BCC Minutes 02/08/2011 R
BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2011
February 8, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 8, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9: 00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAlRMAN: Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Ian Mitchell, BCC Executive Manager
Mike Sheffield, 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
February 08, 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
EXECUTIVE MANAGER TO THE BCC 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
February 8, 2011
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
TillS 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 TillS 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 TillS 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. Reverend Don Treglown - Faith Lutheran Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. June 23,2010 - BCC/IAMP Meeting
C. July 28, 2010 - BCC/GMP Hearing
D. November 10, 2010 - BCC/ AUIR Hearing
Page 2
February 8, 2011
E. January 11, 2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting
F. January 12,2011 - BCC/CRA Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating February 19,2011 as Pastor Don Treglown Day.
To be accepted by Pastor Don Treglown. Sponsored by Commissioner
Coyle.
B. Proclamation designating February 8, 2011 as Golden Gate Task Force
Team Day. To be accepted by Code Enforcement Supervisor Jeff
Letourneau and Corporal Robert Capizzi. Sponsored by Commissioner
Henning.
c. Proclamation designating February, 2011 as Career and Technical Education
Month in Collier County. To be accepted by Jeanette Johnson. Sponsored
by Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Pamela Libby, Operations Manager, Water
Department, as the Supervisor of the Year for 2010.
B. Presentation of the Collier County "Business of the Month" award to
Sunshine Ace Hardware for February 2011. To be accepted by Michael
Wynn, Sunshine Ace Hardware President.
C. Presentation of the "Above and Beyond" Community Volunteer Award to
Margaret Lauzon for extraordinary community service. Sponsored by
Commissioner Hiller.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
February 8, 2011
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending Schedules One, Two,
Three, Six, and Seven of Appendix A to Section Four of Collier County
Ordinance No. 2001-73, as amended, the Collier County Water-Sewer
District Uniform Billing, Operating and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
These amendments include proposed rates for water and wastewater services
with effective dates of October 1, 2011, and October 1, 2012, for Schedules
One, Three, and Six; provides effective dates of April 1, 2011, October 1,
2011, and October 1,2012, for Schedule Two; and provides an effective date
of March 1,2011, for Schedule Seven. .
B. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County Water-
Sewer District Impact Fee Rates, established by Ordinance No. 2007-57, as
amended, by reducing the water impact fee by $285 (-8%) to $3,290 per
Equivalent Residential Connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $250
(-7.2%) to $3,245 per Equivalent Residential Connection, for a total
reduction of $535 (-7.6%), with an effective date of February 14,2011.
(This is a companion to Item 8D)
C. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution adjusting the Collier County Water-
Sewer District Bulk Services Water Rates within the Hammock Bay Service
Area, as authorized by the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement between
the Collier County Water-Sewer District and The City of Marco Island,
dated May 9,2006.
D. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated
Impact F ee Ordinance) by amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule,
which is Schedule One of Appendix A, to reflect the Phase II rate schedule
as set forth in the "Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and
Credit Update Study" adopted on September 28, 2010, which provides for a
reduction in rates; and providing for a delayed effective date of February 14,
2011. (This item is a companion to Item 8B)
Page 4
February 8, 2011
transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for
review and objections, recommendations and comments (ORC) response.
(Transmittal Hearing)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
C. This item continued from the Januarv 25~ 2011 BCC Meetine and is
requested to be further continued indefinitelv. Economic Health and
Viability of Collier County. (Commissioner Coletta)
D. This item continued from the Januarv 25~ 2011 BCC Meetine. Motion
that the County stops all further action with respect to Jackson Labs.
(Commissioner Hiller)
E. Request bv Commissioner Hiller to reconsider Item #101 from the
Januarv 25~ 2011 BCC Meetine. 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 contract in the
amount of$2,350,000 following County Attorney Office approval.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item continued from the Januarv 25~ 2011 BCC Meetine.
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)
B. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. This item continued from the
Januarv 25~ 2011 BCC Meetine. 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. (Dr.
Tober, Medical Director of Emergency Medical Services)
Page 5
February 8, 2011
C. Report to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) pursuant to direction
under Item #9C at the January 11, 2011 BCC Meeting providing an
accounting of all public funds spent on the Jackson Laboratory Project.
(Mark Isackson, Director, Corporate Financial and Management Services)
D. Recommendation to approve three impact fee reimbursements, totaling
$148,681.70, due to the cancellation of three building permits and the
subsequent reapplications submitted under new, lower impact fee rate
schedules. (Amy Patterson, Impact Fee Manager)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
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) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for VeronaWalk Off-Site Force Main, Collier Blvd. (C.R.
951), and to authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release
any Utilities Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the
Developer's designated agent.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Tall Oaks, Phase 3B, 525 Barefoot Williams Road, and to
Page 6
February 8,2011
authorize the County Manager,er or his designee, to release any Utilities
� g � Y
Performance Security to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement for Wilson Boulevard
from CR 846 south for 1.5 miles, with two (2) recognition signs at a
total cost of$150 for the volunteer group, Golden Gate SDA Lights
Pathfinder Club.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to authorize the Community Redevelopment
Agency Executive Director to negotiate land purchase agreements,
subject to approval by the Community Redevelopment Agency,
relating to the expansion of the Gateway Triangle stormwater
management pond and approve an application for a Federal
Emergency Management Agency grant to fund the purchase of the
subject properties.
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to authorize the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Executive Director to
advertise an RFP for professional services to update the 2000 CRA
Redevelopment Plan and return with a contract for Board approval.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve Amendment A01 to Agreement No.
4600001937 between Collier County and the South Florida Water
Management District, renewing the existing agreement for the
supplemental collection of surface water quality samples in Collier
County (estimated fiscal impact $60,000 in earned revenue) and to
approve the associated budget amendment.
2) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. A02 renewing the
South Florida Water Management District Agreement No. OT061098,
as amended by Amendment No. A01, to continue monitoring of
ground water in Collier County in Fiscal Year 2011 (estimated fiscal
impact $116,000 in earned revenue).
Page 7
February 8, 2011
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve selection of firms under #RFP 10-5572
for Wiggins Pass Permitting, Modeling & Inlet Management Plan to
Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CP&E) and direct staff to bring
a negotiated contract to the Board for subsequent approval.
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Memorandum of Understanding for Implementation of Grant with the
State of Florida Department of Children and Families to accept
funding for the three year Criminal Justice, Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant in the amount of$548,490.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the
Commission Chairman to execute Deed Certificates for the sale of
burial plots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the
2011 calendar year.
2) Recommendation to ratify Property, Casualty, Workers'
Compensation and Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the
Risk Management Director pursuant to Resolution 2004-15 for the
first quarter of FY 11.
3) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
4) Recommendation to approve a modification to the budget of the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funded by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), authorize the
County Manager or his designee to reallocate the funding within the
Board approved grant projects as necessary, and authorize the
necessary budget amendments.
5) Recommendation to authorize the chairman to sign a $200,000 Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grant Application to partially fund the
Page 8
February 8,2011
construction of the Gordon River Greenway Park Canoe/Kayak
Launch.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to donate one surplus ambulance to Edison State
College via the Edison State College Foundation (Estimated Value:
$6,000)
2) Recommendation to approve and authorize the acceptance of
insurance proceeds in the amount of$59,570.59 and to authorize the
necessary Budget Amendment to allocate funds for reimbursement of
the cost of AEDs and upgrading EMS field computers.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2010-11 Adopted Budget.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve selection of firms under #RFP 10-5600
for CEI Services for Marco Island Airport Taxiway to URS
Corporation Southern (URS) and direct staff to bring a negotiated
contract to the Board for subsequent approval.
2) Recommendation to approve a change in the authorizing official for
the Collier County Airport Authority in the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Electronic Clearing House Operation (ECHO)
system from Theresa Cook to Chris Curry and authorize the Chairman
to sign the required FAA form.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Proclamation designating January 29th and 30th, 2011 as CAPA/CRA
Bayshore Festival of the Arts Day. To be presented by Commissioner
Coyle at the festival. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
2) Proclamation designating January 29th through February 4, 2011 as
The Band of the U.S. Airforce Reserve Week. Being presented by
Page 9
February 8,2011
Commissioner Coyle at the CAPA/CRA Bayshore Festival of the
Arts. Sponsored by Commissioner Coyle.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
8, 2011 through January 14, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of January
15, 2011 through January 21, 2011 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
3) Recommend approval of the use of Confiscated Trust Funds for
support of disaster preparedness, public safety education and other
large scale incident support.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Order Taxing Fees and
Costs in the amount of$16,400 for Parcel No. 179RDUE in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Armando B. Yzaguirre, et al., Case
No. 07-2746-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044) (Fiscal Impact
$16,400).
2) Recommendation to approve a contract with Trauner Consulting
Services, Inc., for expert consulting services to the County in the
amount of$75,000 for the case of Ker Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
Armadillo Underground v. APAC-Southeast, Inc. v. Collier County,
Case No. 09-8724-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road Project No. 63051)
(Fiscal Impact an additional $75,000).
3) Recommendation to accept the Offer of Judgment from 524
Broadway Company, LP in the amount of$55,000 for Parcels 122 and
123 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. William Pilger, et al., Case
No. 06-1125-CA (County Barn Road Project Number 60101). (Fiscal
Impact $26,152)
Page 10
February 8,2011
4) By request of the Collier County School Board, recommendation to
amend the Town of Ave Maria Tri-Party Developer Contribution
Agreement with Ave Maria Development, LLLP and The School
District of Collier County, Florida, to incorporate recent changes to
the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance allowing
developer contribution impact fee credits to run with the land until
used or transferred.
5) Recommendation to authorize a representative of the County
Attorney's Office to bid on behalf of the County at four code
enforcement lien foreclosure sales scheduled by the Clerk in BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. JEAN CLAUDE MARTEL,
Circuit Court Case No. 10-720-CA, in an amount not to exceed the
value of the County's foreclosed lien interest (approximately
$409,000 for four parcels).
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL2010-2196, to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the
Public's interest in a portion of a 20-foot wide Access Easement for drainage
and maintenance crews, over Lot 26, Block B, Palm River Estates Unit
No.7, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 12, Pages 28
through 30, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, situated in
Page 11
February 8, 2011
Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, the
subject portion of easement to be vacated is more specifically depicted and
described in Exhibit "A".
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2007-AR-
11381, Marsilea Villas, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson
Engineering, is requesting a rezone from an Agricultural Zoning District (A)
and an Agricultural zoning district with a Special Treatment Overlay to the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with removal
of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project known as Marsilea Villas
RPUD to allow development of up to 27 single-family dwelling units. The
subject property, consisting of 10.25 acres, is located west of Livingston
Road surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy just north of
Imperial Golf Estates, Unit 5 in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 12
February 8,2011
February 8, 2011
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of County Commission meeting
. . .
IS now ill seSSIon.
I would like to start our meeting with a moment of silence to
remember two members of our advisory committees from Collier
County who recently passed away; Robert Bennett, he served on the
Collier County Productivity Committee and Water and Wastewater
Authority Board several years ago, and Lindy Adelstein, who was a
Planning Commissioner for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And may I add another one, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a co-chairman for my
Transportation Disadvantaged Committee that I worked with for ten
years, and Paul Starzyk is his name, and we just had a funeral for him
on Sunday.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. Would you all join me in a
moment of silence.
Thank you. Now, please stand for the invocation to be delivered
by Reverend Don Treglown of the Faith Lutheran Church.
