida Water
Management District, you have to enforce the current year-round
irrigation restrictions. We're really focusing on residential usage of
the resource. About 60 percent of our residents are on potable water
supply so, you know, that's where we're really trying to put the focus.
I think if we focus on the current conservation ordinance in place
and ensure people are following the ordinance, we can protect the
resource and get through this drought.
In addition, we're hoping that public utilities and public works
will focus on the medians, also on some of the landscape around the
schools, some of the community ball parks and trying to use the
resource wisely there too to show as a public agency we're doing our
part.
We do have a site with a lot of information about the water watch
and about the drought. And it's www.sfwmd.gov/water watch. And
there's a lot of good information on that site. And it's always updated,
so it gives the latest information on the current conditions. So I ask
you all to try to check it out.
And with that, I really want to thank Collier County and this
Commission for being proactive in diversifying your water resources,
your alternative water supply, your reuse. I think all the efforts that
you made and the expenditures that you have done for the public
really will payoff and will payoff this drought. The diversification of
the resources in Collier County is really what will get us through these
droughts that we have periodically. And I really do appreciate the
Page 23
January 25, 2011
effort of you and your staff in working with us.
With that, I'm open for any questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Clarence.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Clarence, the difference from one year to another year, in other
words, compared to the last five years, how are we doing as far as our
aquifer? I would assume that the freshwater aquifer is the one we're
measuring, and not the --
MR. TEARS : Yes--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- lower aquifer where we draw
a lot of water from --
MR. TEARS: The surficial freshwater aquifer, yes. Actually, if
-- in one of the charts that I provided, some of the areas are in the 10
to 30 percentile below normal, so we're on the low side in the majority
of the area in Collier County. Now parts of the Collier County are
stable. And with the recent rainfall they've actually improved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you using the same
measurements that our water department uses from where they
measure it from? Because, I mean, in past years they said that the
difference in the aquifer drop was negligible. And I'm not too sure
why there's a disparity between the two--
MR. TEARS: Usually your utilities look at drawdowns near the
wells, so they're focusing on that. We look at wells throughout Collier
County and historical data, and look at the groundwater levels in those
wells. We go to -- USGS has a lot of wells in the area. We have some
wells with over 30 years of historical data. So we look at long-term
averages, we look at the changes, and some of those wells are very
low at this time of year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Projecting what's happening
forward into the future and allowing for a reasonable amount of
growth, at what point in time do we stand to be in a deficit as far as
Page 24
January 25, 2011
being able to supply water?
MR. TEARS: Well, you know, as I always tell everybody,
there's three types of water: There's free water, cheap water and
expensive water. Free water we used up. The cheap water we've
really used up, that's the surficial aquifer. And then we get into
expensive water. There's plenty of water. We have the Gulf, so we
can use desalinization.
But what we're really pushing is conservation is the key to
protect our resource. As you've seen, we've had some severe droughts
in the past, but through conservation measures, reducing of potable
usage and irrigation, we've been able to get through that. We're
always going to have extremes, as you've seen on the chart I showed.
Every year is different. Every year is above average or below
average. And during the years where we have below average rainfall,
it's always a challenge in an area that's rain driven. So we'll always
have challenges.
But I think through conservation, looking at protecting the
resource with the great staff you have working with the District, we
can get through any of the droughts in the future. And we're -- as an
agency, we're responsible to ensure that the water supply is there for
the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What percentage of the water is
used for irrigation?
MR. TEARS: That number changes, because Collier County
uses a lot of reuse. But roughly around 50 to 60 percent is used for
irrigation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I do, and I've been doing
for a number of years, is I have native Florida grasses. They don't
require irrigation, they don't require pesticides or fertilizer;
self-maintaining. Maybe some day we have to go back to--
MR. TEARS: I've been shifting my yard to weeds, and they
grow very well.
Page 25
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's another definition of
native Florida grass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And he doesn't cut it either.
MR. TEARS: I figured I was losing the fight, so I let them take
over.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You've
mentioned a few times something about the current water conservation
efforts that are in place now, yet you never mentioned what those are.
Number one, if you could just name them off. And then secondly --
you know, just simply --
MR. TEARS: I just want to make sure I get them correct.
Because it is three days a week. I think its -- Paul?
MR. MATTAUSCH: Commissioner, we'll make sure that that is
appropriately advertised. I don't really remember from one restriction
to another which is odd and which is even. But it is based on odd and
even addresses. And it is three days a week. And it's from midnight
to 8:00 a.m. for those addresses. But I believe that that is consistently
in the Naples Daily News.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And
Friday is dry day?
MR. MATTAUSCH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just going
along with what you had said, Paul, will we be putting something in
the water bills, just so people know what guidelines they should be
following?
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities.
Yes, ma'am, we use information in billing routinely at this time
of year. As your bills go rolling through, we have a block and we
remind folks of the water conservation ethic that, by the way, has been
very successful in our county.
The water conservation ordinance prescribes Fridays as dry days.
Page 26
January 25, 2011
It's critical. Don't water on Friday.
And then use an even/odd, based on your address. If you're an
odd address, you water on Mondays, Wednesdays and Saturdays. If
you're an even address, you do it on Tuesdays, Thursdays and
Sundays. This time of year you don't probably need to water but
twice a week, not three times a week. Because of the cool weather, the
grasses aren't growing. The vegetation is not dormant but it's near
dormant.
At no time in Southwest Florida, at no time does any of our
vegetation need more than an inch per week in terms of water.
Whether it comes from the sky or from your hose, that inch per acre
per week is really the target spot for sustaining lush vegetation in
Southwest Florida.
So that's where we are. And I have a sign here that says I'm
supposed to be brilliant and brief and gone. So I think I've answered
your question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to commend you for an
excellent presentation.
You raised a point, which is a point that you and I have discussed
in the past, Clarence, and it's a point that I don't want to be forgotten.
The protocol regarding the management of the weirs in Collier
County, I have some concerns about that.
It appears that there are weirs which are on private property
which are being managed privately, which should be managed in
accordance with protocols which have been established as of the time
of the permitting of those weirs. But it's my understanding that there
are weirs that are being managed contrary to those protocols, and the
claim being that those protocols can't be found.
Obviously that's problematic. And I'd like to know what you
could possibly do to address that and help ensure that weir
management and the respect of the protocols with respect to that
Page 27
January 25, 2011
management are integrated in your overall plan for water
conservation.
MR. TEARS: As part of the regulatory process in the South
Florida Water Management District, we issue surface water permits.
And each of those structures on private property has a regulatory
requirement opening stage and closing stage and it's supposed to be
followed. If somebody's missing that data or that permit, I'm sure we
can provide that to them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate that.
What do you do to monitor that in fact the protocols are being
observed when they ought to be? Do you have any sort of field
inspection, any sort of, you know, random monitoring?
Because otherwise, if we don't ensure compliance, even if we can
find those protocols through you, there still remains a problem.
MR. TEARS: We do have field inspectors and they do go
around. But there's a lot of permits that have been issued, and I'm sure
they do miss a few here and there. But if they do notice somebody not
following proper criteria, they do let them know and they do put them
on notice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to do is I would
like to have the opportunity to sit down with you and review the
protocols over the major canals that are on private property.
MR. TEARS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. TEARS: Okay. I'll make sure we schedule that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. Thank you
for your contribution.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Clarence, it's a little troubling that
Commissioner Hiller believes that there are people who are not
following the protocols but yet you're not aware of that. What's the
answer? Has anybody informed you that somebody is not abiding by
the protocols?
Page 28
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have.
MR. TEARS: She has--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you give him a list of the owners
where those protocols are being ignored?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I've actually discussed with
Mr. Tears where it is being brought to my attention that, you know,
protocols are missing, that they don't know where to find those
protocols, and that they basically do it by experience and intuition
rather than by what's provided for through the permitting process.
So I will work with you to address those issues. Because
obviously that not only affects where we have a drought but also when
we have flooding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we get a list of those people?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd like to know who isn't following
protocols.
MR. TEARS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, one thing, what you guys always
fail to mention is probably the most important water conservation
project in the history of Collier County, and that is the desalination
capacity of Collier County.
Thanks to the work of our utility department over the past 10
years, more than 50 percent of all of the drinking water in Collier
County is provided through the reverse osmosis process. And they've
done it in a very, very smart and cost effective way. They're no longer
drawing water from our surficial aquifers, they're drilling deep into the
brackish water. And they're taking that brackish water and treating it
through the reverse osmosis process to produce drinking water. Far
less expensive than going out into the Gulf and getting high content
salinity water.
So it's a remarkable program. It seems that most people are not
even aware that we have this capacity in Collier County. But it is one
Page 29
January 25, 2011
of the reasons that the surficial aquifers have maintained essentially
the same level year to year over the past 20 years, according to your
own reports.
There are many instances where we can find a well that is below
average at a particular point in time, but on average the charts that
have been produced by your agency have clearly shown that over a
period of 20 to 30 years there has been no average change in the
surficial aquifer level.
MR. TEARS: That's--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What I've said is correct, right?
MR. TEARS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But it's important that people
understand where we are with that.
MR. TEARS: I did commend your staff and you for
diversification for the resource, and that's what I tried covering in that
statement. But that's true, the reverse osmosis is really a great
opportunity to use the deeper aquifers that are a little bit brackish to
meet our water supply needs. And it's a lot cheaper to produce fresh
water than going to the Gulf at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. TEARS: Thank you very much.
MR. MATTAUSCH: If I may just take one moment. I would
like to at least recognize that Charles Dauray is in the audience. He is
a member of South Florida Water Management District governing
board and ex-officio chair of the Big Cypress Basin board. And I just
would like to recognize that he is in the audience.
(Applause.)
MR. DAURA Y: Thank you, Paul. Yes, we're facing a drought.
And I'm not going to -- don't kill the messenger. But we've been
through this before. And there are some benchmarks in the last two
governing board meetings that we have held that I have insisted on
. .
recognIzIng.
Page 30
January 25, 2011
And very briefly. Number one, we don't declare an emergency
unless there's a good reason to declare an emergency. So if the South
Florida Water Management District does declare in its 16 counties a
water emergency, you can be sure that we are in serious trouble from
either over water through hurricanes and whatever, or not enough
water through drought.
Secondly, I'm insisting that when we do declare a drought
emergency, it's understandable and consistent. A lot of people get
confused. They say, well, it's 2:00 in the afternoon, my neighbor is
watering, I can't, how about -- even, odd and all of these, these are
difficult things for a lot of people to grasp. So we need to have a
consistent habitual cutback in water use.
Thirdly, and very important, if people violate water usage, there
has to be consequences. We do not have water police, but we do work
with the legal departments in the 16 counties that we have to make
sure that people comply with the restrictions. And thus far we've been
successful.
Which brings in point number four. The most important people
in the household when it comes to water are the kids. They seem to
understand what saving water is all about. Collier County has been
very successful in reaching out to the children of the area when we
have drought emergencies so that they understand that water is not a
free commodity to be wasted but is a precious resource. And that's
where we need to spend, in my opinion, quite a bit of our time to
develop, as you referred to, Commissioner Coy Ie, that water
conservation ethic in the school systems. Because the most
inexpensive water we have is the water we save. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Charles. Thank you for
being here.
We have a 10:00 time certain, County Manager. We're going to
start.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. And I might remind the board that this
Page 31
January 25, 2011
item is quasi-judicial and ex parte disclosure is required. All
participants will be required to be sworn in.
Item #10G
RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10H WHICH WAS
PREVIOUSL Y HEARD BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AT THE OCTOBER 26,2010 BCC MEETING
REGARDING NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE
DISTRICT'S APPLICATION FOR COPCN - MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND BRING BACK AT THE NEXT BCC
MEETING FOLLOWING THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE'S
FINAL REPORT - HEARD ON JANUARY 11,2011 - MOTION
TO APPROVE FOR 1 YEAR WORKING UNDER THE
PROTOCOL SET FORTH BY COLLIER COUNTY MEDICAL
DIRECTOR WITH ALL OTHER COMMITMENTS TO COLLIER
COUNTY BEING MET - APPROVED
This is Item 10.G on your agenda this morning. It's a request to
reconsider agenda item number 10 .H, which was previously heard by
the Board of County Commissioners at the October 26th, 2010 BCC
meeting regarding the North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District's
application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
It's a motion to reconsider or bring back at the next BCC meeting
following the Blue Ribbon Committee's final report, which was heard
on January 11, 2011. Mr. Dan Summers, your Director of the Bureau
of Emergency Services will begin the report.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Before you begin, I'd like to ask all
persons who are going to provide testimony in this item to stand, raise
your hand and be sworn in by the court reporter, please.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 32
January 25, 2011
And could you tell me how many registered speakers we have?
MR. MITCHELL: We have 17.
MR.OCHS: Seventeen, okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Ex parte, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with Commissioner
Henning on ex parte.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. I met with Rich
Y ovanovich and staff from North Naples Fire District, including
Commissioner Lombardo. Received several e-mails from the
constituents. Don't believe the Blue Ribbon report is a part of that.
Received some phone calls from constituents and Commissioner
Lombardo. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be easier to list the
people I haven't talked to. You know, just everyone that
Commissioner Henning mentioned several times over, over many
years on subjects related to this coming to it. And as early as this
morning I got a call from Chief Metzger coming in, who talked to me
for about 10 minutes. And out in the hallway I had the pleasure of
talking to Duane Billington and several other people regarding this
.
Issue.
And everything I have is in my record here for anyone who
wants to see it, e-mails, phone calls, numerous contacts.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
I'm pretty much in the same position. We've heard -- we've had a
lot of contact with the fire districts and other representatives
concerning the item of a certificate over a long period of time. But I
have had meetings, telephone calls, correspondence. They are
included in my file here.
I met with members of the Blue Ribbon committee, but I am not
certain that we specifically discussed the certificate. We talked about
the administration of advanced life support services in Collier County.
Page 33
January 25, 2011
And I don't know that it specifically touched upon a certificate for
North Naples Fire District.
But nevertheless, I have talked with a lot of people. We've
identified them all here. And as I've said, they include the members of
the Blue Ribbon committee and members of the fire districts and
interested citizens. If anybody wants to see them, we've got a
correspondence file.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I,
like Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle, have met with
lots of people. I guess if I would say to the audience raise your hands,
half the hands in the audience would go up.
Met with people from North Naples Fire, as well as from EMS. I
met with people out at my Marco office as well as in this office. I've
talked with people on the telephone, including people from the Blue
Ribbon Committee in my home as well as in the office and from my
car.
And also I've talked with my son, who works for EMS. And I've
talked with the attorney for North Naples Fire. I've talked with other
fire people around the county. So, boy, oh boy, if I just said raise your
hands. And here is most of the information that I have; it is on file for
anyone's inspection. ...
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I have had meetings,
correspondence, e-mails and calls with all the service providers in
Collier County. I've spoken to the leaders within EMS. I've spoken to
the fire chiefs of all the districts in Collier County. I've spoken to
representatives of the Sheriffs Office who oversee the administration
of 9-1-1. I've spoken to so many people, it's really unbelievable.
I want to thank everybody for their input. And if anybody would
like to see any of the information that I have with respect to these
communications, they're available for public viewing.
Page 34
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. With that, let's get started.
MR. SUMMERS: Mr. Chairman, good morning. For the record,
Dan Summers, Director of the Collier County Bureau of Emergency
Services and Emergency Management.
My comments are brief to allow you to revisit the Certificate of
Public Need and Necessity requested by the North Naples Fire Control
and Rescue District. I may use some acronyms or abbreviations
throughout the process so I'll make sure I do my best to correct that.
Just a quick history on this particular item, Commissioners. On
or about September 18th of2009, County Manager's office received
an application for a non-transport Certificate of Public Need and
Necessity, as governed in your County Ordinance 2006-15 from the
North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District.
The application went through a period of temporary suspense by
the applicant as North Naples took some time with some additional
discussions, and subsequently reopened the application on or about
May 17th of 2009. Meetings and discussions with both the chiefs and
agents on these issues have been and I'm sure will continue to be most
collegial.
During this period additional information and correspondence
was requested from the district and that information was received.
Per the ordinance, I deemed the application complete on or about
June 29th.
Subsequently you have heard that meeting, and I believe that was
on the October 26th board meeting you heard that item and are now
revisiting.
My communication and analysis to you for that request was
made in the form of a binder. Copies were filed with the clerk for
public viewing. It was a rather hefty document with a fair amount of
information provided in that. But we did attempt to capture and
catalog all of that discussion.
I'd like to offer a couple of brief points so that you can come back
Page 35
January 25, 2011
for this discussion. And those points are as follows: The COPCN
effort in the Ordinance 2005-16 speaks in terms of countywide impact.
This is a request for a non-transport within a particular district. I have
concern that I don't see clear path under the partial service delivery
change within a district as opposed to a county within the portions of
the COPCN umbrella. And that's part of my recommendation for
denial that was in the earlier correspondence.
Secondly, we have the ongoing review efforts with the Blue
Ribbon study as directed by the board and, as you mentioned, some
direct or inconnect (sic) activity with that particular report.
Section 7 of the ordinance otherwise requires demonstration by
the ordinance. There are some challenges in that. I won't go into any
particular details on that today.
Commissioners, another observation in this recommendation for
the denial of the mainstay of -- or the reason for the denial, rather, is
one of the mainstays that I think is important to highlight with you in
the delivery of the emergency medical care services. And that's best
described as, as you address this one, health, safety, welfare and risk
mitigation in the always uncertain environment in the delivery of
pre-hospital care. EMS management is firmly rooted in making
stability out of instability in the delivery of pre-hospital care.
Single point medical control, single point medical direction, I
think is the best tool that stabilizes that pre-hospital care environment.
And I'm going to elaborate on that.
One of the things that we have to make sure that's for the best
interest of all patients is any gaps in the transfer of patients, in the case
of gaps or incidents that could occur potentially between conflicting
advanced life support providers transitioning between response and
transport. Items that are vulnerable include patient history,
medications and medications administered on the scene. While no
fault, and I can assure you, while no fault of either provider in this
case, whether it would be North Naples Fire District or the county, not
Page 36
January 25, 2011
only is quality assurance of concern, but malpractice is of concern, in
my opinion, as it relates to reporting to either two different medical
directors in the COPCN framework, as requested by the applicant,
even with a commitment to one set of medical protocol.
Stated somewhat differently, it's the continuum of care, the
transfer of patient outside of a single medical control, not just
protocol, but your single point medical licensure outside of your
medical director causes me the most concern for granting the COPCN.
I'd like to note favorably some of the recent operational changes
provided by North Naples, such as their quick response or squad-type
vehicle efforts response to medical calls and other ongoing operational
issues that we have resolved in recent discussions. We continue to
jointly advocate good communications and professionalism on the
scene. And I'm sure those efforts will only continue to improve.
Commissioners, one other component that I think is noteworthy
here is that in the Blue Ribbon report, and I understand your
discussion on acceptance or comments on that particular report, but it
does recommend that if you do look towards an advanced life support
fire-based program that it does include a pilot effort with transport. So
I would encourage you that I think that if you're trying to fit the
COPCN discussion into the delivery at north based on what the Blue
Ribbon Committee information is providing, that your other -- your
only really best bet in that environment is that recommendation, which
includes transport.
I appreciate and have great respect and passion -- respect and
interest in the passion provided by the applicant. I have great respect
for working out in the field with these men and women. It's my
recommendation to deny the COPCN application and to revisit an
advanced life support interlocal agreement while continuing to look --
and we remain committed to looking at the Blue Ribbon
recommendations as well as others data, as well as working
systemwide with other stakeholders for improvement. I'm confident
Page 37
January 25, 2011
that we could get to where we all want to be outside of the COPCN
framework of the ordinance with a renewed commitment to single
point medical control.
Thank you for the opportunity. I'll be available for any
questions, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
Does anyone have questions of Mr. Summers?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your presentation.
Your EMS paramedics experience a great deal of overtime; is
that correct?
MR. SUMMERS: Ma'am, there is overtime under the --
remember that EMS is exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
So we do have overtime in an environment that is considered
regulatory and non-regulatory, if I can use those particular words.
But yes, there's an overtime process, as there typically is
overtime ratings within the fire service. However, federal law requires
that they're coded different. You do see that. EMS is not part of that
Fair Labor Standards Act and is only under the 40 hour. So you do
see an overtime number. But we remain within that typical 52, 56-our
workweek, as does fire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you do not have overtime
related to the fact that you have a shortage in staff?
MR. SUMMERS: We do have overtime, and staffing is--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have a shortage in staff?
MR. SUMMERS: We are at the absolute bare minimum. And
we are as true as we possibly can be with our existing resources. I
wasn't prepared for an overtime report but I'll be glad --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't need one.
MR. SUMMERS: No, no, but I'll be more than happy to revisit
that issue with you.
It is -- every organization challenges that. But with on 24, off 48
Page 38
January 25, 2011
type scheduling, we're all at minimum. So we do work hard in that.
And I'll be glad to get some additional --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I really admire and respect
the EMS paramedics for all the work they do. But that really isn't my
point.
You are at a bare minimum; you just stated that for the record.
That is very concerning to me. We can't be operating on a thread
when it comes to providing emergency medical services.
You have paramedics working overtime because the service
needs to be provided and we are unable to hire more paramedics. I'm
very concerned about that. We don't have the ability to increase our
budget because we're fiscally constrained.
MR. SUMMERS: May I respond to that, ma'am, just briefly?
I'm sorry, I didn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just finish my train of
thought and then I would appreciate your response. Because I think
you made some very important points that from a public safety
standpoint are very important to me and to the public.
As I was saying, you are operating on a shoestring budget. You
have paramedics who are working overtime because we can't hire
more people. And basically you're operating at a bare minimum.
At the same time, you're saying that the COPCN should be
denied because you can't see the benefit to the overall county by
adding a medical director to North Naples who would take
responsibility for the administration, the management, the protocols of
North Naples paramedics, that would be ALS certified and would
supplement the existing burden that EMS is experiencing as a result of
budgetary constraints.
I think you've made a very compelling argument in your
statements that in fact awarding a COPCN to North Naples would
benefit public safety in the county and would add more paramedics to
service our strained paramedic team.
Page 39
January 25, 2011
You did indicate that, you know, the law basically provides how
your paramedics are paid overtime, and I appreciate that. But what is
also positive in my mind from a financial standpoint is that by
allowing the paramedics to have the aid of North Naples
ALS-certified paramedics, they won't be as physically pressured with
all this overtime and they will be able to provide service.
Because one of the things that's very important in terms of
providing service, emergency service, is that you don't have
paramedics who are so tired because they have worked so much
overtime so that they can deliver that care on the scene necessary to
save the life injeopardy.
So that's one issue I'd like to make. I think you've made a very
clear argument that in fact there is a very positive countywide impact
by awarding the COPCN.
You then address risk mitigation. And you said that there is a
risk if the COPCN is awarded to North Naples. In fact, there is risk
mitigation to the county by awarding the COPCN, because what in
fact you're now doing is you are shifting risk from the Board of
County Commissioners and from Dr. Tober as the only medical
director we have to another medical director who is bound by the
same statutes and the same ordinance and the same protocols and the
same standards that Dr. Tober is.
But we are shifting the risk. So in fact in terms of risk
mitigation, while you say there is none, your argument actually makes
a compelling case that there is tremendous risk mitigation because
now we have a medical director not only over the existing pool of
paramedics we have, but we have another medical director who will
be overseeing the supplemental pool that will add to the level of
service in Collier County.
Many jurisdictions have multiple medical directors. In fact, it is
very common to have multiple medical directors in a single
jurisdiction, and state statute allows for that. So from that standpoint I
Page 40
January 25, 2011
would have to say I don't see an increase in malpractice risk, I see a
decrease in malpractice risk. It will free up Dr. Tober to concentrate
on the paramedics he has under his jurisdiction, while the other
medical director concentrates on the North Naples paramedics who
Dr. Tober used to supervise.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is this a filibuster?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not. I want to address -- I
want to address our director's comments, and I'd like him to give me
feedback.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: When do you want him to do that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'm going to get to that.
The next issue that you bring up is gaps in transfer. And you
indicated that you have a concern about gaps in transfer. And I'm
repeating what you're saying because I want to make sure I'm
accurately hearing your presentation, because it is very, very
important, and I value your input.
You actually have multiple gaps in transfer. First you have the
lay person who sees the victim, if it's a witnessed incident. Then you
have the BLS provider, the ALS provider, transport and hospital. So
in terms of transfer, you have multiple stages of transfer.
With respect to transport, here's a simple solution. The
paramedic who provides the aid -- regardless of who provides the
transport, because quite frankly, we could contract transport out; I
mean, ambulance services can be privately contracted -- would ride
along. And that eliminates that issue altogether.
Then you have continuous care, be it the ALS paramedic, the
BLS paramedic, or even the medical director or another doctor who
may be on scene. So I think there's an easy way to cure that issue.
And I'd like your thoughts on what I've said.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, let me take one component at
a time, if I may. And if I missed one, help me out here.
I would like to have -- defer to Chief Page just a little bit to talk
Page 41
January 25, 2011
to you about manning. And we'll make sure that our definitions are the
same. So in fact let's just let Chief Page address the manning issue
first, and then I'll come back and address some of your other
components there, if you don't mind.
Chief Page?
CHIEF PAGE: Good morning, Commissioners. Jeff Page with
Emergency Medical Services.
Commissioner, right now due to a recent resignation last week, I
have one full-time opening. In addition to that, Fire and EMS, we
both work a 24 on, 48 off. So they're not worked any more than what
the fire departments are worked.
How they're paid, though, is different, as Director Summers
pointed out. After 40 hours they do result in overtime. But the way
that that's -- their actual hourly rate is achieved is you take their
annual salary and you factor in that automatic overtime to get their
hourly rate. So it's really not that they're working more because of
vacancies, although we do have vacations, sicknesses, things of that
nature, we also have about 21 part-time employees that backfill. So
it's not really a result of because we're understaffed. We're not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I sat in multiple AUIR hearings
regarding EMS funding in the past. And what I always heard is that
you're underfunded and short-staffed. So I have concerns, because
Mr. Summers just said that you're all operating on a shoestring. And
here's a way to supplement that.
We can't operate EMS, you know, at a bare minimum, okay,
that's not an option. Public safety is the number one obligation of the
county. And funding EMS services is absolutely a priority.
CHIEF PAGE: I understand, Commissioner. But you'll also
remember that the productivity committee and the Planning
Commission made that recommendation a few years back where they
wanted to change our level of service based on the ALS engine
component.
Page 42
January 25, 2011
The fact that they are arriving there, that they have ALS
capability, they reduced our units by two. Therefore, that attrition that
we were feeling at that point was wiped out. So really, we're fully
staffed and we're based on the need to be there with an eight minute
travel time.
If you take a look at the ALS engine programs that we currently
have in the City of Naples, Marco, Isles of Capri and Ochopee, the
main goal is to get someone there with an AED component within
four minutes of travel time, because that's what saves lives is the
defibrillator, and within eight minutes is the National Fire Protection
Agency recommendation for the ALS component.
So whether an ALS engine gets there before the transport is
really insignificant.
Does that clear that up for you?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it doesn't. But thank you.
CHIEF PAGE: Okay.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, the other comment that you
made a little bit about the -- I'll try to summarize a little bit, where you
mentioned the dual medical directors or multiple medical directors
with multiple levels of care. I think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not with multiple levels of care,
two multiple medical directors.
MR. SUMMERS: Multiple medical directors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The protocol -- the standards
within a community are uniform and are set by law. So whether we
have one, two, three or five medical directors, they're all bound by the
same statute and the same ordinance. The quality of care, which is
established by standard, will be uniform throughout the community.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. Let me fill you in. Let me restate
the purposes. You mentioned the BLS, the citizen bystander response,
the basic life support response, the great support that we get from law
enforcement, sheriffs and other public works folks with AED
Page 43
January 25, 2011
deployment. Each one of those is an incremental level in care. And it
is incremental. That's how we, again, address some of the risk
management issues that I couched earlier in a general framework.
So while you have that, and yes, there are other model deliveries
in other communities, it is not necessary in any community to cookie
cutter what might be done in other communities. There is -- while
there is a centerline that you want in the delivery of pre-hospital care,
and one that has been very well established and supported well by this
board, puts us in an environment where you have that good -- and
when I refer to minimums of care or minimums of personnel, not that
we were ever fat or rich before, and I have told this board repeatedly
in budget conditions that we are -- we will work at our very best, and
if I feel like that there are shortages, this board has told me to come
back and discuss that with them. So maybe my minimal manning is
not a good right word. But we are right-sized to the environment that
we have at this particular point. However--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you say you're right-sized, but
the response times don't reflect that.
MR. SUMMERS : Well, response times are very -- there are
seasonal patterns in response issues. There are -- as you saw by this
report, there are daily fluctuations in service demand, there are
seasonal demands, there are traffic issues.
So -- but on the whole, when you look at the system as a whole,
ma'am, we meet that very well. And we do that part and part because
of our fire partners that are here.
So from a system perspective, by no stretch is it broken, but we
manage that, and I think very well, based on our outcomes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not sure that I agree with your
characterization. I don't believe that the response times are where they
could be if you had supplemental support.
And quite frankly, it's all about response time. The rapidity of
response is what is the key to emergency services. It's all about
Page 44
January 25, 2011
getting there as quickly as possible. And it's all about administering
aid to save a life, stabilize a patient as quickly as possible.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. And I am certainly in your court
in that methodology. And we have delivery components such as
bystanders, more deployment of AED's, law enforcement and public
utilities deployment as well as our partners in the fire service. So I
would agree with you in that environment, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We are going to take a 10-minute break,
and we're going to give some of the other commissioners a chance to
talk when we come back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have questions, I don't want to
talk.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's precisely the point. So we'll
give you a chance to ask questions. And Commissioner Fiala.
So thank you very much, we'll be back in 10 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is Commissioner Henning here? He's
next.
Commissioner Henning, it's all yours.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Summers, in our executive
summary it says the board is supposed to have a finding of fact of
Ordinance 04-12, Section 7, but in your presentation, you're telling me
it actually is 05-16.
It sounds like the ordinance that I have here to follow along with
the executive summary has been amended to 05-16, so I don't know
exactly the reason for the amended 04-12, and whether it really
pertains to the issue of a certificate of need. So I just want to let you
be aware of that.
The second thing is, in the AUIR as presented to the Board of
Commissioners, are those seasonal standards that you go by, or are
Page 45
January 25, 2011
they average standards?
MR. SUMMERS: Let me check on the technology. Chief Page, I
want to double check, make sure that on -- those AUIR's are noted as
seasonal averages.
MR.OCHS: Peak population?
MR. SUMMERS: Right. On the peak population component.
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the AUIR, they're set at
minimum standards; is that correct?
MR. SUMMERS: There's a -- that is determin -- well, you all set
that policy, but that's done with -- the benchmark there is looking at
the eight-minute response time component.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the minimum standard,
eight minutes?
MR. SUMMERS: Not a minimum standard, it's a target.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a target to reach. And of
course we know we're not reaching, you know, those standards all the
time. But there's highs and lows so there's an average; is that a correct
statement?
MR. SUMMERS: There are highs and lows, correct. And then,
Commissioners, you all -- there was direction, as I recall, I don't have
chapter and verse of the AUIR in front of me today, so I'll be very
careful, but there's also components there in terms of how we were
addressing eastern sections of Collier County where those response
times in the more remote areas obviously affected us, as well as some
of the response times on Interstate 75.
So systemwide, yes, there is a curve there that we work very hard
to address.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it break your heart if we
exceeded those standards?
MR. SUMMERS: Absolutely -- well, exceeded in terms of
improving, absolutely not. We're always looking to do that and we
Page 46
January 25, 2011
follow that component. And you have our commitment that if there
are opportunities to do more better or the resources are there, we'll
certainly do that. But we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could there be opportunities
through partnerships?
MR. SUMMERS: Well, you have those presently. We have
those partnerships via the advanced life support interlocal agreement
with Marco Island. Again, the demographics and geography from the
hospital being somewhat different, Ochopee, Capri, the City of
Naples, in terms of life support agreements which are part of that
response component that do indeed help.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does Marco Island, Ochopee,
Isles of Capri or the City of Naples respond to North Naples?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, they do not. But we have had like
ALS agreements in the past at North Naples and feel like that still is a
viable mechanism to go ahead and revisit that opportunity for
delivery .
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Might I
suggest, Commissioner Coyle, that possibly we hear all of the
testimony and the presentations from all sides of this issue and then
hear from our speakers? I'd really like to hear from the public before
we continue with any of our own questioning. And then after we've
once gotten a full and complete picture of the issue, then we start our
questions. Would that be all right?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's a wonderful --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be more than willing to wait,
but keep my light on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to remember, this is a
rehearing. We've already heard all this stuff before. What is it you're
Page 47
January 25, 2011
going to tell us that's new, that's what I'd like to hear.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm on the board. I'd like to hear
it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fine, and you're going to get to
hear it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd like the opportunity to ask
questions to the speakers who maybe --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Hiller, if you're going to dominate
discussions, what we will do is we will set a time limit for each
Commissioner here. It is important that all the Commissioners get an
opportunity to be heard, and you can't take up the entire day talking
about it. So you take your choice, you want to be on the clock, and I'll
put them all on the clock, okay?
So I want to hear the public, quite frankly. And I'm going to call
-- no, I need to give the fire district an opportunity to make their
presentation. Now, Mr. Summers took nine minutes to make his
presentation, and the rest of the time, which was 37 minutes, was used
in -- I'm sorry, 27 minutes, was used in questioning or interrogating
Mr. Summers.
We will provide you the same time to make your presentation.
And if any of us want to interrogate you for 17 minutes, we'll do that
too. But I don't think you're going to have that problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I make a comment? This is a
quasi-judicial hearing --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is, and will you please -- who is
going to be making the presentation? Is it going to be you, Mr.
Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich.
What I planned on doing is a few brief comments in response to
some of the stuff that Mr. Summers said, and then George Aguilera is
going to go through in detail, and there's no way he's going to do it in
Page 48
January 25, 2011
nine minutes. The education -- what we're here for, we went through
an extensive hearing, as you remember. And during that hearing there
was a lot of public testimony and a lot of testimony regarding the
need.
We believe we proved there's a need. What we heard from
people was we didn't focus enough on the quality of service we were
going to provide. And so we were prepared to come back today to
provide you with our education plan and training plan for our
paramedics so that you know and the public knows when the
paramedic arrives from North Naples they are properly trained in Dr.
Tober's protocols and they'll be competent.
So George is going to take you through that education plan.
I just wanted to briefly make a couple comments about -- and it's
real brief, Commissioner, I appreciate that, because I always thought
we were going to go first, but staff went first. So I just wanted to
address a couple of things that Dan said that are beyond the training
aspects that we will be focusing on.
We don't have a lot of public speakers here. In fact, we've asked
our public speakers not to come speak, they were heard the last time.
And we wanted to focus on the training aspects, not the emotional
issues that were addressed the last time. So from the public's side,
we're very brief.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have any problem with you
presenting new data, okay. I won't restrict you from doing that at all --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're going to focus on, new
data. We're not going to rehash what was said at the last hearing. But
if questions come up regarding that, we're available to answer those
questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. Then let's get on with it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And to help me with questions,
George will make the presentation on the training. But Chief Stolts is
here, James Cunningham is here, Dr. Panozzo is here to also answer
Page 49
January 25, 2011
questions, and obviously the former chairman, Chris Lombardo, who
spoke last time, is here to answer questions.
But I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. The COPCN is
to supplement Collier County service, not to replace Collier County
service. So I just wanted to address that.
Chief Page pointed out from a community benefit that as a result
of our ALS engines the county was able to avoid putting two units in
service. So there was a public benefit from a fiscal standpoint as well
as a quality of service standpoint.
The risk management question. Either I didn't make it clear, but
from a risk management standpoint, our paramedic, if they started the
ALS service, was always going to follow through with that patient
from the initial contact all the way through to the hospital. They were
going to ride in the ambulance in the back with the patient. So from a
risk management standpoint, it's not there. And that also addresses
continuum of care.
And the comment about we're supposed to provide service
countywide, that is in fact not what the ordinance says. The ordinance
actually tells us to tell you what our proposed boundary is. We're just
supposed to provide a countywide benefit, not provide service
countywide. So we provide a countywide benefit by supplementing
the service.
And George will now focus on the training aspect of our
paramedics so that everybody can be comfortable that they will
receive the best care.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. AGUILERA: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, George Aguilera, Deputy Chief of Medical Services for the
North Naples Fire Department.
As Richard said, I'm going to try to be brief. I'm going to try to
provide you new information that will hopefully answer some
questions or information that wasn't provided before.
Page 50
January 25, 2011
Again, my goal is to provide you a little bit of what North Naples
__ an overview of what North Naples is looking to provide as far as
providing training, as well as assurance of competency for all our
paramedics.
As well, I'm going to kind of identify some of the immediate
benefits that we believe issuing a COPCN to the North Naples Fire
Department will have on the entire system.
As Richard said, the intent of the NNFD ALS engine program is
to simply augment the Collier County EMS system. It was never ever
meant to replace it. The NNFD has all the necessary paramedics to
provide the requested level of service through our application. No
additional monies are necessary. In other words, the district is not
seeking any tax, industry fees or any other monetary requests in order
to provide the level of service requested.
Most importantly, we believe that the ALS program as proposed
in our COPCN application is without a doubt in concert with the Blue
Ribbon Committee's recommendations.
Our training, we look at it two ways: There's an initial
component of the training and then there's an ongoing or competency
part of training. All our medical -- all our education will be based on
the Collier County protocol, which is developed by Dr. Tober.
All education that we provide now through our continuing
education program will follow and does follow Florida Statute 401
and Florida Administration Code 64J. In fact, North Naples is
recognized by the State of Florida and authorized to provide
continuing education. And most recently through a partnership with
Edison State College, we are now also able to provide EMT and
paramedic primary education. And that is authorized through the
Department of Health.
Even though all our paramedics are currently trained to the
common protocol, our intention is as the COPCN is issued we're going
to rally and provide an additional very concise 40 hours of additional
Page 51
January 25, 2011
education focusing on the new changes that are just coming out in
February of2011 on the protocol. That training will be delivered
one-on-one through our medical director.
As well as part of initial certification, all paramedics will be
tested. They will be taking a written exam. This will be based on the
common medical protocol. The exam will be prepared by a third
party administrator. The North Naples Fire Department's current
entire promotional process is not handled internally. There is no
involvement of internal staff in either preparing or the administration
or the grading or the validating. We will tend to -- our plan is to use
the same process to do the written examination. Obviously each
candidate must pass with an 80 or better.
As done at EMS, we're going to do scenario-based evaluations.
This is basically a one-on-one, almost related to the medical
profession as an oral board between the individual paramedics and the
medical director to assure that not only do they comprehend the
protocol but that they can apply it correctly.
Really, the crux of this, and a lot of the discussion is on
competency, which I call basically the ongoing educational side: How
do we assure that they know what they're doing. The district medical
director has developed what we call a credentialing and privileging as
well as a clinical performance benchmark program.
What is that? Basically it's designed to monitor and measure
paramedics' performance and exposure to clinical opportunities.
This is just the front page of it. And as you can see, basically
what it does is it allows the medical director as well as staff to follow
the progress of individual paramedics. We develop proposed
benchmark, which are being done as we speak, and we test them to
make sure that each paramedic and as well as our EMT's are hitting
the required clinical and/or performance benchmarks.
If you can notice, this is a failure to meet benchmark. We have
no intentions of keeping or using paramedics that somehow for
Page 52
January 25, 2011
whatever reason fail to meet the benchmark. In fact, if you can read in
the parentheses there, failure to meet requirement within the additional
30 days shall result in immediate revoking of paramedic privileges.
Our commitment is to make sure that every paramedic has the
skills, training required to do the job correctly.
This process that was developed is very similar to what
physicians do nowadays. When they go to a hospital they have to get
credentialed by the facility that they're going to be practicing in. The
model used here is very similar to that. They have to provide proof of
experience to continue on.
One other thing is obviously the hands on and clinical side. As
Richard said, one of the things is this continuity of care issue. What
we intend to do and have offered multiple times, that any time one of
our paramedics is on scene first and start advanced life support and/or
if the patient condition or illness or injury requires an additional set of
expert hands, we will put our paramedic and transport to the hospital
with Collier County EMS. There will be no gap, there will be no
misunderstanding, there will be no differences in clinical assessment.
They will work together in order to get the patient to the hospital,
assuring continuity of care. And this will be done as well as through
the Collier County common medical protocol.
Not only does this provide clinical opportunities, which again are
critically important, but think about the enhancement to the level of
care provided when you can put two skilled hands in the back, rather
than one.
Statute is clear, it requires to do continuous quality assurance and
improvement. That will be done. And that will be done in
compliance with State Statute 401 and the rules in 64J. We will use a
combination of physical reviews by the medical director, as well as
computer generated reviews.
Hospital clinicals is a new thing that we've implemented. We've
had for a while, but we've resurrected it. We have an affiliation
Page 53
January 25, 2011
agreement with Physicians Regional to allow our paramedics to
shadow ER physicians and work with them as they're going through
the assessment, as well as practicing clinical pieces of medicine.
Simulation training, something that is very available, underused,
we're going to spearhead that as well.
Really, one of the most important is actual face-to-face education
with the physician. We have basically the luxury of having 50
paramedics and -- to really one medical director, which allows quite a
bit more face time than in most services. And that is going to be an
absolute crown jewel to our program.
But really, I think the most important part of what we're
predicting as far as from a competency standpoint is, I'll tell you what,
we have the distinct pleasure of having two physicians that are
dedicated in providing opportunity of riding with us. In other words,
they actually come out and actually do clinical ride times and keep the
eyes on the paramedics. That is two. And they ride not sometimes on
the same day, but they split days. Not always continuous, they're not
prescheduled, but we have two physicians that are out there riding,
responding to calls and monitoring the performance of our individuals.
Training can get a lot more involved. And I kept it brief just for
the sort. I mean, we can get into outlines, training schedules,
educational outlines and so on, but I'll commit to being brief.
So let me go into some of the immediate impacts.
Improve -- I believe improve the level of medical education to
the EMT's and paramedics of the North Naples Fire Department by
allowing the district medical director working in conjunction with the
office of the medical director to ensure a good continuity of education.
It's a one position to 50 paramedics.
The district medical director will adopt the common protocol.
That alleviates the aspect or the thought of fragmentations of care.
One protocol.
The district will participate in a quality assurance program.
Page 54
January 25, 2011
Again, one mode of quality assurance, and alleviating the risk of a
fragmented quality of care system.
It alleviates the county's medical legal liability, since the district
EMT's and the paramedics will become the responsibility of the
district medical director and the North Naples Fire Department. It has
been said in countless public forums, one, the county medical director
is very busy, and many times, he has articulated clearly, unable to
accept any additional individuals under him for education. And as
well as he has stated his concerns reference liability. With our CON,
we're going to take responsibility over both of those.
Again, enhanced level of care by providing an extra set of hands
and providing a third, what we call a three-person crew and putting
two medics in the back with these critically ill and injured patients
cannot be anything other than an enhancement. It's currently being
done in Marco Island very successfully.
It allows the county to reevaluate its current allocation of
resources. And this is one of the perspectives, is how does our CON
benefit the countywide EMS system. The county allows the county to
reevaluate its allocation of resources and potentially consider
reallocating existing county staffnon-ALS tranport units to other areas
in the county which are currently being underserved. This potential
increase in the level of service can be achieved with no additional
monies to shifting resources.
I'm going to get to the closing. I think it's quick, we've put a lot
of attention and work to the Blue Ribbon committee and their product,
which was absolutely excellent. There are a couple statements from
the report that I feel dovetail nicely with what we're requesting for
non-transport.
They state: The start of a refresh, pre-hospital emergency
medical transport -- treatment and transport model needs to focus on
who arrives on scene the quickest with the highest level of training
and expertise in order to begin treatment that will quickly prepare the
Page 55
January 25, 2011
patient for transport.
That is absolutely what we're proposing.
A positive step would entail the use of ALS engines and
emergency transport services within these service -- within these fire
districts.
Again, that is what we're proposing.
Mandate that all agencies providing ALS services also provide
transport.
Weare doing that. Weare committed that if we start ALS
services prior to EMS or if the patient's condition meets that additional
expertise, we will, for continuity of care, go to the hospital with the
patient.
The fire districts would develop a management process for
position control that would professionally manage the number of
paramedics and EMT's within the district to ensure quality and
expertise through training.
That really summarizes what I'm here telling you, is our training
perspective is basically in line with the recommendations from the
Blue Ribbon Committee.
In closing, please support the issuance of a COPCN for ALS
non-transport to the district. We believe it will lay the groundwork to
build new relationships and maybe even revive some old ones. It will
absolutely set the stage for the Blue Ribbon committee's report and
other recommendations that I've made that we feel are very valuable.
By ordinance, in one year we'll be in front of you. And this way
you can actually grade us and grade us in how successful we are. A
COPCN is a one-year agreement between the North Naples District
and the Board of County Commissioners.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
You mentioned that the other people with you were there to
answer questions.
Page 56
January 25, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Answer questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the end of your formal
presentation; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I hope everything was pretty new.
Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was. It was very informative and it
was in fact new.
Do any Commissioners have any questions from Mr. Y ovanovich
or any of the other members of the North Naples Fire District who are
here to answer questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought we were going to wait
until after the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what I'd like to do is make sure
you get everything you need to get from the petitioner, and then we
listen to the -- but no speeches. We'll have plenty of time to debate it
once we close the public hearing. If you've got questions, make them
succinct questions, give them a chance to respond, and let's move on
with it. Okay?
So Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you're up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was going to ask this of
county staff, but Mr. Y ovanovich, I'd like to get your spin on it. The
-- if the COPCN is enacted within North Naples Fire Department and
if the shell bill takes place -- and of course there's a lot of ifs to this,
but we always have to look forward to the future, hopefully with great
expectations -- and if they get their shell bill and they become an
entity within themselves to allow other people to come into it, with the
fire departments coming into the North Naples Fire Department along
with the COPCN, would they be already grandfathered in because the
North Naples Fire Department has that in place?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to ask Laura Donaldson to
Page 57
January 25, 2011
answer that, since she's handling the actual consolidation bill, so she'll
be able to answer that question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You started off with the word if.
MS. DONALDSON: For the record, Laura Donaldson on behalf
of North Naples Fire Control District.
In that scenario, under state law and your county ordinance the
COPCN cannot be assigned or transferred. So upon the merger
actually happening, because there's a vote and then there's like a year
delay because we have to get the new district operational, the new
district would not be grandfathered in. Actually, North Naples would
not be grandfathered in upon the merger to the Southwest Florida
Control and Rescue District, they would have to come back and
re-apply for a new COPCN from the county.
And that's in county code, Section 50.63. It specifically states
that it prohibits a transfer of a certificate unless approval is obtained
from the Board of County Commissioners.
So in your scenario we would have to -- if the new district was
created, we would have to come back to the board to transfer the
license -- or the COPCN to the new district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, so in other words, when
the district goes to forum, they would be a new entity, so they would
have to have the approval. And if that approval takes place, anyone
else coming into the district would come under that umbrella.
MS. DONALDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I understand totally. I
have quite a few questions, but I'm going to give everybody a chance,
and I'll do it during the rest of the meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Following that same line of questioning,
I'd just like the County Attorney to weigh in on that issue.
Do you agree with that interpretation?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anybody have any other
Page 58
January 25, 2011
questions of Mr. Y ovanovich?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How would this improve the
overall services in Collier County? Or will it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, I think the -- it clearly will
by, first of all, you'll have additional paramedics who will be able to
respond to an event that may require ALS-type services. And as we
showed you at the last hearing, there are many instances throughout
the year where North Naples paramedic is there first and, through
nobody's fault, it takes a while for county EMS to get there to provide
those services.
So from a countywide perspective you're going to have a higher
level of care because you'll have additional well-trained paramedics in
the field responding to events that require advanced life support
.
serVIces.
And if George needs to supplement that, I think that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ifhe agrees with it, I'm fine.
MR. AGUILERA: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next question is, would
there be any costs? Ifwe issue the one-year license, would there be
any costs associated to (sic) that to the county, directly or indirectly?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. This is already part of the North
Naples Fire District budget, so there's no additional fees to anybody
who will be receiving these services, either in North Naples or
anywhere else in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would there be any negative
effects to the existing hospitals?
And George, you said that you would provide paramedics to ride
on the ambulance to the hospital.
MR. AGUILERA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But you didn't state whose
Page 59
January 25, 2011
responsibility to get that personnel back to the station.
MR. AGUILERA: We currently, when we do it, we'll either
make arrangements through one of our battalion chiefs or one of our
engines to go pick him up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said that there's 50
paramedics associated with this request for a license?
MR. AGUILERA: We have 54 paramedics that we employ, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How many of them are
going to be providing ALS service?
MR. AGUILERA: That will be part of our credentialing process.
So I don't -- at the end of the day is how many will participate. I want
to say 54. But we have -- once we implement our credentialing
process, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a part of this I would like
to have a number there. I think that's very important.