Item #lA
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REVEREND TREGLOWN: Heavenly Father, we give you
thanks for the blessings of this county and all that we enjoy. For those
who have given their service, such individuals as Lindy, Robert, and
Paul, we are truly thankful, for they, along with us, have seen the
benefits of this county with its natural beauty, it's wonderful
opportunities for education and service, and we ask that you would
guide with wisdom the commissioners in their meetings today and
Page 2
February 8, 2011
throughout this week.
We ask, Dear Lord, that we also remember the freedoms that we
enjoy as we remember our men and women in the armed service and
how they serve us to protect things that we hold so dearly.
Be with us then this day as we pray. May God bless each of us.
May God bless America, amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please join us in the Pledge of
allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Please be seated.
County Manager, do you have any changes to the agenda? That's
a silly question, isn't it?
Item #2A
TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members
of the Board.
These are agenda changes, Board of County Commissioner's
Meeting February 8, 201l.
First item on your change sheet is a request to continue Item 8B
to the February 22,2011, BCC Meeting. It's a recommendation to
adopt an updated schedule of Collier County Water and Sewer District
impact fees. That change is made at the staffs request.
Next item is a companion item to Item 8B. It's Item 8D on your
agenda, also continued to the February 22nd meeting. That's a
recommendation to adopt changes in the Road Impact Fee Rate
Schedule. .
Next item is an item to move Item 16D 1 from your consent
agenda. It will become Item 10E on your regular agenda. It's a
Page 3
February 8, 2011
recommendation to approve selection offmns under RFP 10-5572 for
Wiggin's Pass Permitting, Modeling, and Inlet Management Plan to
Coastal Planning and Engineering, Incorporated, direct staff to bring
negotiated contract back to the board for subsequent approval. That
item is being moved at Commissioner Hiller's request.
Next item is to move Agenda Item 16K5. That will become Item
11A under the County Attorney's regular agenda. It's a
recommendation to authorize a representative of the County
Attorney's Office to bid on behalf of the county at four code
enforcement lien foreclosure sales scheduled by the clerk of the board,
and -- excuse me -- by the Clerk and Board of County Commissioners
versus Jean Claude Martel. That item was moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Next move is to move Item 16Bl from your consent agenda.
That would become 13A under your community redevelopment area
section on the regular agenda. It's a recommendation to authorize the
Community Redevelopment Agency executive director to negotiate
land purchase agreements subj ect to approval by the Community
Redevelopment Agency related to expansion of the Gateway Triangle
stormwater management pond and approve an application for a federal
emergency management agency grant to fund the purchase of the
subject property. That item is moved at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
And we have one note on your agenda this morning,
Commissioners. It's a correction to Item 16B2. In the executive
summary, the fiscal impact section, third sentence should read,
"Collier County and partners will be required to provide a match of at
least 100 percent of the grant award," not 1 0 percent. That change is
made at staffs request.
And then fmally you have one time-certain item scheduled this
morning, sir, at 10:30 a.m. Item lOB is -- will be heard at 10:30.
Those are all the changes that I have, Commissioners.
Page 4
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We'll start with the County
Commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner Henning this time for
ex parte disclosure and any further changes to agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have -- I have no further
changes to today's agenda. I did speak to Tim Hancock on 17B, and
naturally we had a vacation of an easement on our previous agenda,
and that's the only ex parte communications I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, for communications here
on summary agenda, 17B, I had correspondence, and it's in my folder
for anyone who wishes to see it, and I have no changes to the agenda.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I have no further changes to
the agenda. With respect to ex parte, Item 17B, I have reviewed the
Collier County Planning Commission staff report only on that item.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes or
corrections, no ex parte. Just one little -- well, I do have a little tiny
correction, nothing major at all.
Under No. 8E, Page 4, it just -- it talks about no objections were
raised, and it says by the "night information meeting," and that's really
supposed to be "neighborhood information meeting."
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Thanks.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: That's a government abbreviation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. They both start with N.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Ochs, can I ask for some
clarification on the agenda. On -- under 13A, it talks about the
Gateway Triangle stormwater purchase, and then under -- okay, I see
what happened. So you just moved it -- okay, I see what you did. I've
Page 5
February 8, 2011
got it.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see how you did it. Thank you so
much.
MR.OCHS: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no problem with the agenda
as presented. And as far as ex parte, I have meetings, correspondence,
emails, and calls with respect to Item 1 7B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On 17B all I had was staffs report.
I didn't know if I should report that or not, but it is on my ex parte.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you very much.
Now I'll accept a motion for approval of to day's regular, consent,
and summary agendas as amended.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Motion for approval by Commissioner
Henning, 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.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAlRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 6
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
February 8, 2011
Continue Item 8B to Februarv 22. 2011 BCC Meetinl!: Recommendation to adopt a
Resolution amending the Collier County Water-Sewer District Impact Fee Rates, established by
Ordinance No. 2007-57, as amended, by reducing the water impact fee by $285 (-8%) to $3,290 per
Equivalent Residential Connection, and the wastewater impact fee by $250 (-7.2 %) to $3,245 per
Equivalent Residential Connection, for a total reduction of $535 (-7.6%), with an effective date of
February 14, 2011. This is a companion to Item 8D. (Staff's request)
Continue Item 8D to Februarv 22. 2011 BCC Meetinl!: Recommendation to adopt an
Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) by amending the Road Impact Fee rate schedule,
which is Schedule One of Appendix A, to reflect the Phase II rate schedule as set forth in the
"Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Cost and Credit Update Study" adopted on September
28,2010, which provides for a reduction in rates; and providing for a delayed effective date of
February 14, 2011. This item is a companion to Item 8B. (Staff's request)
Move Item 16D1 to Item 10E: Recommendation to approve selection offlrms under RFP
10-5572 for Wiggins Pass Permitting, Modeling & Inlet Management Plan to Coastal Planning &
Engineering, Inc. (CP&E) and direct staffto bring a negotiated contract to the Board for
subsequent approval. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 161(5 to Item 11A: Recommendation to authorize a representative of the County
Attorney's Offlce to bid on behalf of the County at four code enforcement lien foreclosure sales
scheduled by the Clerk in BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. JEAN CLAUDE
MARTEL, Circuit Court Case No.10-720-CA, in an amount not to exceed the value ofthe County's
foreclosed lien interest (approximately $409,000 for four parcels). (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16B1 to 13A: Recommendation to authorize the Community Redevelopment
Agency Executive Director to negotiate land purchase agreements, subject to approval by the
Community Redevelopment Agency, relating to the expansion of the Gateway Triangle stormwater
management pond and approve an application for a Federal Emergency Management Agency
grant to fund the purchase of the subject properties. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Note:
Correction to Item 16D2: In the Executive Summary, Fiscal Impact section, third sentence
should read "Collier County and partners will be required to provide a match of at least l{) 100
percent of the grant award". (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item lOB to be heard at 10:30 a.m.
2/24/2011 3:59 PM
February 8, 2011
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E & #2F
MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 23, 2010 - BCC/IAMP MEETING;
JULY 28, 2010 - BCC/GMP MEETING; NOVEMBER 10, 2010-
BCC/AUIR MEETING; JANUARY 11, 2011 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING AND JANUARY 12, 2011 - BCC/CRA WORKSHOP
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Now, that brings us to a number of minutes to be approved. We
will take a single vote on all five. But if anyone has questions about
any of them, I will provide an opportunity for questions before we
accept motions.
So they'll be the June 23,2010, BCC/IAMP meeting; July 28,
2010, BBC/GMP meeting; November 10,2010, BCC/AUIRmeeting;
January the 11th, 2011, BCC regular meeting; and January 12,2011,
BCC/CRA workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve all five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve all five
minutes by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any discussion or concern about the minutes? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to express a couple of
comments. I was not in attendance at the 2010 meetings as a member
of this board, so I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to vote on the
accuracy of those minutes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then let's break them up. We'll start with
-- the commissioners who were here can vote on Items B, C, and D,
and then all five commissioners will vote on Minutes E and F; how is
that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. For the minutes B, C, and D, all
Page 7
February 8, 2011
in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Those minutes passed.
Now, the minutes for E and F. Those will be the minutes in 2011
for the public's interest. Is there a motion to approve those?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAlRMAN 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.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS - ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT THE
PROCLAMATIONS
Page 8
February 8, 2011
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 19, 2011 AS
PASTOR DON TREGLOWN DAY. ACCEPTED BY PASTOR
DON TREGLOWN. SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE
- ADOPTED
That brings us to proclamations. And we have a proclamation for
Reverend Treglown. And it -- he is still here, I hope.
REVEREND TREGLOWN: Yes.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Good. Sir, would you come down front
for just a moment. We -- we traditionally do not read the entire
proclamations, but I think it is important that the people understand
why we're giving you this proclamation in addition to your service to
your congregation and the wonderful invocation today.
Pastor Treglown has been active with Homer Helter's Military
Store -- and Homer's here.
Stand up, Homer. Thank you very much for being here.
Since 2003, Homer and the people who help him, including
Reverend Treglown, have sent 23 tons of gifts to our troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
(Applause.)
CHAlRMAN COYLE: That's not all -- including 50,000 Beanie
Babies, not to our troops, but to their children here in the United
States, and $27,000 worth of phone cards provided to them.
Thank you very much, Reverend. Appreciate your service.
(Applause.)
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Reverend, if you would like to say
anything, go to either podium.
REVEREND TREGLOWN: Yes. Just very quickly I would like
to thank Homer and the Veterans in this community. It has been a
dear blessing to me and my family.
Page 9
February 8, 2011
Just to let you know, I was born in Detroit, so when people say,
"where's your hometown," it's Detroit, but I've been blessed. My
grandchildren, Paris and Kensington, were born in Collier County. So
for the rest of their life, there will always be a part of me in Collier
County. So I'm thankful for that.
God bless you all. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 8, 2011 AS
GOLDEN GATE TASK FORCE TEAM DAY. ACCEPTED BY
CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR JEFF LETOURNEAU
AND CORPORAL ROBERT CAPIZZI. SPONSORED BY
COMMISSIONER HENNING - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 4B on your
agenda. It's a proclamation designating February 8, 2011, as Golden
Gate Task Force Team Day to be accepted by Code Enforcement
Supervisor Jeff Letourneau and Corporal Robert Capizzi. And this
proclamation is sponsored by Commissioner Henning.
Please come forward, gentlemen.
(Applause.)
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Who's going to accept this?
MR. LETOURNEAU: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Congratulations.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Get your photo.
MR. LETOURNEAU: Squeeze in everybody. Squeeze in.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Anybody want to say anything?
MR. LETOURNEAU: We do, yes, sir.
Page 10
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
(Applause.)
MR. LETOURNEAU: Good morning. For the record,
Supervisor Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement.
First of all, I'd like to thank the Commissioners and, in particular,
Commissioner Henning for this honor. I'd also like to thank my team
consisting of investigators John Santafemia, Joe Mucha, Ralph Boza,
Camelo Gomez, Renald Paul, Jonathan Musse, and also Jeremy
Florin, investigator for our utilities, and Barb Sib from the fire
department.
We couldn't have done it without you guys. Thanks for all the
hard work. This home makeover was a task force holiday proj ect and
hopefully will be the fIrst of many to come.
I'd like to mention, in addition to events like this, we also do
numerous clean-ups, meet-and-greets, foreclosed property sweeps, and
educational events.
Weare one of five task force teams, including North Naples,
Immokalee, Golden Gate Estates, and East Naples, all of which bring
numerous county departments together to try to help resolve county
Issues.
Personally, while doing this project, the phrase "it's better to give
than to receive" really hit home with me.
Lastly, I'd really like to thank the Wix family who really couldn't
have been more deserving ofa family. They couldn't be here today,
but I'll make sure they get a copy of this proclamation.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just explain that the
Golden Gate Task Force is made up of citizens and government
agencies to bring up the community. And what they did on this
Page 11
February 8, 2011
project, they took a family, senior citizens with a child who's an
invalid, made a ramp to go into their unit, and -- so they can mainly go
to church. And then there are other things that they're doing for this
family. And maybe Rob can explain that.
MR. CAPIZZI: Yeah. First, I'm Robert Capizzi from the Collier
County Sheriffs Office. First I'd just like to thank Commissioner
Henning and the commission for recognizing and supporting the
Golden Gate Task Force for these years on our charitable projects and
rmSSlon.
The Wix are definitely a special family. And we're trying to do
some additional things. They have a van with a lift, and it's in pretty
bad shape. And the lift's not working, so we're hoping to hopefully
get them some other type of form of transportation, another van, and
we're working with the community to do that as we speak.
So there's a few people I'd like to recognize. First, the contractors
and contributors to the project: American Farms, Biogreen,
Davenport Nursery, Defender's Law Enforcement Motor Club, Fogg's
Nursery, G Case Landscape, Hanson Painting, Home Depot, Pelican
Nursery, Pine Ridge and Livingston Nursery, Raymond Building
Supply, Ray's Garden Center, Sunshine Ace Hardware, JJ Hernandez.
And some of the participants for the Sheriffs Office are Bruce
Cordivari, James Klewicki, Ellen Loftus, Ray Erickson, Iksa
(phonetic) Capizzi, Lieutenant Rene Gonzalez, Jackie Borchers,
Angela Larson, Christopher Tipton, and Linda Hunt.
And we also have Chris Townsend, who's with Collier County
Housing and Human Services; Terry Rainer, Golden Gate resident as
well as Deacon Bob Pence and Pastor Boelk.
Thank you very much. We do appreciate your support. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 12
February 8, 2011
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY, 2011 AS
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION MONTH IN
COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED BY DENISE DUZICK.
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER FIALA - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4C is a proclamation
designating February 2011 as Career and Technical Education Month
in Collier County. This proclamation to be accepted by Jeanette
Johnson, and it is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
Please come up.
(Applause.)
MS. DUZICK: First of all, my name is Denise Duzick, and I'm
the administrator of Lorenzo Walker Institute, your neighbor on Estey
Avenue.
I would like to introduce two of our amazing students, Michael
Bigalo (phonetic), who's in our marine tech program, and also Kara
Frye (phonetic), who's soon to be a practical nurse.
Oh behalf of the school district of Collier County, we would like
to extend our appreciation to the commissioners for your ongoing
support, in particular to Donna, who has been an avid friend and
supporter of our school for over 30 years.
Career and technical training has in the past and continues to play
a pivotal role in the development of our county's economic growth.
We have close to a thousand students between our post-secondary
programs and approximately 600 in our Lorenzo Walker High School,
and over 75 percent of our graduates gain employment in our county
and remain in Collier County. So we're very proud of that fact.
Again, we thank you for this recognition and allowing us to be
here with you today. Thank you.
Page 13
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I could get a motion to approve
the proclamations, please.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve the proclamations, seconded 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.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #5A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE PAMELA LIBBY,
OPERATIONS MANAGER, WATER DEPARTMENT, AS THE
SUPERVISOR OF THE YEAR FOR 2010 - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5,
presentations on your agenda this morning.
5A is a recommendation to recognize Pamela Libby, operations
manager of the Water Department, as Supervisor of the Year for 2010.
Page 14
February 8, 2011
Pam, please come forward.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Congratulations.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Pam has been selected as the
Supervisor of the Year for 2010. Her career started in Collier County
as a senior secretary in 1994.
Throughout her time here, she has worked her way up through
the Water Department and became operations manager in 2005. Pam's
responsible for the day-to-day operation of the entire department,
including over 130 employees.
Under her management, the Water Department has received
several awards and recognition, including the 2010 Florida
Department of Environmental Protection Plan Operations Excellence
Award.
She takes a very active role in the annual ICMA Supervisory
Training program for Public Utilities by organizing graduation
activities and helping participants prepare for final presentations.
Pam leads by example and communicates clearly defmed goals
and objectives for her staff. She is truly deserving of this honor.
And Commissioners, it's my great pleasure to recognize Pam
Libby as the Supervisor of the Year for 2010, and also at this time I'd
like to call on her administrator, Mr. DeLony, for a few remarks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have to interrupt. You guys
can't see this, but I'm looking at him. He's sitting there looking like the
proud father.
MR. DeLONY: I am proud.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's so cute. I wish you could see the
look on his face.
MR. DeLONY: Well, you don't put it on TV, how's that?
For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator.
Thank you, County Manager, for a moment.
You know, in many organizations there are many leaders, and in
Page 15
February 8, 2011
our organization there's this leader. This leader sets the tone of our
organization with professionalism, her dedication, and her personal
care for each and every one of us.
I can assure you she's value based and she treats all with
professional courtesy and respect.
So Commissioners, with hearty congratulations and thank you for
recognition today for this wonderful, wonderful team member, Ms.
Pam Libby.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY "BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH" AWARD TO SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE FOR
FEBRUARY 2011. ACCEPTED BY MICHAEL WYNN,
SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE PRESIDENT - PRESENTED
MR.OCHS: Congratulations, Pam.
Commissioners, that takes us to Item 5B on your agenda this
morning. It's a presentation of the Collier County Business of the
Month Award to Sunshine Ace Hardware for February 2011.
We're pleased to have with us today to accept this award Michael
Wynn, Sunshine Ace Hardware president.
Mr. Wynn, if you'd please come forward and accept your award.
Congratulations.
MR. WYNN: Good morning. My name is Michael Wynn. I'm
president of Sunshine Ace Hardware.
And I just wanted to say, we are grateful to be honored as the
EDC Business of the Month and have the opportunity to speak briefly
about our company.
Sunshine Hardware was founded in 1958 on -- fIrst location was
on 5th Avenue. We started as a small Western Auto Parts store, and
Page 16
February 8, 2011
now we've grown to six locations covering a distance between Marco
Island and South Fort Myers.
We have over 240 friendly and helpful employees. And we're
proud to be one of the many locally owned independent businesses
here in Collier County, many of which have been around for decades
to help build this community.
And while we're proud to offer a great variety of products, over
40,000 unique items, great brands, such as Ben Moore paints, steel
power equipment, Craftsman tools, at the end of the day, great service
drives our business, and as such, the life blood of our business is our
people.
And so I have -- unfortunately, I wasn't able to bring everybody
with us, but we have a handful of people with us today. I'd like to just
highlight some of the things that make our people special.
First and foremost, experience. We have people that have spent
their lives as plumbers, electricians, engineers, some have even owned
hardware stores. And even though they have -- all have unique talents
and skills that they bring, at the end of the day, they all have one thing
in common: They love helping people, and they always want to leave
you feeling better when you come -- or when you leave the store
because of their great attitudes.
We're fortunate to have with us some associates that have been
with us 20-plus years, 30-plus years. I think we were adding up
before the meeting here, we have about 250 years of collective
experience just in the room with us today, and we don't have many
people with us.
So what I'd like to do, though, is highlight Alice Edson
(phonetic). Alice, if you can stand up. Alice will be celebrating her
35th anniversary with our company tomorrow.
(Applause.)
MR. WYNN: And Evelyn Dickerson. If you could stand up,
Evelyn. Evelyn worked for my grandfather, and she's been with us for
Page 17
February 8, 2011
57 years.
(Applause.)
MS. DICKERSON: Tell them I'm still working.
MR. WYNN: And she is still working.
Now, Evelyn can tell you a lot about the history of our company.
She can tell you a lot about the history of our community. But now all
of us can enjoy some highlights of Naples' history when you come to
our newly remodeled downtown Naples store with over 70 historical
photos, painted murals depicting Naples' history, as well as slide
shows on anyone of our flat screen TV's that depict the great stories
and people that helped make this community the great place that it is.
We're proud to be part of that history, we're proud to be honored
to be with you today accepting this award, and we thank you,
Commissioners, for all you do to make Collier County a great place to
live and work. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Michael, we appreciate this opportunity
to recognize what you and your family have done for Naples. Your
family is synonymous with business in Naples, and we're all proud to
be part of your community.
MR. WYNN: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF THE "ABOVE AND BEYOND"
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER AWARD TO MARGARET
LAUZON FOR EXTRAORDINARY COMMUNITY SERVICE.
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER HILLER - PRESENTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 5C this morning is a
presentation of the Above-and-Beyond Community Volunteer Award
Page 18
February 8, 2011
to Margaret Lauzon for extraordinary community service. This item
to be presented by Commissioner Hiller.
Please come forward, Margaret.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your community
servIce.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: One more picture.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a few comments
about what Margaret did.
We have an organization which I think everybody that has an
elderly parent would appreciate. It's called Serving Our Seniors. But
what happened in this particular case is that Margaret went above and
beyond to save one of our seniors.
And what Margaret did is, while she's been bringing food to a .
gentleman for a number of years and helping him out, one day last
week she found out, through such a delivery, that he thought he was
going to die, and she went above and beyond to get him to the hospital
and get him that medical care.
And fortunately, because of her intervention, he was taken to the
hospital, given the appropriate care. And I understand that he is now
back at home and safe.
So thank you very much. I mean, you make a very big difference
by going that extra step. Thanks.
(Applause.)
MS. LAUZON: I would really like to accept this recognition in
the name of all of my fellow SOS volunteers at the North Naples Fire
Department. And if I may, just to offer a sincere thank you on behalf
of this gentleman to Commissioner Hiller, who sped the wheels
turning quickly to resolve this situation.
So thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 19
February 8, 2011
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Where does that take us?
Item#9A
RESOLUTION 2011-28: RE-APPOINTING TONY P. PIRES,
WILLIAM H. POTEET AND JEFFREY S. CURL TO THE LAND
ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, there are no public petitions this
morning, so that moves us to Item 9 on your agenda, Board of County
Commissioners.
Item 9 A is appointment of members to the Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the
committee's recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve Tony Pires, William Poteet and Jeffrey S. Curl to
serve another term. They're all recommended for reappointment.
A motion by Commissioner Henning to approve. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It passes unanimously.
Page 20
February 8, 2011
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011-29: APPOINTING JOHN IAIZZO AND
MICHAEL H. LEVY (TERMS EXPIRING MARCH 31,2015) TO
THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED
9B is appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services
Division Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. The motion is for the approval of
Johnny Iaizzo and Michael H. Levy. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
for approval, second by Commissioner Henning.
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: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9C
ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY OF COLLIER COUNTY
- CONTINUED INDEFINITELY
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 9C has been continued
indefinitely at Commissioner Coletta's request.
Page 21
February 8, 2011
Item #9D
MOTION THAT THE COUNTY STOPS ALL FURTHER ACTION
WITH RESPECT TO JACKSON LABS - MOTION THAT THE
COUNTY STOP ALL FURTHER ACTION WITH RESPECT TO
JACKSON LABS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LITIGATION
AND PUBLIC RECORD REQUESTS - APPROVED
That takes us to 9D. This item was continued from the January
25, 2011, BCC meeting. Motion that the county stops all further action
with respect to Jackson Labs. This item was placed on the agenda by
Commissioner Hiller.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry. Did you say
Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. I tried to say Hiller. I might
have messed it up, but --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I think it's really important
we take an affrrmative step to let the community know, as well as staff
that no further action with respect to Jackson Labs should be taken.