MR. AGUILERA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The concern that I have, and
correct me if I'm wrong, what you've stated as far as the training and
the protocol, adopted protocol, would be by North Naples medical
doctor? No?
MR. AGUILERA: Basically what the county will -- or the
district will do is the county protocol that's being developed currently
through the office of the medical director will be adopted as the North
Naples protocol as well. So there will be no fragmentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would the district be okay if the
board in the future may appoint a medical authority and that authority
may set the protocols for ALS service? Can the district agree on if
that happens, that --
MR. AGUILERA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Y oq have adequate revenue?
MR. AGUILERA: Yes.
Page 60
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, these are all the
requirement of findings that the board needs to do in an old ordinance.
I'm assuming that is a part of the new ordinance.
MR. AGUILERA: Correct. We provided a complete financial
analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about, you said if an ALS
engine -- I'm sorry, an ambulance is not available and a patient needs
to go to the hospital right then, how are you going to transport them?
MR. AGUILERA: We can't. That's -- what I said is, if we arrive
on scene first and we start ALS, we are definitely going to go to the
hospital. If for example we arrive on scene at the same time as the
ambulance does but that patient is still sick enough that requires an
additional set of hands, we will also go with the patient to the hospital.
But if we're on scene first and the ambulance is not, we will
basically have to provide the care we can and wait for the ambulance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the district willing to provide
transport?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a longer term issue. But
Commissioner Henning, that's no different than the situation we have
today. There are times when we arrive, we go through all of the basic
life support that we're allowed to provide, and then we have to stop
and wait for that ambulance to arrive.
What we're asking is to allow us to continue on with that care, to
provide advanced life support services until the ambulance gets there.
That patient will be ready for the transport and we will be part of that
transport.
Now, longer term we can look at the issue about providing our
own ambulances, the vehicle, but right now the vehicle is there and we
will be part of that transport team through our COPN. And that's the
advanced care you'll get. Because where we previously had to stop
and wait, we can actually continue on to prepare that patient for the
transport and go along as part of the transport.
Page 61
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, you've answered my
questions, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, you still want to
wait, or you have questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait. I'll wait for the
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Picking up on the last point you
just made, if I understand correctly what you are saying is what you
are bringing to the table is rapid ALS so that a victim will not have to,
or a patient will not have to wait till transport comes to get that
necessary ALS care.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So thereby increasing the level of
service over what we have currently when you have a victim that
needs rapid ALS that can't get it because we're waiting on transport to
get to the scene.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Exactly. We believe we can be part of
the team that provides a better overall patient care service.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to go back to the
discussion about the permit.
The COPCN, as was stated, is limited to one year; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's my understanding, based on
my review of the law, that during the course of that year, if for any
reason the Board of County Commissioners does not feel that things
are working the way it was intended, that we have the ability to bring
this back and repeal this; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, you have the ability, should it not be
working, to bring it back and have a hearing and a discussion
regarding whether the COPCN should continue on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 62
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could we call the speakers, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask one more question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you have your medical director
here today?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you bring him to the stand?
DR. PANOZZO: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you state your name for the
record.
DR. PANOZZO: I'm Dr. Jeff Panozzo. I'm the medical director
for North Naples Fire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Dr. Pan -- how do you pronounce
that?
DR. PANOZZO: Panozzo.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Panozzo. What's your first name?
DR. PANOZZO: Jeff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff. Jeff. Do you mind, I don't
think -- I'm not very good.
Jeff, are you governed by the same statute that Dr. Tober, the
county's medical director, is with respect to your conduct and your
liability?
DR. PANOZZO: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes or no, please, not if you
believe. I need to know.
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're governed by all the same
Florida statutes that govern the duties, responsibilities and liabilities of
Dr. Tober.
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you governed by the same
rules, 64J and whatever other applicable rules govern Dr. Tober?
Page 63
January 25, 2011
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're governed by those as well.
So you have the same duties, the same liabilities, same standards
apply to you as apply to Dr. Tober?
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you governed by the laws of
Collier County with respect to level of service and standard of care as
it relates to anyone that would be either working under you or any
patient that would come in contact with anyone that you have
licensed?
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that the same set of ordinances,
laws, if you will, at the local level that govern Dr. Tober?
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So as I understand, this certificate,
this permit, license, whatever you want to call it, basically will
provide that you will administer the same protocols under the same
standards that govern everybody in Collier County today, be it Dr.
Tober or any of the paramedics that are licensed under him?
DR. PANOZZO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in effect there can't be less of a
quality of care administered to the residents of North Naples than
throughout Collier County.
DR. PANOZZO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there is nothing brought
forward today that in any way would lessen the quality of care
throughout Collier County from what it is today.
DR. PANOZZO: Absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Based on the evidence that's being
presented today, it's clear that the quality of care throughout the rest of
Collier County, as well as within the north district, would be elevated
as a result of North Naples having their own medical director and
Page 64
January 25, 2011
being responsible for the training, supervision and management of the
North Naples Fire District paramedics, which would now supplement
the service to approximately 100,000 citizens; is that correct?
DR. PANOZZO: I totally agree, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to call the -- I'm
sorry .
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are you going to the public?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. But I'm also going to address
those people who are here for the 11 :00 time certain. We failed to
specify on the agenda that was 11 :00 p.m. So those of you who are
waiting for the 11 :00 time certain, it looks like it's going to be a long
wait. So we'll probably do that after lunch. If you want to break and
go have lunch and come back, I can promise you that it won't be heard
before 1 :30 this afternoon. But we'll try to get it in at 1 :30 and get it
done. But this is taking a lot longer than it has to, but we're going to
go through the process.
So we will -- now, unfortunately there are some people in the
audience who might have wanted to speak but did not register at the
time this item was called. According to our rules we don't accept
additional speakers after we have started the hearing process. So if
you wanted to speak and didn't get your speaking request in,
unfortunately we will not be able to accept it under our rules.
So we'll start with the first speaker. And once again, I would ask
that you deal with what is new . We don't really need a repeat of
everything that was said here already and what was said in the last
hearing, but we will not deny you the opportunity to speak.
Start with the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: I'll call two speakers. We'll use both
podiums. If you could, you know, move, because we have 18
speakers.
Walter Kopka, and he'll be followed by Valerie Thorsen.
Page 65
January 25, 2011
MR. KOPKA: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Walter Kopka. I'm currently a battalion chief/paramedic assigned to a
Collier County EMS Medflight helicopter. I've been with Collier
County for nearly 25 years. I've been a part-time law enforcement
officer for nearly 20 years as well.
I'm the current vice-chairman of the EMS medical policy board.
I'd like to read a letter from the chairman, Dr. Talano, who couldn't be
here today.
The letter reads: To the Board of County Commissioners. The
Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Board was
established by the Board of County Commissioners in January of
2009. The advisory board was created to assist the Board of County
Commissioners with all issues affecting pre-hospital emergency
medical services within all of Collier County. The advisory board
consists of a physician, a nurse, a pharmacist, a representative from
one of the independent fire districts, and a representative from Collier
County emergency medical services.
The functions and duties of the advisory board include but is not
limited to review and advise the Board of County Commissioners on
all issues concerning pre-hospital emergency medical services within
Collier County.
Advisory board met on January 21 st, 2011 and discussed the
North Naples Fire District's request for Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, COPCN. Advisory board voted in a three
to one to one vote, determined the advisory board recommends that
the Board of Commissioners deny the request for the North Naples
Fire District to obtain a COPCN.
Please consider this recommendation by your advisory board to
deny the COPCN request for North Naples Fired District.
Respectfully, James Talano, M.D., Chairman, Emergency Medical
Services Policy Board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 66
January 25, 2011
Please state your name.
MS. THORSEN: Good morning. My name is Valerie Thorsen.
I'm a lieutenant with Collier County EMS. I've been there for 23
years, on my 24th year.
I've never spoke before you, so this is a first. So everything is
new.
I have been a paramedic, and that's what I am on the street. I am
not in management; I'm not in specialized firefighting or Medflight,
any of those. And there's nothing wrong in that, but I choose to be --
do my patient care.
And what I've heard this morning, I had written some little notes,
but I just remember 20 years ago when we were in paramedic school,
we were the first class that went in there. And when we were in there
with, I think one or two of the Marco guys, they said, we're going to
take over your EMS down there. And we were just like, what?
And they said, yeah, we are, that's why we're going to become a
paramedic.
Well, that was 20-something years ago. I think it was '98, '99, we
had a fundamental consolidation, and we had three-member teams,
and we did have the firefighters in the back. And I had been training
with a couple of them, and sometimes there was two firefighters, one
medic, two medics, one firefighter, EMT's. And we did this
fundamental. And we went to calls, we ran calls, three-member
teams, and then something happened.
And now just lately we were doing the engine program with the
firefighters and again something's amiss.
And here we are in a place of trying to fix something that isn't
broken. And I think one of the reasons I am here is because I know
Dr. Tober has a passion for patient care, bottom line. He's not a
political person. And I've known him for years. And this is not a Dr.
Tober, you know, salute to, but -- can I keep talking please, just real
quick?
Page 67
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have one minute.
MS. THORSEN: One minute, okay.
The bottom line is that our standard of care needs to be the same.
Our protocols need to be the same. And I hear them saying that.
They already go on our trucks and go to the hospital with us, if
needed. Rarely does that happen.
I just had a woman with a severe bleed in her head. There was
nothing ALS that would have changed anything. We did have one of
the guys, grateful for that, he was another hands to bag.
BLS. BLS before ALS. Eight of our 10 calls are BLS. I believe
that the Blue Ribbon is a good -- is a good -- is a wonderful plan, and I
hope we get to a place that we do it and use it.
I think we need to stop making this emotional. And I -- no
offense, guys, but say yes to ALS saves lives when we all know that
BLS saves lives.
North Naples could provide ALS care again without a COPCN,
but they would have to comply with the same training standards as
Marco, City of Naples, and do the same performance standards. That's
how we achieve the safest and the most responsibility overseen
system, especially where dangerous and powerful drugs. So I thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Tony Camps, and
he'll be followed by Duane Billington.
MR. CAMPS: Good morning, Commissioners, Chairman. For
the record, my name is Tony Camps, and I'm coming before you today
as a citizen, but I would like to disclose the fact that I am a Collier
County employee, a battalion chief. I've been there for 11 years,
being assigned to different special programs, including the ALS
engine for many, many years.
I could have used this time to do the same thing that we do time
and time again, just throw dirt at each other, but that's not what we
Page 68
January 25, 2011
want to do today. Today we want to address some of the major
concerns that I have with this petition.
One of the allegations that I would like to dispel is the one that
said that my fellow coworkers from North Naples, they lack the
mechanisms to bring to the residents of North Naples life-saving
medications. A proven mechanism exists already in place through the
partnership programs where independent districts and municipalities
work together with the county EMS system to increase and improve
the level of service they provide to the residents. It already exists, it's
already happening.
This concept is not new to North Naples, since they have
participated in this program twice. While they did not participate in
the required training, actually they at one point, when I started my
career, were participating in all required trainings by the medical
director. And I remember them having paramedics that were trained
and able to perform at the same level as the county medics. I
remember running calls with Jimmy Cunningham in the back of the
ambulance. And at one point I was not server, he was.
What has changed through the times is their willingness to
comply with the training required that all medics are expected in order
to function under the license of the office of the medical director. I
support putting the tools in the hands that need it, not just in the hands
that wants it.
Other departments have taken on the same challenge and today
are examples of how a sincere desire to make a program work pays
off, enticing all the districts to either join there for the first time or join
partnership programs.
I would like to bring attention to the dangers of awarding a
COPCN to North Naples. They don't need a COPCN to bring ALS to
the residents, they can do that today like all the districts do.
However, what a COPCN would do is initiate a fragmentation
that has happened in neighboring counties. It happened in Broward
Page 69
January 25, 2011
County and it has happened in several other places. They that want to
practice ALS are more than welcome. I think ALS saves lives.
However, I have saved more in the 11 years that I've been a paramedic
with BLS, the last one being about a week ago with BLS. Never
touched the medbox, I was sitting on it.
I think that what is going to happen if the COPCN is awarded is
that it's going to entice other districts that in the past have already
expressed their interest in the COPCN to come before you and ask for
another COPCN. You grant one to them in the pretense that life at a
risk, that they're going to improve services, they're going to come
knocking on your door and asking you for the same thing.
So I warn you, I encourage you to listen to the advisory boards
and the advisory committees that you guys have organized and what
they are telling you. That's not the model. It will initiate the
fragmentation. It is inevitable. It's human nature. We want more than
what we actually need. That's the way we are.
I encourage you to think about it thoroughly and think of the
consequences of what a simple issue of a COPCN to a very group --
you know, good group of workers, you know, I respect all of them.
However no one is looking past the consequences.
Everybody's painting this beautiful picture of what is going to
happen, how service are (sic) going to be improved. Nobody is
looking at what is going to happen to the system that you -- currently a
system that is not broken. Two medcoms, three medcoms in the rural
area might make a difference but are not going to create the great
improvement that is being painted here today.
I encourage you to think things through. They can practice ALS.
They have performed it. They have done that before in the past. It
won't be a new experience for them --
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, time's up.
MR. CAMPS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Page 70
January 25, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Duane Billington will be speaking for six
minutes, as Chris Carpenter has ceded the time to him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is the timer broken or what?
MR. MITCHELL: No, it's going now.
Mr. Billington.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning, Commissioners. I thought I
knew a little bit about this until I arrived here this morning.
If I get it right, North Naples is promising to comply with Dr.
Tober's training requirements. They're going to comply with the
protocols. All they had to do was comply with both of those and
they'd be providing ALS right now. So what in the heck are we doing
here?
And what would lead anybody who had both frontal lobes to
believe that if they didn't comply before that once they're granted a
COPCN they will comply?
That to me is astounding. That's totally amazing.
There are more reasons today to reject North's COPCN request
than existed when it was last rejected on October 26th of last year.
A continuance was recently granted so the Blue Ribbon Moebius
Committee would have time to report its recommendations for
pre-hospital emergency medical treatment and transport services.
That report, unequivocally supported by the Collier County Fire
Chiefs Association and the Collier County Medical Society, was
delivered to this board on January 11th.
In addition, the Collier County Fire Services Steering Committee
was sufficiently impressed to schedule a three-year planning session
on February 3rd. Hodges University will be acting as a facilitator, and
Jeff Moebius is the keynote speaker. That report had various items in
it having to do with the future of emergency services. Granting North
a COPCN is not one of them items.
Granting North a COPCN will fragment services, eliminate
common protocols, provide more, not less duplication of service,
Page 71
January 25, 2011
increase, not decrease cost, and set a dangerous precedent that would
give an out to any other district that didn't like playing by the rules.
North is a rogue district that doesn't know the meaning of fiscal
restraint and they don't play well with others.
On June 28th of 2006 the Board of County Commissioners
offered to turn over EMS to fire districts if they first consolidated.
On July 7th of that same year, North Chief Brown, with the
concurrence of Commissioner Lombardo, and encouragement, by the
way, announced that his department wasn't going to wait for
consolidation. Without first consolidating, North proceeded on a
journey to try to build an unneeded duplicate EMS operation. They
did so without a COPCN, without a license or a medical director, all
required by state law.
In the process they created a false demand for more ALS
paramedics that drove up personnel costs for EMS and other
independent districts.
From 2008 to 2010, during a period of falling revenue, North's
average per person total compensation has risen from $123,943 per
person to $145,000 per person today. Now, that's average total
compensation.
As a comparison, Golden Gate has remained at about $87,000 a
year during that entire time period, because in Golden Gate we believe
in frugality when times are tough.
When you look at this COPCN, think also what might happen if
North is granted a COPCN and their consolidation bill is approved.
That's been somewhat covered, so I'm not going to get into that any
further.
Whatever you decide, don't let North have a COPCN without
demanding they provide patient transport. That's the only way there
would be any savings for the county in this. And then those units
could be used for coverage other places.
During her campaign, Commissioner Hiller called for less
Page 72
January 25, 2011
government, less taxes and true fiscal constraint. Let's apply those
rules here.
Your Collier County Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Board has recommended you deny the request. Please abide by the
recommendation. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
The next speaker will be Walt Stevens. And he'll be followed by
Eloy Ricardo.
MR. STEVENS: For the record, my name is Walt Stevens. I'm
the president of Local 1826, which represents Collier County EMS
along with Lee County, which is 16 departments.
Probably the biggest reason I was originally coming to this is
because the threats of laying off employees if this COPCN was given
to North Naples. I don't see that here today.
But I will share with you, although some may not appreciate or
like what I have to say here, I work in the Lee County system, EMS
system. Every department within Lee County operates under a
COPCN. We all work together. We have a tremendous organization.
The -- I have not lost one employee to a COPCN as of today. Why
would that be? Because the citizens of your county, along with Lee
County, deserve the best system that's available.
Firefighters do have the ability to be paramedics. It's proven. It's
not only proven in Lee County, it's proven all over this country. We
have a system where we work under multiple medical directors, but
we work under the same protocols. Every medic goes to a scene, we
either assist or we don't assist, depending on whatever the transport
agency requests of us. The care is given to them once we arrive. The
system works.
Was it a rough start? I can tell you as a firefighter paramedic, as
a captain riding on an engine going to a call and having to sit there, sit
there and watch a person die or whatever the outcome and not be able
to do nothing but tell them the ambulance is coming.
Page 73
January 25, 2011
The first tenet of government is to provide the highest level of
care to their citizens. Whether the employees of Collier County EMS
want to agree with me or not, that's all that's being asked here. We do
it daily. I support them 100 percent in this because what it does is it
provides them the extra tools to do their job.
I've been dealing with this down here for probably over five
years, dealing with the consolidation, all the different aspects of this,
and we've gotten nowhere. This has all become just a political game,
a political agenda for someone.
All I'm asking you to do is allow them the opportunity to prove
within that year that they have the ability to assist your system. Not
take your jobs away, not take away your system. That's not what
they're asking for. Provide them the ability within that year to
evaluate them and see if the system works. If it doesn't work, then
you have all the tools to remove it.
But I would encourage you to approve it and look at Lee County,
at their direction, what they have done. They have created a fantastic
system. I was just at the Lee County Chiefs Association, and I
applauded them for what they have accomplished in our county, in our
system. We work together every day.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, can I just
clarify one thing?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Stevens, I just want to
understand, you represent the Collier County EMS firefighters?
MR. STEVENS: No, no, I represent Collier County EMS, not
the fire departments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you represent Collier County
EMS. And in your capacity, you support North Naples' request here
today to get their COPCN.
MR. STEVENS: Yes, I do.
Page 74
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I wanted to clarify that for the
record. Thank you.
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, sir, further clarification. I
believe the gentleman supports the EMS union, not Collier County
EMS management.
MR. STEVENS: That's very correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many people is that? How
many members are there? How many Collier County EMS people
does he represent?
MR. STEVENS: We have about 140. Union members, not the
whole system.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, just how many EMS.
MR. STEVENS: You'll have to ask them. I only go by who
signs up for the unions.
MR. RICARDO: Good morning, still.
Commissioners, for the record my name is Eloy Ricardo. I work
for North Naples. You've heard me speak on this issue before. What I
want is to move on. This is affecting the streets. People were here --
people came here for fear of their jobs, that if we got a CON in North
Naples, EMS employees were going to be laid off, units were going to
shut down. That's -- it's -- they're protecting their employment in
tough economical times on an issue that's supposed to be about patient
care. It's not about the employees.
We have great medics, we work left and right together. The issue
here is that it's the right for the district to be able to come, enhance
their service, ask for the CON, and you have the ability to say yes and
actually supervise it throughout the year. If there's something went
wrong, you could come back and repeal it or you can not review it.
That's the ability.
Your ability right now will send us to the State of Florida and ask
the State of Florida to give us the approval for be (sic) a provider. It's
not Collier County. Collier County is the first step that says yes, you
Page 75
January 25, 2011
can enhance your service, we agree, you could go apply to the State.
The State of Florida will go and see our application and they will be
the ones that make the judgment if we're a provider or not.
This issue is going to continue. They come in and they mix it
with consolidation. They come in and -- it's an issue of how much
more stuff do you want to tie together to make it a turf battle. This is
not about turf battle. This is about 9-1-1 calls, and if I get there first
on a fire truck, I should have the ability to provide ALS if I have
medics there. This is what that issue is about.
It's not about taking nobody's job. Don't confuse it now by hey,
why don't you just do transport and get all the EMS employees in a
frenzy. That's not the issue.
So I want to make perfectly clear here that the North Naples
professional firefighters, we're here to provide service to the residents.
I'm fighting for that ability. I'm fighting for the ability to be able to
provide that service. That's all we're doing.
Thank you for your time. Forty-four seconds back.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Christopher
Spencer, and he'll be followed by Margaret Eadington.
MR. SPENCER: Morning. For the record, Chris Spencer. I am
president of the North Naples Professional Firefighters. And I'm
really glad to be here. I know there's a lot of emotion in the room.
Before we get started -- I get started, I just want to say this has
been an issue that's been going on since that lady stated, 24 years ago,
Ms. Thorsen in the back there.
The real issue is this. We get on scene and there's not a medical
unit available. We have agreed to do the training set down in the
protocols by the medical director. We will do that. But we should not
have to wait on scene and tell people, the ambulance is coming, I can
hear the sirens in the background, knowing we've been to school,
we've taken the training, we will do what it takes to get the job done.
We don't want to have to trade people on our trucks to ride on
Page 76
January 25, 2011
ambulances here and there under the guise that you're going to lose
your skills.
We're going to have a medical director go through every single
training scenario with us, like they do right now. You could be in a
truck and, truthfully, never run a code in a year, two, three, four years.
You may never intubate somebody. But you may get it every single
day three or four times a day.
These are and have been known and recognized as the best
medics in the country, most recently. These guys here are the best
firefighters on the planet. Together the both paramedics and
firefighters, we are in a perfect place. We are very fortunate.
Give North Naples the ability to get the COPCN. You get to
watch it for a year. You're going to make sure that everything is in
order. If it doesn't work out, stop it. But we have to stop not letting
the people, the people that we work for, the people that vote for you,
the people who depend on us to get on scene and work with them and
help their situation, starting with your ABC's, BLS, ALS, and get
them to the hospital.
If the call comes down and they need extra hands on the truck,
it's been history, we hop on the truck, we do what is necessary. We've
worked together. But there is this big political problem that we have
going on here, which has been going on, which is driving a wedge
right down the middle of this room. And enough is enough.
I've worked with so many of these people out there. I look at that
thing there and I find it very hard to be stuck in this situation. We're
all good. We're out there. We're on the front lines. I'm telling you,
just let us work with them. Let us have the COPCN so we can
perform the ALS. And when we get them, we'll do like they do. As
Walt Stevens says, in Lee County, give them to EMS and go in it, they
need us. If not, that's fine.
On closing, I also want to make a comment. Mr. Kopka gave a
report that the committee gave a report that they disapprove North
Page 77
January 25, 2011
Naples moving ahead with their COPCN. I was at that meeting and
there were five people that get to vote on that. Two of the people on
the panel hadn't even read the Blue Ribbon committee report and they
voted down on that. So the validity of that is what? You get a three,
one, one vote.
These are the men and women out there every day doing their
very best. Let's continue to work through it. Give us it. If they don't
meet the benchmark, take it away. But give it to them. Let's move
forward. Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Ms. Eadington.
MS. EADINGTON: Margaret Eadington, executive director,
Collier County Medical Society . We represent over 540 physicians
who are practicing in Collier County.
I'm reading a statement on behalf of Dr. James Talano,
cardiologist, who is president of the medical society. He was unable
to be here this morning.
Like many of my medical colleagues, I was pleased to read the
report prepared by the Blue Ribbon panel giving recommendations for
a more streamlined process of administration surrounding the delivery
of pre-hospital emergency care in Collier County.
I applaud the wisdom of the Board of County Commissioners in
taking this bold step to instigate this panel. As president of the Collier
County Medical Society, I reiterate once again that we do not support
granting a certificate of public need to the North Naples Fire District.
It's time to move on and recognize that our EMS program is one
of the best in the country. I'm pleased that the panel recognized our
county's impressive EMS history and our notable low response times
which were achieved by the EMS team and medical director, Dr.
Robert Tober, over the last 30 years.
I strongly believe with respect that the Commissioners should
accept and follow the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel.
Thank you for your time.
Page 78
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask a quick question, just so
I understand who you're representing.
Did the 5,000 doctors vote on this matter?
MS. EADINGTON: Five hundred.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, forgive me. Did 500
doctors vote in opposition to this?
Were they given--
MS. EADINGTON: No, as a--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry, go ahead.
MS. EADINGTON: Our board of directors, which is headed up
by Dr. James Talano, who is the president, speak on behalf of our
members.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand correctly, your
500 members did not vote on this, and this is where a decision has
been made by one man, not by a vote of the board, and he has now
taken the position that they don't support it.
MS. EADINGTON: No, this has been our position all along.
We've been in support of Dr. Robert Tober, who is also a long-time
member of the medical society . We can survey our members, if we
find that necessary. But usually the board makes a decision. This is a
board decision of the Collier County Medical Society.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a concern about the
representation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, who's next?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Alan Drescher, and
he has six minutes, as time's been ceded to him. And he'll be followed
by Matt Marshal.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who is the time
conceded to him by?
MR. MITCHELL: The time that was conceded to him was by
Tim Rudzitis.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the name of this speaker,
Page 79
January 25, 2011
again?
MR. MITCHELL: Alan Drescher.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many more speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Seven.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've gone through 30 already.
MR. MITCHELL: I can't comment to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. DRESCHER: Good morning. My name is Alan Drescher.
I've been a resident of Naples for the last 38 years, and a North Naples
citizen and taxpayer for the last 15.
I'd like to interject here. Mr. Spencer, the statements you made, I
think we all agree with you pretty much 100 percent on that. There is
an awesome teamwork on the street between our personnel at EMS as
well as the firefighters in the county. And there are a lot of politics
that unfortunately seem to get in the way.
F or the last 11 years I've been a paramedic firefighter with the
Collier County EMS system and have had the opportunity to work
with members of all nine fire departments in Collier County as a
medic on an ambulance. The last eight years I have also worked with
the City of Marco Island, the City of Naples, East Naples, and Isles of
Capri firefighters on their trucks as a firefighter paramedic on the
advanced life support engine program. However, I was not allowed to
participate in N orth Naples program because the requirements created
by their administration determined I did not have enough training.
Over the more than 11 years I've worked at EMS, North Naples
Fire Department has entered into ALS agreements with the county a
few times, and each time their administration chose to end it, either
directly or indirectly by not meeting the agreed-upon requirements.
When I first started working at EMS, you've heard before, we
had an ALS engine program in place with North Naples Fire
Department that was quite progressive. North Naples paramedics
completed the exact same training the Collier County EMS
Page 80
January 25, 2011
paramedics were required to complete. They carried every medication
that the EMS medic did, once the initial training was completed.
There's no differentiation between us. You're either a
county-credentialed medic or you are not. And it did not matter which
agency you worked for. The personnel were eager and well trained,
and it greatly increased the level of care in their district.
Through the program they also placed a firefighter in a couple of
our ambulances as a third person. This negated the need for a large
fire engine to go to simple medical calls or a minor vehicle accident,
as three people on the ambulance were capable of handling the call.
This program made financial sense to the taxpayers and added to
the number of emergency vehicles in our county that were capable of
providing ALS to its citizens and visitors.
Through the years the medical director has had enormous
political pressure placed on him to become the training requirements
for personnel to become a credentialed medic and to maintain that
certification. The medical director reluctantly agreed but reduced the
scope of practice as a measure of prudence to match the reduced level
of training, but more importantly, to reflect the evidence indicating
almost all the medications were being used infrequently if at all.
The time required in an ambulance eventually decreased to one
24-hour shift every three months for fire department paramedics
providing ALS as part of their ongoing training. North Naples agreed
that four times a year was something they could easily accomplish.
The other participating departments meet and often exceed this
standard on a regular basis, but North Naples Fire soon found they
were unable to meet this requirement, as stated by Attorney
Y ovanovich at the October 26th BOCC meeting.
Attorney Y ovanovich admitted to you that they complied with
the ride time requirements for the first quarter but fell short the second
quarter. He cited reasons such as vacations for not being able to rotate
only 40 to 45 field paramedics onto an ambulance the required once
Page 81
January 25, 2011
every three months. There were 91 days in that quarter.
The fact that they chose not to meet the minimum standards left
the medical director little choice but to suspend their privilege to
administer ALS drugs until they complied with the training deemed
necessary by the office of the medical director.
Again, I say they, because North Naples is responsible for the
scheduling of their personnel.
As a North Naples taxpayer and resident, I am concerned over
the decision by current and past leaders of North Naples Fire to reduce
the level of care their medics are allowed to provide. Many of their
paramedics have proven to be competent and capable medics. They
should be allowed to complete the ongoing training, and they should
be allowed to use these drugs to provide a higher level of care. But
they do not need a COPCN to do this.
The North Naples administration, their multiple lawyers, fire
commissioners, have been telling us that they just want the
opportunity to provide the best care of the citizens by providing
pre-hospital advanced life support. Ridiculous displays of emotion --
ridiculous displays, emotional statements, half truths and flat-out lies
have been made against Dr. Tober over the years, a nationally
recognized and well-applauded medical director. They have told you
and the media that he has tied the hands of their North Naples
paramedics, preventing them from saving the lives of their citizens.
I agree, their hands have been tied. Not by Dr. Tober, but by
their own administration. The same administration has wasted what
must be hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on multiple
lawyers, public records requests and wasted productivity by staff on
an attempt to circumvent a system that has proven to work, instead of
working together to improve it.
Why would we expect anything different if they are granted a
COPCN?
Why don't we hear the departments currently participating in the
Page 82
January 25, 2011
program crying their hands are tied? Simple, their hands are not tied
because they complete and even exceed the training standards. They
approach the medical director with new ideas to improve service and
the delivery model and they work together to improve the overall
system instead of finding ways to detract from it.
At the recommendation by others and supported by North
Naples, this board created the Office of the Medical Director. The
intent was to allow the medical director to report to this board and
allow greater access by everyone that provides pre-hospital medical
care. You as a board also have commissioned many studies and
committed thousands of dollars over the past years to help make the
correct decisions concerning the EMS system. You've received recent
reports all recommending one medical director for the entire county.
By doing this, you are creating a foundation to further advance the
level of pre-hospital medical care.
A COPCN will only serve to fragment and further decrease the
current level of care in this county. Fragmentation of EMS is
something you have spoke and worked against for years, even going
as far as telling the fire departments they can have EMS if they
consolidate. But you will not allow degradation of the EMS system.
I do not understand what it is they're trying to accomplish with
the COPCN request. The opportunity to provide ALS care they are
requesting is as simple as completing the required training. Those of
us at EMS have a choice to make. We complete the training as
acquired by the medical director or we have our ALS privileges
revoked. The local fire departments have the same basic choice: They
meet the standards of the OMD and provide ALS or they do not.
I'd also like in conclusion to say I'm in witness to the skills,
knowledge and desire of the fire department medics almost every
shift, and regardless of what uniform is worn, we support the ability of
all paramedics in this county to administer ALS drugs, provided
they're credentialed --
Page 83
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to wrap it up. Thank you very
much.
MR. MARSHALL: Good morning. My name is Matt Marshall.
I am a -- I live in North Naples fire control district. I am a
firefighter/paramedic in Lee County. I ride on an engine every third
day, and I go and meet people that need ALS care.
I have a two-week-old at home. I have an 18-month old at home.
Where I live in this district is the northwest-most part, okay? There is
an ambulance that's five blocks from my house. When that ambulance
is not there, the next closest ambulance comes from Vanderbilt,
Vanderbilt Beach Road and Vanderbilt. It's very far.
If something gets caught in my two-week-old's throat and an
ALS paramedic is there, they can save my baby. If not, that
eight-minute response time may only be eight minutes, but my
two-week-old will die. Do you understand that? Please understand
that, okay? My two-week-old.
You have kids, I'm sure. And if they were to die, that wouldn't
be good, okay? It only takes one life. What is that worth? My kid,
everything I own and everything you own. That's what it's worth.
With you knowing that this could happen, it makes this county
liable, okay? And you know, that's really not that good, because I am
a county taxpayer, and I don't want this county to be liable.
North Naples is trying to take the liability onto themselves. That
is great with a medical director. With my department that I work for,
we have our own medical director in Lee County. And we do more
training than other departments in our county because my medical
director is over top of my 36 medics.
So please, please grant this COPCN. Please, I implore you,
please, for my baby's life. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to say, for my
husband's life.
MR. MARSHALL: Exactly. Thank you.
Page 84
January 25, 2011
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Geoffrey Swets, and
he'll be followed by Anthony Hiserodt.
MR. SWETS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name's
Geoff Swets. I'm a lieutenant with EMS. I'm a resident of Collier
County. I've been in emergency services since 1993. I've been a
paramedic since 1997. I've been involved in several difference
systems, all of which did it several different ways.
Here in Collier County, none of the people that work out in the
street do not want (sic) -- none of them want to not be able to do what
they can do. If they're trained to do it, they want to do it.
The Office of the Medical Director has given every paramedic
the ability to do that. It is not the paramedic's fault. It is not the
Office of the Medical Director's fault as to why this has faltered.
In regards to a baby choking, American Heart teaches everybody
steps in which to take care of that. Anybody that goes through a class
for choking can learn how to take care of that.
Yes, there are instances where we need to go and take that next
step up. There's even instances; me, as a county cert'ed paramedic,
cannot take care of that. That's out of my hands. Someone else above
me, way above me, makes that decision.
In regards to services not being provided, I hope investigations
were done, and if there was a fact that -- it was a problem with that,
then it should have been brought forward.
In regards to 1826 saying they are here to represent me, I would
like to tell the board that is false. In regards to my friends in the back,
they will tell you the same thing.
Ms. Hiller, you mentioned you asked about the doctors'
association, did they all vote. We, as District 14, did not all vote for
Mr. Stevens to come say he represented us as well, but that question
was not asked of him.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask that question.
Page 85
January 25, 2011
MR. SWETS: Ask the question, but he's already spoken, so it's
probably not a point of order to be able to be done. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'll ask that question after.
MR. SWETS: I'm sure. But my time is now.
If the paramedics have the opportunity to do it, these paramedics
can do it. In an effort to remain with one solid level of patient care,
there should only be one medical director.
Dr. Panozzo would like to help. I'm sure there would be a way in
which he could assist the Office of the Medical Director, but we do
not need to have more than one medical director.
Thank you.
MR. HISERODT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. First off, I
would like to start off by saying that I am not here because I am in
fear of my job. I am here on behalf of the patients in this county.
I would also like to address Mr. Stevens. This is the second time I
have been ashamed to be a member of this union, and I do not think
there will be a third time.
My name is Anthony Hiserodt. I've been employed with Collier
EMS for over seven years; more than five of those years I've been a
paramedic. I speak with you today because I am very concerned for
the safety of our citizens and visitors. I've no other agenda. I don't
care what color my shirt is, what my patch looks like, or the name on
top of my paycheck. I'm here on behalf of patients.
You all have the very important decision to make, one that will
affect people's lives. I feel it is important for you to hear the opinion
of some of the medics who work hard every shift to make a positive
difference in people's lives. We have been less than vocal in the past
concerning these issues, but we cannot remain silent any longer.
When a person becomes a paramedic by passing the state test, it
means that they have met the minimum standards and qualifications. I
don't know about you, but personally when my children are having an
asthma attack, my wife is going into labor, my parents are having a
Page 86
January 25, 2011
heart attack, or when I'm involved in a vehicle accident, I want the
person carrying that med box to have more than the minimum
standards and qualifications.
Now, I'm not saying that all these fire medics do have those
minimum standards and qualifications, but they have had the ability to
participate in training for years in the past, and it has been proven not
to happen, for whatever reason. I'm not blaming anybody.
Here in Collier County, Tober-cert'ed medics go above and
beyond the minimum standards by attending an in-house academy that
lasts weeks, during which they learn our county-specific protocol and
are continuously tested on their knowledge.
After successfully completing that academy, they are placed on a
medic unit for months where they are directly supervised by an
experienced field training officer. When that field training officer and
that new medic feels that they are ready, they then sit in front of Dr.
Tober, and they're then tested further on their knowledge. And then,
and only then, are they deemed qualified to treat people with ALS
procedures and medications.
We carry many drugs and perform many procedures that, if
administered incorrectly, can and will have devastating and even
deadly consequences to patients who receive them.
We have increased training and patient contact time that is
necessary to deliver safe and effective world-class care to our citizens
and visitors. As county medics, we can spend up to an hour with each
patient, because we start from the beginning until we deliver them to
the hospital. The fire medics generally have 5, maybe 10 minutes with
each patient.
Basic life support is an integral part of every single call. It's the
most important part. It's the part that actually saves lives. Very rarely
do I give any kind of ALS care within the first 10 to 15 minutes, even
more rare do I do it before I've actually left for the hospital.
Without these firefighters, though, I could not do my job. They
Page 87
January 25, 2011
playa super important role in every call. They assist me. They have
always assisted me, and I'm sure no matter what happens, they will
continue to assist me.
Our system --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wrap it up.
MR. HISERODT: -- and Dr. Tober have received many
prestigious awards for the way we operate and our success rate. I feel
very strongly that changing this by giving the fire departments a
COPCN is not only unnecessary, but dangerous.
In medicine, decisions are often made by considering the risk
versus the reward. I hope you all keep that in mind as you make this
decision. I feel the risks far outweigh any potential reward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. HISERODT: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Justin Andrews, and
he'll be followed by Joseph Gauta.
MR. ANDREWS: How you doing? My name's Justin Andrews.
I'm a lead paramedic with Collier County EMS. I've been here for
about four years now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you get a little closer to that mike,
please.
MR. ANDREWS: Is that better?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's much better. Thank you.
MR. ANDREWS: You know, I had a lot that I was thinking
about saying when I came up here. I've had a lot of pretty outrageous
incidents happen with me, especially the last year when I've become
Tober cert'ed. The biggest one I see here today is the fact that they're
saying they want ALS. They've had the chance to. They don't want to
do training.
It's a slap in the face when I hear their outline: 40-hour class, a
couple scenarios, and some simulations, hang out in the ER with
doctor. That's their training. Really?t
Page 88
January 25, 2011
I spent a month, every day, sitting with the training captains,
learning the protocol. After that I spent four months, every day, with
an FTO watching me, grading me, every day on the road, talking to
patients, dealing with patients, not sim. man, not some doctor in an
ER. I mean, that's not the situation you're going to have. You're
going to be on the road.
I know when I have somebody give me a drug, I want the guy
who had a 40-hour class. That's just -- that's ludicrous. I mean,
classes like that, that's CPR. You want to learn CPR, there you go.
There's a class for that.
To learn how to save a life, to learn the complete anatomy of the
heart, all the cardiac drugs you deal with -- there's not a drug in the
med box that won't kill you if it's given wrong. But the guy with the
40-hour class is the guy that you want to put in charge?
I say no. Force them back into the ALS engine program. Get
back, do the training. It's been there. It's been available for them.
Marco, Capri, Ochopee, City of Naples all do it. Why is it good for
them but it's not good for North? What makes them so special? What
makes them so different? Are the citizens in Marco not good enough?
Are the citizens in Capri not good enough?
It doesn't make sense. Deny the COPCN, make them get back in
an ALS engine program, make them do the training.
Thank you for your time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify. Did you say
what you're going to do is supplemental to what's already being done,
or is it instead of? I thought you said it was in addition to?
MR. AGUILERA: Yeah. That's just mis- -- taken out of context.
What we said is, we are already receiving the training. These
individuals have gone through more training than you can even
. .
ImagIne.
What we said with 40 hours was just to bring them up to speed
with the new changes that are coming up in the February protocol.
Page 89
January 25, 2011
That was it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you are going to provide, at a
minimum, the same level of training that these guys get, and then
supplemental training above that?
MR. AGUILERA: Absolutely.
MR. ANDREWS: So then we'll see your medics on our
ambulances for four and five months at a time, learning to take care of
patients every day on shift.
MR. AGUILERA: All right. Listen.
MR. ANDREWS: It's not the same standard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's--
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Joseph Gauta, and he'll be
followed by Robert Metzger. So Robert Metzger.
CHIEF METZGER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'll try to
cover some new ground and try to get away from some of the
emotions here.
My name's Robert Metzger, and I'm the fire chief of the Golden
Gate Fire District. I also serve on your EMS Policy Advisory Board.
I was the vice-chair until I recently nominated my colleague, Mr.
Kopka, to take my place.
In listening to Mr. Summers earlier state that he felt this
application should be denied because there isn't a county-wide impact,
and also he made some other assertions associated with the impact of
this application. I'm here to tell you that from Golden Gate's
perspective, we see a positive impact county-wide.
Mr. Summers also stated that he would be in favor of anything
that would improve the AUIR standards that would increase the
delivery of EMS service throughout the county. He even said that he
would commit to doing those things that will improve those standards.
Well, I'll tell you that today if you approve North Naples COPCN
application and they subsequently gain approval of the state, there will
be a concomitant benefit to the Golden Gate Fire District, because
Page 90
January 25, 2011
there will be a shift eastward in Collier County of a number of the
Collier EMS ALS assets. That includes my district. That includes the
districts of Mr. Henning and Mr. Coletta.
I know this is -- this trans- -- this transfer of assets will occur
because Jeff Page, chief of EMS, went on record at our last EMS
Policy Advisory Board in stating so under questioning from members
of the board -- that a granting of the ALS COPCN application for
North will result in a transfer of county EMS assets eastward. I
support that. That's good for my community.
And I'll close on that because I don't think that it needs any
further elaboration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I clarify a point you made?
CHIEF METZGER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You say we have a response-time
standard, but that was clarified. We don't. We have a target.
Apparently the AUIR sets an eight-minute response-time target, not a
standard, and there's a big difference.
And the reason I bring that up is because Summers also said that
the eastern section and 1-75 exceed that standard and that that's -- or
that target, that -- and I guess their response-time numbers are a
function of a curve.
So what you're saying, the redeployment, because now we have
these paramedics available to serve eastern Collier, will improve the
response times in eastern Collier, which should improve the response
times for the county overall since we're dealing with a curve number.
CHIEF METZGER: I would agree with that assessment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very significant.
CHIEF METZGER: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, your last speaker is Lydia
Galton.
MS. GALTON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Lydia Galton. I'm the president of the League of Women Voters.
Page 91
January 25, 2011
And I must say that my statement was not surveyed with my
members, before I make it.
I'm just here to urge you to consider the Blue Ribbon Committee
report before you make any decision today. It seems to me you're
putting the cart before the horse.
You have a brilliant report in your hands. Why are you not
looking at ways to implement that? Why are you not considering the
recommendations made by that? This is extraneous. This is beside
the point.
The fate of the North Naples Fire District will be taken care of
when you implement all of the suggestions in the Blue Ribbon
Committee report. That is what should be paramount here, not this.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Lydia?
MS. GALTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's paramount here is
providing the highest level of service.
MS. GALTON: Exactly. We're not going to get there by having
a regionalized management system, as suggested by the Blue Ribbon
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's all about saving lives.
MS. GALTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we have an offer on the table.
MR. BILLINGTON: Commissioner, are you going to argue with
her or just let her give her piece and sit down?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Duane, may I make comments,
please. It's very important. It's about saving lives. I just want to
clarify. It's about saving lives.
MS. GALTON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Time is of the essence.
MS. GAL TON: And I've had a reason to call the EMS, and they
were there within three minutes. They were just marvelous.
Page 92
January 25, 2011
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Lunchtime.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There has been considerable
discussion concerning the training standards, and I don't know how we
can discuss the training standards without having Dr. Tober give his
position concerning the training standards. He is our medical director.
He establishes our standards. And I would like to hear from him with
respect to that issue.
DR. TOBER: Good afternoon. And I'll be very brief.
We did have, on two different occasions, training standards for
North Naples Fire when they did have ALS privileges. We also -- I
also gave them ample opportunities and warnings that they were not
meeting the same standards that Marco and the City of Naples were.
And so we pulled their ALS privileges, and they dropped out of the
program.
I also want to say that in -- to follow up on Commissioner Hiller
about saving lives, is that we scrutinized the use of drugs by North
Naples, as we do everyone else in the system. And the level of
mistakes being made caused alarm, caused me to be concerned that
harm exceeded benefit, and so I tightened training standards much
more stringently for everyone, not just North Naples, but for Marco
and the City of Naples.
And it really was North Naples that dropped out of the program.
I really have never had it explained to me why and how they are going
to meet training standards today that, for whatever reason, they were
incapable of meeting when they were under the ALS interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Dr. Tober, I'd like to ask you some
questions about your training and how you basically expect your
paramedics to better apply these drugs by driving transport, or with
Page 93
January 25, 2011
transport.
I've had the opportunity to speak with you about your protocols,
and you were very kind to give me a great deal of information. And
what I have here in front of me is a medication administration study,
and it's for the period July 2007 to June 2009.
And during that period of time, Dr. Tober highlighted for me the
number of administrations, by the various drugs, that the ALS
paramedics have in their kit, and I was astounded, because when you
eliminate aspirin, 2,115 applications; nitroglycerin, 3,913 applications;
and dextrose, 1,150 applications, you are left with very, very few
applications of the remaining medications.
And what concerns me is that if you take the number of
paramedics out there that are ALS certified and you divide it into --
and also there's 1,221 for Atrovent, which is for asthma -- that there is
such an insignificant amount of administrations of these drugs that it
puts into question whether the ALS medics across the board that are
currently certified are even getting close to the training of the drug
administration they need to be ALS certified.
And so I pose that question to you, Dr. Tober. How do you
explain this? Because, quite frankly, I don't see the numbers here that
support the certification. In fact, I've also heard you argue that we
need limited ALS, and I'm concerned about that as well.
DR. TOBER: I didn't hear your last thing. You heard me argue
what?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You want limited ALS.
DR. TOBER: Well, actually what you say is quite true in that
the number of paramedics deployed in a system with drugs does need
to be limited, and the last thing that should be done is to have that
number grown.
I think you and I interacted about this on Friday. And what I was
saying at that time was, given the ratios of paramedics with drugs to a
population like Seattle, which is considered a benchmark stellar
Page 94
January 25, 2011
system, we actually exceed those ratios already today, so I'm hesitant
to even further dilute things.
In terms of how we manage things with our own medics, you
have to understand that the vast majority of drugs we carry we carry
and administer during the transport phase. We have to carry a fairly
large number of drugs, because some of our transports, particularly
from eastern Golden Gate or Immokalee or Everglades, are
exceedingly long.
Yes, indeed, our own paramedics do get very, very limited
experience using some of those drugs, but paramedics from a place
like North Naples, where I also included all of the rosters of drug
administrations, are a fraction of what even the ALS medics from the
-- from EMS give. So, again, they are a quantum leap further down
the line in terms of dilution of actual experience.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, that wouldn't be the case,
if I may say, because now we have these 50 paramedics concentrating
on 100,000 people.
DR. TOBER: Well, you had -- you had these medics
concentrated for two years when they were endowed with ALS
privileges, and they gave almost -- I think they gave 23 doses of drugs
in two years, compared to about 11,000 doses of drugs in EMS.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Again, those numbers are skewed
because of what I said.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's quit the arguing.
DR. TOBER: Those numbers are right in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yes. And I'm going to enter
them in the record so everyone can review them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, did you have a
question or comment you wanted to make? I am getting ready to
close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have numerous questions.
One remains -- I wanted to remain silent until after we had a chance to
Page 95
January 25, 2011
vent everything. And I'm not sure if this should be you, Dr. Tober, or
Mr. Page or Dan Summers to answer the questions, but let's start with
you on the one for ALS and what we're doing for EMS and how the
whole things comes.
At one point in time we had certain measurements and we were
recognized nationwide as far as what we've been doing with EMS. I
mean, stacked up against the rest of the world out there, how do we
hold our own at this point in time?
DR. TOBER: We're doing very well. I don't know if -- Leo, you
can pull up on the computer what was set up for me before.
I wanted to share with you, from state meetings that were
presented last week, a program called Take Heart Florida, and it will
just take a couple of moments to show you, once they get the
computer up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it helps to answer the question
I put out there, I would very much like to see it.
DR. TOBER: Yes, it does help answer the question. That's it
right there. You just had it up. Take Heart Florida. Yes, thank you.
Page down. Just go to the -- this program was just -- right here.
Thank you. This program was just introduced last week in Daytona
Beach. It's called Take Heart Florida. It talks about cardiac arrest.
Basically -- and I'm moving through this very quickly . We have about
a thousand deaths per day in the United States from cardiac arrest.
Nationally, the average survival to hospital discharge is approximately
5 percent.
This is not moving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a lot moving here.
DR. TOBER: I need the man who set this up in here to get me to
Slide 25 somehow. I want to go to Slide 25.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I was appointed -- I was
actually nominated by Dr. Joe Nelson, the state EMS director, and
appointed by the Bureau of EMS to chair the -- still not moving -- the
Page 96
January 25, 2011
Sudden Cardiac Arrest Committee for the State of Florida. They are
actually using Collier County as a model to move -- we need to get to
25, if you can -- to move the entire State of Florida to a level of
cardiac arrest performance.