There may be future public records requests. Obviously, those
need to be complied with. There may be pending litigation which
needs to be addressed. Obviously, that needs to take place.
But the type of action I'm talking about is anything with respect
to further negotiations, research, or anything else related other than to
public records requests or litigation with respect to Jackson Labs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to state that motion clearly,
because the item itself says, "The county stops all further action with
respect to Jackson Labs." And I think you're absolutely correct, there
are some things we can't stop because we don't have control over it.
So I think we need to have a very clear motion about what we're
Page 22
February 8, 2011
going to stop, or what we're accepting from this motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And I think what we
should do is take the motion as presented, "The county should stop all
further action with respect to Jackson Labs," and modify it to state,
"except for any litigation related action or public record requests."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Second by Commissioner
Henning.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just a couple of
questions, if I may, County Manager. At this point in time, is there
anything that's taking place in the County Manager's Office regarding
Jackson Lab, other than public information request or pertaining to a
lawsuit?
MR. OCHS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you foresee anything that
would be pertaining to Jackson Lab coming up other than what we
talked about? In other words, we know that the offer for the land has
been withdrawn by the Colliers; we know Jackson Lab is actively
involved in Tampa.
So I -- other than the fact that this is just one way of saying that
we all recognize the fact that Jackson Lab no longer is an entity that
can exist in Collier County, is there any other purpose for this? Can
you see anything that would come up if we did no action at all?
I'm just curious how this comes together and a little bit curious
why we're doing this. I'm asking you, sir, can you see anything down
the road, short term or long term, that would in any way necessitate
this particular motion?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm not aware of any new proposal
at this point from the Jackson Laboratories coming back to Collier
Page 23
February 8, 2011
County. I don't have any indication that it is. .
There's obviously been no staff work in the. recent few months on
this proj ect except for the subj ects that the board has already talked
about with respect to responding to public record requests and
assisting the County Attorney in some of the litigation matters.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And County Attorney, same
question.
MR. KLATZKOW: The Board direction was not to get out in
front of the State, so we haven't done anything because there's no
agreement with the State. We haven't done anything in a very long
time, and I wouldn't do anything without Board direction at this point
in time anyway.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And just for my own
clarification, the reason for a motion is what again, Commissioner
Hiller? We know that nothing's being done, nothing's conten- -- being
planned to be done. You know, it seems kind of redundant to go into
this, but I really would like to know the reason why we want to do it.
Is it because we suspect something could come back this way?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't believe it's redundant. I
think the public has the right to the assurance that there is fmality with
respect to county action and county expenditures as it relates to this
proj ect.
You know, I've been asked to move this forward on several
occasions. And, you know, I think the delay needs to stop, and I think
an affmnative statement needs to be made to the public that no more
time on the part of government and no more expenditure on the part of
government will be taken with respect to this proj ect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you don't be- -- I'm sorry.
Do I still have the floor, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to speak out oftum.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
Page 24
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you don't believe that the
fact that the County Attorney and the County Manager have already
said that nothing is in the works and nothing would be able to take
place unless this Board so directed it would be enough in itself? You
feel that we need to be able to put this motion in place to -- for the
reasons you stated?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- exactly do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, most everything that Jim
Coletta said -- I was just going to say, this is fme with me. I mean,
we're not doing anything anyway. It's kind of -- but it's fme if you
wanted to make -- you know, put it in writing.
I just wanted to make sure that we carry through on any of the
obligations we have, that our -- you know, public records, any
lawsuits that are being -- we're being involved with right now and all
of that is taken care of so that we don't cripple you somehow with that
motion. Will that happen?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding from the mot- -- I've got
pending litigation from the opponents of Jackson Lab that they refuse
to drop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I have to -- I have to deal with that.
But my understanding from Commissioner Hiller's motion is that I
will be able to continue with that effort and work with the County
Manager's staff to the extent I need to with respect to that litigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So you feel -- you feel okay
with being able to finish what you --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, the only thing we've been -- the
only thing we've been working on with respect to Jackson Lab for
Page 25
February 8, 2011
months now is the opposition to Jackson Labs. So as long as we
continue working on that end of it, there's no issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fme. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've received several e-mails in
the past wanting to know the status of Jackson Labs, and the only
thing I could do is give my opinion, so I think this is a prudent action.
But would this prevent any of the Board members to continue
working on Jackson Labs? I'm hearing from some that want to
continue doing so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would we want to do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm asking the motion maker.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It would. This would basically
prevent all further action except what we spoke about, which is with
respect to litigation and public record requests.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. If I can take a moment to speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to support the motion, but it
will not prohibit the Jackson Labs proj ect from resurfacing. You can't
-- you can't bind a Board of County Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's no question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- from --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't disagree with that. It
wouldn't stop this proj ect from coming back. But in order for further
action to be taken by the county, it would have to be brought back to
the Board, and the Board would have to vote to commit to the
expenditure of public funds and time to start negotiating with Jackson
agam.
Now, if Jackson wants to come back to Collier County on its own
initiative, w~ encourage that and we would welcome that. But there's
a difference between what they do on their own and what government
Page 26
February 8, 2011
does with them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But I don't intend to reintroduce a
Jackson Labs proj ect here. We didn't get enough information in the
beginning to make a determination on it. I don't know why we would
want to continue that, so I will support it. But let's be absolutely clear,
any future Board who decides that they want to go pursue Jackson
Labs can say, let's go look at it again. Maybe there's something
attractive.
So the fact that we're vot- -- we will vote today and we will, in all
likelihood, approve Commissioner Hiller's motion, it doesn't have any
long-term effect with respect to prohibiting any future work on
Jackson Labs if a maj ority of the Board were to do it.
So I just want to make sure the public understands that. But it
will have to come back in public session, as almost everything that
was done was previously done.
Commissioner Coletta, do you -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, just a clarification, because
Commissioner Henning mentioned about, would this prohibit a
Commissioner from ever looking into it on their own. And I want to
make it absolutely clear that I feel not bound by anything that's going
to take place to act as an individual as long as I don't use county
resources. Not that I plan to go back and visit Jackson Lab on my
own. It's just that I don't want, in any way, my discovery ability to be
hampered by any action of this Board, and I just want to make that
absolutely clear at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think it would be.
County Manager?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got the ability to not pay any further
county monies with respect to Jackson Labs, but if an individual
commissioner wants to make a phone call or make an inquiry on their
own time, that's within their prerogative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And it doesn't have anything to
Page 27
February 8,2011
do with Jackson Lab.
MR. KLATZKOW: It could be anything.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It has to do with a whole bunch
of other issues that are coming before us, to be able to do our own
discovery, to be able to come back to this commission if we do fmd
something that's of interest to be able to reintroduce a subject matter
of any kind.
And so I just wanted to make it clear that we aren't limited as
individuals, just as the public isn't limited by individuals to do
whatever they want to do in their discovery process.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with both what
Commissioners Coyle said and Commissioners Coletta. They've
expressed -- it's a tongue twister. They have expressed what my intent
was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
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 #9E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AWARD OF RFP #10-5541
TO PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. FOR
TOURISM MARKETING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 28
February 8, 2011
$2,350,000 FOLLOWING COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE
APPROVAL - MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM AND BRING
BACK TO THE FEBRUARY 22, 2011 BCC MEETING-
APPROVED; REQUEST COUNTY MANAGER TO BRING
BACK DISCUSSION REGARDING DONATIONS BY VENDORS
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 9E is a request by Commissioner
Hiller to reconsider Item 10I from the January 25,2011, BCC
meeting. And that item was a recommendation to approve the award
ofRFP #10-5541 to Paradise Advertising and Marketing,
Incorporated, for tourism marketing services and authorize the
chairman to sign the contract in the amount of $2,350,000 following
County Attorney Office approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And if I could just ask a question of
Commissioner Hiller.
In a one-way communication, I think you indicated that you
wanted to change your vote on that -- that item. If that's what you
want to do, there might be a way to do that immediately at this
meeting rather than having a reconsideration of the item. But if you'd
rather debate it and have reconsideration, we can vote on that. So tell
me what you'd rather do, and I'll see what we can do to get it going.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I'd actually like to do both. I
would like to have it brought back for -- I'd like to have the contract
brought back for reconsideration in light of -- excuse me -- a great
deal of information that I have gleaned since the last meeting, which
gives me reason to be very, very concerned about this contract. And I
think it would concern the other commissioners as well and, therefore,
I think it would be worthwhile and prudent to bring this contract back
for public discussion.
And then I would also like to change my vote.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll do it all at one time.
We'll take a vote on bringing it back for reconsideration, and then we
Page 29
February 8,2011
can deal with your vote at that time, okay. And--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there a motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't want to tie the two
together, because I can reserve my right to change my vote separately.
That was not what was on the agenda for today.
And so if the motion to bring this back to reconsider so we could
have discussion as to my changing my vote does not take place, I
reserve the right to bring this matter back at another meeting and to
use the procedure reserved to me to change the vote on this contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I don't think you'd have any need
for concern.
Is there a motion to approve a request to reconsider this item? I
presume -- Commissioner Henning, would you want to make that
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to make that
motion.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After reviewing the Tourist
Development Council Meeting when this issue came up -- and I am
very concerned, not only that there was not staff guidance on the
discussion, but what took place after that.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. So you're making a motion to
approve Commissioner Hiller's request to reconsider Item 10I, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And there is a second, I'm sure.
Commissioner Hiller? Or Commissioner Fiala will second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion? All in --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My light was on.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Your light's on. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Due to all the public
Page 30
February 8, 2011
publicity on this and the disagreement between some members that
took place in this thing, I think the only way we can clear the air is to
have it come back to be able to put everything out on the table to be
able to actually see what took place, so I'm going to support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll put it on the agenda for when,
County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Put it on the next meeting.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Twenty-fifth? Is it the twenty-fifth?
MR. OCHS: That would be March--
CHAlRMAN COYLE: No, February.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me. February the 22nd, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Twenty-second, okay. All right. That
one is done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just ask a question?
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just this morning earlier we had
these wonderful Code Enforcement people who were -- who noticed
that the van that the people were -- I think their name were Wix -- was
driving was just in very dilapidated condition, and so they're looking
for a donation of some way to get another van. Will this fall into this
same category?
I mean, you know, we have to -- as we discuss it, we have to
Page 31
February 8, 2011
discuss now -- if Code Enforcement would work with the community
to fmd a van for these people, now would they say that -- that's
something for Commissioner Henning's district -- would they say that
somebody was donating just like Paradise Marketing?
I think when we bring this back, we need to discuss all of those
things. We have so many people that do many wonderful things for
this county, whether it be donating things -- or whether it be their time
or their money.
My goodness, I must belong to 20 organizations myself, and we
go out and collect money for my Kiwanis Club to help the kids in the
community. So when you do bring this back, could you -- could you
bring back a thorough review of all of these things, please?
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I would like to do is -- and
maybe we can address this in the same agenda or on a separate agenda
to support what Commissioner Fiala is addressing is what my motion
was -- I believe it was two or three -- two meetings ago where I asked
that the Board have a discussion to discuss what would be the
appropriate way of handling these donations regardless of -- or I
should say, considering who is soliciting the donation and on whose
behalf and what the objective is, and then through that discussion
direct the County Attorney to do research and come back to us with a
proposed ethics ordinance so we have the appropriate procedures in
place so that when these donations ate made, regardless of whether
they're to a 501(c)3 or back to the county, that they're done in proper
fashion to promote disclosure and not circumvent the intent of the law.
So I'd like to, at a future meeting, bring back the motion for
discussion that was denied.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let me just wrap that up --
Page 32
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if you can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- from my perspective, if you don't
mind.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that is, I was ringing bells for
the Salvation Army at Christmas. I don't know if that would be
considered corrupt or not, being that people donated into the pot. I
collect money for my Kiwanis Club, and I don't know if that would be
considered illegal being that, you know, I am collecting money for
them and selling tickets for their mystery dinner -- anybody who
wants to buy one, by the way -- and other things like that. We're
going to have to have a clear line, because I'm involved in way too
many things, and people who donate to these, even if they're not mine
-- they could be somebody else's -- will people be hesitant to donate to
all of the charitable causes in town, afraid that they're then going to in
some way be considered illegal donations?
So we really need to -- and that's why I voted against it at the
time, because I worry about the charitable organizations in town who
also receive dollars from the county, for instance, but yet will receive
donations from people.
So if you could just clear -- make that clear for us, please. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
MR.OCHS: Sir, that moves us to--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I had --
MR.OCHS: -- Item 10 on your agenda.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a vote?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion we haven't -- well, we
did vote. Yes, we did vote. It passed unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we did.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
Page 33
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I would agree with
Commissioner Fiala. And the issue, as I brought up in that earlier
discussion, was that there are different types of donations made by
different types of individuals.
F or example, while Commissioner Fiala is talking about
donations she may be making to outside 5013(c)'s (sic), we have a
question of, you know, how do you handle a donation made by a
vendor back to the Board and, again, with additional factors involved
in that transaction.
So there are -- there are multiple types of transactions that need
to be considered, and I think there will be different thresholds of
disclosure and limitations that will apply, depending on various
scenanos.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I appreciate that, and that's
good, and I think we need to be clear on that.
Home Depot -- and I don't know if Home Depot is a vendor of
ours or not, but somebody on Marco Island contacted them and told
them that there aren't any benches for parents to sit on at Eagle Lakes
Community Park to watch their children play. They have to stand in
the sun, or they just don't go there.
And so Home Depot said, well, we would be happy to donate
some benches, that's something we do. And so now -- I don't know if
they're a vendor. And so then I got called in on it, and then I called
Parks and Rec in.
Now, is Parks and Rec allowed to accept something like that who
-- and it's in my district, although I didn't solicit for it, but still that
doesn't make any difference, because I didn't solicit for Marco Island
Historical Society either. So all of those things need to be nailed
down.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's just clarify where we're
Page 34
February 8, 2011
going. At this point in time, I believe the motion that we approved
was to bring back this item. It wasn't to create a new ordinance.
We're going to have to gauge where this item that's going to
come back to us is going to go. And at that point in time, if we find
that we have a deficiency as far as our present ordinances go, then we
can go ahead and address it. But it's not a one-two-step. At least that's
the way I understand it.
Is that correct, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. These are not related
discussions. Commissioner Fiala merely brought something up
because she would like it re-addressed, and I said I agreed and
supported her desire to bring this back up for discussion.
So they're unrelated. Bringing back the contract for
reconsideration and bringing back an ethics ordinance addressing, you
know, charitable giving are two separate issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we did not direct the
County Attorney to bring back an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I just mentioned to the
County Manager that I would like that separate issue of the bringing
back, you know, discussion of an ethics ordinance be put on a future
agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No. That is not what was -- the motion
was.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. That's not what the
motion is. I just was saying, that was what I was mentioning in our
conversation separately.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You asked to reconsider Item 101.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, exactly, and that's what
we're doing.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: And that's what we're going to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, that is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And we're not going to debate it today.
Page 35
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But one clarification that's very
important. You can't direct the County Manager unless two other
commissioners agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I can put something on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh you can, but that's about the
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I'm doing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- limits of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I'm doing. I'm
going to put it on the agenda. What I'm putting back on the agenda
is in support of what Commissioner Fiala just brought up this
morning, and that is a discussion regarding an ethics ordinance
regarding charitable giving, the same motion that I had before that was
denied.
But that's separate and apart from the motion that we have before
us now. I'm just merely bringing that forward because I concur with
Commissioner Fiala that it deserves discussion and research on the
part of the County Attorney to see what we can and can't do so there's
clear -- clear direction from an ethics standpoint.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What Commissioner Fiala asked for was
during the consideration -- reconsideration of Item 10I, would the
County Manager please provide us some background concerning the
entire issue of contributions by organizations that mayor may not do
business with Collier County.
As much as one might want to limit this discussion, 10I, to a very
narrow issue, it has broader implications when one starts talking about
-- about county ordinances.
So Commissioner Fiala has a right to request whatever
information she feels is appropriate to be considered at that particular
meeting, and we're talking only about the Item 10I.
So it's done. We've voted. It will come back on the agenda.
Page 36
February 8, 2011
And we're fmished with that item. Okay.
Now, where does that bring us now?
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION CREATED TO PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR
CONSOLIDATION OF THE INDEPENDENT FIRE CONTROL
AND RESCUE DISTRICTS IN COLLIER COUNTY - MOTION
TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED BILL WITH CHANGES IN
LANGUAGE RELATING TO THE COPCN AND ANNUAL
APPROVAL OF THE COPCN BY THE BCC - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Brings you to lOA, sir. It's an item that was
continued from the January 25, 2011, BCC Meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR.OCHS: It's a recommendation to review the proposed
legislation created to provide a process for consolidation of the
independent fITe control and rescue districts in Collier County.
Ms. Debbie Wight, your Legislative Affairs Coordinator, will
present.
MS. WIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. Debbie Wight.
C~mmissioners, just so it is clear, what you're being asked to do
today is determine whether you support or oppose this proposed
legislation, the fITe bill, which is created to provide a process for
consolidation of the independent fITe control and rescue districts.
Following the January 25th Board Meeting, the North Naples
Fire attorney submitted an amendment in an e-mail explaining that
action, both of which are attachments in your agenda.
The intent of the amendment is to clarify that the fITe district will
abide by state law if state law requires the COPCN; however,
according to Ms. Donaldson, "we are not willing to bind the new
Page 37
February 8, 2011
district to a requirement that may not be required by Florida law in the
future."
On February 1st, House Bill 589 was filed that includes
provisions which state, "The fire district must return to the BCC every
two years for COPCN issuance"; however, if House Bill 589 is passed
by the state legislature, the BCC would essentially be prohibited from
turning down a fire district request for a COPCN as long as the fITe
district meets or exceeds the requirements of state law.
Staff believes this would nullify Section 7 and Section 15G of the
Collier County COPCN, Ordinance 2005-16. Those sections have to
do with the local standards established for a COPCN and the training
requirements of the county medical director.
House Bill 589, if approved by the Florida legislature, only
requires a paramedic to be state certified. In addition, this afternoon
the Senate Community Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Mike
Bennett, will have a presentation on its October 2010 interim report
entitled "Merger of Independent Special Districts."
According to Senator Bennett's office that I talked to yesterday, a
specific bill has not been released yet, but if the presentation this week
in community affairs meets with approval, it will move forward next
week as a committee bill.
Florida law currently does not provide any statutory guidelines
for the merger or consolidation of independent fire districts prior to a
legislative act.
The interim report that is being reviewed by Senator Bennett's
committee was prepared by senate staff and offers some options and
recommendations that the legislature could consider if it wants to
enact guidelines for the voluntarily merger of independent special
districts.
If you have any fITe bill questions, I would ask you to direct them
-- Becky Bronsdon is here from North Naples Fire today representing
the district.
Page 38
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Thank you, Deb, for that
report, and thank you for the executive summary clarifying some of
those issues.
So you haven't seen a proposed bill by Senator Bennett? No. It's
just discussion. And maybe that's a better way to go, but we don't
know if that's going to carry forward.
My question is: When you have a special act, and this is what
this is -- correct me if I'm wrong, it's a special act -- it is a legislation
that stands on its own, and any further action by the legislators, that
special act is exempt?
MR. KLATZKOW: It depends on the timing and the intent. If--
as a general rule -- and these things have a lot of exceptions to them
by the case law -- if a special act is passed at the same legislative
session as a general law is, the special act will take precedence;
however, a later enacted general law, a year, two years, three years
from now, if the intent is to abolish all existing special laws in
contradiction to it, then the special laws will fall.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that bill needs to
specifically say that it applies to any previous special acts.
MR. KLATZKOW: If it's done in the same legislative -- if the
special act is done at the same legislative session, the special act will
prevail as a general rule. But, again, the issue isn't this legislative
session. The issue's going to be a later legislative session.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's what I'm trying to
figure out, what you're saying about future legislation. In this case the
CC -- COCPN (sic).
MR. KLATZKOW: You're issuing the certificates based on state
law.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: The State has a -- has the ability to change
its own law, okay. So if they change their own law and they take
Page 39
February 8,2011
away the ability for you to issue certificates to fITe districts,
essentially, and simply grant them a relatively automatic right to them,
that's within State powers to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And this bill is written
that it will comply to Florida Statutes 510 or 810 or whatever it is,
with the -- in dealing with the CCNOP (sic) or whatever.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: COPCN.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: COPN (sic), yeah. That's what it
says. So it's still going to comply to it. And by the way, I'm -- at the
next meeting I'm going to have that bill on the Board's agenda, which
does not have a companion item in the senate at this time.
MS. WIGHT: No, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm not sure if it's going to
pass, but it's worth having discussion. It does now?
MS. WIGHT: No, it doesn't have a companion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So anyway; that's the
only comment, questions that I have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I like what we have done
with this shell bill. I mean, it's come a long ways from what it was,
and I see it as a -- has got a -- has a great possibility.
But dealing again with the COPCN, help me with this, Debbie. I
mean, regardless of what we put in there -- and hopefully we put
something in there to give us protection for the moment, because there
should be one central authority as far as, you know, medical care.
No matter we do -- if I -- I believe that the state legislative body
at their own will could change it. There's nothing that would stop
them. Is there any guarantees at all that we could have this written in a
way that that authority would remain with us, at least till that point in
time there was a total merger in the county?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a legal question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't?
Page 40
February 8, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I mean, it doesn't matter one
way or the other. What matters is the fact that you have it in the bill to
give yourself that kind of protection you need, because once we get to
the point that mergers take place throughout the whole county, I
personally don't care about it anymore. The idea being, at this point in
time, is you can't have two authorities out there trying to decide who
gives medical care and how it comes down. There has to be one point.
Possibly someone from the North Naples Fire Department could
explain to me why there is no threat as far as the COPCN status as it
exists today changing.
MR. AGUILERA: Well, I mean, there -- we can't promise
anything in state legislators. Number one, this bill came out of
somewhere in 8t. Pete, so we can't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we under- -- I understand
that. We're talking about your bill, sir. What's in there now that
should give me the assurance that the best interest of the -- of Collier
County residents is going to be protected?
MR. AGUILERA: Well, current--
MR. OCHS: For the record?
MR. AGUILERA: I'm sorry. For the record, Jorge Aguilera,
Deputy Chief of Medical Services for North Naples Fire Department.
Right now the bill says we will follow state law, which is -- state
law requires a COPCN.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
MR. AGUILERA: There's nothing in the books that dictates or
even predicts whether that's going to change or not. That's our
assurance. We are going to follow existing law, which is, we need to
come to the board every year for a certificate of need. We will do so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And there seems to be some sort
of disagreement with that. Does county staff want to --
MR.OCHS: Commissioner?
Page 41
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- make comments on that?
MR. OCHS : Yeah, I will. I think the issue here is, as the County
Attorney said, if you want to attempt to preserve your ability locally to
issue and annually review a COPCN, that you ought to ask the district
to insert that specific language in the bill. It may only give you that
assurance for one year, if I understood the County Attorney correctly.