This is also being done in conjunction with the model of Code
Save A Heart that we started in Collier County. Dr. Keith Lurie, who
actually manufactures a pod that we use in cardiac arrest called the
Rescue Pod actually came down to study -- you're getting close -- all
right --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Any questions?
DR. TOBER: -- to study our system. They then launched this in
three cities: Austin, Texas; Columbus, Ohio; and Saint Cloud,
Minnesota. And they now choose to take this across Florida as Take
Heart Florida.
I did not create this slide, but it just highlights the fact that we
teach bystander CPR, first response CPR through police and fire. We
go on to EMS. We are using these advanced compression devices
which was of great interest nationally, particularly with the success
that we have achieved.
We have taken this through the Emergency Department, and the
-- we have now launched the first phase of Atris, and this is where we
are today with the Take Heart Florida. I am a chair of the state
committee, and I have made a commitment to the State of Florida to
try to help other counties achieve the same success rates in cardiac
intervention that we have achieved here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So just summarize it up.
If you tell me -- I don't want to put words in your mouth -- that our
EMS is in comparisable (sic) to other counties, is on a par, superior?
DR. TOBER: Well, I don't -- I would certainly say that the State
of Florida recognizes our system to be spectacularly successful, but
our system is everyone. It's bystanders, it's police, and fire first
response, it's EMS, it's the Emergency Department, it's the cardiac
Page 97
January 25, 2011
cath labs, it's our cardiologists; it's the whole system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, I have questions about
EMS and time that it takes to deploy them. Is it true that there's a
difference in time response between urban and rural Collier County?
DR. TOBER: I think I'm going to let Jeff Page answer that.
MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with EMS.
Yes, sir, there is. There's an eight-minute travel time that we
have for the urban area and a 12-minute travel time for the rural area.
And that was approved by the Productivity Committee. It came
before the board, and that went back to that model change that we --
previously it was eight minutes county-wide. We were never able to
achieve it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So one more time about you
were never able to achieve it.
MR. PAGE: We were never able to achieve county-wide
eight-minute travel time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's because the rural area,
being that it's spread out over great distance, the time it takes to travel,
and the actual cost to maintain the stations in EMS personnel makes it
very difficult to respond in the same amount of time it does in a
congested urban area?
MR. PAGE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That I understand.
Now, one of the arguments that's being made, that if you go -- we
go along with this, we're giving North Naples the ability to be able to
take on the service, that that will free up EMS personnel to be able to
lower the travel time or the response time, rather, in the rural area of
Collier County.
And I got to first tell you a qualifier why -- my concerns with that
particular statement, is back about three or four years ago, when we
were doing our initial budget cuts, this commission very strongly
defended the budget of EMS. In fact, they vested it for like two years
Page 98
January 25, 2011
to make sure that no one would have the concerns about anyone being
laid off.
However, with that, we did allow attrition to take care of some of
the numbers. Am I correct so far?
MR. PAGE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And even though the
best intentions are that you could move people from the North Naples
area from EMS and re-station them out in the rural area, there's no
guarantees that budget constraints in the future would not lose those
efficiencies that were gained.
MR. PAGE: That's a board decision.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know it's a board decision, and
I can tell you right now, I have very little confidence in this board to
be able to say, yes, we're willing to make sure that there's more money
spent on EMS in the rural part of Collier County. I mean, this is just a
reality of life.
MR. PAGE: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I fight for it every darn year, but
the truth of the matter is -- I would probably be very, very willing to
go along with this if I had an assurance way off into the future, not just
a year, two years, that we will maintain that standard; in other words,
right now you say it's 12 minutes in the urban area. If I could get a
standard of ten minutes that everybody on this commission would
agree to and carry to fulfillment, now there is a direct benefit that's
everlasting that I know I can get. Of course they can change their
mind at some point down in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, could we deal
with asking questions --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and getting information, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I need for him to clarify my
process -- my thought process. Am I wrong, right, or--
Page 99
January 25, 2011
MR. P AGE: Well, I'll just explain it to you the way I explained
it to the policy board. We know that historically for 15 years that 65
percent of the time when we arrive do we result in transport. So about
40 -- or 35 percent of the time we don't transport.
So the thought was in the discussions with Chief Stolts that Dan
Summers and I had, was if they were to get their own COPCN, that
will allow them to be the authority having jurisdiction; in other words,
they now have the responsibility to be there in eight minutes. We
don't.
They would call us if they need a transport. And, in theory, you
could reduce the staffing of units. In other words, the reason we have
five to six units up in North Naples is based on we were the legal
licensed provider up there and needed to be there within that
eight-minute standard that we had set up. Once we no longer have
that and you're only looking at transport capability at that point, you
can further reduce by, theoretically, 35 percent the number of units
that we have stationed up there, and we locate those elsewhere to
where your response times are needed.
Now, if they actually did transports also, that would further
reduce the number of transport vehicles you would need by maybe
five. So it's -- those are all options to the board, and that's basically in
our discussion with Chief Stolts when we were panning this around,
and what we agreed to do was wait until the board made a decision,
and at that point we'll work it out how it's going to settle out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If I could talk to the
representative from North Naples, Mr. Y ovanovich. And may I
proceed for just a few minutes more, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, sure. You certainly deserve your
share of time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't think anybody's time can be
limited in a quasijudicial proceeding legally, and I'd like to state that
for the record.
Page 100
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fine. Then sue me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Be careful. I'm going to forget
the question if you keep this up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually it says it in our
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Y ovanovich, thank you for
being here today. And I want you to know that I'd love to find a
solution to all this, and I'm not too sure of staffs recommendations, we
wait until the Blue Ribbon panel can come back and make their
recommendations to see what can be married into this idea of North
Naples striking out on their own in this particular venture.
And -- you know, and that might not be a bad idea. That's the
first question I've got for you. Is there some reason that you can give
us that it would not behoove us to use the resources of the Blue
Ribbon panel, come back with their suggestions, and be able to make
a final decision?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The Blue Ribbon Committee didn't say
stop. The Blue Ribbon Committee gave you a five-year plan. It didn't
say, stop all of your improvements to your service today. What we're
-- what we're proposing is to provide additional well-trained
paramedics to provide service to supplement the already good service
you have out there today.
I didn't hear anybody say that the service can't be better. It can
be better. And what we're proposing is a mechanism to make it better
in North Naples. And, you know, if it works well in North Naples,
maybe you move it over to Golden Gate Estates. Maybe you move it
over to East Naples. But this could be part of the ultimate plan for the
Blue Ribbon Committee.
So what we're saying is, this is a better system. You shouldn't
have to wait. I will tell you, you have -- and I hesitate to use this
word, but you have -- you -- within your own EMS, you have
Page 101
January 25, 2011
Tober-certified paramedics that do not ride on ambulances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You have -- within your own EMS
system, you have paramedics that don't ride on ambulances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we stick with the
question? And I think you're answering it for me. But, once again, let
me try. Leo, help me with this. When was it the Blue Ribbon panel
and staff were supposed to come back with some ideas, like -- I think
it was going to be, like, in a menu fashion where we could select and
choose their findings. It was supposed to be when? Months from now,
a week from now, when?
MR.OCHS: Well, the board didn't set a hard date. They asked
-- they directed the county attorney and I to get with the folks that
presented your Blue Ribbon recommendations and wanted us to meet
with them to get some ideas on how this concept of a public-safety
authority would actually be operationalized, and then the board
wanted to have a workshop with the stakeholders on that issue.
I think the premise was that once there was a decision made on
the public-safety authority, that -- that entity would then proceed to
attempt to implement, along with the stakeholders, all the other
recommendations in that report from your Blue Ribbon panel.
I'd suspect, you know, it's probably 30 days before we're sitting
down with that workshop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I'm probably going too
long, because I can hear a moan from the Chair. At least I think it was
from the Chair. But -- okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It was my stomach growling.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I think we've pretty
much covered that. And, you know, I'm not saying I couldn't support
something like this. I'm just saying I'd like to make sure we
incorporate enough into it that it gives us all the protection we need.
In fact, I would -- I'm going to make a pretty profound statement.
Page 102
January 25, 2011
You know, I've been a person that's been very pro consolidation for a
long time, and I personally don't care who it's consolidated under,
even North Naples. The whole thing is is I'd love to be able to get to
that point.
If I was king for a day, I'd bring them all together and recognize
you with all your financial resources as the lead agency. Why not?
Put you personally in charge, Mr. Y ovanovich. If anything goes
wrong, it's your fault.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But going back to it -- one more
last question, then I'll give it back to my fellow commissioners.
We keep hearing about this one-year trial period and what --
now, there's a concern with that, too. I mean, you know, it's always
great to have something where you have a certain amount of control.
You might say that sunset provision that you can enact whenever you
feel that it's necessary; however, once this thing gets underway and the
time and the effort goes into putting the structure together -- and there
will be some costs involved with it, no doubt.
But at the end of one year, to be able to say, you know, I'm not
totally happy with it, I want to pull everything from underneath you,
and you cast this aside and try to find a better model, I think that's
very unlikely to happen, so I'm not too thrilled with this one-year trial
period as per se.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But you've always had that ability. You
had that through the interlocal agreements. You had the ability to pull
the plug, if you will, on a program you didn't like. You're not going to
cost us anything to start this program up.
We're already ready to go. So from a cost standpoint, there is no
cost to the North Naples residents or anybody else in Collier County
to start the program up. We're confident that our medical director is
going to properly train and credential paramedics before they get out
on the street, that you're going to be fine at the end of the year, but if
Page 103
January 25, 2011
you're not at the end of the year, we'll have that discussion regarding
the COPN (sic), and it's within your prerogative as the board to
address it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe do pass it, I'm going to do
everything possible to make sure it would work.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We are, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be absolutely
counterproductive to have this hanging out there with the idea you
want to kill it in a year.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, just real quick. I want
to get Dan Summers up here, if I may. He's right behind you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you're not Dan Summers.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't know you were asking him a
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Dan, you heard the discussions
going on about my concerns about response time, about the transfer of
people from one place to another, the cause and effects and how we
come together.
Would you please comment on that.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, Commissioner, I will.
Two observations. Number one is, this is totally new
environment as you make a new fire district, an authority having
jurisdiction, okay.
So that means that if they implement, we need time to evaluate
system impacts. We speculate -- again, as Chief Page mentioned,
there is theory as to how we want to reapportion units and services
across the county. Without a doubt, we do that.
We have not modeled that. We're not sure how that will work.
And I will commit to you that it will take resources to monitor that,
because you are now -- when you go outside the interlocal agreement
Page 104
January 25, 2011
and you go outside the umbrella of Collier County EMS, you give us
another -- basically a municipality-type operation of which to manage
and observe.
We need to have resources and come up with a business process
so that if there is an annual renewal, then we already have
measurements and processes in place and we can evaluate. And I'm
confident we'll have, you know, that coordination that -- it's key. We
have to have the information. We've got to have business process
transfer and some of that.
So there's -- this is new territory, and I think that's the thing I
want to make sure that you are aware, and it's not that we're just going
to grant lightly in that process, because you ultimately hold us
responsible county-wide.
So understand that that's new territory . We will have to plow
through it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I have -- even
though I have a lot more questions, I'm going to turn this back over to
the Chair.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, could I close
the public hearing, or do you have something that you need to ask --
okay. I'm going to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have questions that I haven't had
an opportunity to ask that I'd like to ask.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me ask this first, before we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your light was on first, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know it was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this question is just to you. Is it
time for a break for lunch so that everybody has a little bit of time to
think through all that we've learned and then come back, and --
Page 105
January 25, 2011
because there's going to be a lot more questions and a lot more time?
What do you think?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think anybody's thinking at this
point in time, quite frankly. I'll do whatever the board wishes to do.
Would you like to break for lunch, or do you want to try to struggle
through it and get through it in the next few minutes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think you're going to get
through this thing in at least a half an hour.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I have quite a few
questions. That's why my light's on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to break for lunch.
We'll be back here at 1 :40 -- 1 :39.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
We have closed the public hearing except that Commissioner
Hiller wants to ask some questions, which is certainly permitted it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wasn't I next?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You were next, yes, but in sequence, it is
permitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think I was, anyway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the public hearing is still open
then?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The public hearing is not open --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, the public hearing has to be
open?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- but you can ask questions of anybody
you wish.
Page 106
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What do you mean by the fact that
,
we re --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The public has spoken; they've given
their input.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's the issue, because
there are some members of the public that I'd like to ask clarification
from.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's fine. You can call on anybody
you want to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Including Mr. Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't call on him.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You won't get many valuable answers
out of him, but --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But you'll get an answer.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's usually the wrong answer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're just kidding you. We need to
do that. He's a super guy. We're just -- and he takes all that kidding in
a friendly manner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, only because you have
to, right? Sorry. Okay. Well, we had a nice little break, and we
needed to do that.
So I have a number of questions, as I listened to everything that
everyone said. I wish I would have put them in a particular order.
One of the things that was said was north Naples must reapply
each year to continue their COPCN; is that correct?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, it's a one-year license or certificate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. If a COPCN were approved
today -- right now you've applied for non-transport, but I don't know if
that is the best way to go, only because there could be some problems.
If -- say, for instance, fire is -- has approved ALS, and then an
Page 107
January 25, 2011
ambulance comes up to transport and there happens to be a different
way of dealing with this circumstance and there's maybe some
traumatic things that take place, who is to blame?
And so I was wondering -- and I guess I have to ask this of Leo
more than anything else. I was wondering if, number one, a COPCN
could be approved but yet no EMS people lose their jobs but they
reposition those same ambulances to other parts of the county where
they're really needed, and yet -- I don't want to see anybody lose jobs.
I don't want to see EMS lose jobs, and I don't want to see fire lose
jobs. Can that be done?
MR. OCHS: I will give you an it-depends answer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Don't forget that your EMS essentially is funded
with two revenue streams; 50 percent is ad valorem taxes, the other 50
percent is user fees.
So if you discontinue transports in the North Naples Fire Control
District and redeploy those assets somewhere else, you'll have the
same expenses, but you'll lose the revenue that you had historically
billed for service at least in the North Naples District.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
MR.OCHS: So, you know, at least theoretically, if I understand
your question, ma'am, if you're saying if you grant a COPCN with a
transport requirement in North Naples, that they -- they would provide
transport to the hospital as well as treatment on the scene, and that
would allow you to redeploy not only your MEDCOM units, but also
your actual ambulances out of the North Naples District into other
areas.
You could certainly do that. You would maintain the same level
of expense that you have today, but if you're not billing for calls that
you had historically in the North Naples District, you would lose that
revenue and you'd have to take that into consideration, either add that
in as more ad valorem transfer to EMS, or you try to cut expenses in
Page 108
January 25, 2011
other areas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Because as Commissioner
Coletta was talking about, much-needed ambulances out there where
the response time is average 12 minutes rather than 8 minutes, I
thought this could be a good compromise where everybody would win
and nobody would lose jobs.
But apparently it isn't a good compromise because of financial
situations, right?
MR.OCHS: Well, no, ma'am. It may still be able to work, but
as Mr. Summers said earlier today, you know, we'd like a little time to
evaluate that. A lot of what will come out of that evaluation will
depend on whether you issue -- if you choose to issue at all -- a
COPCN with transport required or without transport required.
A number of assets that we would have to maintain in that district
is different depending on that decision. And--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now -- okay. I understand that. So
then if we issued it as it's applied for without transport, then maybe the
doctor -- and I'm sorry, I can't remember your name again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Panozzo.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Panozzo. I keep thinking -- okay --
Panozzo can tell me, what can we do to assure that there is not going
to be any problems when one agency is caring for the patient
immediately and another agency comes in to transport, and maybe
there's difference of opinions and all of a sudden you've got problems?
MR. AGUILERA: Commissioner, we're working off one
protocol.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. AGUILERA: So the opportunity of those issues arising, I'm
not saying can't, but are minimal. This current -- what we're
proposing currently happens in Lee County. And as you said -- heard
the speakers, there's really not an issue there.
The North Naples Fire Department has -- is committed, as part of
Page 109
January 25, 2011
their proposal, is that there is going to be a continuity of care, so I
don't see the disagreements arising on patient care.
Once they arrive on scene, if they start ALS or that patient needs
an extra set of hands, that team will go to the hospital together. So
there's not going to be this blank hole in the middle, okay. The
continuity's going to be there, and we're going to be working off one
template.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I need to be reassured that that's --
and you had told me in my office on Marco that your doctor would be
working with Dr. Tober so that they would have the same protocol,
right?
MR. AGUILERA: We're committed to having our medical
director work closely hand in hand with the Office of the Medical
Director, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Another thing that I've heard
-- and that was a big concern for some of the EMS people that have
been in my office, was what happens when, you know, one cares for
the patient immediately and the other one transports.
I had so many other questions. Hold on just a minute. Does
anybody know how the North Naples community feels? I mean, the
residents of North Naples. We really haven't heard from them, and I
was just curious to know if they have opinions one way or the other.
CHIEF STOLTS: I'd be glad to answer that, Commissioner. For
the record, Fire Chief Orly Stolts, North Naples Fire.
For the last two years since I became the fire chief at North
Naples, I've made a commitment to go out to a lot of our communities
and meet with the people, go to their association meetings and talk
with them. And this is a subject that I've been talking with them about
for the two years.
And actually, they're appalled that we can't do it right now, to tell
you the truth. The majority of the people are sitting there going,
"What is the problem?" And be they -- and I'm -- speaking for them,
Page 110
January 25, 2011
they would be very happy if we could get our certificate of need and
do what we need to do when we arrive on scene.
Right now they expect us to do that, and it's hard to tell them that
we aren't allowed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, one of the things that
disappointed me this morning as I listened to everyone speaking was
three -- three of the personnel that came up insisted that all that was
needed was BLS and not ALS, which is what started this whole thing
in the first place. And we've got 54 guys here that are eager and just
as passionate as the EMS guys to provide service, lifecare service,
lifesaving service to these people. My son always says, "Saving lives,
we're saving lives." He just, you know, feels very strongly about that.
Well, I think everybody does. And I want to see both being able to
that do.
I was very impressed with -- oh, gosh -- Walter Stevens who said
how well it goes in Lee County. Everybody's working just fine.
I'm tending to -- I'm tending to think, as long as nobody loses
jobs -- I don't want to see losing jobs, whether it be EMS or fire -- and
I want to see the greatest amount of healthcare provided, emergency
healthcare provided to all of our citizens so we have the best
opportunities in the world to have a safe outcome. I'm tending to go
that way.
So I'll just say that for now. I won't -- I won't take any more of
your time, but I have a couple other things I might come back with.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you were next,
if I remember correctly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That would be very, very nice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion and
findings that the application by North Naples Fire Department meets
the intent of Section 7 A, B, C, and D of our ordinance. This will only
Page 111
January 25, 2011
be a one-year -- and I think that is very important because that's what
the statutes state. But we give it a trial, and if it works, great, let's
build upon it. If it doesn't work, great, we've learned our lesson.
But if we didn't step out there every once in a while, we'd all be
driving on stone tires, and I'm willing to give it a chance. It's all about
public safety . You will be working under protocol adopted by Collier
County's medical director.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And the other
commitments that you have made to this board will be a commitment
of this one-year license.
Yes, sir.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I was wondering if I could get a
little bit of clarification, if the board would permit. When we're
talking about under the medical director's protocol, I'm just looking for
some clarification if that means under the exact same training regime,
Rich, or is protocol and a training regime a different animal?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The protocol and training are separate
animals. Protocols is the how-tos. The training is Dr. Panozzo's
responsibility to make sure that the paramedics are competent to
implement the protocols.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The training will make the
paramedics competent --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: To do the protocols, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to do the protocols.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's Dr. Tober's protocols, and we will
train our paramedics to implement his protocols.
MR.OCHS: Because in the absence of that, you know, the
rhetorical question is, if they're going to be identical, then why would
we not just continue the ALS engine agreement that we've had in the
past?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may?
Page 112
January 25, 2011
MR.OCHS: Well, it's up to the chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Well, we have a motion. Is there
a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion, and I'd love
to answer that question. You say, why wouldn't we just keep one
ALS, and I was tending to go toward that, you know, just have ALS
come back up. But then as these few people came up and said, well,
they don't need ALS, they need BLS, I thought, we're going to go
back to the same old thing. That's what I fear.
MR.OCHS: No, ma'am. I think--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion and we have a
second. N ow we can have discussion. And I think Commissioner
Hiller was next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't believe that you can legally
limit in any way the medical director's prerogative with respect to
training, just like you can't limit or direct Dr. Tober. It's their license.
They have an affirmative duty to provide the training necessary to
comply with the standard that has been established legally and by
practice in Collier County. So I don't think that we have the ability to
mandate that.
Dr. Panozzo has his license on the line. He has a legal duty,
which is equal to Dr. Tober's. He has an affirmative duty to train and
supervise these paramedics to provide the level of service which has
been deemed the level of service adopted by Collier County. I don't
think you can legally do that. I think that would not be possible.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I listened to all the
discussions that are going on, and I still have concerns. And some of
those concerns are, as Leo brought up a little while ago, that the
income stream that's coming in is 50/50; is that correct?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fifty percent of it's dependent
Page 113
January 25, 2011
upon a -- the collections that you get from the recipients that use it.
So if we take and we shift the personnel out to the eastern part of
Collier County, which to me is a big plus -- I mean, I absolutely love
the idea -- someone's going to have to pay that loss of income.
I'm not too sure, but North Naples department's, what,
one-quarter of the calls in the county? Anybody know?
MR.OCHS: I don't know, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Anybody got a rough idea?
MR. LOMBARDO: Thirty-five percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thirty-five percent.
MR.OCHS: Well, we'll get you an answer, sir. What is it, Jeff?
MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical
Services. I was looking at North Naples; 2009 statistics. They
reported 5,200-something EMS calls. We currently respond to about
40,000, and of those about 23,000 transport.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What does that come up
percentage-wise?
MR. PAGE: Help me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Within five digits.
MR. PAGE: Within five days.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, five digits. No, I mean,
about what, a third?
MR. PAGE: It's a small percentage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twenty-five percent?
MR. PAGE: Less.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, 25 percent.
MR.OCHS: No, it's under 10.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Under 10 percent, but still there
is going to be a cost -- cost increase to the rest of the county
undoubtedly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, the opposite.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, that's only if we start
Page 114
January 25, 2011
doing transport, but we haven't asked for transport. There will be no
increase. All of the revenue from transports will still go to the county
system.
So there will be no -- there will be no shortchanging of the
revenue stream for this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And believe me, it does give me
a little bit more level of comfort.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But going back to monies issues
and coverage issues, I wonder if my fellow commissioners would be
willing to, when it comes up again -- and I'm not too sure when it
does. You can tell me, Leo -- when we consider all the services that
are out there, when we evaluate them against the population, and come
up with directions for it; in other words, how many -- how many
thousands of people equal one acre of park land.
We go through all that and we look at the medical-service part of
the whole thing again as far as EMS response, and we recognize the
fact that in the urban area, you have a response of eight minutes; is
that correct?
MR. OCHS : Yes, eight minutes, 90 percent of the time in the
urban area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And then in the rural
area, we're looking at 14 minutes?
MR.OCHS: Twelve minutes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Twelve minutes -- that we say,
okay, fine. We recognize the fact that we have made a compromise to
be able to bring North Naples up to a new standard and a new
direction, and that that compromise will result in additional services to
the rest of the county and that we lower that response time to maybe
ten minutes. If we could do that, now we're getting to the point --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It has nothing to do with the
topic at hand.
Page 115
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It does, though. It has
everything to do with the topic at hand. I mean, I'm looking out for
the whole county, and I want to make sure that -- I've heard a number
of people say that there would be a benefit to the remainder of the
county with these people, this personnel, be able to be recycled back
to the eastern part of the county to be able to provide services.
So if we can come up to an understanding that the goal of those
services is to lower the response time, I'm there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think that's what they've said, but
nevertheless. Let's answer Commissioner Coletta's question, and then
we'll go to Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, is he the right person to
do it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I comment on what
Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, let's get his question answered, and
then we'll go to you, Commissioner Hiller.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's you, Jeff. I'm not sure that's
me. I mean, I think what -- the system we're talking about gives you a
period of time the next go-round for you to study the impact on
service times or response times to where, long term, you may be able
to reallocate resources. I can't commit to you today that that will
actually happen, but it's something that you're going to -- and you can
look at, and this gives you an opportunity to study that and evaluate
the possibility of shifting stationing of units, which I think Jeff said,
before you would station units --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let my EMS people talk about
this, and I might be able to get that level of comfort I need.
MR. PAGE: For the record, Jeff Page with Emergency Medical
Services.
Yes, Commissioner, we theorize that, you know, given the
history, we know that only 65 percent of the calls result in a transport.
Page 116
January 25, 2011
So theoretically we could reduce at least two units out of that district,
even if they don't do transport. And if they do do transport, it could be
five.
But the other aspect is that -- something that we really heard for
the first time today, if they're actually willing to put the paramedics on
those transports, that reduces our need to even provide paramedics up
in that district during the transport.
In other words, if their paramedic is going to be the paramedic in
charge, then there's a possibility you could actually staff our units with
EMTs --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that isn't what they said.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me -- I'm sorry, Donna. I
didn't mean to jump on you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- but I'm still trying to get to
where I need to be, then I'd love to have everybody else come into
this. And I don't know quite how to get there, other than the fact that
my fellow commissioners agree that they see that there's a need, and
this would be a benefit to the people in the eastern part of Collier
County, and that they're willing to work on this going forward.
But if they're silent, then I am going to be very suspicious of the
fact that this is never going to see the light of day and, through
attrition, we'll go back to where we were before and we'll have higher
medical costs -- higher transport costs than we've had before.
So, you know, I'm just looking for reassurance not -- from you a
little bit, but also from my fellow commissioners, that they recognize
that there's a need and that this will enable us to get to that need, and
you recognize that need when you come up with, what, your EAR
report, and start to evaluate everything that's out there.
MR. PAGE: Budget time would be another time.
And, Commissioner Fiala, I want to -- I'm not talking about
laying off anybody. I'm talking about reallocating the type of
Page 11 7
January 25, 2011
personnel and the experience of the personnel up in the North Naples
District. If they're going to be getting on the units themselves
providing that paramedic advanced life support, then I don't know that
there's a need to have two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But, Jeff, didn't they just say -- they
said only if they're needed --
MR. PAGE: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- otherwise the transport -- the
ambulance only has your people on it. Only if you needed an extra
paramedic would they then accompany you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, here's the problem,
Commissioner Fiala. All that's fine and good. And they're not going
to lay anybody off. It's not going to happen. You need every single
person you've got out there, but what they will do, if that point in time
does come when dollars get tight, through attrition, they'll start to
disappear.
Unless we set a standard that's going to meet the needs of the
residents of Eastern Collier County, including your district, and it's
going to give them an enhanced response time by minutes or
whatever, unless we're willing to make that commitment, it's never
going to happen.
It will just be a matter of time, be it through attrition, that you'll
have it at the same level that it's at now. North Naples will have the
enhanced service. We'll have the same service we ever had. What's in
it for the rest of the county? It's got to benefit everyone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You go for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coletta, I
completely understand your concerns. I think there needs to be
clarification on the semantics.
Page 118
January 25, 2011
Collier County has a target of8 minutes and 12 minutes. That's
actually not the standard. We haven't legally committed that we will
respond in 8 minutes or we will respond in 12 minutes. And
jurisdictions typically don't do that for liability reasons. It's very
important because there's a very clear distinction.
So talking about those targets versus what's actually going on is a
discussion we haven't had. Another thing we haven't discussed are the
statistics and how those statistics are actually compiled. You actually
have to set a methodology that we would all approve and so on and so
forth.
So I understand where you're coming from, but to just say, let's
say move it to ten minutes, I think more generally is to say, to see an
improvement -- an improvement in actual response times across the
county is the objective, because that's the overall benefit by adding
these paramedics to the overall pool of paramedics saving lives today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand what you're saying,
and thank you very much for clarifying it. I am concerned about the
whole county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I am, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not only the eastern part of the
county, because you have North Naples and the City of Naples, which
do an excellent job of providing services, and they don't have a
problem. It's when you get closer to 951 and the other side is when
the problem starts to get more severe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I mean, you know, it's
unique. What I'm looking for -- and I do understand. And it's not a
guarantee because they do say within 90 percent of the time or 80
percent of the time they can respond within that.
Do I have the commitment of this commission to recognize the
excess forces that we'll have out there when it comes time for the EAR
report --
Page 119
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to be able to dedicate them to
be able to meet more enhanced medical response for the eastern part
of Collier County?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. That's what it's all
about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In that case there, I got--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You absolutely have my word.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- one. The other one is just
basically nod a little bit or just say, yeah, yeah, sounds good, and
we've got to consider all things.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whatever commitment you get from us
at the present time is absolutely meaningless. It can only be valid if at
the point in time the facts justify the decision and we decide to vote
that way. So you can't extract from us a promise to vote on something
sometime in the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I'm just --
I just want to extract the fact that people are willing to look at this
with an open mind --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and understand where I'm
coming from, and that when we sit down to talk, that all these things
will enter into the discussion, and it won't be a case of trying to cut the
budget for EMS through attrition to be able to get back the same
standards it is now, which are inadequate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One thing I've learned -- it
probably took nine years to learn this. I can count to three, okay, and
it probably doesn't make any difference what you or I vote on here.
It's going to get approved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're ruining my chances
of getting a concession --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
Page 120
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks a lot.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not going to give you any -- just a
moment, just a moment.
I haven't spoken at all in this process, and I'm going to call the
question for a vote very quickly. And I'm not going to try to talk
anybody out of approving this, but I'm going to make a couple of
points, because I am going to vote against it.
There are too many balls in the air right at the present time.
We've got this request for certificate for North Naples. We've got the
Blue Ridge (sic)--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where you want to be.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, the Blue Ridge Boys -- the Blue
Ribbon panel that has made some recommendations, and we've
committed to considering at least those, including an organization that
would somehow consolidate public-safety functions in Collier County.
And we've got legislation that North Naples is proposing, and
they want our input or a decision concerning that. There's just too
many balls in the air to be able to make sure, in my opinion, that we
don't do something that conflicts with our options sometime in the
future.
It's too easy to say, no, of course not. But it's difficult.
The other thing is that this fantasy that because the two medical
directors operate under the same laws and the same procedures we'll
somehow have the same level of training and competency, that's like
saying, just because two fire commissioners operate under the same
laws and the same standards, that both organizations are equally
competent, equally motivated, equally disciplined. That simply is not
true. It doesn't happen. It's the execution of the policy and the
training programs that determines the level of excellency of the
organization.
It is naive to think they will be the same. They might be better.
They might be worse. But they will not be the same.
Page 121
January 25, 2011
The other thing is that there is a fundamental issue that I think
we've all debated -- and there's no point in talking about it much more
-- and that is the separation of transport from ALS care. It's insanity to
think that you're going to dispatch an EMS ambulance without an
ALS member on it to go to an emergency site and anticipate that the
North Naples ALS person is going to be there and accompany you and
that you won't need an ALS person, and that's what I just heard said.
We won't dispatch an ambulance. No, I'm talking about our own
people, okay.
So you can't manage emergency situations like that. And every
time you do a changeover of responsibility, a hand-off, you increase
the risk to the patient. And you all know that. There is no doubt
about that.
I've been here, and I have talked with fire chiefs from North
Naples over the past decade. I have never, ever found a situation
where North Naples was happy with anything EMS does here. Okay.
There's never been any cooperation in that area. And when you
have North Naples providing ALS care and EMS providing transport,
there's going to be conflict and there's going to be finger pointing.
It is unacceptable if North Naples can arrive there quickly with
ALS services, that they would have to wait for an EMS transport
capability to arrive. If you can get there with ALS people, you ought
to be able to transport them. And by failing to address that issue, you
are increasing the risk of the people that you say you're trying to
protect.
And with that, I'm going to call the question. All in favor of the
motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All opposed, by like sign.
Page 122
January 25, 2011
And -- aye. I oppose it. It passed 4-1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you please bear with me
for a second, sir. You were talking so fast I didn't get a chance to say I
oppose it, but I thank Georgia Hiller for keeping her mind open --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- for consideration in the future
of how we're going to get there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Did it fail-- pass 3-2, is that what
you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It passed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep, it passed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed 3-2 with Commissioner Coletta
and me dissenting. Yes?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, just an observation
that's been going on for quite a while.
When we have an item on the agenda for discussion and
consideration, we have certain commissioners that wants more for his
district that his -- has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and it needs
to stop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, it won't stop.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is not how we do business
when we're talking about one issue and that commissioner wants more
for his district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'm
going to have to respond. I've seen you do it numerous times. You
called it trying to strike a deal. In this case, I'm looking out for my
district, and, by God, there'll be nothing that will ever deter me from
doing that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Maybe a rap with the gavel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have to hit me really hard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll get you a bigger gavel if you
Page 123
January 25, 2011
need one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you just
turned yours on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Were you first or--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, she was first, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to make one more
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You just passed it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We just passed it, but I -- you know,
two points that you made were excellent, and I just wanted to
comment on them because I'm going to be thinking them through
throughout the next couple weeks.
One good point is about dispatching ambulances and then
somebody saying they might not dispatch them because they already
have things there -- not you guys, our side.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That really concerned me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's not what I said. That's not
what I said.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Tell me --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And that's not what they said.
MR.OCHS: No, that's not--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not them, but Jeff.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not what Jeff said.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So clear that up for me. That was
one concern.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The comment as I understood it was that
sometimes they'll get a call and they -- it is not identified as a
transport, so he won't send -- he suggested that maybe they don't send
an ALS person along with that, and I thought that would be an
Page 124
January 25, 2011
intolerable situation, because once you get there, things change. But
in any event, that's what I was talking about. But he didn't say he
wouldn't dispatch an ambulance. He didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Thank you for putting
me at ease. And the other thing you said and you talked about was
finger pointing when you've got fire there and EMS coming and then
finger pointing, and that is also a concern. We have to see what we
can do, and this is -- I challenge you to see if you can't create a
harmonious atmosphere between the two as they have on Marco
Island. So that's my challenge to you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're -- we've finished with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. Where do we go now
with the Blue Ribbon panel and their recommendation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, their recommendation is on
something else, not on COPCN.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not really, but that's all right. It's
another item, but they're very closely related. But nevertheless, that's
another item, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to come back to us with a
workshop scheduled for that.
MR.OCHS: Yes -- yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I -- can I ask?
Leo?
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When do you anticipate -- I would
like to recommend that maybe we schedule that workshop for the
Page 125
January 25, 2011
middle of February . We have never -- when we actually voted on
having the workshop and bringing back those options, we never really
defined when that was going to happen, and I think we should have a
target date. So can we say the middle of February? Does that give you
enough time to work with the Blue Ribbon Committee? Because
remember, the only thing you're developing is the options for the
structure, not actually the system.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because that committee will
develop the protocols for the system, if a committee is -- or
commission, or whatever you want to call it, is adopted.
MR. OCHS : Yeah. And perhaps I could talk with Jeff on the
break, and we could come to that at the end of the meeting, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would appreciate that.
MR. OCHS: Because I haven't had a chance to really consult
with Jeff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: And he's going to be very involved in this,
obviously, from a legal standpoint.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can imagine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And we're right on time for our --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 11 o'clock.
MR. OCHS: 11 a.m. time-certain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 11 a.m. time-certain.
Item #10K
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID NO. 11-5633 FOR
WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING TO SOUTHWIND
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION FOR A NOT TO EXCEED
CONTRACT TOTAL OF $750,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE STANDARD CONTRACT
Page 126
January 25, 2011
AFTER COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW AND APPROVAL -
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. That's Item 10K on your agenda this
afternoon. It's a recommendation to approve award of Bid No.
11-5633 for Wiggins Pass maintenance dredging to Southwind
Construction Corporation for a not-to-exceed contract total of
$750,000, and authorize the chairman to execute the standard contract
after county review and approval.
And Mr. McAlpin will begin the presentation.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Leo.
F or the record, Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
Mr. Chair, this item is a continuation of our maintenance
program for Wiggins Pass. Over the last two years, the pass has
shoaled in approximately 50,000 cubic yards.
Vessels are having difficulty getting in and out of the pass.
There have been strandings. At low tide we measure the water level at
between 18 and 2 foot of clearance.
We have just received our state permit to do this work yesterday.
Our federal permit is pending. That doesn't give us a concern because
the federal permits always are subsequent to the state permits. We
don't anticipate any issues --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. McALPIN: -- associated with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion to approve--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Coletta, a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you. I do have
congratulation on another topic, but that's not on the agenda today, so
I will save it.
Page 127
January 25, 2011
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It has nothing to do with
firefighters in District 5.
My question is, in their backup material you have laid out, very
eloquently laid out, how much it's going to cost for each task, and one
of those tasks is the monitoring of the dredge.
Previously, we have allocated monies for this every-other-year
dredge for Wiggins Pass. What happens to those dollars allocated for
that monitoring? Will that continue on?
MR. McALPIN: The monitoring that we're talking about on this
-- on this contract, Commissioner Henning, is for turbidity monitoring.
So it's monitoring the clarity of the water at the dredge location and at
the discharge site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: I think you're talking about beach monitoring
that goes on on a yearly -- and past monitoring where we survey the
beaches, we come up with an elevation and a profile, and we know --
so they're completely two different types of monitoring.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And there's no way,
from other correspondence, to put a hardened structure to stop this
every other year having to dredge Wiggins Pass?
MR. McALPIN: We're moving forward with a program to--
master plan to straighten out the pass. We started this activity about
four years ago. We're in the process of working with the state and
other state -- stakeholders on this item.
We estimate that we're a couple of years away from getting the
permit. We have had good cooperation with all of our stakeholders.
We do not believe -- and the state has come back to us and said that a
jetty or a hardened structure on this pass is just not acceptable, and
that would not be permitted.
So with that, we're moving forward with a straightening of the
pass to hydraulically balance it, and we'll straighten it by putting sand
Page 128
January 25, 2011
dikes in there. And we expect that when we're permitted and when
we're finished with the design, that we would stretch the time frame
out from two years to four years. That's what we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last question -- and I think
this is very important since we have a governor that wants to stop the
bureaucracy -- would this be an appropriate time to let the governor or
our legislation delegation know, hey, we're spending a lot of money
here dredging this pass every other year, and there is solutions to, you
know, stop that process by putting a hardened structure.
Mr. McAlpin, I would rely on your expertise.
MR. McALPIN : Well, this is one area that we have brought up
in the CAC. This is one area we talked about workshopping. We
certainly have talked about potentially going to Governor Scott and --
with the issues associated with permitting. Whether we would be
successful in a hardened structure, putting in a hardened structure here
or not, Commissioner, I don't know, but it's certainly from --
something that could be advanced to the governor, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller? And by the way,
I would support that, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doesn't that make sense?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, of course it does. And we have
experience with that. Gordon Riv- -- Gordon Pass has a hardened
structure, and we're not dredging that one every other year.
MR. McALPIN: Doctors Pass is the same way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. It's clear that it works; it's just
people who have extreme views about how we do things nowadays.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Gary, thank you for your
introductory presentation.
I was the one who asked that this contract be pulled off the
consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda, and thank you very
Page 129
January 25, 2011
much for establishing a time-certain which, unfortunately, was not
adhered to for the benefit of the citizens that are interested in this
topic.
The reason I pulled it off the consent agenda is not because I
don't feel there is a need for the dredge. I pulled it off the consent
agenda because of what I see as the possibility of irregularities in the
bid process. And I'm extremely concerned about what's going on.
I'm going to layout the facts and tell you what I have come up
with. But before I do, I'm going to introduce some evidence in the
record. And this is the package, so I'm going to go ahead and bring
that down.
The first issue that came to my attention was that when this
contract, this bid, if you will, was presented in front of the CAC, I
received an email from one of the members of the CAC explaining to
me why they did not vote in support of the Southwind contract. And
I'm just going to go ahead and read it to. And this email is part of the
record. And it actually was from -- it's dated January 21, 2011, from
Tony Pires to myself. And the subject is Wiggins Pass dredging
contract award.
He says as follows: "My negative vote on awarding the bid to
Southwind was based in part on: Number one, upon inquiry I was
advised that no bidder other than Southwind was notified of the
change in the permit conditions and thus specifications which related
to turbidity levels and, two, the reduction in the Southwind bid was
primarily in the area of mobilization approximately 72,000, which did
not, in my opinion, have any relationship to an asserted reduction in
price attributed to the changed permit conditions as to turbidity and,
three, Southwind did not answer all of the questions as to equipment."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you want an answer from somebody
on that, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm not done. I'm not done.
The next email that I received was a communication between Mr.
Page 130
January 25, 2011
Pires, Mr. McAlpin, Gail Hambright, Scott Johnson, Steve Keehn,
Steve Carnell, and Colleen Greene.
And it says, "Gary, thanks for getting back to me so quickly;
however, as to my question one, Southwind did not provide the size
and type of equipment as required by the bid specs and did not
respond to the first question in C, see below, and I would submit that
as a result, their bid is nonresponsive."
The question is, C, what size and type of equipment will you use
-- will you use on this project to include scows, boosters, cranes,
barges, what equipment will you purchase or rent for the proposed
work. The answer was, "No equipment will be rented."
A second set of facts relates to two bidders that were disqualified,
one in particular, the lowest bid, and that company was Florida Bridge
and Dock. And the amount of the bid from the lowest bidder was
535,000.
The bid that was actually approved -- I can't see the number. Can
we -- can you move the -- was basically just so you -- and I
highlighted that by my notes. The bid that was actually approved was
$300,000 higher for the exact same dredge; 836,000 compared to
535-.
So when I saw that material difference in price for a simple
dredge, I asked myself why there would be a $300,000 difference and
why this low bidder was disqualified.
And the reason that was given was because a supplemental
questionnaire was not provided. So I went to the documents to see
what was required to be provided, and the bidders' checklist did not
include the supplemental questionnaire. So there's no basis for a
technical disqualification based on that supplemental questionnaire.
In fact, Part B of the instructions to bidders, Section 4, which
address the right to reject bids, specifically provides that the owner
reserves the right to reject any and all bids or to waive informalities
and negotiate with the apparent lowest qualified bidder to such extent
Page 131
January 25, 2011
as may be necessary for budgetary reasons. We're talking about
$300,000, ladies and gentlemen.
So I questioned whether this supplemental questionnaire and the
information the county had would make such a difference as to
affecting the outcome of this bid.
And here's what I found out. I found out that the reason that this
bidder was able to bid $300,000 less is because they are being
awarded the bid to dredge in Estero. And so what they're doing is
they're benefiting Collier County because they're already bringing this
dredge equipment out there, and basically they're sharing the cost
between Estero and us and giving us the advantage of the cost savings.
So then the question becomes, is the dredge equipment of a size
and nature so as to be able to satisfy the requirements of this bid? And
here's what I found out. That the engineer who works for Collier
County who reviewed these bids, our consultant, Coastal, was also the
engineer who reviewed the bid proposal on the Estero dredge and
knew exactly what Florida Dredge was bringing to the table.
There is absolutely no basis for Collier County to pay $300,000
more for this bid. And, therefore, while I completely agree that the
dredging is required and it's required now, there is no justification for
one piece of paper when our engineer, Coastal, knew exactly what
Florida Dredge was going to provide and was capable of providing, to
spend $300,000 more in this particular case.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Commissioner. I'm going to ask
Scott Johnson to come up here and answer the purchasing policy
issues and the purchasing questions, and then after that I'm going to
ask Steve Keehn to come out here and tell why he recommended his
recommendations on Southwind as opposed any of the others,
specifically addressing the qualifications of Florida Dock and Dredge.
If you would, please. Scott?
MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Scott Johnson, procurement strategist from your Purchasing
Page 132
January 25, 2011
Department.
Just a clarification. The contract amount that we're
recommending for award today is a -- $750,000 even. The $836,000
was negotiated downward because it exceeded the approved budget.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's fine. It still leaves a
material difference to the tune of several hundred thousand. But thank
you for the clarification.
MR. JOHNSON: Secondly, I have the questionnaire that was
provided as part of the bid specifications, and it was a requirement and
even says on the top here -- I'm happy to lay it on the visualizer --
attach to bid form and include attachments as necessary. So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Put it on the -- put it on the visualizer.
MR. JOHNSON: It was a requirement of the specifications, just
for clarification.
So when I opened this bid, Commissioner Hiller, I noticed the
differences of the missing form. And as part of my due diligence and
part of the requirement of the submission, they were required to
submit resumes of those individuals within their corporation who had
experience operating a 14-inch dredge. The requirement was for
corporate experience, not an individual experience, operating a
14- inch dredge.
I have here with me the three resumes that were submitted -- and
happy to lay those down as well-- two of them are one-pagers.
Nowhere within any of this documentation does it reference the
operation of a 14- inch dredge, as a resume would generally
encompass. Nowhere in here does it talk about experience with
coastal dredging projects.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That, unfortunately, is irrelevant to
me, because this particular bidder, Fletcher, has dredged Wiggins Pass
multiple times in the past because you hired them. And I will repeat,
our engineer knew exactly what they were bringing to the table
because they knew what they were bidding and what had been
Page 133
January 25, 2011
accepted in Lee County.
And here, by the way, is the prebid information with respect to
that particular bidder. Here also is the bidders' checklist which clearly
does not include that supplemental questionnaire. Notwithstanding, it's
very clear that in the interest of the budget -- and we are in very
difficult budgetary times -- that given that you had all the experience
-- I mean all the information, that you were dealing with a vendor who
has dredged Wiggins Pass a number of times, that our engineer
consultant knew exactly what type of equipment they were bringing to
the table and what experience was being brought to the table, that it is
unconscionable to overlook this particular bid in light of the material
savings to the county.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, if I might interject
something. Commissioner Hiller, you're making allegations as if they
have to be accepted as fact. We have a number of people who are
involved in this, and I would like for them to have an opportunity to
provide information before you hang them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They are fact.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So, Colleen, you have knowledge of this
-- this solicitation, and do you have any concerns with the way it was
handled?
MS. GREENE: Commissioner Coyle, Colleen Greene, assistant
county attorney, for the record. I reviewed it in my role as the assistant
county attorney assigned to Coastal Zone Management. I worked
with both the Purchasing Department and Coastal Zone Management,
and it is my understanding that the Purchasing Department complied
with the purchasing policy in making this recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, how about the consulting engineer?
MR. KEEHN: Yes, sir. My name is Steve Keehn. I'm a coastal
engineer with Coastal Planning and Engineering.
Let me go ahead and just answer three of the questions that the
Page 134
January 25, 2011
commissioner brought up, to begin with, from that list.
I think that, number one, in regards to the change in the permit
conditions, I think Gary used that as a negotiating strategy to lower the
price once we narrowed down who was the lowest responsible bidder
according to how we evaluated the situation. And so we probably
would have given that to anybody else that -- if we had to do that
negotiation. That was not received in time for it to go out as a formal
change to the bid, as I understand it. We got that pretty late.
I think number -- the second issue has to do with the type of
dredge that was on, I think it was, Southwind's form. I think that they
said it was Item C, which said no equipment would be rented. I think
it was actually Item B was the answer. And Item B was the dredge,
and that's the type of equipment that was going to be used.
And so I think the thing is, if you look at Item B on that form --
and I don't have the form with me right now -- I think it actually says
the size of dredge that Southwind was proposing for the project. And
Item C was another question about other equipment, and they said,
"No other equipment."
I was also involved in the Estero bid, but in Estero, they're doing
the same thing every county is doing right now; they're economizing.
And I actually did not make the recommendation for selection of
Florida Dredge and Dock for the Estero bid. I made a
recommendation that the dredge had the capability to pump the project
in two to five-and-a-half months based upon the information provided.
I also noticed at that time there were some discrepancies in the
way the dredge size was presented. And the dredge size is critical to
our particular case. And just to go with it, we are -- we are
discriminating in the bid documents in order to get a larger-size
dredge to try to avoid problems that smaller dredges have in ebb
shoals in South Florida.
And we purposely -- we've been doing this since 2005 in Collier
County, starting with Doctors Pass in 2005, and the previous project
Page 135
January 25, 2011
for Wiggins was also -- we discriminated selecting a 14-inch dredge.
And there's a reason why we do that. We know that the smaller
dredges will have problems in the inlets and most likely will-- there's
a high likelihood that they will not be able to complete the project.
Weare at a situation right now where we don't have a lot of time
until May 1 st. We have to go through the final selection process and
awarding of the contract to the contractor, and then he has to get out
there and dredge, and all of this has to be done by May 1 st. And since
we're at the end of the season where we can dredge -- we can't dredge
after May 1 st because of sea turtle season -- we need to be cognizant
of who we pick to do these projects, and that's why we put a
discriminator in there that we want a 14-inch dredge.
Florida Dredge and Dock does not have a 14-inch dredge. They
have a 12- inch dredge by definition. I confirmed this with Florida
Dredge and Dock. I also called up two experts, and they confirmed
how you tell which is a 14- and which is a 12- inch dredge.
So based upon a discriminator in the bid documents, we did not
qualify South -- excuse me -- Florida Dredge and Dock. We did
qualify Southwinds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Estero dredge is a much larger
dredge than our dredge; is that not correct?
MR. KEEHN: It -- when you get to the size, what the side is of
the discharge of the dredge --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a much larger dredge; is it not?
MR. KEEHN: By convention, no, it's not. It's a 12-inch dredge,
and the Southwind dredge is a 14- inch dredge.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How large is the project by
comparison?
MR. KEEHN: The proj ect size in Estero is 315,000 cubic yards,
and the waters are much more protected.
To tell you what the difference is there, in Estero, Lee County
makes it a habit of trying to work with whatever size contractor they
Page 136
January 25, 2011
get, and they end up having much longer projects.
They do not have a sea turtle nesting season restriction on their
permits, and so they can select a contractor that's less capable, and
they can select a contractor with greater risk, that it will take a long
time to do the project.
In our particular case, we only have till May 1 st to make sure the
dredge gets out of there. If that dredge has any problems at all and it
goes past May 1 st, we're going to get kicked to next fall or late fall or
winter to dredge the inlet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Besides the dredge size, what's
another factor; the size of the motor?
MR. KEEHN: The other factor would be probably the size of the
freeboard.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what was the size of the
freeboard? If you looked at the totality of the facts of the Estero
dredge, could this particular contractor dredge Wiggins Pass just as
readily?
MR. KEEHN: With greater risk, like I said before.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What type of risk?
MR. KEEHN: The risk is, they wouldn't get done by May 1 st. I
feel much more confident that Southwind, with the dredge they
proposed, is going to get done in a quick amount of time, and to boot,
Southwind has a second dredge in the area.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's the second -- what's the
time difference that you're protecting? If you take the equipment that
-- what is it, Florida Dredge versus Southwind -- is using, what do you
anticipate -- how much longer would it take Florida Dredge to do this
project given the equipment they're using versus Southwind?
MR. KEEHN: I think the -- the thing about it is, is that if you
look at straight --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want an answer. How long
would it be; how much longer?
Page 137
January 25, 2011
MR. KEEHN: It's not a simple answer, ma'am. The thing about
it is is there's two sides of the issue. One is pure pumping capacity, so
if you had completely smooth seas and no weather problems, both of
them can probably pump it in a reasonable amount of time. The risk
issue has to do with the fact that an ebb shoal is one of the most
difficult places to dredge in, and the smaller dredges have more
problems, breakdowns, and things of that nature that could take a long
time to fix.
So if they have a maj or breakdown, it could be two or three
months for them to get the parts to fix the dredge, which could go
beyond our season.
So from that point of view, the least-risk choice was Florida
Dredge and -- excuse me -- was Southwind. And the other thing is,
Southwind has another dredge working up in Stump Pass now. They
could be done by the first of April, and if there was any problem with
the primary dredge Southwind has come down here with, they have an
alternate in the area that could back it up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did you
have something right now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- I guess I'm really --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've forgotten by now, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, I haven't forgotten. I'm
very concerned that we have recommendations to spend more money,
and I guess the question is, how can we save more money by awarding
it to another contractor? And I guess that would be Mr. Carnell or his
team of experts.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, Purchasing
director.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Henning, in response to your
question, I think your options are -- it is your staffs position right now
that the apparent low bidder is not responsive for the technical reasons
that Mr. Keehn has described, and so your options would be -- as I see
Page 138
January 25, 2011
it, would be to award the contract to what believe to be the lowest
qualified and responsive bidder at this point, which is Southwind --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's your
recommendation.
MR. CARNELL: -- or you can rebid the project, and obviously
the problem with rebidding is timeliness. You miss your window to
get the work done before turtle nesting season begins.
If I could remind the board -- and Gary can speak to this in more
detail than me -- we've had a sorted past with dredging and struggles
with getting done timely and trying to do it on the cheap with dredges
that weren't big enough.
And so not to say that with absolute certainty what would happen
here, but you have a written publication. You have a published
document that specified a 14-inch dredge, and we not only had the
omission of the document that we talked about, but we also -- I think
the more salient thing is that when your engineer did the due diligence
in the check and review, we found that the recommended low bidder
did not have the equipment that was specified that we believe is what
is needed for the job.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let me say, I have
a concern with your bid documents, attached as necessary. Bids--
attached, a bid form, and including attached, as necessary. So it
doesn't mean that it's in there. It's saying that it might be in there. Is
that a correct assumption?
MR. CARNELL: Well, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well--
MR. CARNELL: Well, I have another question for Scott.
Scott, did we specify elsewhere in the document to submit the
form?
MR. JOHNSON: Specifications.
MR. CARNELL: In the specifications itself it called for the form
to be submitted. We don't have that language in front of you. But just
Page 139
January 25, 2011
so you're aware, it was said elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. See that's -- that is very
concerning to me, that language, and I hope that we can do something
about it so we have a fair and even process for everybody.
So I guess what you're saying -- and if it's true, Mr. Klatzkow --
that we only have one choice is what staffs recommendation is under
the policy -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- we can't choose anybody
else, even though we can save 40 percent and we still need to, you
know, try to stay within the window of getting it done this year?
MR. KLA TZKOW: You need to find they were responsive. I
mean, staffs findings aren't binding on you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Otherwise we wouldn't take anything to
you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can -- we can -- the board
can find that this other company, Florida Rock or whatever -- Florida
Dredge and Dock is responsive?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you -- if after hearing all the evidence and
seeing the material before you, you believe they were responsive,
that's within your prerogative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, our choices is to
try to save $200 (sic).
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 200,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 200,000, whatever.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's a lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm used to working with small
change now.
The -- why not? I mean, you're going to hold the contractor
accountable for the time frame submitted in the bid. Why wouldn't we
want to save $200,000?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not only that, the contract has a
Page 140
January 25, 2011
liquidated-damages provision. When you enter into a contract, if
you're entering into a contract knowing that you're going to breach,
that's entering in bad faith. That's obviously not the case here.
There is a, I believe, $6,000-a-day liquidated-damages provision,
which they've included for the protection of the county to ensure that
if anything happens on the back side, that we can go out and cure the
defect.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I can't support the
motion. Personally I can't support the motion, because, again, we get
the job done on time, save money. Let's do it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's our obligation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've still got 14 speakers. Do you have
something you want to say about this? Gary?
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, I think that we have had a standard
for a 14-inch dredge because we have had problems in Doctors Pass
and also Wiggins Pass trying to dredge with smaller pieces of
equipment.
And so the CAC, that has been their policy to only use a 14-inch
piece of equipment in that -- in making that happen.
Now, so -- and we have a tight schedule right here, and we're up
right against turtle nesting season. So we're looking at this, and
Florida Dock and Dredge experience has been, yes, Commissioner,
they did do some work in the -- '95 for the county, they dredged it, but
for the last 15 years most of their experience has been in the phosphate
industry, and they've had one project that they have done in an ebb
tide shoal, but the preponderance of their experience has not been in
ebb tide shoal business, has not been in gulf shore dredging.
And so, they don't have the equipment. The equipment, at best,
would be considered marginal. We've had some concerns about that
equipment operating here in the past.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what the engineer said.
MR. McALPIN: I believe that -- we can check with Mr. Keehn
Page 141
January 25, 2011
if that's -- if I've mischaracterized that position. And we -- so they do
not have a recent history of that. It's just a very, very tight situation,
and we're right against turtle nesting season.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And while you say their
experience is some other area, Lee County, Estero, just hired them.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, they have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're getting the benefit of
that cost savings to do exactly what needs to be done.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct. Estero did hire them, but
Estero doesn't have a tight schedule that we have. They could dredge
inside of turtle nesting season. So they could widen their schedule
out.
If they have to come into harbor because of rough seas -- and
that's what the freeboard is all about. We couldn't not be able to
dredge on a day like today when there's a lot of wind, okay, because
the seas are too rough --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That rarely happens.
MR. McALPIN: -- and the dredge would sink.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That rarely happens. I'm at the
beach all the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Give me a break.
MR. McALPIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to--
MR. McALPIN: Those are our concerns, Mr. Chair. You asked
me what my concerns were. That would be one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, there's one thing you haven't
addressed, and it is very important, the issue about the liquidated
damages. That provides you financial protection or not. What has
been your experience in other times when they have -- companies
have failed to finish on time?
MR. McALPIN: The liquidated damages we have in here is in
the range of$5,000 a day, $6,000 a day. And, essentially, Mr. Chair,
Page 142
January 25, 2011
what that does is provide us the additional engineering, the additional
observation so that we can continue to monitor this project moving
forward. And that's what the liquidated damages--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But why doesn't that provide you
the protection with respect to getting it done on time?
MR. McALPIN: If they -- it's a weather-related issue, Mr. Chair.
They're going to dredge 24/7.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Wait a minute. The issue is, if
they have a reason for a weather delay, they don't have to pay the
liquidated damages; is that what you're saying to me?
MR. McALPIN: Well, we have written the contract such that
they have to be finished -- they have to be finished by the beginning of
sea turtle nesting season. That's what we have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then why would it make any
difference what kind of bridge -- dredge they have? If you've got a
contract that says they have to be finished at that point in time, then
who cares? They could do it with shovels.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Commissioner Coyle.
MR. McALPIN: But -- okay, that's right, Commissioner, they
could do it with shovels. Our history has always been that with a
larger than a -- smaller than a 14- inch dredge, it takes much more time
to get it done. That's the basis that we bid this project under.
MR. CARNELL: If I could add to that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CARNELL: What he just said, last phrase, we put this out
publicly to the vendor community telling them we needed a 14-inch
dredge. Now, we either meant that or we didn't mean that. And the--
in one sense, yeah, we could just say yeah to the contractor, get your
shovels and buckets out there and have at it. It's just your job to get it
done.
Well, it is their job to get it done. They control the means and
methods, but there's a matter of practicality in terms of going into this,
Page 143
January 25, 2011
do we have a fighting chance to succeed? What risk are we putting
ourselves at?
And I believe the staff is telling you that there is a risk going with
the smaller dredge given our experience in the past.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could.
MR. CARNELL: Plus, we also told all the bidders, bid to a
14- inch standard.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I understand all that, but here's
the problem. You really haven't quantified the cost of the delay . You
haven't said, if these guys are three months late or two months late --
it's not going to do us any good to charge them a liquidated damage.
Our costs are going to way exceed that. And then the question to you
is, then why did you set the liquidated damage so low? All right.
So it is an issue that needs to be considered, but we've got 16
members of the public who want to talk, and we've got one
commissioner who is really antsy. So go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I seem to be at far end of
being recognized on some of these things, and I do have a couple of
things I'd like to talk to them about.
Don't go away, Steve. I'll be kind.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. How many people here
are here to talk about the dredging of the -- of the pass? If -- would
you want to put your chances for recreational pursuits at risk by
having them fail to be able to make the deadline, liquidated damages
or not, to have to skip turtle season and have the whole damn thing fill
in again and have to start over from scratch? Then we go to court and
keep the county attorney busy for a long time.
I think this has been thought out quite well, to be honest with
you. First, when I heard Commissioner Hiller giving her presentation,
I was ready to ask for the district attorney to step in, but then after
hearing the explanations from staff and the rationale and the fact that
Page 144
January 25, 2011
the bidder -- and I've been in bids before -- ignored certain instruments
in there that would have triggered, you know, him being disqualified
-- you asked for a 14-inch dredge.
You gave them the paperwork to fill out, he neglected to do so
and still filed the application. And of course he can do it cheaper with
a boat that does not have the capacity to be able to do it in a
reasonable period of time, does not have the amount of freeboard that
can keep them out there digging on a regular basis.
We have turtle season coming in on May 1 st, is it?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At that point in time, no matter
where you are, you pull everything out of the water, you set it -- you
sit through it. Meanwhile, hurricane season comes and everything
else, and the issue of a partial dredge, thing gets filled in, and the
access is shut off just because we were negligent in moving forward in
an expedient matter in balancing all the facts that are out there.
Now, unless there's something I don't know here, I think we're
going in the right direction. But I'd like to hear from the speakers out
there, and hopefully they'll come across with how important their
recreational time is to them. Because this is time, and their risk
element is great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask one question before the
speakers begin speaking?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I speak to the engineer?
MR. KEEHN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know exactly what type of
equipment this company, this low bidder, will be using in Estero,
correct? You've reviewed the information, you know what they're
going to be using on the Estero job; is that correct?
MR. KEEHN: I reviewed what was in their Estero questionnaire.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you know what equipment
Page 145
January 25, 2011
they're going to be preparing, or what equipment they're going to be
using for the Estero dredge?
MR. KEEHN: I know what they proposed in their questionnaire,
,
yes, ma am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That will be the same equipment
that would be used to dredge Wiggins Pass.
MR. KEEHN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would they be able, using that
equipment, to complete the job in the same amount of time assuming
the same conditions as the bidder that this is being proposed be
awarded to?
MR. KEEHN: My opinion would be Southwind has a better
chance to finish the job on time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: By what percentage? What's the
risk probability that the other company with the equipment that they're
using would be less capable to get it done in the time constraints
proposed by this contract?
MR. KEEHN: I don't have the numbers in front of me. But let
me just explain. There's two components to that question. One is the
capacity of the pumps to move the sand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
MR. KEEHN: And that's basically -- doesn't really evaluate
weather conditions, that is waves and currents. The second one is how
well they can deal with waves and currents and operate in such a
manner that they don't break their dredge during the process.
I think the risk with Florida Dredge and Dock is greater that
they're not going to be able to survive through the weather conditions.
So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you analyzed the weather
conditions for that period of time? I mean, historically are the
conditions such that that's a major concern?
MR. KEEHN: Every time we've dredged, it's been a major issue.
Page 146
January 25, 2011
Most of the dredging that occurs in South Florida is done in the
wintertime outside of sea turtle season, and we always have that issue
if you have two small of a dredges (sic), they continuously complain
that the weather is too bad, et cetera, et cetera, and it's a matter of how
good they are at handling the weather conditions and their ability to
withstand the higher wave conditions when they do occur.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you think the -- for 200,000 the
risk is so great that they -- you're saying there's a more than 50 percent
chance they will not be able to complete the dredge on time or more
than a 75 percent chance or almost 100 percent chance that they will
not be able to complete the dredge on time?
MR. KEEHN: The other thing about their dredge is they have a
nonstandard dredge.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to know the risk. I
mean, you're an engineer. You deal in probabilities, statistics. We
need to know. We're giving up 200,000, all right. We have a very
tight budget.
MR. KEEHN: My opinion is, the risk is much greater that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the risk? Quantify the risk
for me. You've analyzed all of this. You made a decision based on
risk.
MR. KEEHN: I did, and the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is it?
MR. KEEHN: The decision we made was, discriminate against
dredges of 12 inch and smaller in order to assure that we got a big
enough dredge out there to do the job. So we did not do a detailed
anal- -- the thing about 12-inch and 14-inch dredges is there's a wide
variety of them. But we purposely discriminated against the 12 and
smaller and went for the 14 and higher. And since 2005 we've had a
good record with that discrimination.
And I did not go down and do a detailed wave analysis to see
whether they could do it, because I don't know exactly how each of
Page 147
January 25, 2011
these dredges will operate in the wave conditions. And that's a master,
you know, naval architect and seaworthiness that is boat dependent,
and I don't know all the conditions of the boat. I only know the
general conditions, and I made my recommendations based on the
general conditions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Didn't the bid package state
that it must be completed by May 1 st, and that was part of the bidding
process, and the guarantee was that they would finish by then, and
they had insurance that said if they didn't finish by then it didn't -- no
matter what equipment they used, that then they would be held
responsible?
MR. KEEHN: Yes, ma'am, but I think the additional risk is what
was mentioned earlier. Ifwe don't finish by May 1st, we kick
finishing the project six months, and that's a long period of time for
boaters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. But did the bid
say that it had to be done by May 1 st?
MR. KEEHN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these people bid on it with that
knowledge, right, that they --
MR. KEEHN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- guarantee?
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. The bid also said that the specification
was for a 14-inch dredge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the speakers, please.
MR. MITCHELL: Again, we'll use both podiums. So I'll call
two speakers at a time. And the first speaker is John Sorey, and he'll
be followed by Mark Garcy.
MR. SOREY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My
11 o'clock time-certain at 3 o'clock?
Page 148
January 25, 2011
F or the record, John Sorey. I'm chair of your Coastal Advisory
Committee and a member of the TDC. And I urge approval of this
contract. And I think it's quite simple. And it's safety, the economy
that's impacted in that area by not having boating capability by the
turtle season, May 1.
One of the things that I learned from Ron Pennington when he
was chair prior to my being chair of TDC, we had a dredge proj ect
where we did not specify the size of the equipment. The waves sunk
the dredge. We ended up in all kind of problems. It took forever. We
had liquidated damages. It ended up costing us significantly more
than the liquidated damages.
And I would point out to the commissioners that the CAC voted
to recommend this with one nay that Commissioner Hiller has talked
about. We were assured -- and we went through in a lot more detail
with purchasing and legal than you have today. We were assured of
the legal facts that this was appropriate. We made it very clear, and I
would urge you to require a 14-inch dredge and we get this done prior
to May 1 st.
The reality is, regardless of any appendixes, that sort of thing, the
requirement was a 14-inch dredge. This is a 12-inch dredge.
And to Mr. Henning's comment, obviously, the CAC wants to
conserve every penny, but we think we have an obligation -- we've
been talking about this for two years. We have an obligation to
complete this prior to May 1. And the greatest probability is to
approve the contract you have before you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I comment? Thank you so
much for your remarks. And because you're on the TDC, I would just
like to just bring some information to your attention.
While everyone is sitting here today saying that it's a 12-inch
dredge and not a 14- inch dredge, I have all the information with
Page 149
January 25, 2011
respect to the dredge size.
Florida Dredge and Dock, LLC, proposed to utilize a 14- inch
hydraulic cutter head suction dredge with floating booster and 16-inch
dredge discharge pipeline. Spider barge with three anchor systems
will be used to control discharge of dredge material and designated
disposal site to designated grade.
Mobilization can be accomplished when the owner issues notice
to proceed.
F ourteen- inch hydraulic dredge, the size of dredge for this
particular job, in answer to that question -- 14-inch hydraulic dredge
with booster. An estimated daily production will be approximately
5,000 to 6,000 cubic yards per day, anticipated to complete dredging
within 10 and 14 days, pending on weather condition after
mobilization.
And then, another question, what type of equipment will be used
including scows, boosters, cranes, barges. All equipment that will be
utilized for this proj ect are owned by Florida Dredge and Dock. There
are one 14-inch hydraulic cutter head suction dredge, one 14-inch
floating booster, 6,500 feet of 16-inch poly pipe, two tender boats, one
crew boat, and miscellaneous equipment.
MR. SOREY: Ms. Hiller, the reality is, our engineer experts
have testified on the record that the calculation for the dredge that they
are recommending is not a 14-inch. It is a 12-inch, and that
engineering report is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't that reverse?
MR. SOREY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't it reverse? Aren't you -- are
you recommending 12 or 14?
MR. SOREY: No. We're recommending 14. The dock -- the
dredge --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're recommending 14, right.
MR. SOREY: The low bidder -- when the engineering did the
Page 150
January 25, 2011
calculation on the low bidder's dredge, they testified that it was a
12-inch, not a 14.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think you're maybe
confusing it with another bidder. This was another bidder that was
disqualified. This particular bidder, okay --
MR. SOREY: I'm talking about the low bidder. And the question
that I understand that we have today --
MR. KEEHN: Ma'am, I think I can clarify the matter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. KEEHN: I looked at three different documents. If you go
to their website right now, they have a "Gator Point" dredge that's
10-inch on their website. And if you go to the questionnaire, just like
that questionnaire for Lee County, they say it's a 14-inch/12-inch, and
that's how they specify there. A 14-inch/12-inch means 12-inch
discharge, and the discharge is where you measure the size of the
dredge.
For this questionnaire, they came out and just clearly stated that
was a 14- inch dredge; whereas, I knew from the other form it was
actually a 12-inch dredge. And I verified that calling to them and
talking to Mr. Fletcher, and he verified that the discharge was a
12- inch, which is where you measure the size of a dredge.
And so the thing is is I looked at all -- and the fact that these
things are a little bit different between the forms --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have it in writing. It's actually a
16-inch dredge discharge pipeline. Not -- no, the opposite way around.
MR. KEEHN: Ma'am, it's -- I talked to Mr. Fletcher, and it was a
12-inch -- their discharge at the location where you measure the size
of the dredge is 12-inch.
And I think he was just trying to put his best case forward when
he wrote in the questionnaire for us. And I asked for the
questionnaire. The questionnaire did not come with the bid form. I
followed up three days later and asked for that form, and they filled it
Page 151
January 25, 2011
out. And they said 14-inch in that one. If you go and read the Lee
County one, they said 14-inch/12-inch for the size of the dredge, and
the 12 means that that's where you measure the size of the dredge
from.
And so -- the thing about it is is there's a little bit of -- they
haven't been -- I think they haven't been purposefully clear among all
the forms they presented, that is, if you look at all the information
that's presented, they haven't been perfectly clear. And is part of that
-- that gives some doubt into what they're saying, in my mind, when I
was reviewing these documents.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like you to show me all
the discrepancies.
MR. KEEHN: Do you have both of the bid forms there -- I mean
the questionnaires?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have one questionnaire. And by
the way, everything that I have I've introduced in that package as an
exhibit.
MR. KEEHN: Do you have the questionnaire that they provided
to me, I guess, for this bid?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no idea what was provided
to you unless you show me what was provided to you.
MR. KEEHN: It sounds as though that's the document that was
provided to me and not to the purchasing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, these statements
provide that the undersigned guarantees the truth and accuracy of all
statements and answers made herein, just so you know.
MR. KEEHN: Yes, ma'am. But there is a definite discrepancy
between what they provided to Lee County and what they have
provided to Collier County. And I called up to verify that particular
point, and they agreed that theirs was a 12- inch discharge, which is the
way of deciding on the size of the dredge.
And this is -- they call their dredge the same name that they
Page 152
January 25, 2011
called it, I guess, 15 years ago "Gator Point," and it's really a dredge
that they've been building themselves as they go along. So I guess it
used to be a jalopy, and now it's, you know, a late-model Cadillac, or
something along that line.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, this late-model Cadillac
seems to be working very well for a substantially larger dredge for
Estero.
MR. KEEHN: Ma'am, one other thing about Estero is it is much
more protected waters. They have the whole island of Sanibel
sheltering where they're dredging and they're also dredging in the
Sanibel shoal, which provides some protection.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've gone over this time and time
again. We understand what you're saying to us.
Okay. The next speaker, please.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Garcy.
MR. GARCY: For the record, Mark Garcy.
Commissioners, just to speak briefly on what they're talking
about, the dredging in the past. I've worked first response in that pass
for the last five to seven years, and when it comes to dredging -- I've
seen the weather, especially this time of the year -- if you don't have
the right equipment, they do pull out. And right now there is a lot of
weather. You know, it's the wintertime. So, you know, take that into
consideration.
If this does not happen here real soon, you have to look at the
safety involved. You know, I know that's probably one of your major
concerns, as you said on other issues prior to this as well.
I hope the information I provide here helps out. I've went to the
FWC's website and got some statistics on boater accidents and
whatnot, and one of the top, in our area for accidents, is shoaling,
groundings and whatnot.
Firsthand experience, if a boater runs aground at a high rate of
speed, they can easily be ejected, leading obviously to injury or death.
Page 153
January 25, 2011
A lot of boaters in the area are not experienced. They may not know
about the shoaling, and so this is a big concern.
Not only is this a major concern that we can fix, but if we don't,
there's also five emergency response vessels that rely on the pass:
FWC, Collier County Sheriffs Office, North Naples Fire Department,
Sea Tow, and Boat U.S.
Currently there is a problem with the first response out of that
pass. There's plenty of times that they cannot respond. It takes over
45 minutes for the Coast Guard to get down to that pass, and that's in
good weather conditions as well.
So if this work is not done immediately and we have to wait for
the turtle season or the proper dredge is not, you know, down there, I
think that that's a major issue.
Also, from a business owner, I operate a business right in that
pass every day. And, you know, there's plenty of days on a daily
basis, on a full moon schedule, we cannot get in and out of that pass.
We run charters, and we've seen plenty of boats aground. We
have trouble with the schedule. We lose business on a daily basis
because of this. We just acquired the old Cocohatchee Nature Center
on 41 there, and over 60 percent of our business relies on that pass.
We have tenant families that we employ. So if this project does not
get done, you know, it's not just safety, but it's businesses of yours
shut down as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. Thank you.
MR. GARCY: Thank you for your time.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Carl Redfield, and they'll
(sic) followed by Ron Vuy.
MR. KURAS: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Kuras. I am
not Carl Redfield. Carl had an emergency situation and had to leave
and asked me to stand in for him.
Carl and I both live at Pelican Isle. I've been there for six years.
He's been there for about 10. We're both members of the yacht club
Page 154
January 25, 2011
and we're both boaters.
My first comment is, I am an avid fisherman. I'm in and out of
that pass daily, weather permitting, and I can tell you, it is an absolute
nightmare. Everything that Mark said and that others are going to say
about that pass, it is really, really a problem. Indeed, the sheriff can't
get in and out, the game department can't get in and out, and the fire
department can't always get in and out.
Now, speaking to the dredge issue -- this was not on my agenda,
but I am going to comment, because I've watched that pass be dredged
three, and maybe four times, certainly three. And I was there when
the smalll0-inch, 12-inch, whatever it was, dredge there was. It
broke down. It sunk. They had to take it up and bring it back up in
shore and repair it and put it back out, and it extended the project
forever and, indeed, they never really did get it dredged out properly.
So the experience I have with the pass, safety is a big issue. We
need to tend to that. And my own view is the smaller dredge simply
does not work. I've watched it day in and day out, and it didn't work.
I have no other comments. Thank you very much for your
attention.
MR. KINDSV A TER: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack
Kindsvater. And just like with Mr. Redfield, Mr. Vuy had to go and
attend to business this afternoon as well.
So with your permission, I would like to read his one-page
statement into the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please, go ahead.
MR. KINDSVATER: Very good.
This is from Ron Vuy, who's the general manager of LaPlaya
Beach and Golf Resort located at 9891 Gulf Shore Drive in Naples.
He's been in this position for five years.
"Three years ago, we opened a noncommercial 23-slip private
marina for our guests and private club members. The facility faces
Vanderbilt Lagoon, and it cost $1 million to construct.
Page 155
January 25, 2011
"The marina can accommodate boats up to 50 feet in length.
Eight of the docks are equipped with automatic boat lifts. In addition
to our guests and members, the marina can accommodate boaters who
would like to come to LaPlaya for lunch or dinner.
"With the current conditions of Wiggins Pass, LaPlaya simply
cannot lease these docks. The fact that the channel is filling in is of
great concern to boaters who want to park their boats in and around
the Cocohatchee.
"The word is out in the local marine industry that Wiggins Pass is
difficult to navigate and not safe going in and out of the Gulf of
Mexico. This does not bode well for the marinas in the vicinity of
Wiggins Pass.
"Try as we might, without giving our docks away, we cannot
lease them. Currently I have five docks leased. We have had boats
leave in search of other facilities, and we have been hard pressed to
attract new tenants. When we do, I have to be honest and I have to tell
them about the current conditions of Wiggins Pass and warn them that
if they are planning on fishing or pleasure boating, they need to time
their entry and exit into the Gulf at high tide.
"I have worked with Collier County's Coastal Zone Management
team over the years, and I have always found them to be very
responsive and to act with due diligence. I believe their
recommendation to award the Wiggins Pass marina dredging contract
to Southwind Construction Corporation for $750,000 is the right thing
to do.
"This action, after careful review, is endorsed by senior coastal
engineer and Coastal Planning Engineering.
"I'm sure others today will speak to safety, navigation, and
protection of property values. I am speaking as a businessperson who
is charged with the responsibility to maximize the owner's return on
investment.
"This has been difficult during the last few years. Please do not
Page 156
January 25, 2011
make it more challenging by taking action that will delay the dredging
at Wiggins Pass. That is not the right thing to do. I need to be able to
lease LaPlaya dock space and to make those 23 slips a viable revenue
stream for my owners and partners.
"Thank you for your time and cooperation."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Dick Lydon, and
he'll be followed by Don Neal.
MR. LYDON: It says "good morning" on here, but I think it's
afternoon.
I'd first of all like to welcome Ms. Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. LYDON: All the rest of those people have put up with me
for a number of years, so you're going to have to start now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, sir.
MR. LYDON: My name is Dick Lydon, and I've owned a home
on Vanderbilt Beach since 1976, and I've lived here full time since I
started my transportation company at the Ritz in 1985.
Shortly after buying my house I was contacted by Wiggins Pass
Conservancy, that's now ECA, for a donation to fund the dredging of
Wiggins Pass. Naturally I got involved and have been since in a
number of ways.
As a member and chair of the city/county beach committee, I was
acting in the origin of the tourist development tax, the beach
renourishments, the dredging of Wiggins Pass, the repair and dredging
of Doctors Pass, the repair and straightening of Wild Turkey Bay.
Contrary to some of the naysayers, that wasn't such a bad move.
It's been navigable ever since we did it in 1996, and we did that by
straightening it -- Mr. Henning, we did that by straightening Turkey
Bay, for future reference. But, now, we're not going to talk about that
in the future.
Page 157
January 25, 2011
Wiggins Pass has been a problem since day one. You mention the
use of Florida Dredge. I was chair of the beach committee when they
did that in '95. I'll tell you, some of the few of us are still around for
that time (sic), know it was a mess. And the problem that we run into
in a thing of that kind is change orders, and they did come long and
hard.
This contract, in my opinion, must be approved today, because if
we delay it, we're going to delay the dredging, we're going to run into
the turtles, and Maura Kraus is not going to be kind when we ask her
to extend the turtle season.
We need to maintain a safe navigation for the business users as
well as us in Collier County to enjoy boating, fishing with our friends,
children and grandchildren. I trust the staff to have made the right
decision.
That's only one minute?
I'm also aware that the low bidder does not have the necessary
equipment. I'll quickly tell you that failure to do the project this year
would be a disaster waiting to happen safety-wise.
I've spent thousands of hours and attended hundreds of meetings
endeavored to make sure that the value of my property in Vanderbilt
Beach will not be lowered because Vanderbilt -- or because Wiggins
Pass is closed and our beaches are not maintained. Please help me
protect my assets by voting yes on this proj ect.
At 87 years young, that's about all I've got to protect. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
MR. NEAL: Commissioners, my name is Don Neal. I'm
appearing as a resident, a concerned resident, and I live in an
apartment overlooking Wiggins Pass.
I'm here not to be redundant with some of the other points that
have been made, but I do want to bring a couple of things to your
attention. We have the county access for boating right there at
Wiggins Pass with a great number of boaters, particularly on the
Page 158
January 25, 2011
weekends, but all week.
Most of those boaters are not aware of the change that has come
to Wiggins Pass. But when they do see the change of the shallow
water -- I wanted to relate to you there's a different practice now going
on in Wiggins Pass than previously. When the boaters understand that
the depth may be only a couple feet and with waves maybe less, the
practice has changed of rather than going out safely at a slow speed,
they're going out now at high speed, 35 miles an hour, to keep that
boat up on plane so they won't hit the bottom.
This is really a change in the use of that pass, and I think from a
safety point of view, it really is urgent that we change that. We don't
want to have a disaster and another reputation in Wiggins Pass that it's
that unsafe to have a disaster.
Another observation that I have -- and my location there,
watching the boats go out the pass, is that I saw this past week the fire
boat go out for practice, and he goes out to the high-water mark and
turns on their pumps. You should see the trail he leaves, as he goes
throughout there, of mud. He's right on the bottom. It's a huge, big,
brown trail that he goes out, because he's just right on the bottom.
And it occurs to me, the day soon will come that he won't be able
to provide service. And that -- I don't know when that day -- he made
it last week but just barely. And I want you to be aware of those
services. We are really at risk. And as a concerned citizen, that's the
message I wanted to bring to you.
Thank you for your consideration.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Brett Nuckolls, and
he'll be followed by Joe Moreland.
MR. NUCKOLLS: Somebody will push it for me, I presume, or
do I have to do it?
MR. MITCHELL: No, I'll do that. You're okay.
SPEAKER: Hi, I'm Brett Nuckolls, and I also live in the Pelican
Isle, and I've heard everybody on the commission side already be fully
Page 159
January 25, 2011
supportive of dredging, so I'm not going to waste more time
reinforcing something that you already believe.
On the liquidated-damage issue, I wanted to tailor my comments.
I didn't know I was going to talk about it, but I've heard a lot of
discussion.
In Iowa I consider myself an expert. I'm a contractor, and I
fought with everybody. FAA, Iowa Department of Transportation,
every municipality probably in Iowa. And as it relates to your issue
on liquidated damages, I really question whether you're going to be
able to enforce a $5,000-a-day liquidated damages during turtle
season.
You know, after turtle season lifts, you probably can, but I would
check with the bonding company to see if they understand that there's
a $750,000 liability during turtle season when their contractor can't
work. So with that, you guys have got good legal counsel, and I'm
sure there's attorneys on the board there.
So enough of that. Since the shot clock's running -- in looking at
-- certainly our association wants to dredge the pass. That's
understandable. What I would like you to consider is that in our
research I found a copy of a very detailed statistical study of boating
that was commissioned by the county, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and also the fisheries and wildlife people.
In a very detailed manner, it studied the 23,000 registered boats
of Collier County, how they boat. It send out 5,000 surveys, collected
-- and all that information, I consider it very methodical, complete,
and comprehensive, and the conclusions in here I will summarize real
quick. They're supported by what's in here, but you have a good deal
of Collier County residents that call that ramp at this park their
favorite ramp, they like to boat out of here. For the most part, they're
fishermen, and for the most part fishermen like to have access to the
Gulf.
All of the boats that are using that are the 3-foot draft-and-Iess
Page 160
January 25, 2011
boats. It's not the issue of the bigger boats. This is Collier County
residents with boats that are specified for, you know, the use in that
application.
And then the other alarming thing I would say that was in this
report that surprised me was the fact that the boating industry in
Collier County alone, according to their environmental impact, is a
$425 million yearly impact on the economy. How you measure that in
liquidated damages, you know, is hard to say.
So with that, I'll turn it over to Joe. He's batting cleanup, so --
thanks.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, Brett.
Commissioners, I'm Joe Moreland. And for disclosure in full, I
am on the Coastal Advisory Committee, and I chair the subcommittee
of that committee to -- with respect to the Wiggins Pass affairs, and
most particularly the current dredging and the study underway for the
future dredging.
I am also the past commodore of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, and
with all of those, I would also say to you, I do not speak with forked
tongue.
So I would like to express not only my support -- and I would
like to adopt by reference the comments made by my colleagues who
have testified in behalf of this, particularly Mr. Soros (sic).
There was one outstanding statement here made by some who
may be opposed to this, and that was the fact that the County
Commission's first responsibility was the public-safety aspect. We
can't say too much of that, about the Pelican Isle thing.
I'm here to tell you -- and if I were under oath I couldn't change a
word -- that that pass is a serious threat to safety . It is not "if," it is
"when" you have the accident which will result in legal action against
the county, whether it be won or lost, it will be represented as a failure
of attention by those who are responsible. I believe that to be true.
It will particularly be so if that failure is the result of hyper
Page 161
January 25, 2011
scrutiny of a procurement process which probably any two good
lawyers could sit down and find faults in all, to one degree or another,
and make a cogent argument.
I have collected a few extra minutes, and I hope you'll bear with
me. I only have 55. Somebody went off. Heartbeat?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That was your one-minute warning.
MR. MORELAND: One-minute warning, thank you. I do have
some time donated to me, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: From whom?
MR. MORELAND: I will cut it -- well, Commissioner, I go--
from people who had to leave because 11 o'clock did not arrive at 11
o'clock. They've gone. They're not here to do it. Their numbers have
been turned in over there. I believe you'll see, though, there are -- if
you won't do it, you won't do it.
Things have been said, and I understand your suffer. I feel it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I would like to give this
gentleman the opportunity to speak a little longer. You know, it's
really unfair. I tried to get this time-certain moved so these people
could be accommodated. And as you well point out, they had to leave
because of the delay.
So, Mr. Chairman, would you give him another two minutes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have a problem. If you'd leave it
alone and let him go, I think he can finish up.
MR. MORELAND: Well, I just heard the last thing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've had it.
MR. MORELAND: Sir, I will hurry up. Believe me, I don't
want to try your patience, not at this critical time.
I want to cite some numbers, too. But those of you who
witnessed the Coastal Advisory Committee, I ran through some of
this, but we don't appreciate fully the value of the properties involved,
the importance of the boating to that. We have 1,700 wet slips in that
estuary, 1,700. Almost half of them are now empty. And that is a
Page 162
January 25, 2011
significant reduction heretofore.
Why are they empty? They can't lease them, the people that are
there can't run their boats in and out, and they've left, and they have
left for finer waters, and they probably will not be back.
The young man who testified here that he has just started, a
young man starting a business, and he's wrapped in doing it, and he's
faced with bad economic times everywhere and a damn near
impossibility to do his charter work, which is part of his business, and
he services the tourists of this county.
I'm going to stop there, but I would indulge one more thing. I
offered an invitation as the president of the estuary council -- Estuary
Conservation Association, and I extend that same question -- same
invitation to the County Commissioners. Through the complement of
our -- gentleman who testified and has the business, we now have
access to a 47- foot cruise boat that does regular tours when the tourists
can get in and out of the pass of the Wiggins Pass estuarial system,
Wiggins Beach, and so forth.
Pelican Isle Yacht Club also has a smaller one, which would be
made available. Why do I say that? Because I want to invite you, and
as an ungracious host, almost insist that you accept my invitation,
along with the Board of Coastal Zone Management, for us to take you
on a guided tour on those boats in modest luxury to actually bear
witness, to reach over the side and feel the bottom of the waterways,
to see those up short.
What I found at your workshop, when you put it on for the
question of the tax dollars --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much more time do we
have?
MR. MORELAND: -- to come out, I watched the jaws of some
of these restaurateurs and hoteliers when they began to realize the
value that was in here and the impact that it had and how little they
knew about it.
Page 163
January 25, 2011
The point is, many of our political electees do get tours of the
downside beach. How many have walked the north-end beach? It is
equally important. It's pristine land.
And I do thank you for your indulgence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that statement is absolutely
absurd.
MR. MORELAND: I have more to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to wrap it up. Wrap it up.
MR. MORELAND: I appreciate it, and I have great empathy for
your decision before you. But please make the right one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Jack Kindsvater,
and he'll be followed by Margaret Winn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many more speakers do you have?
MR. MITCHELL: After these two, we have four. So we have six
speakers all together.
MR. KINDSV A TER: I can tell you Margaret Winn is not here,
so you can pull that one.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you.
MR. KINDSV A TER: Now that I'm on the other side, I'm Jack
Kindsvater, and I will keep this extremely brief, because you've heard
the basic issues.
The issues are economic, the issues are safety. And the primary
issue today is timing, because there is good experience, or I should say
bad experience, with undersized dredges. And if you choose to go
into timing and to delay this issue, to dig further into it, you are going
against turtle nesting season, and we want to be good environmental
stewards as well as involved in the navigation of -- the safe navigation
of the pass, which means you don't dredge, which is very different
from Estero.
If you read the article today, few things different. Number one,
they go right through turtle nesting season. If they go on longer, it
Page 164
January 25, 2011
doesn't make a difference. If this one has to shut down, it shuts down
for over five months. And I don't know what contractor is able to pay
$6,000 a day for five months if that gets awarded in liquidated
damages.
So the issue is timing. It is critical that we go with this. We want
to do different things, do that going forward, but this time we need to
give this contract to the appropriate bidder that is qualified and that we
know and have experience can do the job.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just add a few comments to
the statements you just made?
MR. KINDSV A TER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just so you understand, the lowest
bidder is proposing a 14-inch hydraulic cutter head suction dredge
with a floating booster and 16- inch dredge discharge pipelines. Also
the time frame to complete this dredge is approximately two weeks.
So we're in January.
MR. KINDSV A TER: Ms. Hiller, I'm not going to get into that
dispute with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to mention the fact.
MR. KINDSV A TER: But you already heard from your engineer
that the definition of 14- inch dredge is at least in question, and he
questions that that bidder does not have what is being called a 14-inch
dredge in the terms. But that's not my issue. You need to go to the
engineer with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KINDSV A TER: But I think that that's not safe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're taking a 10-minute break for the
court reporter. She's been working for an hour and 45 minutes straight
here, and -- you're on break now, Terri.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: You have live mike.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Jim Kuras, and he'll be
Page 165
January 25, 2011
followed by Nicole Ryan.
MR. KURAS: I have already spoken on behalf of Carl Redfield
earlier and have nothing further to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Nicole Ryan, and she'll
be followed by Doug Fee.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And the Conservancy has been a member of the Coastal
Advisory Committee's Wiggins Pass dredging subcommittee, and we
were also a member of the committee that, several years ago, looked
at the new dredge template for Wiggins Pass, so we've been very
involved in the Wiggins Pass area, and we understand that there is an
obligation to keep the pass safe, but it has to be done in the most
environmentally compatible manner possible.
We've been talking about the economic resource of Wiggins Pass
and the residential issues, the recreational resource value, but there's
also the environmental value and the fact that it is in Outstanding
Florida Waters. You have the Barefoot Beach preserve to the north,
you have Delnor- Wiggins State Park to the south.
So we have to keep all of that in context and in mind. And
certainly, part of ensuring that the project is completed in a timely
manner to avoid sea turtle nesting season is going to be an important
component of any interim dredging proj ect. Turbidity monitoring and
some of the other things that we've worked with staff on we think have
gotten to a point where we're comfortable with it.
Who does this? Does it go to the lowest bidder? Is there
additional discussion on that? Not my area of expertise, and so I don't
want to weigh in on that. I leave that to you and your experts to
determine.
But I did want to bring up -- because this issue was briefly
touched on at the beginning of your discussion, and that is how we
Page 166
January 25, 2011
move forward with a new dredging template and the idea of putting
structures in at Wiggins Pass, the idea of jetties and groins and
hardening the shoreline.
And I did want to remind you that in the 2007/2008 time frame
this issue came up. We knew that what we're doing right now for
Wiggins Pass simply wasn't economically or environmentally feasible,
so how do we -- how do we do it better in the future?
And you appointed a committee. That committee looked at
structural versus non structural. We looked at economics; we looked at
environmental; we looked at the fact that the Growth Management
Plan doesn't allow structures on beach preserves, the fact that
Delnor- Wiggins State Park looks like they don't allow structures
within their pass area.
So all of this was brought together, and non structural was
determined as the way to go. And you, as the Board of County
Commissioners, did have staff move forward with putting together an
application for that future dredging, that would be straightening of the
S curve in a nonstructural design template. And it had a lot of public
comment, a lot of vetting, a lot of committee time.
So I would just remind you of that, because the Conservancy
does believe that non structural is the way to go for the future. And I
was a little concerned when I heard that you may be considering, at
some point in the future, moving to structural. So I just did want to
remind you of that, and I'd certainly, at some point in the future, be
willing to talk one on one with you about all of those issues.
So I thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nicole.
MS. RYAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before you sit down, I just want to
ask you a couple of questions. You've made some interesting and
beneficial comments.
You indicated that your subcommittee had done a financial
Page 167
January 25, 2011
analysis. Did you do an analysis which contemplates the difference in
the overall cost between the current two-year dredging versus the
straightening and proposed dredging?
And by the way, I just want to clarify something for the record.
Mr. McAlpin, when he stood up here at the beginning of this
presentation, said that the pass will only now have to be dredged under
the new design every four years. That, in fact, is not the case. I
actually met with Mr. McAlpin and the engineer, and the engineer
made it very clear that we would still have to do two-year dredging of
the ebb shoal-- not the ebb shoal-- of the pass, I'm sorry, that we
would not be able to escape that. So it will continue to be a two-year
dredge plus the expanded four-year dredge.
Have you done a cost-benefit analysis? Did you do a
comparative analysis, I should say? Forgive me.
MS . RYAN: The Conservancy didn't. If that was part of that
committees and the information that the engineers gave, I'm not really
prepared to speak on that today. That was several years ago, and I
certainly can look that information up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just ask because you said they
had done a financial analysis.
MS. RYAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you research that for me?
MS. RYAN: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then when we come back to
analyze what's going on with this particular design, I would like to see
the -- basically the cost of the new plan versus the two-year
maintenance dredge cost and see, you know, where the cost saving is
achieved.
MS. RYAN: Sure, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MS. RYAN: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Doug Fee, and he'll be
Page 168
January 25, 2011
followed by Marcia Cravens, who's the last speaker.
MS. CRAVENS: I give my time to Doug.
MR. FEE: If I could hand this up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you so much. One for
everybody?
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Doug Fee. I live up in the Wiggins Pass area.
I'm a boater, and I've lived in that area for over ten years. I'm
also a person who values Delnor- Wiggins and Barefoot Beach as
preserves in that area. So there's a double-edged sword. I understand
that the pass needs dredged, and there are areas outside of the pass that
definitely are danger spots.
Having said that, I printed off of the DEP website a letter of
consistency, and it is three pages long, issued by the county on August
30, 2010. It basically says that this project that you have in front of
you today is consistent with our local Land Development Code and
Growth Management Plan.
I'm here to tell you several months ago I came to the Coastal
Advisory Committee and asked if this could be heard by other
committees that are more in charge of our Land Development Code
and Growth Management Plan laws. At that point I got an email from
Bill Lorenz, who is the head of the engineering area for our Growth
Management Division, and he had stated on the new project, not this
project, but say two years from now, when and if we are to remodel
the S curve, there should be some meetings the public can involve
itself with in order to determine that, in fact, what is being proposed is
consistent.
I'm here to say that since we did not have those meetings with
today's project, I don't know how the public -- if it feels there are
policies that the county is disregarding, how does the public have an
ability to challenge or to question the consistency letter which was
administratively approved and has been given to the state?
Page 169
January 25, 2011
In regards to this consistency, a couple of things: Humiston &
Moore, which is an engineering consultant for the county, in its report,
the Wiggins Pass study said, quote, "The recommendation was made
because deepening of the channel close to the beach had contributed to
the erosion." We all know, and your engineering states -- engineer
states that this project has altering erosion factor to it.
In the Land Development Code, there is a sentence that says, "It
is the intent of the conservation district to require review of all
development which is proposed in the (CON) district to ensure that the
inherent value of the county's natural resource is not destroyed or
unacceptably altered."
In the Growth Management Plan, there is a policy that says, in
1 0.4.3, "Prohibit activities which would result in man-induced
shoreline erosion beyond the natural beach erosion cycle or that would
deteriorate the beach and dune system."
The county applied to the state for a critical erosion on Barefoot
Beach. I believe it has been granted that from the state. That will
allow the county in the future to mitigate and restore the shoreline for
this project.
One other point is, there are land management plans for both
Delnor- Wiggins and Barefoot Beach. Barefoot Beach is by -- is
managed by the county. Delnor- Wiggins is managed by the state
agency, Bureau of Parks. In those land management plans, which I
encourage each of you to read, these plans state that the lessees are not
to do things in the coastal tidal waters that will affect your lands. You
will be found not to be in compliance with your plan to manage these
lands.
I know that the state raised, if there is erosion on the south side of
the pass, what would the county have to do in order to mitigate that
since this dredging project is a county project?
There has been discussion -- I'm not sure where that ended up --
but you have to take into account that these are conservation lands at a
Page 170
January 25, 2011
pass with different lessees, and we have to take all this into account.
I would suggest for future action of this area that you allow your
EAC and CCPC committees to hear this in terms of our codes, let
them approve it, assuming it is consistent, and then it can move
forward.
A couple of other things. Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Coyle had mentioned at the very beginning of this item
-- some of my comments have to do more with the future, not
necessarily with today's maintenance dredging.
I do have a deed-restriction document that is recorded on the
south side of -- I'm sorry -- the south side of Delnor- Wiggins at the
pass. And I'm just going to read it real quick. The conveyance is
subject to a condition and restrictions that a strip of land 200 feet in
width running across the entire width of the above-described land
from the Gulf Shore east to the side westerly of the agreed boundary
line herein referred to, lying immediately south of Wiggins Pass along
the north side of the land above described in forming part of said line
shall not nor shall any part of 200 feet in width be built upon by any
buildings or obstructions, whatever, nor shall strip of200 land (sic), et
cetera, et cetera. Basically it runs with the land. It's perpetual.
I did check with the Bureau of Beaches, Gloria Barber, and she
sent me an email that said that restriction is still on the deed. The
reason why I mention that is, in the subcommittee that's moving
forward on the next plan, we need to take that into consideration in
terms of what you're going to do in the future.
So the bottom line is, I do support the dredging. I know that we
have to do it. I know there are some safety issues. But I think in
terms of the Comprehensive Plan for the future, we really have to
think things through.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Last speaker?
Page 171
January 25, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask another question of
our engineer. I think this is very important.
May -- could you please step to the podium. Thank you so much.