On the other hand, if the State law is not successfully changed
this year or in subsequent years, then you would continue by virtue of
that special act to have the ability to annually review the certificate
that you approved recently for the district.
Jeff, am I essentially accurate there?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. But it's my understanding that
insisting on that provision basically would kill this special act.
MR.OCHS: Well, no. I -- that's the question for the district.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. For the district it's a poison pill.
MR.OCHS: I don't know. We haven't heard from the district.
MS. BRONSDON: For the record, Becky Bronsdon, Assistant
Chief, North Naples Fire.
I believe that the concern over exerting -- or inserting a
requirement that's above and beyond what the State requires as it
relates to the COPCN into this legislation is that it may actually
provide a disincentive for existing special districts to consolidate
under this bill, because if state legislation changes the requirements
for the certificate of need, the only special district that would be
required to do something different than what state requires would be
this newly created district.
So there's some concern that if we change the language that it, in
fact, would serve to hamper the passing of the bill and also apply a
disincentive to districts within Collier County from merging.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand what you're saying,
but once again, my concern is we're going to fracture the medical
protocol in Collier County among many different districts out there,
Page 42
February 8, 2011
and this would be the fIrst split.
I want to make sure that whatever we put into place is going to
keep it intact, at least till that point in time that there's sufficient mass
to justify it to take place.
And I'm not too sure if I got that. I mean, this is the only thing
that's holding back my vote on voting for this is somehow I still
haven't reached that comfort level that -- what the intent is.
In other words, if we leave it the way it is, my understanding is,
is that the county's ability to be able to have one medical director that
would be able to oversee the whole thing would basically go away.
MS. BRONSDON: As I understand it, the way that the
legislation in the proposed bill is currently written, that it requires the
newly formed district to follow the state statute, as we are currently
required to do, so that whatever is --. whatever will impact this new
district is what currently impacts North Naples Fire District.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then let me go back to
that question again.
Forgive me. May I take just a few more minutes?
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Sure, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
The way it is in there now, does it change the protocol that
presently exists?
MR. AGUILERA: No. It binds us to following the existing
procedures.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what we're trying to
do is we're trying to get language in there that would prevent it
changing by state law sometime in the future; is that correct?
MR. AGUILERA: I think the only thing you can -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
MR.OCHS: I think that's what your staff is asking the Board. If
a majority of the Board wants to do whatever they can to preserve
your ability to review the COPCN as your current ordinance provides
Page 43
February 8, 2011
for the new district, then you need to ask them to specifically insert
that language into their special act.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they're saying if they insert
it, that will kill the special act from going forward.
MR. OCHS: No.
MS. BRONSDON: Well--
MR. OCHS: What they're saying is it may create a disincentive
for other districts to merge if there's some subsequent change in the
state law --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: -- which is -- which we all agree is speculative. I
believe your County Attorney told you, the best way to assure, at least
for this next year, that you have the ability to review the COPCN a
year from now with North Naples, is to write that specifically in their
special act, because he said that special act is likely to prevail in this
session of the legislature even if there's a change in the general law in
Tallahassee relating to COPCN.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you change that? I mean,
I'll be honest with you --
MS. BRONSDON: But just remember that if the concern is
dealing with the COPCN that has been approved for North Naples,
this newly created district has to come back to you and reapply for
that -- it's not going to transfer over -- so that this Board would have
the ability to approve or deny the COPCN for this newly created
district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you know what I'm seeing
from here? I'm seeing people go like this and other people go like this
(indicating) .
You know, I'm not getting a clear picture on this. I'm feeling
very uncomfortable with what's taking place right now. If you could
insert that in there -- my whole reasoning for pushing this thing
forward is I want to see consolidation take place in a meaningful way.
Page 44
February 8, 2011
I do think you're on the verge of the whole thing.
I don't -- during the time the consolidation's going forward, I
don't want to destroy what's out there as far as emergency services go
by having it fragmented throughout the county. That is my biggest
fear.
MS. BRONSDON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we could get that
language in there, you have my support. I don't have any other
objections to this bill.
MS. BRONSDON: And at this point all I can do is take that
request back to our Board to see if they support inserting that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I hope that when we make
the motion after discussion that we approve that with the condition
that that language be inserted.
I applaud you for sticking with this so long and doing the work
that brought it to the point that it's at now because, believe me, you did
not have my support last year on this, and part of this year you didn't.
But you've done an amazing job of bringing it around to a point that it
would meet the community needs. I applaud you for that.
MS. BRONSDON: And that's what --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more thing, that's all.
MS. BRONSDON: -- we've attempted to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just need that one more thing
and I'm there.
MS. BRONSDON: And that's what we've attempted to do. And
the only other thing that I want to comment on is Senator Bennett's,
the proposed -- or the suggestion that there may be a bill created out of
the committee that issued a report in the fall. And the report was an
excellent report about the need to provide legislation for the
independent districts to consolidate.
The problem is, is going forward remember that approval of this
bill does not preclude any bill that Senator Bennett might put forward.
Page 45
February 8, 2011
But we don't know what that bill will look like. We haven't seen it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely.
MS. BRONSDON: It hasn't been drafted yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we'd have the choice here in
Collier County if Senator Bennett was successful. The residents
would have a choice between two different bills.
MS. BRONSDON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so that's just absolutely
wonderful. More choices, better government.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My light is on now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Turn it off.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The bill, House Bill 589, was introduced
by Representative Ed Hopper, who is a retired firefighter, okay, and it
pretty well spells out that county commissioners shouldn't have
anything to do with the issuance of COCPNs (sic), that the districts
just get them, end of story.
Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the lawyer for the North
Naples Fire District doesn't understand that with a much higher degree
of certainty than we do. Senator Bennett, on the other hand, is saying,
independent fITe districts are crazy. You have to consolidate them.
And his bill, presumably, would require that they consolidate.
Now, which one do you think the fITe district is going to go after?
House Bill 589, which takes control away from the county
COmmISSIOners.
Now, we're in a situation where we just had a Blue Ribbon
Committee spend a year or more trying to fmd a way to retain the --
one of the best EMS systems in the State of Florida, and they
proposed a structure. We encouraged them to have a workshop so that
we could evaluate appropriate structures. And here we are getting
involved in an unpredictable mass of changing regulations coming
from different people when there is no urgency to do so.
If there are going to be bills in Tallahassee, let's see what those
Page 46
February 8, 2011
bills are. Why are we rushing this one through? There is a reason
why we're -- it's being rushed through. It's just that we don't
understand it as well as the other people do.
And it's for that reason I think we should resist the urge to rush to
embrace this legislation. We don't know how it's going to dovetail
with what we might get out of the Blue Ribbon Committee study and
our workshop. .
I mean, if we approve this bill, we may as well just trash the
workshop, because going back and trying to do it over again to make
it consistent with bills that we can't even track effectively is insanity.
There is just no reason for doing this.
What we should do is tell N orth Naples, no, we're not going to
support your legislation. We're going to wait to see what comes out of
Tallahassee. And at the end of that time, we will make a decision
whether we support one of the bills in Tallahassee or whether we
oppose the bills in Tallahassee or whether we've got a bill of our own
that we'd like to submit. But the least we can do is take the time to
sort out all the uncertainties.
There is no way that any of us can understand the maze of
potential conflicts that will result from multiple lawyers modifying
multiple legislative proposals. There's no way we can predict how
that's going to come out, so why don't we just wait for the dust to
settle and then make a decision where we stand?
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
This is a question for the County Attorney. It's not a tough one,
though. The reason I voted for the COPCN -- I mean, I think it was a
good idea, but I had some concerns until I was assured that annually
they would come back and let us review their COPCN just to make
sure that everything we thought we were voting on we were getting
and that the people in North Naples were happy with the situation and
that the fITe and EMS were happy with it.
Page 47
February 8, 2011
Laura Donaldson -- every time I said they'll come back annually,
Laura Donaldson repeated, we'll follow state statutes. She never said,
yes, we'll come back annually. She also said, we'll follow state
statutes.
I'm asking you, could a mutual local ordinance be put together
that would guarantee us, the County Commission, an annual review by
the COPCN or any COPCN that comes forward, but mainly now just
the North Naples COPCN, to review this once a year?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Cannot do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Your right to issue the certificates is based
on state law. The state legislature can change that law if they so
choose.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is more their home-rule power than
your home-rule power.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, okay. Okay. Even though it
would be a local ordinance and maybe an interlocal agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: They can preempt you on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing can -- nothing can then
require that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: You fmished?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Many in the community have
expressed the desire to consolidate, and several of the commissioners
have expressed the desire to see the consolidation of the fITe districts.
There is no legislation in place right now to allow that to happen.
So as much as anyone would like to see it happen, it is not legally
possible.
Page 48
February 8, 2011
What's being proposed today is legislation that would allow
exactly what those people who want consolidation to take place to
take place.
This legislation has been debated for years. There have been
many, many hours of review. This is not something new. This has
been modified as -- this legislation that's being proposed has been
modified as a result of years of discussion and debate between the fITe
districts and the Board of County Commissioners.
The County Attorney has made it clear, if the state law changes,
we are bound by what state law dictates. We can create ordinances
that are more restrictive, but we can't have ordinances that are more
permISSIve.
So when the attorney for the fITe district said that they would
follow state statute, that's what she's required to say as a matter of law.
To say anything different would make no sense. I see absolutely no
risk.
County Attorney, when we had the public hearing, the question
of, if there was consolidation, would the North Naples Fire District
have to come back to us and reapply for a COPCN -- and I believe
you said that was, in fact, the case.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we have the assurance that if
consolidation takes place, that the COPCN that currently is -- has been
approved by the Board of County Commissioners will have to come
back for re-approval.
MS. BRONSDON: For the new district.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Through the new district.
MR. KLATZKOW: Barring any changes in Tallahassee--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the bottom line is, we
are bound by what state statute dictates and, secondly, we have no
Page 49
February 8, 2011
enabling legislation to allow for consolidation. And this is a piece of
legislation which would be put forth that would allow consolidation to
occur and that there are other legislative proposals or at least one other
legislative bill that's being proposed that also is suggesting a means for
consolidation of the fire districts; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, every year there are bills filed in
Tallahassee. Most of them never make it through.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So to delay this yet again is
basically not allowing us to have a voice in the -- in the process of
creating legislation which would enable our districts to consolidate?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, you're talking policy now from the
board whether or not you want this piece of legislation.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And so I would submit that
in order for us to take that fIrst step to moving this question of
consolidation forward, that we should approve what you are
suggesting here today and let it play out at the state level and see what
happens.
And as far as commissioners com- -- Commissioner Coyle's
comments about, you know, putting the legislation on hold, I submit
the exact opposite, because for us to take steps with respect to the
recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee, if everything is
going to change from a state level and state law is what governs us,
then we're putting the cart before the horse if we're taking steps with
the Blue Ribbon Committee's recommendations.
So I think what we should do is do everything possible to
advance legislation to allow for consolidation. Once that plays out at
the state level and we know what state law is, then we come back and
review what type of structure makes sense for Collier County in light
of the laws that have been enacted at the state level that govern us.