The 12 inches that you were talking about relates with respect to
the lowest bidder to the discharge flange of the pump housing. That
was not specified in the specs, was it?
MR. KEEHN: No, ma'am. It just said 12-inch (sic) dredge, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Fourteen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, no, no, 14-inch dredge.
MR. KEEHN: Excuse me, 14, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Army Corps of Engineer
definition of a 14-inch dredge is what? And how is it different from
your definition of a 14-inch dredge? And for purposes of this bid, are
you respecting the Army Corps of Engineers' definition, or have you
come up with your own definition? And if you've come up with your
own definition, have you provided your definition of a 14-inch dredge
to all the bidders?
MR. KEEHN: Ma'am, I called Ellicott Dredges, which is a
manufacturer of dredges in the United States, and talked to them about
this. And they're the ones that gave me that definition, and I also
found an expert online that had made the same statement about the
14- inch dredge.
I did not find a definition for the 14- inch dredge in the Corps
documents that I looked at.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The Florida Dredge and Dock
proposal to utilize the 14- inch hydraulic cutter head which applies to
the suction, okay, complies with the Corps of Engineers' definition of
a 14-inch dredge. Now, I'm very concerned, because the 12-inch
you're referring to was not a specification within your bid.
At the same time, my concern goes back to what I said earlier --
Page 1 72
January 25, 2011
and I still don't clearly understand how you could have introduced a
change in the permit conditions that only affected Southwind and
where you modified the price with Southwind, which was completely
unrelated to lower mobilization, like -- or the lower mobilization was
unrelated to the turbidity. I really do not understand.
Based on the evidence presented, it is very clear that the lowest
bidder can perform the job in the time necessary to avoid a
public-safety issue at $200,000 less than the bidder you have
recommended.
And so I completely understand what the public is saying and I
respect their concerns, and their concerns can be achieved and the
objective of public safety can be satisfied because the evidence here is
clear that the lowest bidder satisfies the bid requirements.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Has there -- has the bidder, Florida
Dredging --
MR. KEEHN: And Dock.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have they filed a protest?
MR. KEEHN: No, sir, and I don't believe, based on my last
discussion with them, they were planning to pursue this further.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any connection between Mr.
Pires and this particular vendor?
MR. KEEHN: I have no idea, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do you know of any reason why people
are pushing so hard to get this award to that particular contractor?
MR. KEEHN : No -- I have no personal -- other than the price
difference, I have --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KEEHN: -- nothing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. No member of the selection
committee has been contacted by any member of staff or any advisory
committee member to select a particular bidder?
Page 1 73
January 25, 2011
MR. CARNELL: No, sir. This was an ITB, an invitation to bid,
so there was no selection committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why then has the staff gone out
of its way to get this bid to Southwind? I mean, they basically have
jumped over three other bidders, one being the lowest bidder who
clearly qualifies under the bid specs.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, that's -- that's not the case.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It appears to be.
MR. OCHS: I don't understand why you keep saying they're
qualified under the bid spec. If the specs were --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just --
MR. OCHS: -- for a 14- inch dredge --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what they provided.
MR.OCHS: Not to us, ma'am. I don't know who they provided
that to. We could show you what they provided to us, if you'd like to
see it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Steve -- the engineer just admitted
that it was provided to them, that he called them and got the
information and that it was clear.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he didn't say that at all--
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You keep making statements
and accusing people of lies.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not accusatory.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not -- no, not at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're representing what you're saying
as absolute truth, and it is not.
Page 174
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you call -- can you call the
engineer back to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll be happy to.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you say that you spoke to
Florida Dredge and they gave you their questionnaire and provided the
information that I have here? Would you like to see it?
MR. KEEHN: I think I have a copy here, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you have the same copy
that I have.
MR. KEEHN: This one right here?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has -- it's multiple pages.
MR.OCHS: We will show you what we received.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't I show you what I have,
and why don't you tell me if this is what you've received.
MR.OCHS: Let's show what we received, okay. Give me the
visualizer.
And oh, by the way, this was all received at our request after the
bid --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct, that's what the --
MR. OCHS: -- deadline, because there was nothing submitted by
this low bidder.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. And the reason
being, that the checklist didn't require it.
MR.OCHS: No, that's not the reason, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we have two bidders that
didn't submit --
MR.OCHS: That's correct, that's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the same questionnaire.
MR. OCHS: They were both found unresponsive.
THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. Get his side, will you.
MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Scott Johnson. I do have a point
Page 175
January 25, 2011
of clarification.
The county manager is correct, they did not submit any of these
documents that I hold in my hand. They were provided to the design
professional post bid opening. Three days after the bid opening they
were provided to him at our request -- or at his request.
Now, on this document that Commissioner Hiller is referring to --
and I'll lay this one down on the visualizer as well -- it calls out a
14-inch hydraulic dredge with booster.
The document that is currently laying on the visualizer calls the
booster pump a 14-inch by 12-inch, which, by definition, as the --
stated by the design professional, it is a 12-inch. And Ellicott Dredge,
who builds dredges, who builds dredges all the time, it is 12- inch
dredge. It is not a 14-inch dredge.
In their resumes, as I stated earlier for the record, had no
reference to corporate experience of operation of a 14- inch dredge nor
the possession of a 14- inch dredge, as a corporate resume would. So
I'll offer that as well.
Again, this was received after the bid opening.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that. Do you have the
other pages as well, these other pages that preceded that last page?
MR. JOHNSON: I only have three pages of a questionnaire,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was the attachment to the
three pages. Do you have the previous three pages?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you have four pages?
MR. JOHNSON: Including that one there laying on the
visualizer, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the description of the 14-inch,
what you have here in the 14-inch hydraulic cutter head suction
dredge with the booster and the 16- inch dredge pipe, does that
conform with the Army Corps' definition of a 14-inch dredge?
Page 176
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, don't we have a bid
-- I mean, don't we have a motion and a second on the floor?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you do. You want to call the
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call for the question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's four o'clock in the afternoon,
and we've accomplished two -- we haven't even finished the second
item on our entire list --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Agenda, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- agenda for today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor of the motion to approve,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 3-2 with Commissioners
Hiller and Henning dissenting.
Now let's get on to some more business.
MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2011-18: RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A GOLF DRIVING RANGE
WITHIN AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 2.03.01.A.1.c.17 OF THE
Page 1 77
January 25, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR 29.6
ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6500 AIRPORT ROAD
NORTH IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO APPORVE
W/STIPULATIONS - FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SUPER-
MAJORITY
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, your next item is 7 A. It's Board of
Zoning Appeals. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. Should a hearing be held on this
item, all participants are required to be sworn.
It's a resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier
County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a conditional use
to allow a golf driving range within an agricultural zoning district
pursuant to Subsection 2.03.0 I.A.I.c.17 of the Collier County Land
Development Code for 29.6 acres of property located at 6500 Airport
Road North in Section 12, Township 49 south, Range 29 east in
Collier County, Florida.
And the petitioner is here to present, once we get ex parte and
.
sworn In.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would all persons who are going
to give testimony under this petition please stand to be sworn in.
That's everybody. Go ahead, Terri.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, we'll have ex parte
disclosure, starting with Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've spoke to constituents, met
with staff, had correspondence -- not correspondence, but -- oh, yes,
correspondence, emails with all parties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I spoke with Pam Mac'Kai, and I
had correspondence, and spoke with staff.
Page 178
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have received
correspondence, and I have reviewed the Planning Commission's staff
report.
And, Commissioner Coletta, you're next.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I reviewed the staffreport
and received emails.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I received some
correspondence, I reviewed -- I seen some of the Planning
Commission meeting on the topic, not all of it. I fell asleep during
some of it. I also spoke to Pam Mac'Kai on the issue. Of course, it
was late at night when I was watching it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was it? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a replay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
Ms. Mac'Kai, it's all yours now.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, thank you.
We have, particularly in comparison with the challenges you've
had this morning, a rather simple, straightforward application for a
conditional use.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Some of those were relatively simple
and straightforward, too, and it took us hours and hours and hours.
MS. MAC'KIE: And at the risk of pandering, I have to say, we
appreciate your service. It's grueling sometimes, but--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's above and beyond the call of duty.
MS. MAC'KIE: Sometimes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I assure you.
MS. MAC'KIE: But our application is, as Mr. Ochs described, a
conditional-use request, and we have complied with all of the
conditions that your staff requested. And, in fact, there was an
additional request made by the Planning Commission upon their
recommendation, vote of the approval, and that condition has also
Page 1 79
January 25, 2011
been complied with and submitted to your staff, and we believe,
they'll advise you, meets with their -- they believe we've satisfied that
Planning Commission additional request.
I do have some information about the company who gave us the
advice on the golf range netting, which was the additional condition
that the Planning Commission requested. So I'd just like to submit
that so that it's in the record in what we hope is the very unlikely event
that this ever goes anywhere except here.
I think probably, in the interest of time, we would just like to
have the opportunity to respond to any questions that arise because, as
I said, we think we have satisfied all the conditions, and we seek your
approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have no questions about it. I think
it's a great project. The only thing I wanted to just re-emphasize is the
safety of the net. And I told Pam on the telephone, we have a library
over here in East Naples, and it's right next door to a golf course. And
they were complaining that the golf balls were hitting all the cars.
And so they finally got them to put up a net, but they didn't put up a
whole net because they felt that they just put it in the places needed.
And so then the people were saying, no, the golf balls are still
there. We've got a -- we got a representative and engineer out there to
take a look at it. And while he's standing in the parking lot, a golf ball
hit him in the head. We got the rest of the nets.
MS. MAC'KIE: Is that priceless or what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I just want to make sure that you
don't have to go through that, it's done right in the first place.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. We have a signed and sealed
representation of what has been advised to us by the experts is the
appropriate netting height.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. And I make a motion to
approve.
Page 180
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to approve--
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Fiala, a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, we have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have -- Ms. Mac'Kie?
MS. MAC'KIE: Oh. I'm so sorry, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I have a question. I'd like to have an
engineer certify that the size of the netting is small enough to stop
whatever golf balls you're going to have out there, and what
limitations do you have on the size of clubs and the number of balls
are you going to be allowed to hit on the driving range?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How much are they?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much are they, whatever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are you going to be open
Sundays?
MS. MAC'KIE: We'll be happy to provide answers to any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Let's have the
speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Jerry Norman, and he'll
be followed by Paul Boileau.
MR. NORMAN: Can we both go up together?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you both register to speak?
MR. BOILEAU: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. One at each podium, please. One
at each podium. If you want to, you can both speak at the same time.
All right. For the record, I'm Jerry Norman from Walden Oaks.
MR. MITCHELL: You can carry on speaking, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead. You can continue.
MR. BOILEAU: For the record, Paul Boileau from Walden
Page 181
January 25, 2011
Oaks. Jerry and I are both representing Walden Oaks on this--
concerns we have on the pulling -- driving range.
And I'd just like to take you through a few steps that I put
together. And I gave you a packet. There should be a packet in front
of you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we have it. You've got three
minutes. You know that, don't you?
MR. BOILEAU: Okay. I better get going.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you be able to get through it
okay?
MR. BOILEAU: Yeah, here we go.
Okay. I just want to show you where Walden Oaks is in
comparison to the subject of the golf driving range. I guess I'll have to
point to it. Everybody see this?
MR. NORMAN: Yep.
MR. BOILEAU: Now, my next sheet is a line-of-sight diagram
of the netting. This dimension was supplied by -- on the pulling (sic)
part by them, and as well as my line of sight that I took from in front
of our garages. And as we look from left to right with the line of
sight, we are looking at a fica (sic) hedge in front of us. This is the fica
hedge.
Okay. This is the fica hedge. This is where the eye is, and right
in through here is Brazilian pepper trees which, my understanding, is
going to be taken out. Is this correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Probably.
MR. BOILEAU: Okay. Well, anyway, the line of sight, as we
look with the trees gone, looking over the hedge and looking to the top
of the net -- this is the net down here, it's 60 foot high -- we're going to
be seeing 10 foot of our view right here, which results in 35 feet of net
being shown.
Our next thing is a picture kind of describing more as -- where I
took this line of sight was in front of the garage. Here's our fica
Page 182
January 25, 2011
hedge, here's the Brazilian peppers. As you can see from this point up
-- from here to this point here above here is 10 feet.
Okay. This one here, again, it's in front of the garage looking at
the zero feet, the bottom of the fica -- which our 12- foot hedge we do
have, and the Brazilian peppers are anywheres from 26 to 30 feet high.
Okay. Here is another picture taken. This picture's taken, and by
doing a line-of-sight diagram, it's showing the net 60 feet high. This is
what we're going to see with the line of sight. Again, here's our fica
hedge with the Brazilian pepper trees gone, and there's the top of the
netting. We're seeing 35 percent of this netting with the Brazilian
peppers gone.
These are the concerns from Walden Oaks homeowners. Replace
and stagger new trees to existing height of Brazilian peppers, even if a
berm is needed to achieve the height. We'd just like to see, you know,
trees back to the height just so we don't see this ungodly sight. With
visibility of netting, Walden Oaks homes are subject to devaluation.
Next is safety, the possible issue of fallen golf balls, like you had
mentioned. Who's responsible for injury or damage?
Next thing is the netting to be of low visibility, like a hockey
netting for maximum visibility in an arena. There's many different
nets out there you can hardly see in front of you, but most of these
nets that they're using on the golf driving ranges around here are pretty
ugly looking.
And I'll leave you with one other thing. That is a picture of a net,
a golf driving range up on Brookside up in North Naples. And as you
notice, it is ugly, okay, but they do have trees right up tight against it
with the development on the other side, which blocks the view. I went
through the development, looked at it, and you could see very little
netting, only because probably, what, 95 percent of the trees blocked
it.
What I think we're here asking for is, once you take those
Brazilian peppers down, we'd like to see them replaced with
Page 183
January 25, 2011
something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hear from you --
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MAC'KIE: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please.
MS. MAC'KIE: This is not a novel case for you. I know that,
even when I was here before, as we require these Brazilian peppers
and exotic hedges to go down, people hate that. I mean, we would be
happy to leave it, but we can't because the law requires us to remove
it, and we will be removing it in accordance with that.
Frankly, we looked at a possibility -- well, first let me say that we
submitted this application in 2009 . We had all of our neighborhood
meetings. We are here on a Tuesday morning, we thought, and on a
Friday we heard that there was a problem with the neighbors. And so
we have scrambled. We've tried to come up with a way to see if there
was anything that we could do. We don't find that there is anything
that is financially feasible to be able to be done.
It's a very expensive undertaking. And back in the day maybe
people could just give away expensive -- you know, a hedge along a
portion of this. We're talking in -- $10,000. The trees, we're talking
thousands and thousands of dollars to be able to replace the visual line
of sight of this Brazilian pepper, and we find that it's financially
impossible to do so.
So we respectfully request that we are complying with your
ordinance. It is a difficult thing for people to deal with change, but
this is a minimal change, frankly, and probably an interim change, and
there will probably, hopefully for my client someday, have a more
intense development of his property similar to what's on the --
adjacent to his neighbors.
But for now, it's a net. It's black netting and it's, we don't feel,
Page 184
January 25, 2011
terrible -- well, frankly, we don't think it's ugly at all, and we would
ask you to approve it as -- in accordance with the staffs
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MAC'KIE: Could I -- as a matter of fact -- right. And I was
just kind of jumping ahead and -- because of the time constraints. We
do have a lot of information, and why don't I get -- why don't you
show them a little more information about what we think the impact
will be, the visual impact.
MR. WESTENDORF: Thank you, Ms. Mac'kie.
F or the record, my name is Jay Westendorf with Omega
Consulting Group.
I just wanted to point out also, in compliance with the LDC, we
do have to buffer the proposed use of the driving range against the
Walden Oaks property line. And while the code will require it, I
believe it's a Type B buffer, which is a five-foot high shrub, it's on the
back side of their ficus hedge. It will not be visible to them, but we do
have to put in trees I believe it's every 25 feet on center, and those
trees will be planted with a minimum height of 10 feet at the time of
planting.
So the line of sight that the gentleman did describe will be
partially hidden at the time of the shrub -- or the buffer installation
with a 10- foot-tree that, of course, as time goes on, will grow up and
more obstruct that view.
MS. MAC'KIE: And if we could also -- if I may just tag team--
that the line of sight that we're talking about is not from homes, it's not
from living rooms. It's from down a driveway for -- you basically
have to be standing in the street or in the driveway to be able to have
this line-of-sight impact that you've been shown today. And I don't
think there's any argument among us about that.
We are -- I'm sorry, and I appreciate you're pointing it out -- of
course going to be installing the landscape buffer that's required,
Page 185
January 25, 2011
which will have those 10- foot trees and spaced in accordance with
code. So there will be some substitute for the Brazilian peppers, but it
isn't equal to what's currently there as far as the line of sight, opaque.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Who was first, Commissioner
Fiala or Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You said you explored
low-visibility netting?
MS. MAC'KIE: Why don't you speak to that.
MS. BISHOP: Because this is an outdoor netting -- for the
record, Karen Bishop, PMS -- the netting that he was talking about is
for indoors, and we did check that out. And according to what we
understand, that if we tried to use that type of netting for this use, we'd
be changing the net every year, so that makes it financially unfeasible.
So this is the -- what they consider the lowest visibility, even
though it's a black net. It's what's going to last because it's a substantial
investment in this netting, that it has to last. So it -- there really isn't a
-- that low visibility and to have the kind of net that we need.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there is no low-visibility
outdoor alternative?
MS. BISHOP: Not that we can find, and not that the -- not that
makes it -- and there may be something down the line that they're
working on, but for what the cost of that may be sometime in the
future, I can't possibly say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did the citizens of Walden Oaks
find an alternative that might work that's the low-visibility net that the
developer may not have found?
MR. BOILEAU: Well, the low-visibility net I'm talking about,
of course, is at the hockey rinks. And they're not replaced every year.
MS. MAC'KIE: Indoors they're not, but outdoors.
MR. BOILEAU: They're indoor net, and they're very -- they
Page 186
January 25, 2011
should be very, very viable for outside use.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you verify --
MR. BOILEAU: They're a stop--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you verify if they were?
MR. BOILEAU: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you verify if they were?
MR. BOILEAU: No, I did not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BOILEAU: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Can those ficus trees be
allowed to grow taller? I mean, I know they grow pretty quickly.
MS. BISHOP: The ficus hedge that's on their side is maintained
at 12 feet. If they chose to let it go -- I've personally seen the one
that's out -- I think it's on Immokalee and Airport Road, and I think
that sucker's about 45 feet tall, which is like the largest I've ever seen.
So they could let it go larger if they choose. They just maintain it
at 12 feet at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Secondly, how far apart are
these trees being planted?
MS. BISHOP: Twenty-five feet on center, as per the code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what about -- what about,
instead of 10- foot trees, 15- foot trees?
MS. BISHOP: The cost to that is more than double the cost of a
tree at that level. What we're going to do is put a -- try to put a 2- foot
berm underneath it, so that will raise that 10-foot up to 12-foot, so
you'll have a 12- foot space.
But, unfortunately, the -- increasing the landscaping is
exponential when you start increasing trees to almost, you know,
double what the size is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Certainly you understand that a Type B
Page 187
January 25, 2011
buffer was designed with other things in mind.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're building a 65-foot-tall fence
here.
MS. BISHOP: Sixty-foot netting, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sixty-foot netting.
I really think that under those circumstances where you're
proposing something very substantial, a very substantial difference
from most developments beside residential, that should be more
flexible in what you can provide with respect to mitigating this for the
neighborhood that is in existence here.
So I -- I'm not convinced that you just can't do anything. There's
-- you're going to have to do something, because I can understand the
impact on this community. So I think you've got to work a little
harder here about what are you willing to do to put in what really is an
unusual project adjacent to --
MS. BISHOP: Well, I -- yes, sir. I mean, I understand your
point. I can tell you that if this was a residential project going in, it
would be the same buffer, two stories or three stories, same buffer,
and they would see -- they wouldn't see through a netting. They
would see buildings, and that light would be gone.
So I mean, I appreciate the fact that, yeah, it's not what they're
used to seeing, but when it becomes a residential use, it's going to be
more impactive than what's there now.
MS. MAC'KIE: And, Commissioner, may I just join in to let you
know the level that we have really tried. Even though we only
became aware of this on Saturday, we spent our day in the hallway
trying to figure out a way to solve this problem.
And one of the things that's frustrating to all sides is that there's a
requirement that we build a five-foot hedge that will be hidden by
their 12- foot hedge. And so we were trying to find a way to substitute
taller trees, spend the money that we would have been spending on the
Page 188
January 25, 2011
sort of wasted hedge on taller trees. But guess what? The system
doesn't allow it. We can't do it. The nature of the application, as I'm
told, is that as a conditional use we can only -- we can't deviate from,
we can't remove, we can't ask you to let us not put in that five-foot
hedge, because we would happily do that and spend that about ten
grand on taller trees if we could, but we can't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you saying there's something we
can't do?
MS. MAC'KIE: I wouldn't say that, but I'm afraid the law does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Really?
MS. MAC'KIE: Not I, I would never.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not ever if it makes sense and it's
acceptable to the neighbors?
MS. MAC'KIE: I would never suggest such a thing. But we had
reached what we thought was something we were all going to be
satisfied with, and then, on further review, we found that the nature of
our application, the conditional-use application, does not allow for that
deviation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This sounds like some lawyer got
involved. So how about it, Jeff? What's the story?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, your conditional-use language
specifically provides you're allowed to talk about buffering. What
we're really talking about is a substitution of the hedge for something
better, all right. We can't do this on the floor. If you want to continue
this item to the next meeting, the staff can get with the petitioner and
the community and see if we can't come up with something that makes
everybody happy.
MS. MAC'KIE: With all due respect, if it can be done, we have
spent the day reaching that understanding. I mean, do I have -- is
there -- can the community nod if what we proposed in the hallway
would work? And that was the following: That was that, in lieu of the
5-foot hedge, we would build a 2-foot berm, and instead of 10-foot
Page 189
January 25, 2011
trees on top of that 2- foot berm, we would put 14- foot trees so that
there would be a 16- foot planting initially and not wasting our money
on the hedge that isn't going to help anybody.
And all sides agreed, and we're ready to commit to that. If it's
possible to do it, I think we can get happy and not come back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many people in the community
would object to that solution?
THE AUDIENCE: Object?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Object.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So does the community support
that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yes, how many of you would
object to the solution that we're just talking about, about taking --
MS. MAC'KIE: That I talked about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that she talked about. You're
objecting?
MR. BOILEAU: I would go along with it as long as it goes the
full line of Walden Oaks, okay, the line that is exposed. Let me just
pull that up again.
MS. MAC'KIE: What he's talking about is he wants us to install
trees where we wouldn't -- it's not possible. So maybe, you know, if
we can't do it, we can't do it. But he knows already. What he's going
to suggest to you is that we put in trees where no buffer is required
because our proj ect impacts -- he wants us to buffer from an orange
tree. He wants us to put in trees to keep him from seeing orange trees.
MR. KLATZKOW: The buffer is for the screen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The buffer's for the screen.
MR. KLA TZKOW: The buffer's for the screen here. That's what
we're really talking about.
MS. MAC'KIE: Right. And we will commit to do it for the--
where the screen is along their community. Am I right, Karen; am I
describing it correctly?
Page 190
January 25, 2011
MS. BISHOP: Yes. It's here --
MS. MAC'KIE: We will do that, but we aren't going to do more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I say something?
MR. BOILEAU: What they're saying is they'll do from here to
here where our ficus end.
MS. MAC'KIE: Right.
MR. BOILEAU: But down the line here, when they pull all the
Brazilian peppers out, we only have a 3-foot hedge. So all these
people down here are looking right back into the driving range.
MS. MAC'KIE: They're looking into orange groves.
MR. BOILEAU: I feel as though, you know, with our fica hedge
to there, okay, and if they don't have to put the hedge in, they put the
trees in, this should go from this point all the way to the other point of
Walden Oaks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And you're saying that's not
going to happen, right?
MS. MAC'KIE: No, sir --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. MAC'KIE: -- that's not going to happen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need to take the county
attorney's recommendation and continue this. I'm somewhat
concerned, because when I met with Nick Casalanguida at the
beginning of last week and the concerns of the community were
brought to my attention because representatives of Walden Oaks had
contacted me, I asked that they immediately contact you, Pam, and --
MS. MAC'KIE: And they did; absolutely, they did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the fact that I'm hearing you
only had time to meet over this weekend --
MS. MAC'KIE: Oh, no, no, no. They met on Friday, they met
on Friday, and we told them, as our client instructed us, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the problem is is Friday gives
Page 191
January 25, 2011
you very little time to negotiate and deliberate. So I'd like to make a
motion that this be continued and that Nick work with both parties to
come up with something that would work in the interest of both.
MS. MAC'KIE: Commissioner, I just will have to offer to you
that my client has instructed me to leave here today with a vote. I
don't know if that can be modified.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can appreciate that, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's already a motion and
second on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was there already?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that.
What was the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not for Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Was it me? Was it Coletta that
made it and I seconded it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who made a motion?
MS. BISHOP: Donna did.
MS. MAC'KIE: Commissioner Fiala made a motion, and it was
-- Commissioner Coletta seconded it for approval. We would be
happy to offer an amendment that we would add the modifications that
I described.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, Jeff, the board is the only
one that can grant deviations from our Land Development Code,
right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why would you recommend
continuing that if we can do that now?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you can do that now, that's fine. Ijust
Page 192
January 25, 2011
don't know that there's a concurrence here. That's all I'm saying.
MS. MAC'KIE: There may not be 100 percent, apparently, but I
don't think my client's going to go further than he has agreed to go
today. Frankly, he can't. The net is $250,000, and as he likes to say,
he gets his money back a bucket of balls at a time. This is a very
expensive undertaking. It's very difficult times. These are not times
like in the good old days when we could say, we will give you all the
trees you want and do all we can.
This is a family from Naples who's been here forever trying to
make some economic use out of their property. They are offering a
compromise, and I hope you'll approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I go after Commissioner
Mac'Kai? I wasn't done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, you can go, yeah. Her light's not
on now anyway. So, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, the whole issue
about buffering, landscape buffering, is to buffer the neighbors'
property. And I can tell you, some homeowners' associations, you're
not going to get a true consensus of what the community wants.
What we're charged to do, and in particular this issue, is how do
we buffer the residents the best from another use? And if the
suggestion is -- because the application meets our code, we cannot ask
them for more, period. What we can do -- if they're offering more to
buffer the neighboring property, that is the best that we can do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this a conditional-use
application?
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think so, yeah.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It requires four-fifths.
MS. MAC'KIE: Is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Four votes.
Page 193
January 25, 2011
MS. MAC'KIE: Four votes?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's not in the rural fringe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. It's not an SRA.
MS. MAC'KIE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the only reason I ask is
because I understand what you're saying about, you know, conforming
to what's required, but if this is a conditional-use permit in the first
place, I'm not sure how this ties in. Maybe I'm missing something.
MS. MAC'KIE: Even if --I'm sorry. Doing it again--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I know. Let me see if I
could help you. The -- part of the conditional use -- a process is just
the use. What we're talking about is really doing the Site
Development Plan, but trying to appease the residents of Walden
Oaks, we are getting into the Site Development Plan.
So the issue is, we can allow a deviation from the criteria of the
Land Development Code, in this particular case a landscaping buffer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what type of landscaping
buffer are we proposing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what they are proposing
is, would -- by the time you get the berm and the trees, it would be a
16- foot height?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to plant more
-- no, you're going to be planting more expensive trees but not plant
the hedge.
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
MS. MAC'KIE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is what they're proposing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. And, again, how far
is that berm going to go?
MS. BISHOP: The berm, most likely, will go the whole length
Page 194
January 25, 2011
of this property. The berm will most likely start from here and go all
the way here. What we're talking about is making sure that right here
in this part of Walden Oaks -- because this is where our -- this is
where the driving range ends.
So from essentially here to here we'll have at least 2- foot berm,
14-foot trees, which gives you a 16-foot view, blocking view. And at
25 foot on center, they're pretty close together at that point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I don't really understand why
Walden Oaks would object to that.
MS. BISHOP: Well, I think what they were saying is they
wanted us to take it all the way down, but the use is not down here.
This is all staying orange grove, so we're not -- we only buffer the
uses, not other -- the rest. So this would be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you're saying there is no fence?
MS. BISHOP: No, sir. And they were built --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Along that portion of the property.
MS. BISHOP: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so what you believe to be the case
is that the property owners want you to buffer the fence?
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're willing to buffer the fence?
MS. BISHOP: The netting.
The netting, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The netting.
MS. BISHOP: I'm willing to do what we just said we would do,
which is take and raise it up by getting rid of that hedge, which they're
not going to see the hedge anyway. They've got a 12-foot hedge.
Ours is 5 foot. It does them no good.
MS. MAC'KIE: And I'm going to take a risk here and say that
with respect to the additional portion of the property where there is no
netting, if they don't want to look at the orange trees, there is room for
planting on their side of the property if they would like to plant
Page 195
January 25, 2011
something there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can't imagine that the orange
trees are objectionable.
MS. BISHOP: Well-- but on their side -- they were built before
the Land Development Code required trees on their perimeter, so they
don't have trees. They have really beautiful trees all along the
roadways, and all in here it's really, really quite lovely, because they --
they're really huge. Some of these are about 40 feet tall, really
beautiful.
But unfortunately there's none on that property line, and so that's
really the rub. If those were there, then we wouldn't even be having
this discussion because they wouldn't even see us. And, again, they
only see us when they're out on their road and in front of this --
THE AUDIENCE: No, no, no.
MS. BISHOP: Because usually -- except for -- there's a few
places -- I was getting to that. There's a few places that can be seen,
but mostly they've got a lot of stuff.
MS. MAC'KIE: And if they want -- and if they say they can see
it from their houses, we're not going to argue with them. We do had --
we had quite a presentation that we can put on that shows you
photography in the area, that shows you the trees, that shows you line
of sight, that I omitted in trying to make this a little bit shorter, hoping
we could cut to the chase and show you what we are willing to do if
it's possible and what -- even regardless of whether we agree where
they can see it from, their living rooms or the street, this would be a
net effect of 6 feet more than they would otherwise get in the height of
the trees, 2 feet of it berm, 4 feet of it trees, in lieu of that segment of
the unnecessary hedge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Just one more time. I want to
make sure I understand where we are on this. For that eastern portion
of this property.
MR. BOILEAU: South.
Page 196
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. BOILEAU: Southern portion, right?
MS. BISHOP: Northern portion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the northern portion of their property.
MS. BISHOP: This is the part that we -- this here is the end of
the --
MS. MAC'KIE: Net.
MS. BISHOP: -- netting, so we're talking about this section right
here, essentially that affects them, that we would take out the hedge,
put the money into taller trees.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. But what happens to the area
to the west?
MS. MAC'KIE: That's a commercial development.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, okay. I got you.
MS. BISHOP: This is commercial development right here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the area to the right or east will
remain exactly the same as it is right now --
MS. MAC'KIE: Absent the pepper hedge.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- except for the pepper hedge is going to
go away.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. And again--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But there won't be a tall netting there.
MS. MAC'KIE: You are correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So are you going to put a hedge
in there?
MR. BOILEAU: You will be looking in, though, sir. It will be
very --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute now.
MR. BOILEAU: It will be very visible for people to look in on
that road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you worried about looking into an
area and seeing green grass and some white golf balls, or are you
Page 197
January 25, 2011
concerned about looking at the netting?
MR. BOILEAU: Looking at the netting, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. If they put the trees where the
netting -- all the way up to the point where the netting ends --
MR. BOILEAU: Correct. If you're looking straight in, that will
help us. But if you're at an angle, which you would be when they take
all the Brazilian peppers out, you're looking at an angle and you'd be
looking in at it, because they're not going to replace any trees back in
there.
MS. BISHOP: These are all going to stay.
MR. BOILEAU: I would say, you know, for the little bit more
distance to do it, just keep the berm going and keep those same trees
all the way down through, and we'll all be happy. We can go home
early.
MS. BISHOP: All of these trees here are going to stay, these
orange trees, and a lot of the -- and these are mature orange trees.
Most of these here are a lot taller than what we're going to be planting.
So I don't believe that they'll be seeing -- I mean, this -- I believe
these rows of trees would block that view from that angle --
THE AUDIENCE: Parking lot.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yeah, there's -- how many parking spaces,
Karen?
MS. BISHOP: I believe that's six.
MS. MAC'KIE: It's not a big parking lot. And also--
MS. BISHOP: And that will be hidden from -- that will be -- that
will have shrubs around it. That will have a hedge around it. You're
not going to be able to see that.
MS. MAC'KIE: And keep in mind, Commissioners, again,
Karen's point that this community was built before your existing
landscaping code. If they would build on their side what the current
code would require if they were coming in today, they could solve
their own problem. Respectfully, how much of their problem should
Page 198
January 25, 2011
we solve?
MS. BISHOP: We're trying.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But we're going from farmland to
a 60-foot fence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We've got too much
participation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question.
All in favor of approval -- you had something?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The motion, I believe, was
stated originally as it reads on the executive summary, not with the
changes that have been proposed. So was the motion maker -- was I
the motion maker? Yeah, I was the motion maker, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then the motion must be
changed to accommodate the -- eliminating the bushes that were
supposed to be planted and, instead, building a berm and taller trees,
14- foot trees, all along the entire length of the screening -- netting,
netting that is there.
MS. MAC'KIE: That abuts the residential portion.
MS. BISHOP: Right.
MS. MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're shaking your head?
MR. BOILEAU: No.
MS. MAC'KIE: He would like more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, then, shall we deny? Would
you prefer to just deny?
MR. BOILEAU: Well, the thing is, I like your motion except for
one thing; this should go the full length of Walden Oaks because of
the fact they're going to be looking in there. And also, those orange
trees are getting disease and they're dying. It's going to get worse and
worse in there.
Page 199
January 25, 2011
And believe me, if you go in and you look at an angle, you're
going to project that angle through. You're going to be looking at part
of that net in there.
So it would be much appreciated if it just went the full length of
that line.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we're asking for more than
we can, because this isn't something that -- that can be -- especially
because there's all of the trees that are in the way of looking at the net
that are already existing there. I just don't understand that, why the
insistence on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whatever it is, there's no agreement
here so--
,
MS. MAC'KIE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- it's up to us to make a decision.
All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, signify by the same sign.
MS. HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
So it fails 2-3 (sic) with Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Hiller dissenting.
MS. MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Where does that take
us, County Manager?
MR. OCHS : Well, Commissioner, that would normally take us
back to Item 9 on your agenda, but if the board would rather try to
take some of the items that we have people in the audience for, it's the
pleasure, obviously, of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's go to 9A.
Page 200
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is 9A?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What are people here for?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: People are here for Clam Pass,
right?
MR. OCHS: I think you have people here primarily for the Clam
Pass item and the fire consolidation bill item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's do those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Which item is that?
Item #IOJ
ENDORSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WITH LANGUAGE FROM THE
AGENDA CHANGE SHEET) ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE
PERMITTING AND INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED CLAM
BA Y NA VIGA TIONAL MARKERS BASED ON RECENT
REGULATORY FINDINGS AND AGENCY REQUIREMENTS -
APPROVED
MR. OCHS : Well, we would go to -- if you want to hear those,
sir, the first would be Item 10J, which is a recommendation to endorse
the recommendations of the Coastal Advisory Committee from
1/13/2011 not to forward with the permit application or installation of
navigational markers in Clam Bay. Additionally, the CAC
recommends that the county, Pelican Bay, and the Seagate community
jointly meet to solve the markings of Clam Bay to facilitate safety,
channel location, maintenance, and overall community acceptance.
After resolution of the marketing -- excuse me -- the marking
plan, a recommendation by the CAC and approval by the Board of
County Commissioners, the county would petition the United States
Army Corps of Engineers to close out the permit.
Page 201
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you have speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MR. MITCHELL: Twelve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there anyone here who wants us to
disapprove this?
MS. CRAVENS: I'm here about a language change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's always an issue about a language
change.
Okay. Call the first two speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Jennifer Sullivan, and
she'll be followed by Rick Dykman.
MS. WU: Jennifer is not here.
MR. MITCHELL: Then it's Rick Dykman, and he'll be followed
by Sarah Wu.
MR. DYKMAN: Thank you very much. My name is Rick
Dykman. I'm a resident of Seagate. I've lived there a long time. I'm
also on the board of directors of Seagate Property Owners.
And, you know, I think back, I was standing here one year ago
when the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to put
navigation markers in Clam Bay, and the CAC had recommended it
and the Clam Bay subcommittee, who worked for two years, also
recommended it. And the staff was authorized to proceed, but it did
not happen, and I'm not sure why.
But I'm also here to say that in Seagate, you know, we want to be
a voice of reason. We certainly support this proposal by -- which was
read a minute ago, and we look forward to sitting down with all the
parties and trying to come to some resolution. Ifwe can't come to a
resolution, then we'll have to take the next step, but hopefully we can.
I think that we want to keep the permit active until we have a
Page 202
January 25, 2011
resolution, and I would encourage you to -- and I don't think that's an
issue here, but I think that's important to us.
And we just want you to approve it and move on. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I would like to say just one
thing. You know, I support the motion except for the wording of the
motion needs to be amended to match what the CAC approved. And
to that end, the words "channel location and maintenance" needs to be
removed.
So I certainly support the motion on the table but in conformance
with the wording provided by the CAC, which is not what is in the
document before us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are correct. I would agree with
that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does the motion maker agree?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But let's hear the public first. Go ahead.
MS. WU: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah Wu, for the
record, and I'm a resident of Seagate.
My husband, Ernest Wu, could not make today's meeting due to
work conflicts but has asked that I read this letter on behalf of the
Seagate community as the president of Seagate Property Owners
Association.
Seagate has worked hard over the years with the county, county
staf:f, and the City of Naples to get properly marked and safe channels
for the boating communities in Seagate. We have been patient and
cooperate while others opposed to marking the channel have caused
countless delays and saddled the county with excessive cost with their
attacks.
The county is asking us again to come to the table and negotiate
for our channel markers. These are the very same markers currently
Page 203
January 25, 2011
required by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Coast
Guard.
As you know, Seagate and Pelican Bay Foundation attempted a
negotiation in 2009 . We wanted safety, protection of our riparian
rights, and attacks on the navigability of Clam Bay stopped. What we
got from the foundation was rhetoric, saying Clam Bay was not
navigable and that Seagate was going to bring in 50- to 70-foot boats
despite having to go under a bridge that is only wide enough to allow
for 20-foot boats.
But Seagate is committed to moving forward and not dwelling on
the past. Weare committed to protecting the environment by alerting
boats to stay within the channel and off seagrass beds. We are
committed to the safe cooperation of all the county's users of Clam
Bay, including swimmers and kayakers and, most importantly, we are
committed to safe boating for the residents of Seagate, many of whom
are school-aged children.
So, yes, Seagate is ready to come back to the table and work out
an agreement that will properly mark the channel and be safe.
On the matter of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit, it
must absolutely, positively, I repeat, not be closed out on all -- until all
parties have had a chance to talk and iron out an agreement that is
agreeable by everyone and put in writing.
Many people in groups, such as the Clam Bay Advisory
Committee, Coastal Advisory Committee, and, yes, you, the Board of
County Commissioners, have worked for years clarifying the Army
Corps' permit and requirement for Coast Guard lateral channel
markers. It even resulted in three official letters from the Corps
emphasizing the requirement of installing the Coast Guard markers.
Until everyone sees in writing an agreement, this permit cannot
be closed. It would bring us back to chaos, the false accusations, and
extreme bitterness we saw a few years ago.
In summary, Seagate wants to work with the county and not
Page 204
January 25, 2011
against it. As requested, Seagate will go back to the table and
renegotiate a safe mark channel that is agreeable with our Pelican Bay
neighbors, but absolutely, positively do not close out the Army Corps
permit until an agreement in writing is finished.
This issue of markers has been called a political football, and it
seems like we're in double overtime. But please do not lose sight of
why we care so much. It is about the environment, it's about safety,
safety for our families and safety for our kids.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mrs. Wu, very nice presentation. I
just want to say I agree with you that this permit should not be closed
out and doesn't have to be closed out at any time, so I would not be
concerned. And thank you for raising that point. But it will remain
open and should remain open indefinitely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'm in charge for a few
moments here until Commissioner Coy Ie finds his way back. Is there
any other speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got 12 speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to ask
everyone to refrain from questioning each speaker that comes up
unless -- raise your hand, be recognized, and we'll do it that way to be
able to keep everything flowing.
Please call the next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Jim Pelton, and he'll be
followed by Mary Johnson.
MS. WU: Jim had to leave.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. Mary Johnson.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Is Mary Johnson
here?
MS. JOHNSON: I'd like to cede my time to Marcia Cravens.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine, ma'am.
Page 205
January 25, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: So Marcia Cravens, and she'll be followed by
Linda Roth.
MS . CRAVENS: I believe I also have another --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please wait till you get to a
microphone, so we can hear you. We can hear you, but the audience
can't. It sounds like we're --
MR. FEE: I'm ceding my time.
MR. MITCHELL: You didn't register until after the motion had
started. So I'm sorry, your speaker slip wasn't --
MR. FEE: I didn't realize the item had started. You moved
around --
MR. MITCHELL: Well, that's not--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Was Mr. Fee's
speaker application there or not?
MR. MITCHELL: It wasn't given to me until after the item had
opened.
MR. FEE: But you moved the agenda item. I had no time to get
up and put in my slip.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we --I'm going to rule
that we make an exception for Mr. Fee under those circumstances.
Please continue, yes, ma'am.
MS. CRAVENS: Okay. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak on this issue which -- I've been before the Board
of County Commissioners many times on this issue.
And I'm actually addressing this from two perspectives. One is
that I am entering -- what you have is a statement from the Mangrove
Action Group in my role as a vice-president and past president of that
organization and currently responsible for Clam Bay Outreach.
And -- excuse me. Dear Commissioners, it is respectfully
requested that you adopt the January 13, 2011, recommendation of the
Coastal Advisory Committee to not approve further expenditure of
TDC or other funds for environmental assessment in pursuit of
Page 206
January 25, 2011
red/green channel markers in the Clam Bay conservation NRP A
preserve waterways. There are alternative safety options.
And then there are three alternative safety options to consider.
One is maintain existing regulatory markers to control vessel speed.
An idle speed no-wake zone was adopted by the county for waterway
safety and as a manatee zone many years ago, but signs are now in
disrepair. Permits already exist for the two or three replacement
markers that are needed.
The second safety option to consider: Add new information
markers. Several of them were developed by county staff in
consultation with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
experts to improve waterway safety, and the cost of these permits is
already paid. They are already approved and they only need to be
amended for location and manner of attachment.
Three, repair the existing canoe and kayak trail. The canoe and
kayak trail markers are already permitted and established for over 15
years. Replacement canoe and kayak markers are needed because
county residents and visitors come to Clam Pass Park with their own
kayak or they rent a canoe from the park concession, but the popular
canoe trail is difficult to follow because the trail markers are in poor
condition, which makes it a safety problem. Replacement markers are
in storage, already paid for, and ready to be installed.
The record of correspondence with regulatory agencies now
provides a better understanding that completion of any or all of the
above options would satisfy the Corps and the FDEP 1998 Joint
Coastal Permit Special Conditions. It just requires photo proof to the
Corps when it's complete.
Conclusion. There are two old permits and one new permit for
markers which are in good standing and, in combination, all of these
would serve to improve waterway safety for all users. Your approval
of alternative options would serve all the public in Collier County,
involve very little new cost, and in today's economy, I think it's
Page 207
January 25, 2011
important, and comply with market related 1998 Joint Coastal Permit
Special Conditions and resolve this divisive issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide reasonable alternative
safety options for your consideration. That completes the statement
for the Mangrove Action Group.
I would like to then move to an issue that just came up this
morning. And I have to comment that, overwhelmingly, I think by
and large, the stakeholders and affected individuals who have been
represented by hundreds of letters, nearly 3,000 petition signatures,
and numerous correspondences from environmental organizations and
individuals which caused this to be a heightened public concern are
like to be overwhelmingly in favor, as the Mangrove Action Group is,
for the two-part Coastal Advisory Committee recommendation.
What is concerning -- and I'm only speaking for myself as an
individual and a waterway user at Clam Bay, because I kayak and I
enjoy that canoe trail, and I know many people who do also. What
concerns me, because this is an item of heightened public concern, is
that there has been a change -- if you would please put that first one
up, please.
The original agenda item for today still posted to the website,
which I checked this morning, indicates that this recommendation is to
endorse the recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on
how to proceed with the permitting and installation of the proposed
Clam Bay navigational markers based on recent regulatory findings
and agency requirements.
And if you would please put the second one up that says January
25th, today, BCC the executive summary, please. Yes, please.
Again, up until right before I came in here today, this is the only
document that was available to the public for review for this agenda
item, and it clearly says, "Recommendation to endorse the
recommendation of the Coastal Advisory Committee on how to
proceed with the permitting and installation of the proposed Clam Bay
Page 208
January 25, 2011
navigational markers based on recent regulatory findings and agency
requirements. "
Again, that was a two-part recommendation, and that was to not
proceed with funding for environmental assessment in pursuit of the
lateral aids to navigation and also that the major stakeholders of the
county, Pelican Bay, and the Seagate community, get together and try
and agree upon language or the types of markers.
What occurred this morning after the BCC meeting started was
there was a change to this language, and it's not available anywhere on
the website, it hasn't been discussed in public, it was not part of the
Coastal Advisory Committee's recommendation, and whatever em ail
comments and speaker comments and phone calls you might have had
today are based on the January 13th Coastal Advisory
recommendation that does not have this added language.
And we don't know what the extra language means. We don't
know any potential consequences and, therefore, can't -- I personally
don't feel I can weigh in on that added language. It would seem to me
if the Coastal Advisory Committee's recommendation was modified
by some other party, such as the Tourist Development Council, that
maybe that modification should go back to the Coastal Advisory
Committee for them to endorse it for -- and own it, or else that it
should be heard as a Tourist Development Council recommendation if
that's the case.
So I ask you to please consider the agenda item as it was
originally presented and which the public expected to be discussed
today and which the public has already commented on.
I think you will find that there is overwhelming support for that
two-part recommendation by the Coastal Advisory Committee.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Linda Roth, and she'll be
followed by Jim Hoppensteadt.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I ceded.
Page 209
January 25, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To who?
MR. MITCHELL: So the next speaker after will be Steve
Feldhaus.
MS. ROTH: Hello. I'm Linda Roth from Pelican Bay. As you
know, on January 13th the CAC unanimously recommended Collier
County not move forward with the permit application to install red and
green lateral navigation markers in Clam Bay. Moving forward would
have cost the county an additional $50,000 with an uncertain outcome.
The CAC also recommended that the county petition the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to close out the permit.
Based on the recent regulatory findings and agency requirements
presented by Mr. McAlpin, it was clear to them that non-lateral
navigation markers will be an appropriate alternative to meet all the
safety and regulatory requirements in Clam Bay.
I respectfully urge the commissioners to endorse the CAC's
recommendations as originally approved at the January 13th CAC
meeting without the added changes to the recommendation made after
the meeting.
In closing, I would like to thank the county staff, CAC, and
commissioners in advance for being flexible and open to pursuing
available alternatives to resolve this very contentious issue for nearly
three years.
Thank you.
MR. FELDHAUS: Good afternoon.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good afternoon.
MR. FELDHAUS: My name is Steve Feldhaus, and I'm
appearing before you today in my role as secretary of the Pelican Bay
Foundation, as an individual citizen, and also as the member who's
been leading our ad hoc committee, the foundation's ad hoc committee
on Clam Bay in our negotiation with the county and with the residents
of Seagate on Clam Bay matters.
Page 210
January 25, 2011
I'm here today to urge you to pass the motion that is currently
before you. And I understand that Commissioner Hiller has made a
recommendation to modify that, and I'll speak to that in a moment.
There have been concerns expressed about the intent of the CAC
meeting. I was there. I think it was very clear that the motion before
you today accurately reflects the intent of that meeting. It also
accurately reflects, I believe, the intent of the meeting yesterday in
which the actual wording that's before you today was changed.
I think commissioners -- Commissioner Rios' motion was clear
that the parties -- he was asking the parties to negotiate. Chairman
Sorey said he wanted to make it very clear that the CAC reserve the
right if, in fact, the parties were unable to negotiate successfully, to
come back and to get -- to re-examine the possibility of red and green
markers, and that's what -- that's the essence of the motion that's
before you today.
So I believe that's entirely consistent with what happened at the
CAC, and I heartily endorse it.
I share a little bit of George's concerns -- I actually don't have
any concern with the wording as it is. I'm fine with it. But I share
George's perplexity. I'm not sure what a channel is and whether that
has a technical term or what maintenance -- are we talking about
maintenance dredge, maintaining the signs, making sure they're
painted? I'm not sure. I don't care, quite frankly.
I endorse this motion. I think the spirit of this motion is that we
are to sit down with our friends at Seagate and find signs that
adequately protect the watercraft users who have a right to be in Clam
Bay, and we will do that. I am convinced we will do that.
And I want to leave you with one thought. I've had to sit through
your -- and you had to sit through a grueling exercise on the dredging
of Wiggins Pass. Let me ask you to reflect that the reason that you're
dredging Wiggins Pass is that there are red and green markers there
signifying that it is a navigable pass imposing upon you the obligation
Page 211
January 25, 2011
to maintain it safely for general navigation.
We do not want Clam Pass and, particularly, Clam Bay ever to
be in that situation, all of us. And our friends at Seagate, the same
way, want to maintain Clam Bay for the ecological treasure that it is.
We'll work with them to ensure that there's safe boating in there
without red and green markers.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Michael Seef, and he'll be
followed by Kathy Worely, who will be your last speaker.
MR. SEEF: Good afternoon, late afternoon. I'm Michael Seef,
and I'm a resident of North Naples, and I also happen to have a son
who owns property in Seagate, and I'm sort of reflecting his interests
and also my interests in keeping the -- keeping Clam Pass and the
Clam Bays (sic) as a natural and relatively pristine area in not wanting
to have excessive speed boats charging up and down and to just kind
of echo Steve Feldhaus's comments about sharing with Seagate -- or
some people in Seagate the same kind of a desire to keep an open,
natural area.
I also do some nature guiding for the Conservancy, and we have
something like 800 people, guests, visitors, come through every year,
and I don't think that they want to have red and green channel
markers. And I think that represents another community besides
Pelican Bay and Seagate, which you've been hearing about.
So I'd like to support the CAC results that were originally
proposed without whatever TDC and other kinds of variations that
suddenly happened, as was described.
So thank you with that. And again, I hope that a good decision is
made to keep Clam Pass as a natural area.
Thank you.
MS. WOREL Y: Kathy Worely, the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida.
I have some concerns with the wording myself, to the
Page 212
January 25, 2011
recommendation -- changing from the original recommendations to
what is now worded, particularly the addition of the words "channel
location and maintenance."
This -- to me this does change the intent of the original language.
And I am not sure what is meant by channel location or maintenance,
what exactly are they -- you know, is this referring to maintenance
dredging, is it in reference to maintenance of the signs?
And I think -- I respectively ask that you revert to the original
verbiage of "to facilitate safety and overall community acceptance" or
re-publicize this so that others who did not see -- others of the public
who did not see this change and did not come down here because they
-- you know, if you tend to agree with something, a lot of times you
don't come down here because you say, oh, I like that. And what
people were seeing was the old recommendation.
So I would respectfully ask that either you go back to the old
language or that you give people a chance to review the new language
and exactly what it means.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Ms. Worely brought up a
very good point. The language was changed in the agenda, therefore,
it might have been acceptable to some people, and if we're going to
apply that to ourselves, we should also apply that to staff.
Second thing is, if it is a recommendation, I would have to know
from Commissioner Hiller, which group in Pelican Bay should staff
work with? Should it be the foundation, PBSD or friends of the
Mangrove Action Committee?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think all stakeholders need to
have a seat at the table. I think that there has to be consensus among
all groups. I don't think any single representative body speaks for
Page 213
January 25, 2011
everybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I do have -- again,
I do have a concern about the -- how it was presented to the public on
the agenda, and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we shouldn't -- we
should continue this item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to your comment,
Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I respond to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, sure. Go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The wording that was originally
proposed had built consensus in the community. Everybody agreed,
Pelican Bay, Seagate, the conservationists that appreciate the NRP A
for what it is, those people who kayak.
I would ask that if we could restate the motion to include the
original wording as was noticed, I think we could take care of this
issue today and allow the communities to move forward and figure out
what markers would work in everybody's interest.
I agree with what Mrs. Wu said. I don't think there should be a
closure of this permit. I think it should remain open. And I think we
need to move this process forward. I think the CAC did an excellent
job in putting a recommendation forth, and I'd ask the motion be
amended.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have Commissioner Coletta
and then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could have someone from
staff. I want to make sure that we understand exactly what's taking
place here.
We kind of reached an impasse, most amazingly -- we've never
seen this before -- where somebody was able to bring the Florida
Page 214
January 25, 2011
Department of Environmental Protection to a dead stop, heightened
public concern. You know, that's a new one.
I don't know who did it, but I'll tell you what, I want you to hire
them to work for the county. It's absolutely amazing. My credit goes
out to them for pulling off the impossible. Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, bringing them to a dead stop.
That doesn't solve the problem. I mean, here we are at the point
now we're talking about, what is the leverage that's going to be there
that one side knows the other side's going to produce?
In other words, the county at this point in time, if we go forward,
is basically stepping out of the picture?
MR. McALPIN: No, Commissioner. I think what we're
proposing to you is that the county work with the Pelican Bay
community and we work with Seagate and any other interested
stakeholders to come up with a way that marks the pass for safety, it
marks the pass so that it delineates where the pass is for -- so that
people stay within the pass, and it does that with community
acceptance. And we -- and so that's what we were looking for.
Subsequent -- the concerns have come up subsequent to the
language being changed. We had a discussion at the CAC meeting--
excuse me -- the TDC meeting yesterday and with the Seagate
community on Friday night, and they would like to see the timing of
this be that, number one, that we not move forward to close out the
permit until after that agreement is reached. It was brought back to the
CAC to be ratified, and also to the BCC to be approved.
And the issue with channel location maintenance were (sic)
talked in these groups. They were -- it was part of the discussion that
we have had with all the surrounding groups, and that was included in
the modified statement, and that's the -- that's the process that had
happened up to this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So not closing out the permit,
what kind of leverage is that? Explain that to me again.
Page 215
January 25, 2011
MR. McALPIN : Well, what we would do is we would make sure
that we had agreement from all the communities, all -- all the
interested parties, and that the TDC would -- excuse me -- the CAC
would support that recommendation. It would be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Once we had that, we knew that everybody was in sync with
what we were doing and how this would work -- and then we would
move out to petition the -- to petition the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers saying that we have acted in good faith to try to get all the
permits for this to come into compliance. There's three other
regulatory agencies that are -- have co-responsibility for the permit.
We could not get them all in a timely cost-effective manner. The
county has acted in good faith. Please close out the permit and let us
move on and -- so close this whole thing out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think the county -- I agree with
you, the county has acted in good faith. You really think that in (sic)
the end of the day there's going to be any kind of markers in the bay
there to be able to help the residents?
MR. McALPIN: I believe that we will come to a solution with
the people with -- certainly we have the will to do that within the
Pelican Bay community . We have the will to do that within the
Seagate community. We have the will to do that within the county to
come up with something that works for everybody. So I'm optimistic,
Commissioner, that that will happen.
And so if we move this forward, then we'll resolve this very
thorny issue that's been plaguing us for two or three years now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at some point in time are
we going to get a report back of how these negotiations have taken
place?
MR. McALPIN: Once we -- what I would suggest is that once
we have an agreement on what we can do -- what we should do that
we have everybody's buy-in to it, that it is accepted by everybody, we
Page 216
January 25, 2011
take it back and have the CAC review it, make sure they are in
concurrence, make a recommendation from them, and then that
recommendation we would be -- would be brought back to this group
for approval, and that's what we would do.
If we get to an impasse, then we would -- we would come back to
the CAC, we would also come back to this group, to the commission,
and ask for direction on how to proceed at that point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My compliments go out to you.
You must have the hardest job in Collier County. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, he doesn't. I do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You do?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Forgive me, sir. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just --I'mjust asking for a
nod or something. This wording that now -- that has -- that is now
being presented that's been modified just a little bit, does that agree
with you, Jim Hoppensteadt?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Steve Feldhaus?
MR. FELDHAUS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- okay. So it seems that -- and
I guess that you are speaking for the majority of people in your
communities. I know you're unanimous in this feeling, right, Mr.
Feldhaus, your organization?
MR. FELDHAUS: I feel that we have a broad consensus in our
community supporting our efforts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're never going to get complete
consensus.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, we never will. But if the
Page 217
January 25, 2011
majority of people are feeling this way -- and it seems so fair. I can't
understand why there wouldn't be.
MR. FELDHAUS: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then my second stands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. If I could just address that. A
couple of points. The revised language was, in fact, approved by the
Board of County Commissioners this morning in public session, and it
became the revised recommendation by the CAC.
I appreciate the confusion and concern that creates, because we
have tried in the past not to make last-minute changes, and this was
one that just happened.
But the point is that what was in our executive summary did not
accurately reflect what the CAC wanted done. As a matter of fact, if
you'll go down to the section that says "Advisory Committee
recommendation" on page -- packet Page 448, there is no
recommendation there.
In order to find out what the recommendation is, you have to go
up two or three paragraphs and pick it out of several sentences. So it
-- what you see before you is exactly what appeared before the TDC
and was endorsed by the TDC and was the intent of the Coastal
Advisory Committee.
I don't believe there is any substantive difference, and I agree
with Steve Feldhaus, the important elements of this recommendation
are that the stakeholders are going to get together, they're going to
agree upon something, and if they agree upon something, it will go
through the CAC, it will come to the BCC, and then if we're -- we all
approve it, we will petition the Corps of Engineers to close out the
permit, and that's what everybody, as far as I know, had in mind from
the very beginning; it's just that we didn't -- didn't capture that
information and capture that statement very concisely in the summary.
Page 218
January 25, 2011
So we have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'm -- I remain concerned.
Steve Feldhaus stood up there and represented that he had no idea
what "channel location and maintenance" meant.
So we're making a motion where we have not agreed to the
definition of what the objectives is -- what the objectives are. Unless I
get a definition of what "channel location and maintenance" means,
this motion is meaningless and, quite frankly, legally uninforceable
because it's void for vagueness.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's really not the point. The
people who are going to determine that are the stakeholders, not us.
We're not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The stakeholders need definition
because we're giving direction.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The stakeholders are capable of defining
these issues themselves and reaching agreement on them.
So I'll call the question. All in favor of the motion, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting. Thank you very much.
How long has it been since you had a break? Are you okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We've ordered pizza, by the way, for
dinner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When the pizza comes, we'll break.
Page 219
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll break for a few minutes.
Okay. County Manager, where do we go?
Item #IOH
PROPOSED LEGISLATION CREATED TO PROVIDE A
PROCESS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICTS IN COLLIER COUNTY -
MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING -
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I'd like to go to Item 10H on your
agenda, if I may.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
MR.OCHS: It's a recommendation -- excuse me. Excuse me,
ma'am. I'm trying to conduct business here -- recommendation to
review the proposed legislation created to provide a process for
consolidation of the independent fire control and rescue districts in
Collier County.
Ms. Debbie Wight, legislative affairs coordinator, will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What number is that?
MS. WIGHT: 10H.
MR.OCHS: This is Item 10H in your agenda, ma'am.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. I guess, good evening, Commissioners.
You have before you today the most recent version of the
proposed fire consolidation legislation that provides a process to
merge the independent fire control and rescue districts in Collier
County .
Also you have an executive summary that explains that the
members of the Collier County legislative delegation on November
23rd specifically requested hearing the position of the Board of
County Commissioners before advancing this local bill any further
Page 220
January 25, 2011
along in the legislative process.
County staff has reviewed the proposed bill and explained the
referendum question options. Staff has also included bullets that
address other issues and provisions in the bill.
The staff analysis was based on the assumption that none of the
merging districts holds a COPCN, a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity. I just wanted to call that to your attention.
But as you heard earlier today from North Naples Fire Attomity
-- Attorney, I'm sorry, Laura Donaldson, it's her opinion and the
county attorney's opinion that the North Naples COPCN that you
granted earlier today would not automatically transfer to the new
consolidated fire district. Also, the County Attorney's Office provided
a memo that offers additional analysis.
If you have questions about the proposed local bill, Attorney
Laura Donaldson is here to respond.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, really it's none of our
business. But I heard from a citizen, not a bureaucrat with her own
agenda, it was a citizen that stated that the legislators delegation
would like the input of the Board of Commissioners.
So if we take a position, I would request that we just correspond
with our delegation members. And at the present time, I looked and
there's no sponsorship of this bill, so -- well, I give you my personal
opinion, I looked at what the voters voted on in November, and they
said, you know, concisely, across -- all across Collier County, even in
District 5, they wanted a consolidated fire district. This is really not a
true consolidated fire district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And Commissioner
Henning's right but, once again, one of the things I need to clarify and
make sure that -- the representative from North Naples would like to
come up.
Page 221
January 25, 2011
This bill does not inhibit for any other entity, be it another
independent fire district or its citizen initiative, to bring about
consolidation. In other words, if this is approved by -- the way it's
written now -- and, God forbid, it could change -- that it would still be
more than a guideline of one way that it could happen, but it does not
close the door for other ones to be able to merge and be able to come
up with their own bills.
But I know at this point in time we have, God knows, but very
possibly Golden Gate and East Naples. They've got some discussions
going. Is that correct? Or does this bill, in any way, inhibit other
people or other fire departments from coming up with their own way
to get there?
MS. DONALDSON: For the record, Laura Donaldson, attorney
for North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District.
You're correct, this does not prohibit or stop any other process.
We can't bind future legislatures. What it does do, let's say if Golden
Gate and East wanted to merge, if this was in place, it makes it easier
for them to merge.
Now, they could decide to merge, this law will be in place and
they say, you know, we don't like this, we want to do it our own way,
and they would have to go back through the local bill process.
But, yes, this does in no way stop any other group, districts from
moving forward with their own separate type of consolidation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Now, one of the
concerns -- and I mean, I'm not overly whelmed (sic) with the
concern, is the fact that North Naples could be the first element of this,
in other words, form their own district with the idea that other people
can come into it, is that correct, all by themselves?
MS. DONALDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And once they form that
nucleus, they more or less have got the wherewithal -- if anyone else
wants to come in, they have control over how it's going to be set up; in
Page 222
January 25, 2011
other words, they rather than a -- what's it called -- merger, it's more of
an absorption?
MS. DONALDSON: Commissioner, I think--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I'm not --I'm not upset
with it. I'm just trying to put it together. I mean, I want to see
consolidation take place, and I do want it to be in a meaningful way,
and when it does take place, it has to be in a way that's going to be in
the best interest of the citizens of Collier County.
You know, and I've got several other questions, but let me let my
other commissioners ask some questions, then I'll come back, let them
get a chance to get into this, and I may have one or two more to ask
you.
MS. DONALDSON: Can I respond to that question first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
MS. DONALDSON: I would think -- one, in your example,
North Naples goes in first. We wrote it specifically to make sure -- an
absorption normally would be, I'm going to absorb you, and I get to
decide if I'm going to do that.
The way this is written specifically is that, let's say North goes
into the new district. South -- the new district, Southwest Florida Fire
Control and Rescue District, has no say on who merges in. And we
specifically did that because we did not want to get into an issue of,
you know, they're deciding, are we taking you. It's more people want
to come into the new -- I foresee, if this becomes law -- because of the
scenario, if one district votes to go in, adopts resolution, not votes, but
adopts resolution, which is the first up -- you will see, I believe, other
districts voting to try to put -- to put the question to the residents to
avoid the potential situation of one district getting in first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I did have some questions
regarding the millage and how you figure it out, but before we go into
that, let my fellow commissioners ask some questions.
MS. DONALDSON: Okay.
Page 223
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I understand correctly, even
though there are those who want consolidation, there's no way that the
independent districts could legally consolidate, is that correct, without
enabling legislation like this?
MS. DONALDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically, even though people
are arguing, "We want consolidation," there's no legislation that has
been put forth except for what you're proposing here today and what
was proposed in the past that would allow for consolidation to become
a reality?
MS. DONALDSON: Correct. With a caveat that the Senate
Community Affairs Committee did do an interim project this summer,
and they're looking at trying to do general-law legislation to help
special districts to merge with the recognition that the statutes are so
silent and it's so difficult, that the process in itself is so burdensome
that we're not getting mergers.
So I can say, yes, they can't, but there is this other process that
might become law, which I don't have control over. It's a--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the likelihood that that
process might become a reality?
MS. DONALDSON: Fifty/fifty. And I don't mean to be--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I understand.
MS. DONALDSON: Every piece of legislation has a 50/50
chance until they drop the hankies on the last day of session.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No question, just sometimes
there's more general, you know, consensus among our representatives
to support something and that's, you know, clearly articulated because
of a public concern.
MS. DONALDSON: I can tell you, Commissioner, that Senator
Bennett is the chairman of the committee, and going back to two -- let
me think. I started with the legislature in 1998, so I think session 2000
Page 224
January 25, 2011
when Senator Bennett tried to consolidate two fire districts in Manatee
County, and there was a big issue and it fell apart during session, this
is something that he holds dear, that he wants to make it easier to get
these special districts to consolidate.
It's actually something that you guys would agree on,
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Boy, that would be a first.
MS. DONALDSON: But I can tell you -- so, you know, Senator
Bennett is the president pro tem. This is coming out of his committee.
He directed his committee to do the interim project.
How it goes, we don't have -- I mean, there's not a similar project
in the house, but there are moving parts, because I think there's a
recognition that the statutes are causing local -- these governments not
to be able to consolidate just because it's very -- I mean, it's taken us
four years, and I still keep getting questions about the legislation, so
it's very difficult.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, essentially, the districts that
would join in this consolidation pursuant to this bill would do it
voluntarily.
MS. DONALDSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And voluntarily means pursuant to
referendum of their constituents.
MS. DONALDSON: The board of the fire districts would put it
to their residents, yes. So first the board of the fire district would have
to vote to put it forward to their residents, and then the residents would
get to vote.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But without the vote of the
residents, there would be no consolidation.
MS. DONALDSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very significant. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Donna was first.
Page 225
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also, if they don't want to
consolidate, they do not need to, like in Lee County, for instance,
right, where they have all of the different separate fire departments,
and some of them have consolidated with EMS and have their own
little departments, but they don't -- the fire departments don't all have
to consolidate, right?
MS. DONALDSON: That is correct. And I can tell you, the
interim project in the Senate is very clear that it should -- everything
should be voluntary, because these are separate local governments.
And it should be voluntary and the residents should have a vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How does North Naples feel about
't?
I .
CHIEF STOL TS: This is our bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They oppose it.
MS. DONALDSON: I can tell you, Commissioner, that when--
we had not planned on moving forward with this local bill. I was
actually working with the Senate on the interim proj ect. And when
the electors voted on election day and I was on my way to Arcadia for
another client meeting, I got a phone call from Chief Stolts and
Assistant ChiefPogan, and they said, can you -- you know, the
residents voted.
Now, obviously the devil's in the details, but they want to look at
consolidation, so can you draft -- can you get the bill back in a place --
let's take out everything that we possibly -- we believe is
controversial. And we have tried to make a concerted effort to do that.
I know we had changes of this bill up until last week, but that
was because I had conversations with county staff, they raised a
couple concerns, we made those changes. So we're hopefully in a
better position this year than last year where -- I mean, we have tried
Page 226
January 25, 2011
to address your staffs concerns in our version of the bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We keep coming back to Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it. I always like to
have Commissioner Fiala go before me.
But, first, I want to compliment you for the fact that you have
taken something that I had a lot of objections to, and you modified it
to the point that -- I mean, is it perfect? No. It never will be. I do
think the way it is now, it's about as good as it's going to get.
I -- my only concern is is that what happens now that it's going
through the legislative body and who may come in and try to add
some very difficult things to it that would make it disadvantages (sic)
to the other districts out there. Of course, that's an unknown quantity.
But, you know, I would like to make a motion to approve it as is with
the understanding that we're approving a product that's in front of us,
with the understanding that if it's modified, we would like to be able to
look at it again, especially if it's sufficient, other than just a word or
two.
MS. DONALDSON: Commissioner, the way the legislature
works, especially -- with local bills, they're very different than general
bills, and the Florida House has a process -- because they're really the
ones reviewing the bill -- where if you make substantive changes to a
bill, I mean, major substantive changes, I have to get majority vote of
the delegation. I also have to make sure that -- we have noticed this
bill in the Naples news. If I revise -- like let's say -- I'm just -- I'm not
going to do this, especially in light of the vote today.
But let's say that I wanted to amend to put that you had to give us
the COPCN. It's moot because you gave it to us today, but if I wanted
to put that in the local bill, I have now violated my notice provision
and, constitutionally, this local bill could not become effective unless
it was approved at referendum.
So you would -- if I start messing with it or other parties start
Page 227
January 25, 2011
messing with it substantively, the only way that it could be approved
is the bill would have to be approved at referendum, and then you'd
have a separate referendum vote on the merger. I mean, there's really
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand all that. And,
you know, once again, I am concerned of what could happen once it
leaves here. But you've done a wonderful job. You've taken it from
what I consider a total disaster to something that's quite acceptable,
considering all the concerns out there you had to meet and all the egos
you had to satisfy. I congratulate you.
MS. DONALDSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I do make the motion to
move this forward.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we do have speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many?
MR. MITCHELL: Two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve
the bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't approve this bill. We
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can approve support of the bills,
which is what they're asking for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can make recommendations
to the legislators. If that's what the motion says --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm willing to do whatever is
correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there's a tax increase in
there.
Page 228
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mrs. Donaldson, could you please
clarify what is being asked of the board today?
MS. DONALDSON: I would love it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To support the bill.
MS. DONALDSON: To support the bill that has been presented
to you today, with that caveat, Commissioner Coletta, recognizing,
support the bill that's in front of you today, and that gives me the
ability to go to the delegation and get this bill filed so we can get it
gOIng.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, okay. And I'll--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll just have a -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I wanted to make an
observation. I'm not sure if someone read it, but it give some
additional powers above and beyond what they have today, and also
more taxing authority than what they have today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Gives who power?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gives the -- this fire district.
Presently fire districts work under 198 and 191. They want to work
under 401 and 197 besides 198 and 191.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't 401 what we were talking
about this morning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. DONALDSON: Commissioners, that's current law. If you
look in Chapter 191, it states that we have to do non-ad valorem
assessments pursuant to -- 197 is a non-ad valorem assessment
process.
It says that we have to get a COP -- if we want to do emergency
medical services, we have to get a COPCN pursuant to Chapter 401.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute now. Let
me read this. Powers and duties of the district. "The board shall have
the power to create an SDA pursuant to Section 5. The district shall
Page 229
January 25, 2011
have the powers and duties granted under this charter and Chapters
189, 191, 197, and 401." 401 is, you can be your own medical
director.
MS. DONALDSON: Commissioner, if you go further in this
section of the bill for the powers of the district --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They won't have to come to us
for a CPO -- CPN (sic).
MS. DONALDSON: If you go to Subsection 7, it says
specifically that the district may establish and maintain emergency
medical rescue services within the district consistent with Section
191.0081, which requires the COPCN under 401, and the provisions
of Chapter 401.
I mean, we're specifically -- the only way we could do anything
under 401 is if we're given a COPCN under 401 from the commission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just to clarify --I'm sorry. Well--
MS. DONALDSON: But I have -- I mean, there are--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- I want to clarify
Commissioner Henning's concerns.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, here, look. Look on Page
10 of the bill, Section 7, "Powers and duties." I mean, it already --
they can already do fire and rescue, or rescue, from what I understand,
under 191. But if you take a look at financing, it gives them
additional -- additional powers. So I just want you to be aware of that.
And Commissioner Coletta said he's aware of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- they can increase taxes way
above and beyond what they have now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also realize that the residents
of North Naples are going to have to approve this.
MS. DONALDSON: I'm sorry. Constitutionally, the fire
districts cannot increase millage unless the residents approve that. I
can write whatever I want in this bill constitutionally. They cannot
Page 230
January 25, 2011
increase taxes above a rate that was previously approved. The -- the
language that's in the bill, that general broad language, is actually
taken from existing fire districts' charters.
Yes, we have the power of 40 1 if we're given COPCN and a state
license by the state. Yes, we can do non-ad valorem assessments if we
get it approved at referendum pursuant to Chapter 197. I mean,
everything -- there are a couple new powers. The SDA is very
different.
We create the service delivery area specifically to make sure we
had the ability to charge different millage rates if we needed to do that
in order to make consolidation easier.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The pizza's getting cold, folks. Let's
move this along. You've got a motion to approve already. And I'm
just going -- I'm going to vote against it.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we've got two -- we've got public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's all right. I'm going to vote against
it because I think that it is simply the wrong time to do this when we're
having a meeting with the Blue Ribbon Committee to decide what
kind of structure we should create for a combined public-safety
division in Collier County, hopefully separate from the Board of
County Commissioners.
You do not know what complications are going to arise with
respect to our ability to create such an organization. If you are issuing
certificates, you are asking for new legislation in Tallahassee. You
simply cannot navigate your way through that maze. And I will vote
against it, but I'm going to call the question.
But, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Hiller, you have
both -- both had your lights, so go ahead and talk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Something that -- something
Commissioner Henning said concerned me, and that was, if they have
a COPCN, then they don't have to go to referendum or -- how did--
Page 231
January 25, 2011
what did that mean?
I wanted to know, because I want to make sure that -- for
instance, this COPCN that we just granted this morning, right, it's
supposed to come back to us in one year and it's supposed to come
back every year. If we don't have authority to do that any more, then
it never has to come back again.
And say, for instance, it isn't working. Then we have no
authority over stopping it.
MS. DONALDSON: Commissioner, we made a very concerted
effort to make sure it was clear that we were not eliminating the
COPCN process from the ability to provide advanced life support.
And if -- in the power section of the bill, it says that we can provide
emergency medical services consistent with Chapter 191 and 401.
Later on under that section it says that we can provide -- it even makes
it more specific. If we get a COPCN as required by 401.
In Chapter 401, there is a specific requirement that the only way
we can get a state license is if we get a COPCN from Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So you've got a state license
now, and now you've got your COPCN and your state license. Do you
have to come back to us then next year?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MS. DONALDSON: Under your county code, I cannot transfer
that license to the new district, and we would have to come back to the
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Every single year --
MS. DONALDSON: -- county commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you have to come back --
MS. DONALDSON: That is your county code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and request that COPCN?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MS. DONALDSON: That is your county code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just want to hear it from her, you
Page 232
January 25, 2011
know.
MS. DONALDSON: Unless you change your county code. I
don't want to -- I mean, if you change your county code -- I believe
the state process is a two-year process, but your COPCN process is --
my understanding from the COPCN experts is it's an annual basis that
we have to come back.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but your special--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'd understood going in,
and that's the only reason I went along with this is because I wanted to
make sure to protect EMS guys as well as fire, and I felt that this was
somewhat of a -- of a compromise here. As long as we still have that
right -- and if it was going to somehow be worded away.
You know, a lot of words mean another thing. We all know that.
And words can say many, many things, but then when they're
analyzed in -- by different groups, they become something different.
And so I -- that's why I wanted to ask you right on the record, out
of your own mouth, if you have to come back -- if you are granted
this, and you are granted your COPCN, do you still have to come back
every year?
MS. DONALDSON: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, special act trumps your ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Just to make sure.
And what about the taxing authority? Do you still have to -- if all of
this goes through, do you still have to go back to your residents if you
want to raise the millage rate?
MS. DONALDSON: Depending on the referendum question that
is presented to the voters -- it depends.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MS. DONALDSON: Well, no. Let me use North Naples as an
example. Let's say North wanted to go into the new district; it's only
North; North Naples has the ability to go in at one, or they can try to
convince their residents to let them go in at 3.75 mills.
Page 233
January 25, 2011
If they go in at one, the only way the residents of now this new
Southwest Florida Fire Control District's millage could go up is if they
vote to go over one mill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if taxes -- if millage rate would
be raised, the people get a say in that millage rate being raised?
MS. DONALDSON: That's a constitutional requirement, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right, fine. Thank you. Yes?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, if I might. I just need to ask county
attorney if he would elaborate just a bit. He made a statement to you
in response to your question that said, "A special act trumps a local
ordinance. "
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. If Mr. Henning's interpretation
of this bill is correct, then your ordinance -- your ordinance falls. The
special act controls this as a state act.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You lose control.
MR. KLATZKOW: You lose control.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But -- except for the fact that this
legislation makes reference back to the statute that provides that the
decision of the award of a COPCN has to be done by the Board of
County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, if a local --
MR. KLATZKOW: 1-- if Commissioner Henning's analysis of
this is correct and the language is susceptible to that interpretation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. What it says in the
definition of 40 1, "Local agency means the Board of Commissioners. "
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. So we don't lose control
because that statute reserves the control to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I mean, it's just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I don't think we'd be losing our
ability to do what Commissioner Fiala is concerned about, preserving
the right for us to decide about the COPCNs, like we did today.
MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I can tell you, last year the
Page 234
January 25, 2011
language that we had in the bill said, no, COPCN is required by the
commission in order to do advanced life support non-transport. And
that -- because we felt that was needed in order to avoid the process.
That language is not in here.
We're making it clear that we have to be consistent with Chapter
401. And the language that says that we have to be consistent -- and
191.008 specifically requires the COPCN process.
It says, if you'll give me -- if you'll bear with me just for a
second, it specifically states --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we go too far,
Commissioner Coyle, we really need an analysis of this bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think it would be more
appropriate -- and help me if it would be okay -- to continue this item
until the next meeting so at least I can analyze the different aspects of
it, more importantly to have our county staff analyze it and make
recommendations to the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll -- I'll just give you an analogy. And
I'm not suggesting it is entirely accurate. But we have an Airport
Authority that we created, and they are responsible to us, and we have
considerable authority over what they do.
The Naples Community Airport Authority, however, was created
by state statute. It substantially reduces, if not eliminates, the control
that the city council has over the Naples Airport Authority. They have
absolutely no control except they can appoint Airport Authority Board
members. But they can't make any decisions about what the airport
does. They can't restrict the airport from doing anything. They can't
require that the airport abide by even the city's zoning laws. So there's
-- there is real risk in doing that.
But I'm not saying this is a bad bill. I'm saying, give us a little
time. What is the rush here? You know, give us a little time to find
out what the Blue Ribbon Committee is recommending and what
Page 235
January 25, 2011
structure is likely to come from there, because the chances are -- and
certainly it should be -- that we would go to the state legislature to
seek an organizational structure that is agreeable to the fire districts
and us, and we could create the kind of relationships we want to have.
What you're doing now is just throwing all the pieces up in the
air at one time and hoping they're going to fall into place.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I withdraw my motion
and make a substitute motion that we continue this until -- when can
we have this information we're looking for?
MR.OCHS: Well, Commissioner, I think the only question that
I've heard so far that has not been totally answered is the one about --
that Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did answer it, and they still
need to come back for a certificate.
MR.OCHS: That's my understanding, yes, sir. That was put on
the record several times.
MS. DONALDSON: And, Commissioner, if it would help you--
because if we delay this vote, basically the bill is going to die.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no, no. We--
MS. DONALDSON: Because I can draft something that might --
if I put something in that says, as long as state statute requires a
Certificate of Public Concern and Necessity from the county, one shall
be required. I mean, I have no problem. I need to, of course,
recognize that if there's a change in 401, that that picks up. But I have
no problem -- if it addresses the concerns that we mayor not --
because our intent is not to get out of the COPCN process at all in this
local bill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I was mistaken.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me paint another scenario for you.
You pass this, you get this legislation in place, then somebody
introduces a bill that says fire districts created under this particular
resolution don't have to go to local government to get approval. Now
Page 236
January 25, 2011
what are you going to do?
MS. DONALDSON: We would have to go back through the
local bill process. And, I mean --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go through what you're -- well, maybe.
MS. DONALDSON: What I've spent the last two years trying to
go through.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Once you create a separate
organizational structure by statute, there is absolutely no way to
predict how underlying state laws are going to be changed in the
future that will impact the relationship between that structure and local
government. There is no way you can make promises to us about it
always being that way.
And so it is a risk. But, hey, we've got to move on. So let's do
something. Are we going to have a motion to delay it, or at least wait
until after the first meeting or so of the Blue Ribbon Committee or
what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why can't we wait?
MS. DONALDSON: The -- the deadline to file a bill in the
Florida -- a local bill in the Florida House is noon on the first day of
.
seSSIon.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why can't you still file it and we
follow afterwards?
MS. DONALDSON: Which is more -- that is a Florida House
rule. I don't get to dictate that. The Florida House of Representatives
has a rule that for local bills they have to be filed by noon on the first
day of session.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a motion that we
continue this to the next meeting?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then, you know, hopefully
we can digest some of this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Page 237
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appreciate your patience,
especially on my slip-up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When is the first day of session?
MS. DONALDSON: March 8th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: March 8th.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, would you like to hear from your public
speaker?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just make a point of
clarification?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle analogized
the Collier County Airport Authority and the City of Naples Airport
Authority. The fact is, Collier County does not have an Airport
Authority. It's a misnomer. We really have an airport division or an
aviation division.
And the reason I bring that up is because his concern about
control and, you know, losing control-- we don't have control right
now. The Board of County Commissioners does not have jurisdiction
over the independent fire districts. They were all created by special
act. And we have no jurisdiction right now over those districts.
So it's not a comparable -- I mean, the analogy of the airports is
not applicable to this situation. We have no more control today than
we would if this enabling legislation would be put forth.
What I see in this enabling legislation is that if through the new
commission, public-safety commission or whatever it is that's created,
if the determination is made that merger or consolidation is the way to
go, we now have legislation that would facilitate, that would allow,
the consolidation that Commissioner Henning and other members of
our community feel is in the best interest of the community;
otherwise, we're going to wait I don't know how many years till we
get this consolidation accomplished.
Page 238
January 25, 2011
And this bill in no way precludes any structure recommended by
. .
any commISSIon.
MS. DONALDSON: And, Commissioner, can I just say two
things. One, the local bill process is very tricky. If you miss one
deadline, you're a year behind. So if we miss the -- you know, if I
didn't have the bill filed in October -- or I guess the -- November 6th,
we would have been a year behind. And that's just different rules.
The issue about not having the control-- well, right now the
legislature could change the laws that relates to COPCN, and none of
the fire districts in Collier County could get a COPCN.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
MS. DONALDSON: I mean, that analogy of, well, we'll create
this new thing and then they have -- that could happen today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I meant to add that actually. I
meant to state that as well. So these arguments are --
MS. DONALDSON: But I'm more than willing to come back.
My only concern is that the longer we delay this, the more likely that
this bill will not get filed on the 1 st. I mean, there are other deadlines
that have to be met. And I'd just say that we've tried to address --
every issue that your County Attorney's Office, that your staff has
raised we have attempted to address.
This language is very similar minus all the controversial -- the
poison pills being taken out. I mean, we tried to do everything we can
in order to have a document in place that we can timely get filed so
that we can move through the process this year.
And I'm just concerned that if we miss it, you'll see -- well, I
don't know if you'll see me next year or not -- but I could be back next
year again, and what would happen is we'd have no potential
consolidations. Because if we had two districts we wanted to
consolidate today, the earliest they could consolidate today would be
sometime next summer or next fall without this legislation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, did you -- is
Page 239
January 25, 2011
your motion still valid?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I get a second. The motion is
to continue it to next meeting. You could eat your pizza.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, I will second your motion in that
case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, what about --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We haven't heard the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: -- the public speakers, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're not going to take any
action except for continuing it to the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we still obligated to hear
the speakers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, next time, when we get ready to
take action. We're not taking action.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes 3-2 with Commissioner Fiala
and Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
Okay. The pizza is in the back. Let's take 20 minutes to grab a
bite to eat, and then we'll come back.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where do we go now?
MR.OCHS: Well, do you want to go back to where we left off?
Page 240
January 25, 2011
We go back up to Item 9 A, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 9A?
MR.OCHS: Well--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good grief.
MR. OCHS: -- unless you want to -- again, unless you want to
try to deal with issues that are represented by folks that are still in the
audience.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. OCHS: It's the Chair's prerogative.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
MR.OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: They're mostly county employees and
regular hangers-on. So youjust have to gut this out with the rest of us.
MR. OCHS: There you go.
MR. DeLONY: You didn't share your pizza.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. DeLONY: You didn't share your pizza.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. You noticed, did you?
There's still some back there, but we're going to save it for ourselves.
MR. DeLONY: That's the friendship thing I'm looking for.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right, that's right.
Item #9A
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY RESCIND COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
POLICY NO. 631 AND REQUIRE THAT ALL RATES AND FEES
CHARGED AT THE AIRPORTS BE SET, AND ALL AIRPORT
RELATED AGREEMENTS AND LEASES BE APPROVED BY
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY - MOTION TO
APPROVE - NOT CONSIDERED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Page 241
January 25, 2011
MR.OCHS: Item 9A, recommendation that the Collier County
Airport Authority rescind Collier County Airport Authority
administrative code Policy No. 631 and require that all rates and fees
charged at the airports be set and all airport-related agreements and
leases be approved by the Collier County Airport Authority.
This item was placed on the agenda by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion for approval, not -- no
second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion dies for lack of a second. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to discuss.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's too late now. Motion died. But why
don't you have a discussion, if you'd like to have a discussion. Go
ahead and discuss.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what exactly are you
looking for, please?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. First of all, the Collier
County Airport Authority is not an authority in the sense of the word
that it's being used, for example, in the City of Naples. Because of the
restructuring, it's actually an aviation division under the Board of
County Commissioners.
As such, the entire -- its ministrative (sic) code needs to be
reviewed and reconstructed in light of the new definition of the -- this
aviation division.
One of the requirements -- and this is a matter of law -- we don't
have a choice about it -- is that the Board of County Commissioners
cannot delegate discretionary spending authority -- quite frankly, it
can't delegate any of its discretionary authority to staff or to anybody
else.
Page 242
January 25, 2011
And right now, the way the code is written -- and County
Attorney Klatzkow and I have reviewed it, and we sat down with the
airport director, Mr. Curry -- the law is very clear. The -- what the
code currently allows goes contrary to what we can do legally.
So it's a legally non-compliant provision, and we are merely
stating what the law is and correcting a code that doesn't apply to our
current circumstances.
Would you like to weigh in, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, I'm not sure -- I mean, the motion
failed. I mean, I'm not sure where we're going with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I withdraw the question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we right now have an illegal
provision in the code. We cannot do what the code allows. Mr. Curry
cannot set rates. Mr. Curry cannot approve lease agreements. So why
are we not rewriting this provision to conform with the law? If he
goes ahead and does what the current code allows, it would be an
illegal act.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ms. Hiller, almost everything he does is
ratified by this board, just as we recently approved the schedule of
charges that he recommended to us. We also approve contracts. There
are many circumstances where we delegate certain responsibilities, but
they're finally ratified by us.
And, quite frankly, I would like to see the county attorney start
providing us legal advise rather than you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He provided it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: To whom?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: To me, and I brought it forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But he doesn't work for you,
Commissioner Hiller. He works for this board. And if there are going
to be recommendations relating to the authority of the board to do
Page 243
January 25, 2011
something, I'd like to hear them come from the county attorney. I do
not have much confidence in your legal advice, quite frankly, okay.
Jeff, would it be appropriate to ask you to review the
administrative code policy with respect to the Airport Authority and
advise us about what changes we might wish to take?
MR. KLATZKOW: I can do that, and your code needs
substantial rewriting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Not only on this issue -- because
there is an issue here -- but on a lot of different issues. And, you
know, if you direct Mr. Curry to work with me, I'm sure we can go
through the administrative code and get it up to date.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Curry, do you have any problem
working with the county attorney to work this out?
MR. CURRY: Not at all. I work with everyone.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand correctly,
Commissioner Coyle, what you are saying is Mr. Curry can change
rates, modify rates, draft contracts, and get them approved and then
come back to the Board of County Commissioners for subsequent
ratification of an act already engaged in?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We can -- yes, we can delegate certain
responsibilities. We can approve a contract format and have Mr.
Curry have people sign it and then bring it back for our ratification.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's exactly what this
motion provides.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, we're going to do it through
the county attorney, if you don't mind.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He actually did this. He drafted the
executive summary, he reviewed the law, he made the
recommendation, and asked me to carry it forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked her to carry it forward?
Page 244
January 25, 2011
You didn't tell us about it at all?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's not what happened,
Commissioner. I mean, you brought the issue up, and I worked with
you based on that. That's what happened.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Say that again.
MR. KLATZKOW: You brought -- you raised the issue, I
worked with you, we spoke with Mr. Curry.
At the end of the day, my understanding is that this board has
directed me to work with Mr. Curry to come back with a proposed
revised airport administrative code. We will do that. We are also
going to come back with some procedures for Mr. Curry, such as
standard form contracts that he could enter into, that will be board
approved, and the board will set the fees for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And Mr. Curry and I will sit down and, you
know, work through those.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Klatzkow, would you change
anything that is in this motion today or in the executive summary that
you prepared for purposes of this motion?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's going to come back exactly
as it is for board approval?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to come back substantially more
than that, because the administrative code --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- is many years out of date.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But nothing in what is being
presented today is going to come back in any different form?
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you understand what we're
going to do, right?
Page 245
January 25, 2011
MR. CURRY: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know what, I'd really
appreciate, if you have concerns with these things, rather than just go
to one commissioner--
MR. KLATZKOW: I -- that's -- ma'am, that's not what
happened.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it'd be nice if you communicated
with all of us.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not what happened, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. Because I would love to know
if you have concerns with something.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Ma'am, when I have concerns, I raise it to
the board during communications.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
Item #9B
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO WORK WITH STAFF TO PREPARE A
POLICY PROHIBITING THE DONATION OF MONEY OR
TANGIBLE PROPERTY BY VENDORS UNDER CONTRACT
WITH THE COUNTY TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
OFFICIALS - MOTION TO DENY - APPROVED; STAFF
DIRECTED TO STUDY DONATIONS IN THE FUTURE AND
MAKE NOTICE OF ANY THAT ARE GIVEN AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO ADVISE ALL COMMISSIONERS
MR. OCHS: 9B.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, 9B.
MR.OCHS: Recommendation to direct the Office of the County
Page 246
January 25, 2011
Attorney to work with staff to prepare a policy prohibiting the
donation of money or tangible property by vendors under contract
with the county to charitable organizations closely affiliated with
Collier County Public Officials.
Commissioner Hiller added this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Essentially, what happened was, I
learned at one of our last meetings that one of our major vendors,
Paradise, a vendor who basically received $4 million in business from
us last year, gave a donation back to the county to the tune of$50,000
to Freedom Memorial, which is a project that is being managed by
Commissioner Coyle.
I also found out that subsequently, through a little more research
-- excuse me -- that the -- there was actually another donation made by
Paradise, $50,000 to Collier Museum.
And I guess I -- it created some concern for me, and the concern
was that we had a major vendor who was taking monies that we had
just given to them in payment and cutting two checks that was coming
-- basically redirecting county funds and earmarking those funds for
pet projects of two commissioners.
In fact, in a memo sent to me from -- I think it was Mr. Parnell, if
I'm not mistaken, what was explained is that -- let me just pull this out
and read it.
Essentially that Paradise had, you know, earned their
commissions and then was paid. And then the next sentence is,
100,000 of those commissions were returned to Collier County in the
form of donations to the Marco Island Museum, 50,000 for displays,
and to the Freedom Memorial for future construction costs.
Now, what I was concerned about was a conflict in appearance. I
don't know if there was a conflict in fact, but there certainly appeared
to be a conflict in appearance. And I consulted the county attorney on
this, and I wanted to propose some sort of an ordinance and present it
Page 247
January 25, 2011
here for discussion today. I wanted to limit it to donations by vendors
back to the county that favored particular commissioners' projects or
that earmark monies that we paid them back to the county for a
particular reason, because it circumvents the voting process where we
vote on how county monies should be expended for a public purpose.
And the county attorney actually recommended that I expand the
scope of that proposed ordinance to all county employees, and all --
you know, any nature of donation to any nonprofit.
I was a little concerned about that, and I think that scope is overly
broad. And I expressed my concerns in that regard.
So basically what I would like to do is open it up for discussion
and see to what extent some sort of ethics ordinance could be
established in order to prevent vendors from attempting to influence
the vote of commissioners by giving back donations earmarked for
particular projects.
So I open it up for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I may as well go first. I
noted that Commissioner Hiller included in this item a grand jury
report which was just recently issued which is designed to provide
guidance to the legislature about potential updates to the state's ethics
code. It has not been reviewed by the legislature. It's just been issued
within the last 30 days.
And it's interesting because the report does not recommend the
actions suggested by Commissioner Hiller. In fact, the grand jury says
that it is, in fact, common and has been upheld in litigation for
contractors for local governments to make contributions to nonprofit
organizations with whom certain public officials might be related.
The report goes on to state on Page 78, while we want charitable
contributions, we don't want them to be made for dirty purposes.
And what does the grand-jury report say should be done? It does
not suggest the practice should be prohibited, as Commissioner Hiller
suggests. It merely proposes that public officials should be careful to
Page 248
January 25, 2011
disclose any situation whereby they are voting on a contract and then
receiving a contribution to a charity they are associated with.
Now, with very little research, Commissioner Hiller would have
found out that Collier County Commissioners have already established
procedures to guard against that probability. But let's also take a look
at what we have done to assure disclosure and public notification.
There is a resolution passed in 2005, and I'll that. "Whereas, the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County approve the design
and construction of a federal memorial to honor America's servicemen
and also those law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency
medical personnel, and civilians who perished during the September
11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, United
Airlines Flights 175 and 93, and American Airlines Flight No. 7711,
and to acknowledge the survivors of those horrific terrorist attacks and
to pay homage to all Americans who have sacrificed the defense of
our nation -- who have sacrificed for the defense of our nation for
peace and freedom.
"Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the board hereby
declares there is a public purpose both as to the solicitation of
donations from the citizens of Collier County for the construction of
the Freedom Memorial and the receipts of such donations."
There was also an -- a Collier County attorney decision
concerning that.
So it's very clear that this was done publicly and that the Board of
County Commissioners authorized this process.
The contribution of Paradise Advertising to the Freedom
Memorial and the proposed contribution to the Marco Island Museum
have been publicly announced at advertised hearings.
My relationship with the Freedom Memorial has been widely
reported; it is well known to the public. So full disclosure has been
made as suggested by the grand-jury report.
Page 249
January 25, 2011
Collier County ordinances and procedures are already in place to
prohibit inappropriate involvement of commissioners or other public
officials in contract awards and, specifically, the award of the contract
to Paradise Advertising.
And those procedures are, number one, the county manager
ordinance prohibits any commissioner from instructing a county
employer to take any specific actions including awarding contracts to
a favored company.
Commissioners are specifically excluded from the contract-award
process. And Paragraph 14 of the procurement policy clearly
prohibits those kinds of interactions between companies who are
bidding on contracts and commissioners. They -- as a matter of fact,
companies are specifically forbidden and they are warned in writing --
they're specifically forbidden to contact County Commissioners with
respect to a contract award.
So this process has been followed very carefully. It has been
properly advertised and communicated to the public. And I will read
to you what it says about contacting County Commissioners. "All
firms are hereby placed on notice that the Board of County
Commissioners does not wish to be lobbied, either individually or
collectively, about a project for which a firm has submitted a proposal.
"Firms and their agents are not to contact members of County
Commission for purposes such as meeting or introduction, luncheons,
dinners, et cetera. During the process from proposal closing to final
board approval, no firm or their agent shall contact any other
employee of Collier County in reference to this proposal, with the
exception of the purchasing director of his -- or his designee.
"Failure to abide by this provision may serve as grounds for
disqualification for award of this contract to the firm."
The suggestion by Commissioner Hiller that there might be
something dirty about the contribution of Paradise Advertising should
outrage all of those who have been involved in supporting the
Page 250
January 25, 2011
Freedom Memorial and the Marco Island Historical Society and
Museum. We should thank Paradise Advertising for their patriotic
gesture and their commitment to our community.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may say --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not finished yet. Just a moment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Last week, or the last meeting,
Commissioner Hiller tried to target another of her political opponents,
a lady who ran against her in the last election, and has launched a
personal investigation into her background in an attempt to keep her
off the Productivity Committee.
This meeting she has decided that she will attack me. I would
suggest that Commissioner Hiller would be well served to forget about
her personal vendettas and spend more time understanding Collier
County Government and doing the business of the people.
And there are three commissioners, and including Ms. Hiller,
who want to talk, and Mr. Henning was first. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, you know, it's a--
Commissioner Coy Ie, I don't take it as harsh as you do, and I
apologize that you were offended.
It's all about public perception. And I enjoy the work that
Paradise does. I think it's an example, what Commissioner Hiller's
bringing forward, not the company.
Just not too long ago we had a staff member who was on a
not- for-profit organization, and that not- for-profit organization
received grants from that -- from that agency, the county agency. And
we said -- and we did changes in our ethics ordinance to prohibit staff
members who award grants from working on that -- on that
not- for-profit organization so there won't be that perception of
conflict.
I believe the county manager agreed with the Board of
Page 251
January 25, 2011
Commissioners that -- you know, that -- you know, nothing wrong,
but public perception in these issues is very important. After all, isn't
it about the public?
And about the applicant for the Productivity Committee, I also
inquired, because it was widely spread of this applicant not having the
degree that was perceived.
So it wasn't Commissioner Hiller's personal vendetta against that
person that ran against her. It was, again, public perception, public
concern.
So do we really care about the public and should we try to
separate those perception issues?
And, again, I must say that Paradise is a very good company.