MS. BRONSDON: And remember that support of this
legislation is the fIrst step in a very long process. It still requires the
vote of the residents, of the taxpayers, and also, that it certainly
Page 50
February 8, 2011
doesn't preclude any recommendations that are made by the Blue
Ribbon Committee. This just provides for the consolidation of the fire
service. Whatever the Blue Ribbon Committee recommends as far as
the provision of emergency medical services can then be incorporated
into any -- any independent districts that do consolidate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Conditioned upon that, none of the
state laws governing emergency medical services are not changed, you
know, by separate bill proposals that we may not know about today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, and then we're
going to have public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the issue is the
legislators, at least in our delegation, want some kind of indication of
what the board --
MS. BRONSDON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- wishes on this.
MS. BRONSDON: Yes. They want -- they want your -- they
want you to take an official position, most particularly Senator
Richter, before he will sponsor it further through the house.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. And I think
Commissioner Hiller made a very good observation. This is what the
citizens of Collier County want. So I would -- I would point out and
make a motion and -- in waiting for public comment -- is the board has
no objections to the legislation. But I just want to point out, I think it's
important for the legislators to understand it could be a potential --
with the ballot question, it could be a potential tax increase to the
citizens.
MS. BRONSDON: That is one of the options. There are three
options, and one provides for no tax increase. So, again, that will be
the responsibility of the elected officials of each independent district,
their responsibility to their taxpayers whether or not their taxpayers --
they believe their taxpayers will support a tax increase. And the
voters will still get to weigh in and vote on that.
Page 51
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I understand that. I
understand that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. How many speakers do we have?
We're going to take a break, though, before we start, but just tell me
how many we have.
MR. MITCHELL: We've actually got two speakers, but it's
going to revert into one because the other one has given their time to
the fIrst one, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that's going to be a total of six
minutes.
MR. MITCHELL: It is, sir.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's 10:28 now. We'll have a
break for the court reporter, and then we'll resume at 10:38.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
Mr. Mitchell, could you call the speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The fIrst speaker is Duane Billington.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I thought that was the last speaker, too.
MR. MITCHELL: It is the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The fIrst speaker and the last
speaker.
MR. BILLINGTON: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Duane Billington.
IfY ogi Berra was here he'd say, it's deja vu all over again.
About a year ago we went through this same thing. The bill that was
presented had flaws in it because of lack of clarity in it having to do
with referendum items and increased millage rates. This bill still has
that.
It also has some egregious provisions where if North Naples was
to occupy the shell, they would set all the rules, all the procedures, all
Page 52
February 8, 2011
the protocols for any fITe district that would come in afterwards.
There is no requirement that two districts join. That is a
disincentive, not an incentive, for other districts to consolidate.
The -- nobody's holding a gun to your head to approve this.
What you're being asked to do is approve a moving target. If this was
a skeet tournament where you had a shotgun and you could lead that
little bird flying through the air, that might be a good idea. This isn't.
You're talking about legislation that's going to affect the rest of the
county .
The bill that's in the legislature, which is being put on the viewer,
clearly states, "In issuing the Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, the governing body of each county may not," again, "may
not prohibit a municipal independent special district or community
development district, fITe department, from providing service within
its jurisdiction." There's nothing ambiguous about that.
If -- the COPCN that you all agreed to give them two weeks ago,
if this bill goes through, you have no review. It's right here. This is
from the bill.
But getting back to the provisions for funding. The bill has a
couple different methods of assessing funding, and they're tied in with
the referendum for whether the district consolidates or not.
The one that's on the bill -- viewer right now -- and this was
prepared by Becky Bronsdon -- if they agreed to go forward with this
method, it would raise the rates in Commissioner Hiller's district from
the existing 1.000 to 1.245, which is a 24-and-a-halfpercent increase
in the fITe tax in North Naples. I'm surprised this got out of the North
Naples Fire Department, because apparently none of those
commissioners plan on running for re-election, because if they are,
they sure wouldn't want to approve a 24-and-a-halfpercent increase,
nor would it make the county commissioner that encouraged this very
re-electable; that would be a one term candidate.
Now, if they had, instead of going through the computa---
Page 53
February 8, 2011
fraudulent computation that was just on the viewer, if they had done a
simple cutoff, instead of that 1.245, it could be a 1.1. There's a huge
difference in that. But when you use a computation that's designed to
limit taxes under an existing cap and apply it to increase taxes, which
is what happened here, this is the kind of mess you end up with.
This is a funding bill. It has nothing to do with consolidation. It
has to do with more power for North Naples and increased funding.
I asked Rita Greenberg, fire chief from Big Corkscrew, to run a
calculation if they joined in along with Golden Gate and North, and
that would raise it to 1.34 mills, which would be a 34 percent plus
increase. I mean, this is amazing. This is supposed to be about
consolidation.
I believe the referendum that every- -- countywide was 72
percent for. Seventy-four percent in North Naples had to do with the
efficiencies, accountabilities, savings. Well, I don't see any savings
here.
The item on the viewer right now has to do with the other method
they're suggesting. They're looking at a .5 mill increase every five
years until they reach cap at 3.75. Well, a .5 mill increase on a 1 mill
start is a 50 percent increase. We're going into a period of an
economy that's going to start to recover, property values are going to
go up. The revenue's going to be there as a natural process of the
recovery . You certainly don't need to do what they're doing here. This
would be a compounded. Property values would be going up, they'd
get an increase there, and then they'd get another increase from the
higher millage. This is waste. This should not be encouraged.
Nobody's holding a gun to your head. I mean, this is insane.
Looks like my time's up. I have nothing more to say on this-
unless somebody has questions for me.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller, do you
have a question of him, or you just want to say something once we
frnish with the public speakers?
Page 54
February 8,2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just some general comments.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BILLINGTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, Mr. Billington raises
an interesting point that has largely gone un-discussed. It is that these
millage rates can be raised even though property tax values will be
going up probably within the next couple of years. Is there anything
in this legislation which would keep that from generating excessive
revenues?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, just imagine if we
increased our millage rate, Board of County Commissioners' millage
rate, let's say 20 percent this year, and then the property values start
going up next year and the next year and the next year by very
substantial amounts. Imagine the amount of money that would
generate for us. I happen to agree with Mr. Billington.
Okay. No more county -- no more public speakers.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, it's interesting that you
bring up those points, Commissioner Coyle, because when property
values were going up in Collier County exponentially, the Board of
County Commissioners wasn't decreasing the millage rate to keep the
budget the same.
In fact, what was happening, the Board of County
Commissioners kept growing their budget as property values
increased.
And just to compare the Board of County Commissioners to the
fITe districts, what's interesting is that the Board of County
Commissioners can increase the millage without referendum up to 10
mills, up to 10 mills.
The fITe districts and the Board of County Commissioners cannot
be just increasing millage not to cover public expenditures. We're not
Page 55
February 8, 2011
in the for profit business. We're not enterprise funds across the board.
So these arguments make absolutely no sense.
The bottom line is, this bill still has to meet with the approval of
the state representatives in order to get passed. And at the end of the
day, it still has to be voted on by referendum by the people. So it all
boils down to the people's voice when the rubber meets the road.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I will just respond to a couple of
those points.
First of all, the Board of County Commissioners used any
revenues that we got as a result of increases in property values to build
infrastructure that had not been built in the decade prior to this board's
seating, at least the original board's seating.
There was a huge backlog, and it was a wise decision to make,
because now we have adequate infrastructure for economic recovery
and diversification.
And, furthermore, when the downturn occurred Collier County
was one of the few counties that reduced the ad valorem property tax
rate, and we reduced it to a level that existed back 11 years ago, 1999,
to minimize the impact of the economic recession on our citizens.
So Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the issue is not
approving a millage increase for North Naples Fire Department, as
was stated, or support or disapprove that.
The issue is -- and it's clear -- is our delegation, in particular the
senator, wants to know the feelings on the special bill by the Board of
Commissioners.
The -- and I know what the people want. They want a
consolidated fITe district in Collier County. I think this could be a
vehicle to do so. But the bottom line is, at the end of the day, the
voters are going to have to approve that. That's the bottom line.
So I don't know why we would object to potentially get
something before the voters of Collier County of what they wanted as
Page 56
February 8, 2011
a consolidated district.
So I'm going to make a motion that we -- that the Board of
Commissioners write to our delegation members and say that we have
no objection to the special bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that, and I'll also add
that two years ago the Board of County Commissioners did increase
their own millage.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And is that part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. It's just an aside for -
clarification! edification for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what, as much
as I'm supportive of the bill, without the inclusion of the item dealing
with the COPCN, I won't be able to vote for it. Could--
MS. BRONSDON: Commissioner, we will-- our board offrre
commissioners meets on Thursday. We will take to them the request
to insert the language that would require review by the board on an
annual basis of a COPCN given to the new district.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if Commissioner Henning
would include that in the motion, then I have no problem.
MS. BRONSDON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, would this be in
the special act?
MS. BRONSDON: We would include this in the bill, in the
verbiage in the local -- in this proposed legislation, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thank you for that.
MS. BRONSDON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Does this mean that it will come back to
us for review and another vote?
MS. BRONSDON: The COPCN -- that's what we're talking
about.
Page 57
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Legislation.
MS. BRONSDON: No. We will-- but if your motion is that you
will support it with the inclusion of that language, then the intention
would be that you won't support it without that inclusion. So we -- I
can't bind our board and say, yes, that we will support the inclusion,
but knowing that they meet on Thursday, we will take to them the
issue that you will support it only if that language is included.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it depends on how it's
included. I'd like to see what I'm supporting before I make a decision
to support it.
MR. AGUILERA: I mean, we will provide you a copy with the
language as amended.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But you're asking that we pre-approve it
before you fmalize it and send it to the legislators.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We'll just include it in the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, and there's about a half a dozen
ways you can include it in legislation where it doesn't have any effect.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we understand that you
don't approve it, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would agree if that language
was included that required them to come back every year for us to
review the COPCN -- and we'll probably have glowing reports. I don't
have any problem with that. I just want to know that we've granted
the COPCN in good faith, that we would then begin -- be able to
review it every year.
I want to comment on Duane Billington's thing. It's interesting
that you had that -- I have the same things all marked up in my book,
too, because I was concerned about all of that stuff. I've got all these
things, orange things and everything, because I was concerned with
that.
Page 58
February 8, 2011
So the only good thought I had was that at least the voters get to
vote on each of those things and -- but that also was a concern to me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I think that as long as that
language is included, I can go along with it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a motion on -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to amend my motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Leo?
MR.OCHS: I'll wait till Commissioner Henning's done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Okay.
Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to amend my motion
to no objection as long as the -- what bill-- what statute is that, 810?
MR. AGUILERA: Four oh one.
MS. BRONSDON: Four oh one.
MR. AGUILERA: Florida Statutes 401.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Florida Statutes 401 dealing
with the certificate of public convenience necessary (sic) that adheres
to the 2010 legislation, which would mean that they would have to
come back to the Board of Commissioners for the approval of COPCN
as inserted in the bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that okay with the second?
MR.OCHS: Commissioner? Sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that okay with the second?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That -- I second that, as amended.
MR. OCHS: I was simply going to suggest to the board that
perhaps the County Attorney and I can draft some language that we
Page 59
February 8, 2011
could give to our counterparts at the district that they could propose to
their board on Thursday evening. If it's acceptable, we can come back
and report to you on your meeting of the 22nd of the vote of the
district.
The bill does not have to be filed, I'm told, until March the 8th,
which is the beginning day of the session. Certainly if you get an
indication on Thursday evening that the fITe district is agreeable to
your proposal, we can report that at your meeting of the 22nd, and that
still gives time, I believe, for Senator Richter to do whatever he
chooses to do with the bill.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's an excellent suggestion, if
we can get the motion maker to agree to that.
MR. AGUILERA: That's fme.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm more concerned with the
motion maker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we bringing this back, or is
it a report you're going to bring back?