They are a part of this community. And I -- I'm glad they opened an
office in this community, and I think they've done the TDC very well.
I think that -- personally think that we should do something to
remove that public perception conflict of interest.
And, again, I apologize that you were offended by -- I didn't
perceive it as a personal attack on your work on what you have done
to the Freedom Memorial. I've seen plenty of people come into your
office where you're soliciting monies for that. And that memorial will
be carried on forever, and you should be commended for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's the strangest
compliment I've ever heard given to you. But I guess you got to take
everything in context.
I found this very disconcerting, the way this whole thing come
down, in the fact we have had ordinances and regulations to be able to
get to where we need to be. But whenever there's a question of a
person misbehaving or acting illegally in any way, it is the duty of
every one of us there to investigate it. We're going to do that right
now.
Steve Carnell, there, would you please come up. Are you the one
Page 252
January 25, 2011
that handles the bids and -- the bidding procedures and how they take
place?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Are you familiar with
Paradise Advertising and the contract that was eventually awarded to
them?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did, at any point in that process,
being appointing who it would be from staff working on there or
communications taking place or Commissioner Coyle to you or any
other members of staff -- to try to influence the outcome of that
particular contract?
Was that -- did it ever take place where Commissioner Coyle
played a role trying to influence the outcome?
MR. CARNELL: Not that I'm aware of, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you can state that under
oath?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did anybody take the time to
come to you and ask you those questions?
MR. CARNELL: No, sir. I haven't been -- I haven't discussed
this with anybody.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You know, we're chasing
smoke across the meadow. No offense. I assure you that somewheres
along the line you're going to hit on something that's really
worthwhile, but this isn't it. You pick out a report that's nothing more
than suggestive for the state legislative body to help give them some
guidance.
It's written by -- it was -- this particular grand jury was put
together by a man who was in serious political trouble, Charlie Crist,
towards the end of his career, trying to gain some sort of public favor.
They wrote a report; they sent it forward. It's a very long report,
Page 253
January 25, 2011
but I'll tell you something, whenever I receive something like this, I
read the whole dam thing. I wasted, I don't know, two hours going
through this thing before I got to Page 77 and 78. Please, the next
time you move something like this forward, please reference where we
should look in these reports, also reference the fact that the report was
nothing more than suggestive.
It was not a grand-jury action against the Collier County
Commission. It was purely for the state legislative body to be able to
act on, and I'm sure they'll act on this in some fashion, but also the
parts of the report that were in there related to what you're talking
about were really noncommittal in the way they came across.
So, you know, I don't want to chastise you for this, and I --
because you really got to just look forward to it a little bit farther the
next time, and I'm sure that somewheres along the line there's going to
be something that's really serious and we're all going to be able to get
excited about it and go forward.
And I -- and forgive me for saying this, but you really do owe
Commissioner Coy Ie an apology.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was also surprised that Jeff
asked to expand this to all of the -- all of the advisory boards and
everything else. I didn't realize that.
But anyway, I thought -- some of the concerns I had, you know, a
lot of these things are like, you wouldn't even know that they're
donations. For instance, we have cleanups in some of the
neighborhoods in my community, like Naples Manor, for instance,
and Waste Management comes in and they bring their dumpsters, and
then everybody just loads up these dumpsters. And we all know that
they're doing it, and we're thankful that they do do it. Would that be
considered trying to get my vote to have -- it comes into other people's
neighborhoods as well, but still, you know, that could be considered
something.
Page 254
January 25, 2011
And then I thought -- and now I -- Home Depot -- actually it
wasn't Home Depot. It was -- Terri DiSciullo from Marco Island
contacted me. She was rather appalled at what little provisions there
are in Eagle Lakes Community Park. There isn't -- no shelters. There
weren't even benches for people to watch their children play. And so
she contacted Home Depot and had them meet with me over there to
see if -- because they have -- they have a provision whereby they'll
buy benches and buy shelters and send their own people in to do the
work. All you have to do is get approval from the county.
And she set that thing up. Would they be trying to buy my vote
also? I mean, I don't even know the guy's name from Home Depot.
But things go like this.
Also, I work -- how many Kiwanis Clubs and so forth, we're
always out fundraising, and I bet lots of people in a lot of my clubs are
people who, in one way or another, deal with Collier County
Government. Well, we're all raising money to -- for children's
organizations, but still, this goes far and wide.
So I thought, my goodness, we -- you know, with 300 or so
advisory board members, they probably all do things like donate to
Habitat for Humanity or Shelter for Abused Women. The list is
endless, and innocent.
So I just -- I just don't agree with this at all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: First of all, the contract for
Paradise is up for approval today. It has not yet been approved. The
two checks presented by Paradise were made out to Collier County
and the Collier County Museums, not to private nonprofits.
And, in fact, the reason I wanted to bring this forward was for
that reason. It was Mr. Klatzkow who recommended that it be
expanded to the charities beyond Collier County.
In fact, Paradise's contract -- and, incidentally, Commissioner
Coyle, the recommendation -- and that's why I brought this up for
Page 255
January 25, 2011
discussion -- in that report to have disclosure of donations to outside
nonprofits is something that I also talked about with the county
attorney, because I did see the issue with imposing such a limitation
with respect to outside 501 (c)3 'so
The problem here, ladies and gentlemen, is that in the opinion
that Commissioner Coyle cited, the reason why it was deemed okay to
make donations to Freedom Memorial was because it was expected
that there was going to be an outside 501(c)3. That wasn't done. The
501(c)3 created -- in fact, County Ethics Ordinance Section 61
specifically -- and incidentally, this section is provided in Paradise's
contract -- was deemed not to apply for one reason alone, and that is
that the donations being made were going to be solicited by an
independent group, and the money would go into a tax-deductible
account for the public purpose of constructing the Freedom Memorial;
in other words, that the county employees and public officers would
not be receiving the donation.
We did accept that donation. We accepted two donations. And,
essentially, what happened was, those commissions that we had just
paid came back to us earmarked for specific county projects.
Now, if Paradise would like to give us a discount off their
contract, that's one thing. But to come back and earmark money that
we just gave them, bypassing the vote of the County Commission as to
how that money would be directed, being one issue, and, secondly,
being a vendor coming before us today for approval of another $4
million creates a different level of concern. And I, by no means,
suggest that it was their intent to do that.
And I just want to cite another -- a few other examples. Kraft
Construction gave 5,000; they're major vendors. The North Naples
Firefighters gave 5,000.
Now, I agree that we should have disclosure like the report
recommended for donations made to outside charities, but I think that
it would be in the best interest of the Board of County Commissioners
Page 256
January 25, 2011
to allow the county attorney to come up with some sort of ethics
ordinance with respect to donations made by maj or vendors back to
the Board of County Commissioners earmarking funds that we have
paid them or that they're giving us, to avoid the appearance of a
conflict when we vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, let me just
say that here we are going to be voting on this contract. Do you
know, until it was brought up by Commissioner Hiller, I never knew
that they donated anything to anything. I mean, you know, that never
affects my vote. Nobody said, do you know that they're voting for --
that they're donating to something, so you need to vote? I mean, that
was never even presented to me until this thing got on our agenda.
I think possibly there are some people that think there's always,
you know, underground stuff going on, but, you know, that's not the
case.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you know, they think there's
something going on sometimes because there are some people who try
to manufacture their own facts. And Commissioner Hiller's
description of this is one of the most tortured sequences of logic that I
think I have ever heard.
We pay Paradise Advertising for services. If Paradise
Advertising wants to donate that money to anybody, it is none of our
business.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But they're donating it to us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's even better, as a matter of fact.
Anybody who donates money back to the county for a public purpose
that has been ruled by the Board of County Commissioners to be a
public purpose is a wonderful thing. And I think to try to stop that --
and I believe the county manager will tell you -- can probably give
you a half a dozen different reasons why he wouldn't like to see that
happen; is that true?
MR.OCHS: Well, Commissioner, one example that comes to
Page 257
January 25, 2011
mind is, if I understand the intent here, United Way is an organization
that we, as the county, have been affiliated with for many years.
So if we had a vendor that we did business with that then made a
-- you know, a contribution to the United Way, would our employees
or public officials be considered to be affiliated, you know, with that
charity, and then would that donation be problematic? I'm just trying
to think through -- and advisory board members, how would we
police, for example --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not really concerned about
that, and that's what I said. And just like this report addresses those
outside nonprofits and says --
MR.OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- disclosure is -- you know, if
there's something material is the only issue.
If I may state, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coyle,
with respect to the donation of the 50,000, on January 26, 2010,
Commissioner Coy Ie addressed that Mr. Hames said he would be
willing to donate 50,000 in cash to the Marco Island Museum and
would be willing to donate another 50,000 in advertising services and
consulting fees, et cetera.
And then Commissioner Fiala went on to say, now we've got
50,000 from Cedar Hames, and this was, you know, after discussion
about how this would be donated through the county to the historical
museum and I guess some discussion about giving him some plaque in
recognition of his company.
So in fact --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did know, and I didn't even --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just so you remember.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, that was a year ago.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, right. But the point being is
that -- and I actually, just reading this, didn't even pick up that it was
even an additional 50,000 in voluntary service. But, you know, it's up
Page 258
January 25, 2011
to this board. If the board thinks that there's no problem with vendors
making donations back to the Board of County Commissioners and,
you know, those vendors then coming up for a vote, it's up to the
board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will be happy to vote on the Paradise
contract today, as a matter of fact, if we haven't already done so.
But I think that the point is clear. I think Commissioner Hiller
has established a pattern of trying to attack her perceived political
enemies in any way she can, whether it's through outright fabrications
or innuendo.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to ask you to retract that,
Commissioner Coyle, because your remarks are defamatory, they're
out of line, and you need to stop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much. I appreciate --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, in fact, I think you owe me
an apology for your constantly rude remarks with respect to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You deserve them, I can tell you that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I would ask you to retract
them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can forget it, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So now on this one, do we need to
vote on this, or do we just let it slide? How do we move on with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Somebody would have to make
a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. Somebody can make a
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I make a motion to deny it
this time and to study it a little bit further to see if there's anything that
Page 259
January 25, 2011
we can do that can make sure that maybe, for instance, if we know of
some donation coming to the county and it's a great thing, somebody's
going to donate a playground to Eagle Lakes Community Park and
they happen to be a vendor, we can announce it beforehand or
something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yep. We have the procedures in place to
make sure that we protect against any kind of conduct of that nature.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the slightest bit of investigation
would have revealed that from the very beginning, but there was no
attempt to determine the facts in this case. So go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was just a simple motion just --
you know, if there's -- if we want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just do something to make sure
that there's some -- even though the rules are in place, maybe the
county attorney, who seems to be advising on this anyway, could talk
with us and make sure that everybody's plate is clean. That would be
a good idea.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if I could suggest that the county
attorney start advising all of us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You don't work for one commissioner.
You work for the board. And if you have anything that you think you
need to bring to the board, you should inform all of us. Okay.
Is there agreement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three nods here. Okay.
Okay. Let's go to the next item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion is on the floor and second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Motion is on the floor.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 260
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With a second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion passes 4-1 with Commissioner
Henning dissenting.
Item #9C
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO SELECTED
ADVISORY BOARDS AND/OR COMMITTEES - APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER HILLER AS THE TDC CHAIRMAN FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THE YEAR - APPROVED; APPOINTING
COMMISSIONER FIALA AS A BCC REPRESENTATIVE ON
THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
- APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9C is a discussion concerning
appointment of commissioners to the selected advisory boards and/or
committees.
Commissioner Coy Ie placed this item on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. There are two things I want to
discuss. The TDC has their meeting on the Monday before the board
meeting; in other words, they had it yesterday. That creates -- and I'm
the Chair of the TDC, and that creates a difficult problem for me. I've
tried to get it changed through the TDC, but the TDC insists that that
is the best time for them. It is not a good time for me.
So what I would like to ask the board to do is to make an
Page 261
January 25, 2011
exception for the remainder of this year, and rather than have me serve
as chairman of the TDC, that we appoint Commissioner Hiller as the
chairman of the TDC--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for the remainder of this year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now -- and then I have one other
recommendation, but let's get this one done now.
All in favor -- or is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see any backup material.
I go from B to D. Was there any backup material submitted?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no. It was a discussion
concerning appointment of commissioners to the selected advisory
boards and committees, and I announced it at my -- the previous
meeting, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought it was general, not
specific to one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I'm fine now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
Page 262
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the other thing is that we
have an opening on the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council,
and I would like to recommended Commissioner Fiala to fill that
vacancy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Let me ask
Commissioner Coletta. Did you still want to continue on on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, there's two people.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we have two -- we have two people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, there's two people, okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's all I have to say about any
of that.
County Manager, you want to go -
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2011-19: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD -
APPOINTING ANTHONY MARINO - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appointment of members to
Code Enforcement Board, I make a motion we appoint Anthony
Page 263
January 25, 2011
Marino.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Yeah, a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2011-20: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE
LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD - RE-APPOINTING LORETTA
MURRAY AND CONSTANCE L. BETTINGER-HENNINK -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appointment of members to the
Library Advisory Board, the wonderful and beautiful Loretta Murray.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Murray.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Connie Bettinger Hennink.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hennink.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to appoint--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The wonderful, beautiful --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Murray and Hennink. No, I'm not
going to go through the adjectives, but -- I can't remember them all.
Page 264
January 25, 2011
But nevertheless, motion is made by Commissioner Henning,
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2011-21: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATE
MEMBER TO THE HORIZON STUDY OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE - APPOINTING GEORGE H. ECKHARDT -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appointment of member to the
Horizon Oversight Committee. I make a recommendation to appoint
George Eckhardt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appointment of the members to
serve the expired term on the Ochopee --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to vote on the other one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute. Let me vote on this one
first.
Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner
Fiala, to appoint George Eckhardt.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 265
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2011-22: RE-APPOINTING RONALD GILMER
GILBERT TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. On the appointment of
members on the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory board (sic), I
would like to see this come back to us, and I'll tell you why. They're
having a problem finding people to fulfill these particular positions.
They have one for Everglades City, one for Plantation Island, one for
Chokoloskee, one for Lee Cypress, and one for Ochopee. It's not
working.
We need to be able to change the ordinance so it just says five
people, and wherever they can get them, they can get them. Because
right now they've been running with -- can someone help me on this?
Dan Summers?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the person that's recommended, it's a
reappointment. Mr. Gilbert doesn't live in the district that he is -- that
he's being nominated for. And the last time he was nominated, the
board did give permission for him to serve in that position. And he's
attended every meeting, and he's been a valuable member.
What the county attorney and I would like to propose is that at
the next meeting we would -- we would bring back to you a change to
the ordinance that would -- that would change the requirement that
currently it's -- they've got to be members of either Everglades City,
Plantation Island, Chokoloskee, Lee Cypress, or Ochopee.
And I've spoken to the fire chief, and he supports that we would
Page 266
January 25, 2011
make it a much more sort of general committee from the district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What about the issue at hand?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, if we -- ifour
ordinance is specific to the fact where they have to come from, and the
reverend does not qualify, then we'll have to change the ordinance at
the next meeting. Am I correct?
MR. OCHS: You could grant an exception.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you granted an exception last time.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can waive it again. The only issue is,
rather than waiving it every time somebody's here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, in that case, I also make
my motion to also include the fact that we reappoint Reverend Gilbert.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. He's a minister, huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He is. Works full time, but he's
also a minister of the Copeland Baptist Church, and he's done a
wonderful job of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, so he's active in that area. Oh,
okay. Good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? Motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 #10A
Page 267
January 25, 2011
OBTAIN BOARD DIRECTION REGARDING THE INITIATION
OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP)
RESTUDY PROCESS AND THE FUNDING REQUIRED FOR THE
PROJECT INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT - MOTION TO HALT GOING FORWARD AT
THIS TIME AND BRING BACK WHEN NEEDED - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item lOA is a recommendation to
obtain board direction regarding the initiation of the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan restudy process --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about 9H? Didn't
Commissioner Coletta have a 9H?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It wasn't advertised.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR.OCHS: It was continued, ma'am--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Next time.
MR.OCHS: -- and the funding required for the project,
including any necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning manager, will present.
MR. BOSI: Good evening, Commissioner. Mike Bosi,
Comprehensive Planning manager.
As articulated within the executive summary, we're at the 10-year
anniversary of the seating of the Golden Gate Area Restudy
Committee. I believe Commissioner Coletta was the board-appointed
liaison to the committee back in '01.
Within the EAR document, which you will be having your public
hearing on Monday, there are a number of -- there are a number of
areas within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that would suggest
Page 268
January 25, 2011
that the master plan is ripe for restudy.
Within that EAR document, we indicate that we are going to hold
off on initiating any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to
be able to solicit the public planning process and the public input for
that.
What the executive summary is seeking direction is as to when
that -- when that process should be initiated, when the board would
like to see the county move forward with it. On the context of -- we
are calling it out in the EAR as an action that we're going to take by
this county government to make modifications to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan based upon the public process; it doesn't necessarily
obligate you to do it within the year that it's transmitted, but there's an
expectation that that planning process will be forthcoming within a
reasonable period of time.
And this is simply to ask the board when we should budget and
initiate the process for that restudy.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What's your pleasure?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's personally premature,
and here's the reason why. I know there are several vacancies, vacant
homes in Golden Gate Estates, particularly Golden Gate Estates,
several in Golden Gate City. And if we start studying to fit the needs
of the existing public, I think we're going to fail, I think we're going to
fall short, besides the fact it appears that every time that there is an
application to change the Golden Gate Master Plan, all of a sudden we
need a restudy.
It happened at Randall Boulevard, the last time we did this, and
now we have changes to that master plan that expanded Randall
Boulevard, and also created an expanded Wilson Boulevard shopping
center.
And I think that we need to wait to see when the populations
come back and this -- was it a district, or is it an area?
Page 269
January 25, 2011
MR. BOSI: It's a subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Subdistrict. It's a large
subdistrict. Wait till the population starts to come back so we can get
a true sense of what the needs are going to be. That's my personal
perspective.
Besides, money's short. I mean, we could have saved $200,000
on an item earlier. We need to try to save as much as we can. I think
this is one area that we can save money.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You've got a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Question. Is there
money at this point in time in the unincorporated fund that would be
able to cover this?
MR. BOSI: I'm not as familiar with the growth management
budget. I believe that there is not -- has not been money allocated to
initiate this study. When there is money available, I'm not sure if --
how far the county in OMB has been within terms of the projection for
the FYll/12 budget. I can't speak to that issue as to whether it's on
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me address something to
you that you can speak to.
Oh, excuse me. I'm in charge again. Watch out.
Okay. Question. The -- is it by law or by ordinance that we have
to do this every ten years? Because that's always been the goal. The
first one we did I chaired back in '92, and it seems like we're always
catching it on the tenth anniversary. And I think that we also held
some interim plans at the five-year mark before.
There's a lot of things taking place that's got me concerned. We
have -- we have a change of attitude within the Golden Gate Estates
area. I don't know about the city. Maybe it's true there, too, that
seems to reflect a whole different attitude than it did ten years ago.
Page 270
January 25, 2011
And the only way we're going to be able to bring that out is through a
planning process. And it gets involved.
I don't think we have to recreate the whole thing from zero, but I
do think we're going to have to deal with it if not this budget cycle, at
least with the promise that we're going to get into it in the next budget
cycle. That's my own feelings. What's the estimated cost for this?
MR. BOSI: We had--
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry. $163,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's for a period of what,
one year?
MR. OCHS: No, three years.
MR. BOSI: The initial time frame would be one year for the
public planning process.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BOSI: And then another year for the actual GMP
amendment process that would be associated with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. But I mean, the plan itself,
when we pull everybody together and we start the meetings and bring
the whole community together is a one-year process.
MR. BOSI: Yes. That was the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can remember the first one; it
went for -- we had to get permission to go another six months to be
able to get it done.
So, you know, I want to hear from my fellow commissioners on
this. It's an issue that's important to some, and a lot of other people
probably could care less. But the truth of the matter is, at some point
in time we have to confront this thing and go forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've got public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you have two public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll ask the--
Commissioner Hiller if she wants to ask her questions now or after the
public speakers.
Page 271
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, answer -- her light's on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me listen to the public
speakers first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then I'll comment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That sounds fine.
Would you please call the public speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: We have two speakers. The first is Peter
Gaddy, and he'll be followed by Tim Nance.
MR. NANCE: Peter Gaddy's not going to be here.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, okay. Tim Nance is it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I suggest we give Peter Gaddy's
time to Tim Nance, because I don't see how you can possibly cover
this in three minutes.
MR. NANCE: Well, it's hard to cover it in three minutes.
But, Commissioners, I'm just speaking to you as a long-time
resident of the Golden Gate Estates area.
Over the last several years, the Golden Gate Master Plan has
been undergoing a significant metamorphosis in practice by the Board
of County Commissioners, through significant Growth Management
Plan amendments that have come before you and a long-range
transportation plan priorities (sic) that have happened. Of note is, we
have in process right now two very significant commercial centers out
in the Estates area. One of them, of course, is at the comer of Randall
Boulevard and Immokalee Road, and another one is another proposal
that will be coming before you in the next few weeks to be considered
a 40-acre shopping center complex at the comer of Wilson Boulevard
and Golden Gate Boulevard.
N one of these are a certainty at this time, but they're certainly
moving forward. It looks like a couple of them could well become a
reality .
Page 272
January 25, 2011
Another thing is, as growth management plans move on and
priorities change, we've seen a prioritization of interest for a new
interchange for 1-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard in the
long-range transportation plans come -- become very popular recently.
And although this was in the Golden Gate Master Plan years ago,
when it was put in the Golden Gate Master Plan, it was obviously
intended to be a road and a connection to the interchange to service
the people in the Estates.
At that time there was no conception of a Rural Land
Stewardship Area, and certainly nobody considered the fact that there
might be a six-lane road put through the Estates to service 400,000
people that would come in future developments.
These changes have directly affected the expectations of
residents, property owners, and the activities of commercial
investment groups and existing businesses out in the Estates.
I think there's two significant negatives to engaging in a restudy
at this time. One of them is I'm afraid that there might well be an
unintended consequence of a restudy of creating additional economic
uncertainty in the Golden Gate Estates area, both to residential and
commercial.
I think the restudy will almost certainly delay investment groups
considering these shopping centers due to the uncertainty in the plan
for commercial zoning in the Estates.
Who among those investors will be willing to commit the
hundreds of millions of dollars necessary when changes to the Growth
Management Plans are unknown?
What grocery stores, such as Publix or otherwise, would be --
commit to going into a proposed shopping center when they don't
know what their commercial competition would likely be once a
restudy would be complete.
One thing that we do know is, in a restudy, the likelihood is that
there would be more commercial in the Estates. I don't think anybody
Page 273
January 25, 2011
would rely on the possibility there would be less.
I think the plan will delay projects and the economic investment
jobs and stimulus to the Estates for the three-plus years of the study,
and it could well delay job availability and goods and services that
could help reinvigorate the Estates' housing market, which has the
worst foreclosure, of course, in Collier County.
I think after all the things we've been through in recent years, the
residents and the investors deserve to know what they can count on. I
don't think that we need another three years of uncertainty right at this
time.
I think a second negative for you to consider is the effect that -- I
think there's bad timing for a restudy relative to the 2012 election
that's coming up. Politicizing the planning process, I don't think,
could possibly yield good results. I do not know what Commissioner
Coletta's intention is, but it doesn't really make any difference whether
he seeks to continue his service or whether others are running.
I think to have the Golden Gate Master Plan review taking place
during a period of time where there's an election in place is -- I think --
I think the time frame is clearly inappropriate.
My recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, to
carefully evaluate the situation and ask what the need being it -- that's
being addressed by a restudy at this time. What is the need that would
be addressed?
I think you should reexamine the recent data and analysis
presented to you by both staff and applicants of recent plan
amendments. Recall that staff presented data that the existing and
proposed commercial space, if these two developments go through,
would exceed the demand at build-out according to planning models.
Take that into consideration.
Unless there's an agenda from somewhere to fundamentally alter
the rural residential concept for Golden Gate Estates as a community,
I think, with the plan amendments we have, that we do, indeed, have a
Page 274
January 25, 2011
viable and working plan. But I do think we need to begin following
the plan and let the -- let the amendments that are under consideration
develop and go forward.
What Golden Gate Estates and Collier County needs right now is
a little bit of stability. I hope you'll review the data and seriously
consider the negative aspects of starting a restudy at this particular
moment.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Nance?
MR. NANCE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment. You
absolutely floored me. I thought you were going to be an advocate for
this beyond anything that was out there. That's fine.
To be honest, I agree with you. I don't think there's any need to
do it right now. If anything, we can consider it the next budget cycle
for the following year. I'm not in a hurry, but when I've been
attending the meetings before in the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association, and Mark Strain, talking to him a -- many months ago, it
was always this talk about the need of doing the master plan.
And so your approach about maybe it's not needed now, I'm not
about to argue with you on it. I know it's a budget consideration. I
only want to do it if I'm going to get the buy-in of many, many people
out there. It's not something I want to force down anybody's throat.
MR. NANCE: Well, let me tell you why --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But as far as the election cycles
go, I mean, I can tell you something; this would be a tremendous drag
on anyone during an election cycle.
MR. NANCE: I know. I really do not -- you know, I love my
community. You know I've been here as an advocate many, many
times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know.
MR. NANCE: I love my community. I would hate to spend
Page 275
January 25, 2011
three years under a situation where there was anything influencing
whatsoever.
I think it's deserving, when we do get around to a restudy, to have
a full thorough study. I think Mr. Bosi's laid it out. I think we need to
do that. I think we need to go through it from top to bottom.
But right now -- and you're correct. I was an advocate for a
restudy. When we started going through these plan amendments, we
talked about significant plan amendments. And I thought, you know,
before we start this, maybe we should re-study this thing, but now
we're kind of down the road.
BCC has supported the development at Randall. I think it has
wide support. I think it's going to meet the needs out there. You
know, I'm, frankly, surprised that some of the commercial businesses
in town haven't objected to a lot of discussion about developing
businesses in the Estates, because I think they are needful of the
30,000 people in the Estates shopping at existing businesses. I've been
surprised we haven't gotten some feedback about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Nance, I appreciate very
much your input. And as far as I'm concerned, my motion would be --
is to not to do it at this time, to consider it again next year. That
would be the motion that I would make. But I have -- I'm sorry.
Meeting's back to you, sir. Commissioner Hiller's the next one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you're out of order.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Who, Tim Nance
or me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, him.
MR. NANCE: I guess I'm usually out of order.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thanks, Tim.
MR. NANCE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you the last public speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Mr. Nance is not only the last speaker to
this; he's the last registered speaker on the agenda.
Page 276
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right.
MR. NANCE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Mr. Nance.
The -- it's your district. You tell me what you want to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm completely floored by this.
I expected there was a tremendous amount of support. But hearing
Tim Nance, who was one of the biggest supporters for doing this, at
this point in time I'm in agreement with him. I'm not going to force
something down people's throats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, from a practical standpoint,
the -- taking the review period from the time when we first appointed
the committee and using that as the time for the review probably is not
a good thing to do. We probably should have taken the time from the
time the master plan was originally produced, and that results only in
about what, six, seven years?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, 2004, right?
MR. NANCE: My point, though, ladies and gentlemen, is just
that we've had significant --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Use the mike, Tim.
MR. NANCE: My point was that through the amendment
process we've really changed the master plan significantly if we can
allow it to happen. I'm hopeful that somebody like a Publix is going to
go in there and say that they want to go ahead and push ahead and that
we can get something started out there.
But what I would hate to do is say, okay, we're going to restudy,
you know, the whole Growth Management Plan for the area and have
Publix go, you know, well, gee, you know, I'm not going to commit
going in there when I don't know what's going to come out of this
study. How can I -- you know, and the developers are going to do the
same. They're going to take their cards and they're going to put them
over on the table and say, hey, you know, we don't really know where
this is going. I would hate to see that happen after all the deliberation
Page 277
January 25, 2011
we've put into it up till now.
Same thing with 1-75. You know, people think that some people
are against it. I'm not against it. I'm really in favor of doing the right
thing out there. But I think it would be inappropriate to restudy the
Golden Gate Master Plan until we figure out are we going to get an
interchange, where's it going to be, where the road's going to be, and
how that's going to affect what goes on out there. I think that's going
to be very, very important in the end.
So I don't know that we can restudy something now when we've
got so many things under development that are uncertain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. NANCE: I'm sorry for taking so much time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller was next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'd like to say that I received
an email from Mr. Teeters, who is an important member of the
community, very active and very thoughtful about the development
out there, and his sentiments echo yours, Mr. Nance. In fact, his
conclusion was, "I wanted to compose my feelings and communicate
them with you. I've spoken with staff as well. Just because people
want to change the GGAMP through Growth Management Plan
amendments, that doesn't mean the plan is broken," and I would have
to agree, and I think your comments were well made.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What do you want to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just made a motion that we do
not approve going forward with this this time and possibly review it
the next budget cycle.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You okay? You already spoken?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I haven't. The Golden Gate
Area Master Plan encompasses two districts, and I agree with Mr.
Page 278
January 25, 2011
Nance's analogy. In the area of Golden Gate City, there is ample
commercial out there, and to add more, potentially more, you're only
going to create blight and uncertainty for commercial owners.
So, yeah, I -- I'd like to not do anything, I mean, not even
consider this, even for the next budget, because when it needs to be
considered is when those -- the things that -- that are in the Growth
Management Plan are implemented, like the shopping center at
Wilson. And we need to wait for the public to fill those vacant homes
out there so we know what the effect is of their needs before even
moving forward.
So I think we're a long way away before we need to restudy it, in
my opinion. I would just rather not even approve this item and don't
even consider bringing it back for the next budget unless the board
feels comfortable that those homes will become, you know, filled.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we then reject the staffs
recommendations and suggest that it be brought back at a future date
based upon --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Community.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- the board's request?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine with that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That way the community will
approach you and Commissioner Henning and say, hey, we're ready to
review this thing, and then you can ask that it come before the board;
that way it doesn't place the responsibility on the staff to keep coming
back to see if the time is right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that your motion,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely. I don't have a
problem. I mean, the only reason I was going in this direction was
Page 279
January 25, 2011
because I got so much feedback over the last year and a half to do
something about it. Finally we approached that point where I figured
we'd move it forward. I mean, that's fine by me. I don't have any
problems with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what you get for listening to the
public.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, they change their
minds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It looks like it passes unanimously, okay.
Item #10B
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVED THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER CYCLE 8 ACTIVE ACQUISITION
LIST AND PROVIDE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE WITH GUIDANCE ON SUSPENDING ALL
CONSERVATION COLLIER ACQUISITIONS AND PREPARING
A MASTER PLAN TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT MANAGEMENT
FUNDS IN PERPETUITY FOR ALL EXISTING CONSERVATION
COLLIER PRESERVES - ACCEPT STAFF'S OPTION TO
SUSPEND PURCHASES EXCEPT FOR THE 4 PROPERTIES
UNDER CONTRACT-APPROVED
Page 280
January 25, 2011
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item lOB, recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approves the Conservation
Collier Cycle 8 Active Acquisition List and provide the county
manager or his designee with guidance on suspending all
Conservation Collier acquisitions and preparing a master plan to
ensure sufficient management funds in perpetuity for all existing
Conservation Collier preserves.
Ms. Len Price will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve,
but I do have a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. PRICE: Okay. And we'll ask which of the two
recommendations you're approving, because we have two options.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Staffs recommendation
-- but I want to talk about Winchester in Unit 53.
MS. PRICE: Is that where we want to start, or did you want a
listen to anything? I'm great with starting with the questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- on our agenda we have
some purchases for 53, I believe 53 in Winchester, I think the prices
are exorbitant. What was -- what was staffs recommendations not to
further go for the Winchester in Unit 53? What was the reasoning
behind that?
MS. PRICE: The reasons for not purchasing any future
properties at this point is an uncertainty as to the balance in the
maintenance -- the Land Maintenance Fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. PRICE: We've done some analysis and, frankly, we're using
a lot of crystal balls because we don't know exactly what's going to
happen, but both interest rates and property values have gone down.
We're talking about land management in perpetuity, which is a
long, long time, and so we felt like until we did a master plan to
identify all the amenities, until we have a better handle on the total
Page 281
January 25, 2011
funds, we wanted to suspend all future purchases to make sure we've
got plenty in the Land Management Fund so that we could do what we
promised the public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just one more thing. On
Winchester, which is in Golden Gate Estates, in Unit 53 that borders --
Alec, help me out here -- that is in Golden Gate Estates but is --
borders the -- what is that up there? Above Unit 53. What do they
call that land?
MS. SULECKI: The CREW lands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: CREW lands. Yes, thank you.
Which is right off Immokalee Road. Is -- we have spent quite a bit of
money in there, but we have a lot more to spend, to gather, to create
that buffer for that -- that huge, huge conservation area. And unit --
and the Winchester Head will provide storage, water storage, for
Golden Gate Estates, which is, you know, crucial.
So I think by this action, hopefully the staff will look in the
future. I think we'll see that those land prices will go down because --
I have property out there that's only worth $5,000. And I mean, it's
not as wet as the Winchester, and these are $14,000.
So I think there's -- there -- in the future there could be benefits
by suspending and taking staffs recommendation and hopefully
maybe go back--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staffs versus the advisory boards?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was led to believe the staff had a
presentation about what you needed to do with respect to maintenance
funds in perpetuity.
MS. PRICE: Well, basically, you know, we can go over all of
the documents, but what we've -- which I thought maybe you didn't
want to do.
But what we have done is identified what we consider to be very
conservative projections, and we believe that we need to have about
$30 million in the Land Management Fund by the year 2020. In order
Page 282
January 25, 2011
to do that, we would have to suspend any further purchases after the
four that are on the agenda today, based on the projections we've got
right now. Obviously that's subject to change, and for that reason we
also recommend approving the Cycle 8 acquisitions list so that, should
that change, we know what our priorities are.
We're also asking you to approve the preparation of a master plan
for developing amenities and taking care of the land management so
we've got a more clear understanding of what that's going to entail as
well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But can't you tell us how you're
going to get that Maintenance Fund established and what are the
implications with respect to certain purchasing going forward?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, we, right now, by ordinance, put
15 percent of our receipts into that fund. Over the last two years,
we've also put in additional funds from the acquisition account.
What we're proposing doing is putting all future acquisition
funds, kind of closing it out at sunset, into the Land Management
Fund, leaving it there in trust and working off of the interest in
perpetuity .
I haven't answered your question?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nope. You've got four more parcels on
this agenda alone that you want to purchase; is that right?
MS. PRICE: There are four that were under contract as we
started talking to our advisory board, and the advisory board felt, and
we agreed, that because they were under contract, we should move
forward with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, once you buy those four,
what are you going to do?
MS. PRICE: Stop purchasing land until such time as we have
strong confidence that there is sufficient funds in the Land
Management Fund and additional monies on top of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that the staffs recommendation?
Page 283
January 25, 2011
MS. PRICE: That is the staffs recommendation. The advisory
board differs from us in just one respect, and that is the purchase of
properties within the two multi-parcel areas. They feel that as those
come available, we should purchase them irrespective of the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the total cost of those purchases is
about $1.4 million?
MS. PRICE: At today's rates, yes. It's about $1.4 million if all of
them became available.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What I'm trying to get you to tell me is
something you've already got calculated.
MS. PRICE: Apologize for the lateness of the hour and the
muddiness of my brain.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Put it on the overhead and go
through this with us. Okay. That will help us make a decision about
the four properties that are on this agenda and make a decision about
Winchester Head purchases and how many we're going to do, and it
will show us what we will ultimately have for our Maintenance Fund,
right?
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, for the record, Mark
Isackson, your director of Corporate Finance.
We have, over the past couple of months, been talking with
representatives of the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee about
the relationship between the Acquisition Fund, 1 72, and the Property
Maintenance Fund, which is 174.
Your ordinance, when you created Conservation Collier, required
that 15 percent of the property taxes that were levied be moved to the
Maintenance Fund in order to begin the process of setting aside money
in order to manage these properties in perpetuity.
I will tell you this: That the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee -- and I believe it was this past year -- had recommended
that an additional amount of money, on top of the 15 percent, be
moved from the Acquisition Fund to the Maintenance Fund in
Page 284
January 25, 2011
recognition that we needed to put some more money aside in order to
maintain the properties. And we've begun that process. You've got an
eye chart there, unfortunately.
Is there a pointer there, County Manager, or -- can I -- maybe
Melissa can do that.
The question is this: And it really boils down to this. What's the
detriment if we go -- if we go and suggest that the Land Acquisition
Committee expend up to $1.4 million to go ahead and complete the
Unit 53 in Winchester Head cycles? What's the detriment in terms of
any backfill it would require from general revenues in order to
maintain properties in perpetuity, at least up and through 2025?
If you agree with the assumptions that are in this spreadsheet --
and, Commissioners, I will tell you that it is not with great confidence
that I project or that anybody on staff projects out what's going to
happen through 2025, both in terms of interest rates and what we think
the amount of money that will be moved from 1 72 to 174 is.
But under that scenario, you will have a backfill requirement of
roughly $21,000 if you go ahead and authorize or -- as these properties
within Unit 53 in Winchester Head become available over time.
That's based on this analysis at the interest rates that are suggested in
this spreadsheet.
Does that help you?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. And that is not a big risk over that
period of time, right? Particularly since your interest rates in the early
time are relatively low; is that right?
MR. ISACKSON: I worry about the interest rates in the
outyears, Commissioner, more so than what we have right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, yeah. You know, they're -- you're
projecting 3.25 percent in the outyears and one-and-a-half percent,
maybe 1.5 -- well, 1 percent and then 1.5 percent in the early years.
That looks like a pretty safe bet to me.
MR. ISACKSON: There are a lot of variables that obviously can
Page 285
January 25, 2011
come into play here over the course of time. But, you know, at this
point in time the -- what staff gets concerned about -- and this is
something that I made commentary to at the Coastal Advisory
Committee -- is the fact that you don't want to run the risk of dipping
into your General Fund reserves when the time comes when you have
to maintain these properties at some point in time.
Now, I think the decisions that we make -- I mean, we have an
opportunity, at least at this point, to be fiscally conservative. That was
why we had made the suggestion to stop the acquisition, minus the
four properties.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'd just make one other comment, and
then you can either confirm or deny it, and then we'll go to some other
. .
commISSIoners.
Would this make the advisory committee and the staff reasonably
comfortable if we went with this proposal?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the advisory -- with the staff
proposal?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The staff proposal is to essentially
complete the four items that are in our packet tonight, to spend up to
$1.4 million for Winchester Head, and then keep the remaining money
for the main- -- buildup of the Maintenance Fund until the expiration
of this program in 2013.
MR.OCHS: 2013 is when--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: 2013. And there's already talk about
extending it. So if you're basing it upon an -- a termination date of
2013 with the assumptions you've made, it looks like you've made a
reasonable -- you've reached a reasonable conclusion here.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, there's some doubt. I can see
doubt in your eyes.
MR. OCHS: I need to first correct. When you said, is the staff
Page 286
January 25, 2011
comfortable with this recommendation, I thought you meant with the
staff recommendation in the executive summary . We're obviously
comfortable with that, but that did not include moving beyond the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Winchester Head.
MR.OCHS: It did not include the multi-parcel acquisition.
Only the four that are under contract, and then stop.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. But this particular -- this
particular analysis that you have on the display --
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- includes spending the $1.4 million on
Winchester Head; does it not?
MR. OCHS: Correct, correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And even under that circumstance,
you're projecting a shortfall of $24,000 at the end of 19- -- I mean
2025.
MR.OCHS: 2025. Ifwe didn't spend that million four, then we
would be in the black for the Maintenance Fund, I believe, by 2020.
So it pushes out by five years roughly when we would be in a position
to be whole with regard to the Maintenance Fund.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: And, again, that assumes certain assumptions on
interest rates and taxable value.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who was first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She was first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to make a motion to
approve staffs recommendations as described by County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's not -- I presume that is not
this financial analysis then?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is not this one?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. They are going to prepare a
Page 287
January 25, 2011
master plan, and they're going to ensure that there are, you know,
sufficient management funds in perpetuity, and they're going to --
which ones?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here's the staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, which is exactly what I was
reading. So basically that they are going to suspend all Collier -- all
Conservation Collier acquisitions except for the four parcels currently
under contract and then basically reinstitute the program once there is
either evidence there is sufficient funds or --
MR. OCHS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- until such time the Board of
County Commissioners decides to change the motion we're making
here today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I made the motion, but
that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Makes no difference. I'll second it.
If Commissioner Henning -- yeah, if Commissioner Henning made it,
I'll second it. If I make it, he can second it. Whatever your pleasure is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion that's been
made and seconded.
Is there any other discussion? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So I wonder if you had a
situation like Commissioner Henning's where somebody owned a
piece of property and it used to be worth a lot and now all of a sudden
it's $5,000 because it's at the market's lowest. But we all know that
money is going to get better and conditions are going to improve.
So the money that we don't spend on that we've put into our
reserves to -- you know, for maintenance, and then when the property
Page 288
January 25, 2011
costs double or more, then we buy it. So we've really lost the money
we've put in reserves in the first place.
Would we be able to take advantage of some kind of a really
good buy that comes along that would be very helpful?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, you only have this levy until 2013
unless the public decides through referendum, I would imagine, again,
to reinstitute the program. So, again, we are being, admittedly,
conservative as a staff, but I'd think you'd want us to be from a
financial standpoint, knowing that you've got a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As long as we don't shoot ourselves
in the foot, Leo.
MR. OCHS: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I'm thinking.
MR.OCHS: But this is a willing-seller program, Commissioner,
and I don't know when we'll find 211 willing sellers to finish off the
multi parcels in those two --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You never can tell. Some people
are hungry. And, you know, with CREW buying all of that stuff, too
-- you know I'm on the CREW board.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So naturally I'm real concerned with
that, the conservation of all of that land that holds the water for our
future. So excuse me for being a little passionate about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got a motion. All in favor,
please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'd just like to comment to
what Commissioner Fiala said. If an opportunity were to present
Page 289
January 25, 2011
itself, then I would ask that staff bring it back to the Board of County
Commissioners, that we don't lose an opportunity if there's a really
good one out there and, obviously, a -- you know, I really appreciate
your very fiscally conservative approach and, of course, the support of
that new acquisition would have to be justified by staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I think we need to thank
Alec, who really oversees this program --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with Melissa.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They did a good job with their
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would suggest you make
Commissioner Henning an offer on his property, about $2,500--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's nowhere near.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- see what happens.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's nowhere near Winchester.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Offer 10, and we'll disclose the
conflict.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, if I understand correctly, you went
ahead and approved the Cycle 8 Acquisition List for the -- in case
things change, and you've directed us that if a very good deal comes to
us and the advisory board thinks that we should move forward with it,
to bring it to you under separate cover and for you to decide at that
point. And then we'll move forward with the master plan, and if
anything changes we'll bring that to you as well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As long as it doesn't financially
compromise the support of the existing projects and that that new
project can also be financially supported in terms of maintenance.
MR.OCHS: Understood.
Page 290
January 25, 2011
MS. PRICE: Absolutely. And at this point we probably won't
move forward with a Cycle 9 unless things change.
MR.OCHS: Very good.
MS. PRICE: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Item #10C
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH A YMEE J.
JORDANA AND CARLOS R. MOLINA FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $12~000 - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10C.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'm going to support it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just want to point out
the property appraiser's valuation on this property -- of course that's a
year old -- is $8,700. I'm going to support the motion. And I think
that we can get some good deals out there later on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion passes unanimously.
Page 291
January 25, 2011
Item #10D
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH EDITH
JACKSON FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $17~000 - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: 10D is a recommendation to approve an agreement
for sale and purchase with Edith Jackson for 2.27 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to
exceed $17,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Passes unanimously.
Item #10E
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH BILL
Page 292
January 25, 2011
NAVARRO (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ISABELO V. NAVARRO)
AND LYDIA R. NAVARRO, HIS WIFE, FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $12~500 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10E is a recommendation to approve an
agreement for sale and purchase with Bill Navarro (formerly known as
Isabelo V. Navarro) and Lydia R. Navarro, his wife, 1.59 acres under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program at a cost not to
exceed $12,500.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 #10F
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MANUEL
PALACIOS AND AIDA JAUREGUI FOR 4.06 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
Page 293
January 25, 2011
PROGRAM AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $25~000 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item 10F is a recommendation to approve an
agreement for sale and purchase with Manuel Palacios and Aida
Jaugregui for 4.06 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program at a cost not to exceed $25,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion -- second. Could I find out
where Red Maple Swamp Preserve is, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's right next to CREW
lands, Unit 53.
MS. HENNIG: Where the -- oh, Melissa Hennig, principal
environmental specialist.
Where the county fairgrounds is, the extension office --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MS. HENNIG: -- out there by Immokalee Road. I think it --
what is it, 43rd, Shady Hollow?
MR.OCHS: Shady Hollow.
MS. HENNIG: Shady Hollow Drive, all the way down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 294
January 25, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, is our court reporter okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you okay? You need a little --
THE COURT REPORTER: A stretch break.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Let's take ten minutes, okay.
We'll be back at eight o'clock.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a quorum.
MR. SHEFFIELD: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #101
AWARD RFP #10-5541 TO PARADISE ADVERTISING AND
MARKETING, INC. FOR TOURISM MARKETING SERVICES
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE STANDARD
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,350,000 FOLLOWING
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE APPROVAL - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Recommendation to approve the
award of Bid RFP 10-5541, Paradise Advertising and Marketing,
Incorporated, for the tourism marketing services, and authorize the
chairman to sign standard contract amount of2,350,000 to follow--
following the County Attorney's Office approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I was just reading.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reading, reading.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. That wasn't a motion to approve?
Page 295
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Commissioner Fiala has made
a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
And go ahead with your question, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, usually we have in RFPs
the backup material for -- let's see -- in this one four firms responded,
and I didn't see that backup material.
MR. JOHNSON: Good evening, Commissioners. Mr. Chairman,
for the record, Scott Johnson, procurement strategist from your
Purchasing Department.
Commissioner Henning, Mr. Chairman, are you talking about a
bid tabulation sheet, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: On RFPs, sir, we do not include a formal bid
tabulation because there's no pricing exposed in those type of -- in
proposals. It's only for invitations to bid; however, I can -- I can lay
down the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you've got ranking then,
right?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, we do. This was not a CCNA-type
proposal for any type of engineering work, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was Commissioner Coyle one
of the ranking members?
MR. JOHNSON: No, sir, he was not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, who else was?
MR. JOHNSON: You're talking about members of the
committee, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Page 296
January 25, 2011
MR. JOHNSON: It was Mr. Wert, couple members from his
staff, Mr. French from community development, and myself as a
non-voting member.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does local preference apply to
this?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, it did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And did any of the other firms
have a local office?
MR. JOHNSON: Three of the four did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three of the four. Do you have
the outcome of the ranking?
MR. JOHNSON: I do. I can lay it on the visualizer for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Lay it on me.
MR. JOHNSON: I'll try to turn and look.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't move it.
MR. JOHNSON: The -- it's on the visualizer there. The Paradise
Marketing was ranked first. Greenfield, out of Fort Myers, was ranked
second. Matrix was East Coast as well, and Imagery was out of
Miami.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think this is important,
this information, because it shows that the selection committees were
pretty much on target with their individual recommendations that I'm
sure Commissioner Coy Ie talked to, right?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'll speak for him now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm okay.
MR. JOHNSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. County Attorney, what would be
your advice to me about being able to vote on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have no reason not to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Page 297
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're obligated to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coletta. Is there -- Commissioner Hiller has her light
on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. The reason that I pulled this
off consent was because I had a concern that a contract this size was
not presented in the agenda package. Obviously, you know, this is a
2.3 million contract as a base. Last year the total expenditures to
Paradise was $4 million.
And the way this contract is written, it potentially will go up to at
least $4 million again this year. Not including the contract to allow
both the public and the commissioners to review the information that
they are approving is problematic.
It's further problematic from the standpoint that, subsequently,
when the Clerk of Courts goes to determine the legality of an
expenditure and goes back to our record and the contract isn't included
in our record, you know, what contract is he approving to?
So I think it's very important that that be the case. The county
attorney -- I asked the county attorney if he had reviewed it, and this
was yesterday. And as of yesterday he had not seen the contract
either.
So I'm going to ask right now, have you had the opportunity to
review the contract provisions and the changes between the last
contract and this contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: And I've had Ms. Green in my office do that
while we were at this meeting, and she can answer your questions.
MS. GREENE: Yes. Good evening. For the record, Colleen
Greene, assistant county attorney.
I had the opportunity to review the Paradise contract from
October of2006 with the contract for today's agenda, October -- oh,
January of2011, and the contract terms are identical in terms of
Page 298
January 25, 2011
compensation.
There are two new provisions in the 2010 contract, and the two
provisions -- the first one is Paragraph 21 -- a dispute-resolution
provision has been added, and Paragraph 22, key personnel/project
staffing. Those are two new provisions from the 2006 agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like the county attorney's
opinion on the contract-resolution approach that's being proposed in
this contract.
MS. GREENE: Commissioner Hiller, this is a standard
dispute-resolution clause that we have in a number of our county
contracts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you find it acceptable?
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With respect to the staffing, you
said that the terms are the same. The terms in part are the same, but
with respect to the staffing, the rates have increased and the total
staffing that will be administering this project has also increased. So I
think it's important that that be disclosed.
Merely stating that it's a $2.3 million contract and the terms are
the same is not accurate.
MS. GREENE: Well, yes, Your Honor. Your Honor? Excuse
me. I'm used to being in a motion calendar. Exhibit A --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My next career maybe. No, I'm
just kidding.
MS. GREENE: -- has the hourly rates attached. I'm talking about
the terms of compensation that are provided within the body of the
contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh. Thank you very much for the
clarification.
So the reason I pulled it off consent was because the county
attorney had not reviewed it, and this very important contract that
we're approving today was not included in the package for review by
Page 299
January 25, 2011
the TDC who voted on it yesterday sight unseen, and for review -- and
for today's vote.
Fortunately it has been presented, and we've had the opportunity
to review it, so we will be able to vote on it with knowledge.
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in--
MR.OCHS: Just -- if I might real quickly, just one item of
clarification.
Commissioner Hiller's correct; she had several question on this
item, but I don't believe it was actually pulled off consent because --
MR. WERT: It was always on the regular--
MR. OCHS: Anything over a million dollars is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I apologize.
MR. OCHS: -- is on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're absolutely correct. My
mistake. It wasn't pulled off consent. It was on the regular agenda.
There were so many issues. But you're -- forgive me. You're
absolutely correct. My concern was that it wasn't included for
. .
vIewIng.
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's basically -- thank you for
correcting me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 300
January 25, 2011
MR. WERT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we move on to the next
subject, I just want to make a point. I had the opportunity to speak
with the owner of Paradise, and while he had made the donations as
we discussed earlier, he was as concerned about them as I was
because, you know, he, of course, wants to maintain the appearance of
independence, both in fact and from the perception of the public, as
well as the hospitality industry.
In fact, the donations are going to cost him more than he
anticipated because he's actually going to have to pay tax on the
money he's getting from the county and then turn around and give it
back. So it actually is costing him more than a hundred thousand.
And his suggestion -- before he had made these donations to the
county, which had been rejected, was that instead of doing it the way
it was done, rather give a discount off the contract, which I think is
really commendable on his part. And my understanding is, you know,
he would like to offer a discount off the contract equal to -- or
whatever amount he would like to discount next year in the same
fashion. And that way the Board of County Commissioners gets the
benefits of the savings and then can turn around and can vote on how
those funds will be distributed.
So I would like to commend him for his remarks and his concern
about the same issues that concerned me.
Thank you very much.
Item #10L
RESOLUTION 2011-23: RESOLUTION SEEKING AUTHORITY
TO ACQUIRE BY GIFT OR PURCHASE THOSE PERPETUAL
AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE OUTFALL 3 AND 4 SEGMENTS OF THE LEL Y AREA
Page 301
January 25, 2011
STORMW ATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to go to 10L now,
County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to adopt a
resolution seeking authority to acquire by gift or purchase those
perpetual and temporary easement interests necessary for the
construction of the stormwater improvements of the Outfall 3 and 4
segments of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project,
estimated fiscal impact, $1,556,500.
Mr. Jay Ahmad will present. This is an item that was withdrawn
from your last agenda and brought back for further clarification.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the clarification primarily had to do
with the width of the easements that you were trying to get and the
fact that it might have impacted certain structures. And you're going
to give us a clearer picture of what's happening here, right?
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't we go directly to the aerial
photograph.
MR. AHMAD: Okay. I'm going to show you three slides to
answer that question, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, I'm Jay Ahmad, your director of Transportation
Engineering.
I see that Leo put, "Be brief, be brilliant, and be gone," so I'm
going to try to be those.
The first -- to answer that question directly, why are we taking
properties on the north side? The simple answer is, the canal itself
meandered to the north side and came back. And the first slide I'm
showing is the existing condition which shows you the existing canal
-- it's dashed -- and how it actually meandered to the north and came
back.
And as you see on the left, there's a lake. So we basically are
Page 302
January 25, 2011
following that -- canal footprints.
The second slide I'm showing you here is the actual easements on
the north side and the actual easements on the south sides. As can you
see from this slide, the taking on the north side, which is -- which is in
this area here, is following the existing canal. The existing canal is
there, and the slopes that we need to work in that area -- we have to go
a 4-1 slope, and we had to work on those people's property where the
canal meandered. So we had to acquire those parcels.
The third slide that I have is essentially those are -- the pink areas
are the areas that were taken. And as you can see, Mr. Chairman, the
taking on the north side is only in those areas where the canal
meandered. Almost all the taking is on the south side to build that
access roadway and also to widen the canal for the width that we need
for the flow of water.
I hope I answered your question this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, if you've got an access roadway,
what happens where you have your cursor placed?
MR. AHMAD: Oops. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oops. What happens in that blank space
there where your cursor is?
MR. AHMAD: Years ago, as the LASIP project was developed,
there were three parcels. People came to us and says, could you buy
us? And we bought them pretty cheap actually. From what I've been
told, is less than $1,000 on some of these parcels.
And so those parcels were acquired years ago, in 2001/2002.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you have an easement --
MR. AHMAD: We have acquired those parcels, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Across -- both of those parcels?
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is it an easement, or do you own the
entire parcel?
MR. AHMAD: They're actually easements to do drainage
Page 303
January 25, 2011
easements and construction of canal in those parcels.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Okay, thank you.
MR. AHMAD: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 #10M
AWARD CONTRACT NO. 11-5615, ROYAL WOOD AND
WHITAKER ROAD STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENTS TO
SOUTHWEST UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,088,170 PLUS A TEN (10) PERCENT CONTINGENCY OF
$108,817 TOTALING $1,192,987, PROJECT NUMBER 51101 -
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, 10M is a recommendation to
award Contract No. 11-5615, Royal Wood and Whitaker Road
stormwater improvements, to Southwest Utility Systems,
Page 304
January 25, 2011
Incorporated, in the amount of$1,088,170 plus a 10 percent
contingency of$108,817, totaling $1,196,987.
Mr. Ahmad will present.
MR. AHMAD: Once again, good evening, Mr. Chairman. Jay
Ahmad, for the record.
This is a good story actually. This is a building of the LASIP
projects. The map I have on the display is the status of the LASIP
projects, 30 of them. And we've completed to date -- we're in progress
of building the 13th, and now we're bringing before you the 14th and
15th projects, and those projects I'm putting my cursor on, along
Whitaker and down to Royal Wood.
And essentially those contracts were bid out, and we received
eight bids. One of the bids was deemed by our Purchasing
Department not responsive and was higher than actually the highest
bid.
And we're recommending that you award the contract to South
Utility Systems for the amount of 1,088,170 plus the 10 percent for
unforeseen contingencies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Page 305
January 25, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you very much.
MR.OCHS: Thanks, Jay.
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that take us to Item ION on your
agenda, was formerly 16D8. It's a recommendation to approve the
renewal of the Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreement between the
independent municipal and dependent fire districts. This item was
moved off consent agenda --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's skip to P.
MR.OCHS: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning's request. We'll
come back, because Commissioner Henning -- Hiller requested those
two, Nand O.
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry.
Item #10P
AWARD CONTRACT NUMBER 11-5625 TO VACCARO
CONSULTING, INC. FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AND
PLANNING ASSISTANCE - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Item lOP is a recommendation to award Contract
No. 11-5625 to Vacarro Consulting, Incorporated, for consulting
services and planning assistance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just real quick, it -- the item
shows that work orders at 100,000 per increment can be let under this
contract, but it didn't say what the fiscal impact was. And just a brief
explanation.
MR. BELLONE: Sure. Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Joe Bellone, manager of utility billing customer service.
For these particular services on demand, I have in my FY11 work
Page 306
January 25, 2011
plan four projects, and I've budgeted $100,000 in the capital projects
to support these -- to support these four proj ects as I've identified them
in the bottom of the first page of the executive summary.
It's budget that -- the expenditures are budget constrained. I don't
expect that anyone particular project would cost that much, but I just
wanted to let you know in the executive summary that if anyone
project did get large enough, I would bring it back to the board.
But the entire budget for FY11 for those four projects is
$100,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- and you see this
could be a multiple-year contract?
MR. BELLONE: It's actually a two-year contract --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two-year.
MR. BELLONE: -- with two one-year renewals would be
written into the contract. That's the way the bid went out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good. Well, I'm going to
make a motion to approve, and I appreciate your clarification on this
item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta for approval.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed -- any opposed, by like
.
sIgn.
Page 307
January 25, 2011
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #10N
RENEWAL OF THE INTERLOCAL MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT, MUNICIPAL AND
DEPENDENT FIRE DISTRICTS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, we go back to Item ION.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Again, that's a recommendation to approve the
renewal of the Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreement between the
independent municipal and dependent fire districts.
This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request. Would
you like a presentation, Commissioner, or--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. OCHS: -- do you have a specific question?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'd like a presentation, and I
think the public needs to understand that we have these interlocal
agreements so that communities that don't -- given the disparity in the
level of assets between, you know, the various communities, that
notwithstanding these interlocal agreements, allow these different
agencies to work together when there's a problem without the need of
an agency that has lesser funds to raise taxes and, you know, buy all
the equipment when somebody else already has it.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Summers?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, thank you.
For the record, Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of
Emergency Services and Emergency Management.
Chief McLaughlin could not be with us this evening.
Just to couch this for you just a little bit, since -- since the
Page 308
January 25, 2011
inception of fire service and mutual aid, essentially, there has always
been a driving force for what's referred to as the Interlocal Mutual Aid
Agreement.
In my tenure that -- since I'm aware, this agreement was -- its
original format was dated and signed in 2000. It was updated in 2008,
and now we're here again updating that. And that does allow for fire
services to work together not only in-county, but we also have a series
of agreements that allow us to work for resources coming into the
county if we need it from Lee or from the region, et cetera, and vice
versa.
I will tell you that one of the reasons -- business reasons for this
being updated periodically, number one, is that we have tools at our
disposal, such as computer-aided dispatch, we have new legal terms,
we have new definition by state statute, and also we have new ratings
in -- from our insurance service organization, ISO ratings, in which
part of that Mutual Aid Agreement is a rating factor.
This is equally important in our routine operations as well as we
approach upcoming wildfire season, so that if we do have a disaster
declaration of such a fashion in wildfire or under the Stafford Act, that
this is one of the things that FEMA will make sure is in place as one of
the contingencies for our reimbursement; however, this agreement is
not a reimbursable. This is our ongoing assistance to our neighbors, if
you will, for significant emergencies or high-risk responses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I commend the spirit of
cooperation.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
Page 309
January 25, 2011
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 #100
ANNUAL FIVE PERCENT (5%) INCREASE IN CONSULTANT
FEES FOR THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES AS DESCRIBED IN THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES MEDICAL CONSULTANT CONTRACT
FORA TOTAL OF $110,775 FORFY11-MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to -- don't go away,
Dan -- 100. It's a recommendation to approve the annual 5 percent
increase in consultant fees for the medical director of Emergency
Medical Services as described in Emergency Medical Services
Medical Consultant Contract for a total of$110,775 for fiscal year 'II.
This item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The reason I moved this is because
when I reviewed the contract, I really had some concerns.
I was trying to get an understanding of who exactly the contract
was with. Was it with Dr. Tober individually? Was it with Dr.
Page 310
January 25, 2011
Tober's consulting firm? You know, what was the relationship with
respect to Dr. Lee? You know, was there -- I mean, it just -- it really
wasn't flowing.
I was concerned about the liability because of the lack of clarity
of who the contracting party was and, to that end, what the insurance
coverage was and to what amount, and whether we can even insure a
vendor, if you will, ifhe is a vendor. And I can't tell ifhe's a vendor or
an employee.
So I started looking into this, and I found that while the contract
is in Dr. Tober's name, the payments are made to his nonprofit, and
he's described as a consultant, but he's also treated as the county's
employee, medical director.
And then I started having some real concerns when I could not
find any occupational license for Dr. Tober as a physician or Dr.
Tober as a consultant and when I found that the corporation that the
checks were being made out to was inactive.
So I guess my first threshold question is, how did this get through
purchasing? How is purchasing authorizing payments when we have
a -- I mean, we don't even know -- we have an inactive corporation.
We have a corporation that's being paid when the contract is with an
individual, an individual who is not, I mean, licensed to do business
here in Collier County. And, of course, I'd like the county attorney to
go into the record and double-check what I've determined.
So as it stands, I really couldn't possibly approve this contract in
light of the issues that I've identified.
And then I want clarification on the scope of liability, because I
don't really know who we're contracting with and what for. And, you
know, what kind of insurance are we providing and to whom?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, I can address the insurance
issue. We review this routinely with our Risk Management
Department.
Jeff Walker is not here. I wasn't prepared to bring him here for
Page 311
January 25, 2011
that particular question; however, there are provisions that our -- that
we make within our Emergency Medical Services policy. The medical
director is clearly part of that under the auspices of the board.
So that particular risk management concern I'm very, very
comfortable with, but I'm sure you would like to hear further from Jeff
Walker --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would.
MR. SUMMERS: -- on our insurance coverage for that. And we
routinely review that with him.
I -- in terms of your other corporate and business affiliation of
Dr. Tober, I am not prepared to answer that today. Now, we have
been doing business routinely with that. I cannot address how
physicians list themselves as corporates or business entities. I don't
know that particular portion of the law as it relates to a practicing
physician.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I can appreciate that, I mean
-- but the bottom line is, this contract can't be approved in light of
these questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, what is your take on
this? How did it get by your review, if it's not --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a 2001 contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a2001 contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: The issue -- it's late -- my brain turns to
mush after a while, and it's late in the night. But my understanding is,
the issue here is whether or not we're doing the 5 percent increase
that's called for in this ten-year-old contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, Commissioner Hiller may make a
point that we may need to update this contract at this point in time.
But Dr. Tober's not here for me to answer questions.
Page 312
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Should we continue this and allow
Dr. Tober to answer? Because, again, we have to be able to -- I mean,
this contract has to be with someone who can do -- who's licensed to
do what he's been doing.
And, you know, like I said, we've got the occupational license
issues, an inactive corporation. I mean, there are so many issues here.
I really don't know how we could possibly vote on this.
MR. PAGE: Commissioner, I had also heard this rumor about
his corporation not being active. And I can tell you that he consulted
his attorney, and it is. So I'm not sure where you're getting that
information, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I actually got it from the Finance
Department. Crystal?
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel with the Finance
Department.
In conjunction with the contract for Dr. Tober, I looked on the
Division of Corporations, and it had inactive from 1985. But, again,
we didn't have time to research anything beyond that either, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, tell me -- I don't understand this.
Why do you people come in here with these allegations and then you
say, oh, I haven't had time to research it. Before you go public with
statements that impact a person's employment and their reputation,
why don't you bother to get something definitive?
You know, it looks to me like the Clerk's Office is feeding Ms.
Hiller information that she can use to attack whoever you decide to
attack at any point in time. And if you're going to do that, for
goodness sakes, do a decent job of research. Don't come in and just
throw a hand grenade in the room and then walk off and, say, well, I
really haven't had any chance to really verify this.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Coyle, let me address that,
because that was not our intent. We responded to a question from
Commissioner Hiller, which we willingly respond to questions. And
Page 313
January 25, 2011
beyond that, based on the timing, we only have so much time to
research those questions also. So we normally do due diligence, and
this was brought to our attention also.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I will say that what was
done by finance is the extent of the research necessary.
I have a check here made to Robert Tober, Inc., and I have a
document from the Division of Corporations that says Robert Tober,
Inc., was involuntarily dissolved. It's, you know, inactive. So, I mean,
I'll introduce this into the record.
And then as far as, you know, research, there are some emails on
here. Like, I guess this has been an open issue for some time.
And the reason this came up is because I wanted to know if, you
know, we were doing business with his consulting company or if we
were doing business with him individually and what the relationship
to Dr. Lee was.
And it's my duty to ask these questions. I'm going to basically
enter the copy of the check made out to his corporation and what the
Division of Corporate Records shows. And you're welcome to search
the county's records for occupational licenses. I hope you can find it.
And I'm here to raise questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question. Have we been
giving raises to any of our employees?
MR.OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Last year?
MR.OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I just felt a little uncomfortable.
Being that we're not giving any of our own employees raises, I just
thought maybe we shouldn't be giving anybody raises. But I'm just
throwing that on the table.
MR. PAGE: Commissioner, if I could. Last year he didn't
receive the raise. I mean, he voluntarily gave that up. This year he
Page 314
January 25, 2011
has utilized Dr. Lee a lot more, and he's utilizing his funds not only to
pay for Dr. Lee, but he also does some charitable work. He's sending
a student through nursing school, things of that nature. So it offsets
his costs for that.
But I'm sure that if I go back and tell him that that's something
that he shouldn't pursue, he won't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's just my opinion. I'm
just throwing that on the table, only because nobody else has gotten
one, but that's for the other commissioners to discuss.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if I could, don't try to discourage
him from doing something for some student. Don't try to discourage
him from doing good things.
MR. PAGE: I'm not, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, what we should do is have him
come in and confront the people who are making these accusations
and implying that he's doing something wrong. So I think we need to
do more of that, rather than letting these things just be thrown out
there to tarnish people's reputations.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we continuing this issue?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we should.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. OCHS: To the next meeting, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I don't care.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue till the next
meeting, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify --
Page 315
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My light is on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I asked you if there was any further
discussion, so go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make sure everyone
understands. It's no intent on my part to tarnish anyone's reputation.
We need to know who we're contracting with, we need to ensure that
they're properly licensed and that everything is legal. And we just
can't approve contracts.
And, quite frankly, Purchasing ought to be doing what I did.
So thank you for bringing this back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And one way of doing that is to ask
purchasing to give you a report privately rather than just saying, hey,
this guy's -- can't be found, he's -- his company's been dissolved
involuntarily . You know, this is just rotten stuff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we could just do some of
those things behind the scenes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just going to say the same
thing, to reach out and try to reach that person and be able to say,
what's the story on this? This is what I've found. That would be the
easiest way to go, rather than to come here, and then we don't have the
person in the room, we can't ask the question. We're completely
stymied.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, the person could be here.
You were the ones who wanted to carry this meeting through to this
time. And I'll ask any questions I want any way I want.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, okay, that's obvious.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry we offended you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you didn't offend me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just making a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't -- you're not offending,
and your recommendations are always welcome. And I'll choose to
Page 316
January 25, 2011
take what I want, but I'll do it my way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess I've been told.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, you have. Don't you ever --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't have to mull that around
for long.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't you ever do that again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be careful.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, okay.
I've got to ask the question first.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 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 to continue
it.
We go to 11A.
MR. OCHS : Nothing on county attorney for 11, so we go to
12A, constitutional officers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was 11A? Itwas
Commissioner Hiller's request, but I don't see it here. Where is it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's on here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's on the agenda.
I know. I'm asking them.
Page 31 7
January 25, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: It's continued.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The -- 11A was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: To approve a schedule submission.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked this morning on the change sheet
that it be continued.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: I asked this morning on the change sheet
that it be continued.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
Item #12A
AMEND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT TO INCLUDE AUDIT SERVICES IN
THE DEFINED SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED AND
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THESE SERVICES FOR THE
REMAINDER OF FY11 IN THE AMOUNT OF $263,300 AND
APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're going to go to 12A?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation to amend the
interlocal agreement with the Clerk of the Circuit Court to include
audit services in the defined scope of services to be provided and to
provide funding for these services for the remainder of fiscal year' 11
in the amount of $263,300 and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have nothing to hide, and I
welcome the clerk to audit the board's and county manager's agency,
so I'm going to make a motion to approve.
Page 318
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #13A1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FY2010 ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REVIEW FOR THE BA YSHORE
GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-
APPROVED (DIRECTOR WAIVED MERIT PAY)
MR.OCHS: Takes us to 13A1, sir, on your agenda, Community
Redevelopment Agency. You need to hand the gavel to the chair for
this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: This is a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Should I hit you with that or -- oh, this.
MR. OCHS: It's the Community --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA meeting is in session.
MR.OCHS: -- Redevelopment Agency FY2010 Annual
Performance Appraisal Review for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
CRA executive director.
Page 319
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve. And I just want to point out the executive director
voluntarily waives his annual merit pay --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and provisions under the
employment contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this is the second or third year
he has done that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: At least the second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, the Immokalee CRA
director has done likewise.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, and the Immokalee director.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And by the way, David, you've done a
great job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You have. Isn't that worth more
than a raise?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you were here, we could pat you on the
back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to double your raise
next time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it was zero this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. You have
done a good job. You've received our evaluations, you've received
our letters. We do appreciate what you've done, and I've observed,
and in your evaluation, that more has been accomplished in the CRA
since you've been there then at any point in time during the existence
of the CRA.
Page 320
January 25, 2011
So you're to be commended. You've done a wonderful job. And
I make a motion we approve the performance --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- rating as it's contained in the
packet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any further discussion?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was from before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the CRA meeting is ended.
Item #14A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And that brings us to public
comments.
MR. MITCHELL: We've just -- we've one registered speaker,
Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: Good evening, Commissioners. I know it's late. I'll
be very brief.
I didn't get an opportunity to sign up for 9B, which is the issue
related to the donation back to the county. And this is all about public
Page 321
January 25, 2011
perception. I'm a member of the public. You represent us. I'm not
able to go to lunch with any of you and buy you a cup of coffee, and
there's a reason for that, and I appreciate it. I respect all of you. I
know you have hard jobs.
Couple years ago you had a rezone called Coconilla. At that
point there was a donation of a million dollars made for beach access
and some land. And while the public will benefit from that greatly,
from that donation, it was the perception.
In the Naples Daily News -- I can bring you the article where
they say that's a -- that's a road that you may not want to go down,
granting rezones for dollars.
Okay. You also had a settlement agreement with Cocohatchee
Bay up in my area again. There was $3 million given for the bridge,
and there was $3 million given for affordable housing. I support both
of those. They're important issues. But, again, it was the way that it
came into the agreement.
So I just want to ask that we really take into consideration your
ethics rules. I don't think it's right to grant a contract and then allow
somebody to give you money back. That's my comment to that.
The second thing is, Dr. Tober, Inc. The very first thing one does
-- I'm not a lawyer, but I'm an accountant, and I need to know who my
clients are. The very first thing you do is you go to the Division of
Corporation and you check on that corporation. It's -- it is the
standard issue.
And if one sees something administratively dissolved, then you
stop and say, what entity am I dealing with?
So, please, don't attack each other for trying to get information.
It's very important to contracts for this county, for anyone who's
dealing with.
The last thing I wanted to say is, I don't need to defend any of
you, and I do respect you, but today, as a citizen watching what's
going on, everybody has to slow down, I guess the word is "behave,"
Page 3 22
January 25, 2011
and respect each other, let everybody ask questions.
I really appreciate all of you when you ask your questions on any
matter, and I don't care if it's a three-day meeting. I just know that
there's a reason why you're asking it. You're educating yourself.
You're getting the answers.
So please allow each and every one of you to take time, ask
questions, keep doing what you're doing. And at the end of the day
you-all have to work together. I'm not your parent, but I am the
public, and try to find a way to be good to each other. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Staff and general -- and
commission general communications.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I should start with
the county manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you should always start
with the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
County Manager's going to tell us he doesn't have anything.
MR.OCHS: Well, let's see. No, I don't have anything, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I had several things, and I'm
sure Commissioner Coletta will outdo me, but I'm going to waive
those and just tell you an observation.
Page 323
January 25, 2011
A couple boys seem to be very upset about comments. When
you -- when we get upset, it just appears that that person has control of
your motions or your emotions, and there might be a better way to not
allow anybody to control your feelings.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I have two
things. One, I received an email from Mike Brennan who informed
me that Senator Marco Rubio is looking for a local office in either
Naples or Fort Myers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Give him your office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I was going to give
him yours. But the action that I'd like to see is direct the chair to work
with the county manager to draft a letter to the Senator Rubio staff as
to what is available space within the Collier County Government
facility.
It would be absolutely wonderful to have that man within Collier
County, his office within Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you remember -- you know
down at the end of this hall where there's that doorway that nobody
ever goes in?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The ladies room?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you remember years ago -- yeah,
between the ladies' and men's room actually down there. And one of
the representatives had that office. And what was her name? And she
sat in that office. It's just like a closet or something, but that was their
office for a while. Why can't I remember her name?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would just like--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Strong Republican.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- leave it to the county manager
and the --
Page 324
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and our chairperson to see if
they can find something. And if so, draft a letter --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to their staff to let them know
that it's available and we'd welcome him in Collier County. No, I
didn't even know. They use it for what, a broom closet now, don't
they?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think so, the storage closet now,
yeah.
I wish I could remember her name. Darn it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other thing I'd like to
address is the issue regarding county commissioners' projects
requiring research that involves a large block of staff time. The
utilization of county resources and staff other than routine questions or
maintenance requests should be routed through the county manager --
we all understand that -- or for legal matters through the county
attorney. The utilization of county resources and staff should be
authorized only for projects that serve a paramount public purpose for
Collier County, and no new projects should be assigned to county --
assigned to county staff unless approved and prioritized by at least
three votes of the Collier County Commission.
Years ago, if you remember, going back about probably nine
years ago, Commissioner Henning was all over me for misuse of the
county staff. He said that I was dragging them to too many meetings;
I was monopolizing their time. And so we came up with some
working rules to bring Commissioner Coletta, young Commissioner
Coletta, under control.
I do think we need to be able to put something into effect so we
know that the working rules that are out there, something that we can
all live with, not to be able to stymie anyone, but to be able to make
sure that we don't have carte blanche to all staffs time to the point
Page 325
January 25, 2011
where, you know, they can't get their work done.
And I'd like us to direct the county attorney to come back with
something in the way of an ordinance. You there, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Yeah, I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: An ordinance or a resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever works to be able to
give us some sort of guidelines on how we should use county staff and
when we should come forward, you know, what would be the guiding
lines with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Being a seasoned commissioner
as you are, I don't understand -- you should know everything about the
county. I don't know why you would need any staff time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't, to be honest with you.
They come to me now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he needs remedial training
anyway, so I would support his motion. You got three nods.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm sorry. Did we get three nods
on the prior item from Commissioner Coletta about offering the office
space? I didn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I know I did. How about
you? Anybody?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I said give him
Commissioner Coletta's office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if that doesn't work--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If that doesn't work --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- okay. He wanted me to write a
letter, I think, work with you to determine what is possible, so --
MR.OCHS: Available.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't have a problem doing that. I'm
Page 326
January 25, 2011
not going to give him my office.
MR.OCHS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You might find something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's for me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Two things, please. Mine are
simple.
We got this little book today, children's book, and I was
wondering if it would be all right with everyone if -- my -- both of my
Kiwanis clubs are involved in books for children's efforts. One of
them is called RIF, Reading is Fundamental, and the other one -- I
can't remember what we call that one. But would you let me donate
this to that reading program for children?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did we receive that book as a
gift?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to give you $10 to pay
for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it was from the people -- and I
don't know how to get it to them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I'm sure we can
check back on the records. We can find out who it is. Here's the $10
to purchase it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's nice. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're giving Commissioner
Fiala a gift?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Coyle took it already.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I short-stopped it. This is a gift--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is why he lives in Port
Page 327
January 25, 2011
Royal, and I live in Golden Gate Estates. No paved roads there either.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think since -- if I may say, I think
-- since the book was given to the five commissioners, if you take the
price, divide it by five, I'm sure it would come under $4 for each of us,
so I don't know that you actually would have to give $10 to pay for
that book.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think it's worth $10.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's worth -- personally I
think it's worth more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal knows --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: A lot more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who is that -- you could get this to
that girl, couldn't you?
MS. KINZEL: Sure. That was -- Hailey Lam (phonetic) was the
coordinating student for the program.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the other thing was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The book is $17.99.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Somebody come up with
the other -- $7.99.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We'll all chip some money
in. I don't have a purse.
MS. KINZEL: Actually, I don't have a receipt, so maybe not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- the next thing is, Tallahassee
trip is -- so you want to just leave it here then instead of donating it to
the kids?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I just was getting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You know, if you wanted to, you could
put it in the entrance of the office. The public could look at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's a gift to the public, or put it in the
li brary.
Page 328
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yeah, because it says
property of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Whoops. Making a gift to a library.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh my goodness.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Never mind. I'm going on to
Tallahassee trip. I've got a -- the Legislative Days is coming up, and
you -- and me, as your now board member for F AC, I am going up
there to do this, but I need permission -- I think that's how I say it. I
need permission to go or permission to spend the money for an
airplane trip or something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. That doesn't come out of
your budget. It comes out of F AC budget. That's just normal
operating business. I mean, it's not something that -- I don't know how
that works in the -- someone help me. I know it doesn't appear in our
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He needs staffhelp.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's not normally something that
comes out --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have a budget line that allows us to
pay a certain amount of expenses, but it's -- like everything else with
our budget, it's severely constrained, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this is F AC money, right?
MR. MITCHELL: It is, yeah. So we'll take as much as we can
out of that budget line, and then the rest we will take --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take it out of Commissioner
Coletta's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We found a really good rate. My
aide, Sue, found a really good rate, except there was only one seat left,
and that was yesterday on this thing, but --
Page 329
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you take it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we didn't actually, because I
didn't get approval to do it, and I didn't realize I could just do it. So
we've probably lost that. I was worried about it costing a couple
hundred dollars more.
So -- but anyway, we did that. And then -- I have to go up the
night before so I can start the next morning, so I have to leave after
our commission meeting and get to the airport there, and -- but then
the next night I can stay overnight -- I'll have to say that night, but the
next night I can stay with my daughter-in-law, so that's -- there will
only be one night expense as well.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, this is for what, just the F AC
meeting?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's for Legislative Days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: F AC is having their Legislative
Days.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, there are -- there are more
than one commissioner who's going up there--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm planning to go. I'm driving.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Why don't you and
Commissioner Hiller go up together. You can drive up and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Leo, since there's more than one
commissioner going to Tallahassee, would it be prudent to notice that
we're going on a fact-finding mission so that there isn't any question
that there's any Sunshine violations? Would you take care of doing,
you know, whatever sort of noticing is required?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I doubt it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or what would you do? I mean,
how would you probably notice that?
Page 330
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't go.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, you can go. Just -- if you're going
to see a legislator, just see them separately.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure that
there's no perception of any --
MR. KLATZKOW: No. Typically what we would do is if we
had two commissioners, one would go one direction and the other
would go the other direction. They make the rounds separately that
way so they could have free discussions with the legislators.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so we -- how many commissioners
do we have going up?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm planning to go.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, and
Commissioner Hiller, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hiller, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we've got three
commissioners going up there. We really do need to -- or we should
advertise it. You'll recall that we have a suit against us right now
because two commissioners went to Bar Harbor, Maine, and were not
even in the same room at the same time, and we're being sued. So
even -- even publicly noticing that isn't apparently going to protect us
from the nut cases out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need to consult with your
attorney, Mr. Chairman, not in the -- publicly advertised on this. It's--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Staff member -- are any staff
members going up?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need legal advice.
Page 331
January 25, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I generally go. Commissioners, the
way we do this is you individually meet with the legislators. You're
never in the same room talking with them, so there's no meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Don't travel together.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we eat lunch -- you just have pizza
together. I mean, this is where this starts to get silly, these rules, in the
environment we live in.
You know, I mean, if you want to completely avoid anything,
just only one of you go up, but I know it's important for you, you
know, the commissioners to be there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Commissioner Coletta's --
MR. OCHS: The question was, do we have a -- do we have a
requirement to notice?
MR. KLATZKOW: There is nothing to notice because the
public's not going to drive up to Tallahassee with us. There's no
meeting to attend.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's nothing wrong with telling the
public that three commissioners are going to be in Tallahassee.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can certainly tell them, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And by the way, Sunshine Laws
don't apply to the legislators up there. Isn't that interesting.
MR. KLATZKOW: They wrote the law, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's okay then for Sue to make
these reservations?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR.OCHS: And I'll take care of the notice, if that's what the
board wants.
Page 332
January 25, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Finished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm finished. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I would like to address your
conduct towards me, Commissioner Coyle. Since I've joined this
commission, you have been quite rude to me. You've been falsely
accusatory, you've been somewhat paranoid. Overall, pedantic. And,
quite frankly, I would like it to stop.
You -- I asked you for an apology today because you were really
over the top. You refused. Notwithstanding the fact that you're not
going to give me an apology, I'm going to forgive you for your
rudeness.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because, quite frankly, I think it's
somewhat projection, and I think it's also probably an
anger-management issue.
I've witnessed you lash out to members of the public. I've
witnessed you lash out to members of this board. I watched how you
were rude and abusive towards Commissioner Henning in the past. So
I don't take your conduct towards me personally.
I'm here to serve the public, and I will do that to the best of my
ability. I will continue to ask all the questions I feel are necessary for
me to satisfy that I have the knowledge to make an informed decision
in the best interest of the people of Collier County and my constituents
in the Second District.
So I would ask that you please stop so that we can work together
for the benefit of the community in a civilized manner. So as I said, I
forgive you, notwithstanding your rudeness towards me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Ms.
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We will see how that works out. Thank
Page 333
January 25, 2011
you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion and second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to adjourn. We are adjourned.
Oh, wait a minute. No, we're not adjourned. No, we're not adjourned.
We have a very important award to make today. Last night the
East Naples Civic Association recognized Commissioner Fiala as the
Citizen of the Year, and she was given this award. "Let it be known
by all that Donna Fiala is honored on this 24th day of January 2011,
by the East Naples Civic Association for her excellent effort and
unfailing support of the East Naples community and all of Collier
County .
"Given on behalf of the Board of the East Naples Civic
Association, Ted Beisler, president."
And do you have a -- we ought to get a photograph of her.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does anybody have a camera?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When they told me about it, I kept
crying and crying. I was making such a fool of myself. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations, old lady.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thanks, old man.
*****
* * * * Commissioner Coy Ie moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
MICHEL SAADEH OF THE VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION REQUESTED A CLARIFICATION OF V A-
PL2009-1460 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NUMBER 6 TO
Page 334
January 25, 2011
ACCEPT LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS BETWEEN A GOLF
COURSE MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND AN ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; AND TO ACCEPT LANDSCAPE
PLANTINGS THAT ARE LOCATED IN AN ABUTTING
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT INSTEAD OF ON THE REQUIRED
MAINTENANCE BUILDING PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED AT 400 VINEYARDS
BOULEVARD, AND IN CLUBSIDE RESERVE IN SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - WITH THE FEE WAIVER OF $500 FOR THE
TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Item #16A2
ADVERTISE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2006-56, THE ROCK ROAD
IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT, TO
AMEND THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE MSTU
TO REMOVE PROPERTIES THAT NO LONGER DERIVE
BENEFIT FROM THE MSTU'S STATED PURPOSE AND TO
CREATE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT
TO COUNTY STAFF AS TO FUTURE PROJECTS WITHIN THE
MSTU - DUE TO OVERGROWTH OF VEGETATION AND THE
ABILITY TO ACCESS AND TRAVEL ON ROCK ROAD
Item #16A3
DECLARE FEBRUARY 25TH, 2011 COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT'S TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY AND TO PROVIDE
COMPLIMENTARY RIDES TO ALL TRANSIT RIDERS
DURING THIS DAY - COMPLIMENTARY RIDES WILL BE
PROVIDED WITH A DISTRIBUTION OF BUS PASSES NOT TO
Page 335
January 25, 2011
EXCEED $1500 AT THE EVENT
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE REVISED FINAL PLAT OF LAKOY A,
APPROVING THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W/STIPULATIONS
Item #16A5
RESOLUTION 2011-11: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF VALENCIA PHASE ONE WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY - W/RELEASE
OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A6
RESOLUTION 2011-12: CONDITIONAL FINAL APPROVAL OF
THE ROADW A Y (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL WEST
PHASE III, UNIT SEVEN. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED -
W/RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
Page 336
January 25, 2011
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. HERBERT A. SALGAT, JR., CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD CASE NO. CESD20100002534, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3660 23RD AVENUE SW, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER HAS
ALREADY MADE PAYMENT OF $330.57 AS A GOOD FAITH
COMMITMENT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS
BEING HELD BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT
Item # 16A8
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS INTO LEL Y RESORT
FROM RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - THE
COMMUNITY HAS REQUESTED THAT THE DEVELOPER
PURSUE A TEMPORARY ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2011-13: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR THE
1996, ACCOUNT NUMBERS 19017,24167, 25933, AND 27821
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS
RECEIVED PAYMENT IN FULL SA TISF ACTION OF THE
LIENS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $58.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S:
#62761800008~#49482560006~#65121160000~#62099280002
Item # 16C2
SATISFACTION FORA CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS
Page 337
January 25, 2011
$18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOR
FOLIO #77820840004
Item # 16C3
EXECUTE AND RECORD A SATISFACTION OF A NOTICE OF
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT
FEE. FISCAL IMPACT IS $18.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOR FOLIO #77820840004
Item #16C4 - Moved to Item #10P (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D1
GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER 10235 FROM THE FLORIDA
BOATING IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM IN THE
AMOUNT OF $13,020 TO REMOVE DERELICT VESSELS; AND
APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS -
THERE ARE CURRENTLY FORTY-EIGHT VESSELS WITHIN
COUNTY THAT WILL BE OFFICIALLY DOCUMENTED AND
LEGALL Y REMOVED
Item # 16D2
REJECTED SOLICITATION (ITB) #11-5622, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT TRAILER PARKING AND REPAIR
OF THE EXISTING BOAT RAMP AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS-
WITH THE BIDDING CONTRACTOR SUBMITTING A BID 55%
OVER THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Item #16D3
Page 338
January 25, 2011
AREA AGENCY ON AGING FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.
"STANDARD CONTRACT" AND APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL GRANT A WARD
FOR THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT PROGRAM TITLE III IN
THE AMOUNT OF $934,162 - WITH THE LOCAL MATCH
REQUIREMENT OF $83,574, WHICH WAS BUDGETED
DURING THE 2011 BUDGETING PROCESS
Item #16D4
CHANGE ORDER NO.1, TO CONTRACT #08-5083 WITH
HEART OF ADOPTIONS ALLIANCE, INC. FOR DISTRIBUTION
OF CHOOSE LIFE FUNDS - INCREASING THE FUNDS FOR
ADOPTION AWARENESS ACTIVITIES BY $80~000
Item #16D5
AWARD BID NO. 11-5634 FOR DOCTORS PASS NORTH
JETTY REHABILITATION TO KELLY BROTHERS, INC. FOR
$653,200 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
THE STANDARD CONTRACT AFTER COUNTY ATTORNEY
REVIEW AND APPROVAL - FOR THE PLACEMENT OF 3,800
TONS OF ARMOR STONE AND TO REBUILD THE JETTY, AS-
BUILT SURVEYS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
MEASURES
Item #16D6
AWARD OF BID NO. 11-5637 FOR NAPLES BERM
RESTORATION TO EASTMAN AGGREGATE ENTERPRISES,
LLC FOR $946,167.20 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE STANDARD CONTRACT AFTER COUNTY
Page 339
January 25, 2011
ATTORNEY REVIEW AND APPROVAL - THIS PROJECT WILL
COMPLETE THE SECOND PHASE OF EMERGENCY
RESOLUTIONIRENOURISHMENT AS A RESULT OF WINTER
STORMS AND TROPICAL STORM FAY
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $863,854.48 IN
REVENUE GENERA TED IN THE FORM OF PROGRAM
INCOME WHEN CONVEYING PROPERTIES ACQUIRED
UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM-
FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: 5501 17TH AVENUE SW;
2820 39TH AVENUE NE; 2560 66TH AVENUE NE; 4141 47TH
AVENUE NE; 2040 46TH TERRACE SW; 2540 50TH AVENUE NE;
3765 29TH AVENUE NE; 781 GOLDEN GATE BLVD.; 3620 20TH
AVENUE NE; 5360 19TH PLACE SW; 374441 ST AVENUE NE
AND 2540 47TH AVENUE NE
Item #16D8 - Moved to Item #10N (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 2011-14: ADDING THE LOAN OPTION TO THE
457 PLAN AGREEMENTS WITH ICMA-RC AND NATIONWIDE
RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE IMPLEMENTING
RESOLUTION AND OTHER REQUIRED AGREEMENT
DOCUMENTS
Item #16E2
REJECT SOLICITATION (ITB) #10-5588 FOR THE PURCHASE
Page 340
January 25, 2011
AND DELIVERY OF FUNGICIDES, PESTICIDES AND
HERBICIDES AND THE ASSOCIATED QUOTES THAT WERE
SUBMITTED. THE ANNUAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS SOLICITATION IS APPROXIMATELY $350,000 - A NEW
SOLICITATION IS TO BE ISSUED IN ORDER TO
STREAMLINE THE ORDER AND PAYMENT PROCESS
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2011-15: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE
ACCEPTANCE OF REBATES FROM EMPLOYEE BOOK FAIRS
- THE REBATES RANGING FROM 10% TO 15% DEPENDING
ON THE COMPANY
Item #16E4
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND FOR THE USE OF MACKLE
PARK FACILITY, ROOM A, FOR A TOWN HALL MEETING
WITH COMMISSIONER FIALA - TENTATIVELY HELD ON
MARCH 30,2011 AND LOCATED AT 1361 ANDALUSIA
TERRACE~ MARCO ISLAND
Item #16F1
ACCEPT AN A WARDED VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE
MATCHING (50/50) GRANT FROM THE FLORIDA DIVISION
OF FORESTRY FOR THE PURCHASE OF REQUIRED
WILDFIRE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING AND FIREFIGHTING
FOAM, AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - FOR FIREFIGHTER SAFETY AND
FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES
Page 341
January 25, 2011
Item #16F2 - Moved to Item #100 (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16F3
CHANGE ORDER #2 FOR COMMUNICATIONS
CONSULTANTS, INC. D/B/A BCF OF FLORIDA, INC.
CONTRACT #07-4175 IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR A
NEW PUBLIC RELATIONS PROJECT TO DEVELOP AND
PRODUCE THE "JOURNEY THROUGH PARADISE"
PROMOTION - THAT WILL FOLLOW FAMED
PHOTOGRAPHER ALAN MALTZ THROUGH THE PROCESS
OF PHOTOGRAPHING COLLIER COUNTY FROM AN ART
PERSPECTIVE
Item #16F4
CHANGE ORDER #4 TO CONTRACT #06-4037 WITH MILES
MEDIA GROUP, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,588 FOR
PRODUCTION OF THE 2011 VISITOR GUIDE - FOR THE
REWRITING OF TEXT, REDESIGN OF SEVERAL SECTIONS,
NEW PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE PRINTING OF 100,000
COPIES OF THE 2011 VISITORS GUIDE
Item #16F5
CHANGE ORDER #3 TO CONTRACT #07-4169, RESEARCH
DATA SERVICES, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
PROJECTS TOTALING $25,000 FOR ENHANCED RETURN ON
INVESTMENT (ROI) REPORTING AND ADDITIONAL FOCUS
GROUP STUDIES AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR THE
CONSUMER AND GROUP MEETINGS MARKET - FOR
Page 342
January 25, 2011
ADDITIONAL EXPENSES, INCLUDING TRAVEL TO
CONDUCT NEW YORK FOR FOCUS GROUP RESEARCH,
ENHANCED RETURN ON INVESTMENT TRACKING AND
REPORTING STUDIES AND A NEW ON-LINE RESEARCH
PROJECT WITH MEETING PLANNERS RELATED TO THE
MEETINGS MARKET
Item #16F6
PREP A YMENT OF THE NAPLES PARK AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENT BOND, SERIES 1997 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $175,000; PLUS INTEREST ACCRUED - WITH
THE PREPAYMENT TAKING PLACE FEBRUARY L 2011
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION ANNUAL BANQUET ON JANUARY 24,2011
AT NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FL. $40 TO
BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- LOCATED AT 4784 INVERNESS CLUB DRIVE~ NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE OPERA NAPLES TEA WITH
LUCIA PRESENTATION ON JANUARY 12,2011 AT
BRAMBLES TEA ROOM IN NAPLES, FL. $35 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
Page 343
January 25, 2011
LOCATED AT 340 5TH AVENUE SOUTH~ NAPLES
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S PROCLAMATION
PRESENTATION TO THE NAACP FOR THEIR 14TH ANNUAL
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., PARADE AND
CELEBRATION. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COLETTA
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED EAST NAPLES
CIVIC ASSOCIATION ANNUAL BANQUET AT NAPLES
LAKES COUNTRY CLUB IN NAPLES, FL. $40 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
LOCATED AT 4784 INVERNESS CLUB DRIVE~ NAPLES
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE WILL ATTEND CA TO
PERSPECTIVES 2011 AT THE RITZ CARLTON GOLF RESORT
IN NAPLES, FL ON FEBRUARY 9, 2011, $100 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
LOCATED AT 2600 TIBURON DRIVE~ NAPLES
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
Page 344
January 25, 2011
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 345
THERE WAS NO
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
AGENDA ITEM #1611
FOR THE JANUARY 25,2011
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS MEETING
January 25, 2011
Item #16Jl
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 25, 2010
THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2010 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1,2011
THROUGH JANUARY 7, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(B) THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE
AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC INFRACTION SURCHARGES
COLLECTED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 318.18(13)(A)(1)
WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - THE
REPORT IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE
CIRCUIT, THE GOVERNOR, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Item #16K1
AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES
RELATING TO CONTRACT NO. 06-4047 EMINENT DOMAIN
LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW FIRMS OF FIXEL,
MAGUIRE & WILLIS AND BRICKLEMYER, SMOLKER &
BOLVES EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATES TO APRIL
22,2013. THERE IS NO NEW FISCAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED
Page 346
January 25, 2011
WITH THESE AMENDMENTS - FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL
SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF
REAL PROPERTY THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2011-16: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS FOR
HEALTHCARE FACILITIES AT NAPLES COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K3
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT, ON BEHALF OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST DAD DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
REGARDING PEBBLEBROOKE LAKES, FOR FAILURE TO
COMPL Y WITH THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT DATED
OCTOBER 14,2008, WHICH REQUIRES THE DEVELOPER TO
EXTEND A WALL AND INSTALL A LANDSCAPE BUFFER
WITHIN A PRESERVE AREA BORDERING ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16K4
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST RODNEY R. BONARD, IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER THE DAMAGES TO
Page 347
January 25, 2011
COUNTY OWNED GUARDRAILS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,988.99, PLUS COSTS OF LITIGATION - FOR A VEHICLE
ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 27, 2008, FOR
WHICH MR. BONARD DIDN'T HAVE VALID AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE
Item #16K5
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST JUSTINA T. MENACHIO AND
RANISHA L. KNOWLES, IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO
RECOVER THE DAMAGES TO A COUNTY OWNED FENCE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,935.30, PLUS COSTS OF LITIGATION-
FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON MARCH
30,2009, THAT HAD NO INSURANCE AND OWNED BY MS.
MENACHIO WHICH MS. KNOWLES WAS OPERATING
Item # 16K6 - This Item is continued to a future BCC Meeting (Per
Agenda Change Sheet)
SCHEDULE FOR SUBMISSION OF NON-ROUTINE
DOCUMENTS BY STAFF TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR
LEGAL REVIEW PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BOARD
ACTION - SO THAT LEGAL REVIEW OF A DOCUMENT IS
NOT DONE IN A HASTY MANNER OR HAVING TO REQUEST
AN ITEM BE CONTINUED
Item #16K7 - This Item was Withdrawn (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
RELEASE OF THE ORDER RECORDED IN THE CODE
Page 348
January 25, 2011
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS VS. DALE AND KERI ANN OCHS, CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO. CEVR20090000974,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE BIG
CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - FOR FOLIO #01138800003
Item # 1 7 A
ORDINANCE 2011-02: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
92-60 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT TAX ORDINANCE, IN ORDER TO REDUCE
THE TOURISM EMERGENCY RESERVE FUND 196 CEILING
AND ELIMINATE THE YEAR END SWEEP OF FUNDS FROM
TOURISM ADMINISTRATION FUND 194 TO FUND 195 AND
183, AND REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS TO TOURISM
PROMOTION FUND 184 FOR TOURISM MARKETING AND
PROMOTION
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2011-17: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 349
January 25, 2011
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:56 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'1uJ.. W. ~
FRED COYLE, Chairman.
ATTEST:
DWIGg~ E.;.~CK, CLERK
:;j? . ~\ .....~~
:~~ . OJ..
". ,\ ," \.~-' .
:~ ; ....0,
Atus,t If ..~ ChltiJjj.>.',-
H,9fttturt Oft.f.J'1 "~'J
These minutes aTPoved by the Board on J..dLk..::J 22 J ~o II ,
as presented _~ or as corrected
-
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM and
TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER.
Page 350