MR.OCHS: I was simply, sir, going to suggest that I give you a
verbal report of whether or not the district at their meeting accepted
your proposed amendment to the special act.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the amendment would be
that -- the certification expires each year and it has to come back to the
Board of Commissioners.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir, that the board would still have the ability
to annually review the COPCN that you've issued to the district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Review and approve.
MR.OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Well, that's great. I don't
have a problem. .
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Second's okay with that?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, that's fme.
Page 60
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye. It passes 4-1 with me dissenting.
MS. BRONSDON: Thank you.
Item #10B
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 - MOTION TO DENY THE 5% INCREASE-
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, you have a 10:30 time-certain.
We're a little bit past our 10:30 date (sic). It is Item lOB on your
agenda. This item was continued from the January 25, 2010 ( sic),
BCC Meeting.
It's a recommendation to approve the annual 5 percent increase
and 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 2011.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I believe this is Dr. Tober's item to
present. I believe he's represented this morning.
MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit. I'm
here from the firm ofCheffy Passidomo. We represent Dr. Tober and
Robert Boyd Tober, Inc.
Page 61
February 8, 2011
We have before you this morning the executive summary to
approve the 5 percent increase to the medical director's consulting
contract. I think, as you know from the history in the executive
summary and the history of this contract, that in fiscal year 2010,
Dr. Tober and the corporation did not take any increase. I think Dr.
Tober at that time recognized the hardship this county was under.
I think Dr. Tober also was conscious that his EMS colleagues
were not getting an increase, so there has not been any increase in this
contract at least since fiscal year 2009.
In 2008, I believe, the board approved the appointment of an
assistant medical director, a Dr. Lee, and the main reason to come
before you today is to help with those expenses with Dr. Lee. By my
math, the calculation is that over this two-year period it's -- this
increase would be about $2,600 for each of these years.
And if there are any other questions from the board, I'd be happy
to answer them. And I believe that has been approved and
recommended both by your EMS chief and by the director of the
Bureau of Emergency Services and found to be legally sufficient by
the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm sure Dr. Tober works very
hard and spends a lot of time on this job. But I want to ask Leo, as I
asked you at the last meeting, Leo, have our employees had a raise last
year?
MR.OCHS: No, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They work very hard also. Did they
have a raise the year before?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they getting a raise this year?
MR.OCHS: Well, that will be up to the board when we--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. OCHS: -- discuss your budget policy next meeting.
Page 62
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So right now we're still having
budgetary woes. I do not believe this is a time to give anybody a
raise. And I'm sorry, I think he works hard, but I just don't feel this is
the time to allow an increase.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you next? Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's Commissioner
Henning. I don't think it's me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pettit, I'm concerned with
your client's continuing dialogue with the media and the lack of
willing (sic) to work with the independent fITe districts. In the future,
if the board approves this, can he speak on his behalf and not the
medical director of Collier County when he talks to the media?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, I can relay that concern to Dr.
Tober. And--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I want assurance before I
vote for this contract. I mean, this reflects on the Board of
Commissioners, not willing to work with other agencies in Collier
County .
MR. PETTIT: And if I understand your request, what you would
be asking is that to the extent there is discussion with the media
regarding the various issues that confront EMS, consolidation, all
these other issues, you would want Dr. Tober to make clear and
distinguish that there are times when he is speaking only in his
personal capacity and his personal opinion and not as the medical
director for the county?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. PETTIT: I certainly think that that's a reasonable request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Question. Now, was this
same increase offered last year to Dr. Tober?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was?
Page 63
February 8, 2011
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what did he do?
MR. PETTIT: He did not take the increase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, this year it's being
offered again when no one else is receiving an increase; however,
what are the mitigating circumstances?
MR. PETTIT: I think as I described, Commissioner Coletta, he
does have, pursuant to board direction in 2008, now he's got an
appointed appointee, a medical director assisting him. I think the
math is that in 2008 it was about a $105,000 contract. This takes it up
to around approximately $110,000, but I think it's a total increase over
those two years 5,725 -- $5,275.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But it's the -- the reason
why he wants it this time is because of the fact that he's paying the
medical director; is that correct?
MR. PETTIT: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When he wasn't paying him
before.
MR. PETTIT: He was not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And he refused it before
when he wasn't?
MR. PETTIT: Well, he actually -- I believe that he did have the
medical director onboard for fiscal year 2010. That's my
understanding of the history. But he refused the increase and didn't
seek it last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: County Attorney, are we
approving a renewal of this contract inclusive of the increase, or are
we merely amending a preapproved contract to reflect an increase
from whatever point in time it was approved?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're not approving the contract.
Page 64
February 8,2011
This is simply the annual increase. He's requesting his annual increase.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: When was this contract approved?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ten years ago, approximately.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So is there no term to this
contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: Is there no term to this contract? I'd have to
pull the contract out, ma'am. I think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you do that for me? I just --
because I don't have a history. This is, you know, the fIrst time I've
seen this. I mean, usually there's a period of time that a contract
covers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it said something about
October that it would be renewed.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's -- well, if you want to take it.
MR. TEACH: The -- Scott Teach with the County Attorney's
Office. The contract automatically renews yearly subj ect to the
board's -- unless terminated upon 60 days' notice.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So does it come back to the board
for a vote on the approval?
MR. TEACH: It automatically renews.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what it provides in the
agreement?
MR. TEACH: Yes. The agreement provides that the contract
automatically renews on a yearly basis. And if it's going to be
terminated, it's terminated -- unless terminated by the county upon 60
days written notice to the consultant.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the renewal is coming back to
us on the consent agenda.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no.
MR. TEACH: It automatically renews.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's an evergreen contract.
MR. TEACH: Yes.
Page 65
February 8, 2011
MR. KLATZKOW: It automatically renews with the board's
fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically what you're saying is,
this is not going out to bid? I mean, there's no RFP for these services.
It's just we're keeping the same person on year after year.
MR. TEACH: Per the terms of the contract, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And are there evaluations
that we have? I mean, the County Attorney is evaluated annually, I
believe the County Manager, you're also evaluated annually, aren't
you?
MR.OCHS: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is Dr. Tober being annually
evaluated, and can I have copies of those evaluations?
MR. KLATZKOW: The contract does not expressly provide for
annual evaluations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do your contracts provide for
evaluations?
MR. KLATZKOW: Mine does, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does it? Does yours?
MR.OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, maybe we should include
that in that contract. Maybe there should be another amendment, and
maybe that should be brought back at the next -- at another meeting.
But I have some concern about that, because we've got a county
employee -- I mean, every county employee is subj ect to evaluation,
and now I'm coming to learn that we have a county employee who's
not?
MR. TEACH: Well, he's not really an employee. He's an
independent contractor directly working at the board's request. So if
the board wished to -- if a member of the board wished to terminate
Dr. Tober's contract, there's provisions in the agreement to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But my concern is not that.
Page 66
February 8, 2011
My concern is that I think he is an employee. I mean, he represents
himself as the medical director of Collier County on board letterhead,
so I -- you know, while he may be a contract employee, he is
nonetheless an employee of the county, and that goes--
MR. KLATZKOW: He's an independent contractor, ma'am.
MR. TEACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But isn't he a contract employee?
MR. TEACH: Right. And we don't evaluate vendors who are
contractors or independent contractors working for the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we allow our vendors to send
out letters under board letterhead?
MR. TEACH: Ma'am, I can only tell you what the contract says,
and the contract says he's an independent contractor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he's not --
MR. TEACH: What we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So he's not -- he's not an employee
of the county?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MR. TEACH: He's an independent contractor. And what we do
with independent contractors is if their performance is unsatisfactory,
there are means to address it pursuant to the contract, and we also have
a rating system with, like, general contractors. Ifwe're dissatisfied,
we make a record, and then we don't use them in the future.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So ifhe's an independent
contractor and not an employee of the county, I just have some
questions about how we're paying insurance for him and, you know,
where the liability lies in the event he -- he's, you know, negligent in
the performance of his duties.
MR. TEACH: Dr. Tober's never had a claim against him, and I
did talk to J eff Walker, our Risk Management Director --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not concerned about the
history. I'm concerned about the future.
Page 67
February 8, 2011
MR. TEACH: No, I understand that. I'm going to get to that.
Jeff Walker tells me that our carrier actually encourages adding Dr.
Tober to the policy because it's cheaper. And if we had a consultant
that had to purchase their own contract, their own insurance, it would
be much more expensive to the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are we insuring him strictly
with respect to acts of negligence as it relates to his performance vis-a-
vis the county, or are we insuring him for -- you know, are we just
insuring his company regardless of what act that company is involved
with?
MR. TEACH: It's in capacity -- and I would have to look at the
insurance declaration, but it's in his capacity as the emergency -- as
the emergency medical director.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For Collier County only?
MR. TEACH: For Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Because obviously I'd be
concerned if we're compensating his malpractice insurance that covers
his prac- -- his consulting business. We'd be using public funds to
benefit a private business.
MR. TEACH: It's only in his capacity as the official duties that
he performs on behalf of the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, thank you for answering
those questions for clarification. I would have to agree with
Commissioner Fiala's position. I think her argument was very well
made, and I would have to agree that it would be inappropriate at this
time to amend this contract to increase the pay in light of the fact that
absolutely nobody else is getting pay increases.
MR. PETTIT: Well, Commissioner, that's certainly within the
purview of the board. As the contract states, it is the recommendation
of your staff. And my understanding is that it has been included in the
budget, this increase.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. The board did approve the hiring
Page 68
February 8, 2011
of Dr. Lee; is that not true?
MR. PETTIT: That's correct. That was in 2008. And I have the
executive summary here, but yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have a speaker?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, yes, we do have a speaker.
Ian, how many speakers do we have? Or do we have any? You
just left the light on?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we don't have any speakers.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. Turn the light off then, okay.
There you go. Thanks. I can't do anything up here unless the light's
on or off.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we did have a registered speaker, but he's
actually presenting to you, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, he doesn't count.
MR. MITCHELL: Exactly.
MR. PETTIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to deny
the 5 percent increase in consultant fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion by --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The existing contract.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Hiller to deny the
increase, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to go on the record to
let you know that I as a commissioner greatly appreciate the services
that Dr. Tober has given to this community. I truly understand where
he's coming from in the fact that he's not asking for the money
Page 69
February 8, 2011
himself, but board's direction for him to take on another employee, the
cost he had to do to cover it. He's asking for a small amount to be able
to cover some of the costs for the additional person. F or that, I won't
be able to vote for the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And I would also like to go on
the record as saying that I think Dr. Tober is an extraordinary
individual who has devoted his life to emergency care and helped
create one of the best emergency medical systems in the nation right
here in Collier County, and we are slowly but surely not only
dismantling him, but our EMS system.
So all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes 3-2 with
Commissioner Coletta and Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you understand it's only because
no one else in the county is getting a raise. It has nothing to do with
how capable Dr. Tober is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's because we approved the hiring of an
additional employee that he had to fund out of his own pocket, and he
deserves the money to fund the employees that we authorize him to
have. But it's done, and that's where we are.
Okay. Where do we go next?
Item #10C
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(BCC) PURSUANT TO DIRECTION UNDER ITEM #9C AT THE
Page 70
February 8,2011
JANUARY 11, 2011 BCC MEETING PROVIDING AN
ACCOUNTING OF ALL PUBLIC FUNDS SPENT ON THE
JACKSON LABORATORY PROJECT - MOTION TO BRING
BACK WITH FULL ACCOUNTING OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND
TO BE PLACED ON CONSENT AGENDA WITH BCC COSTS
AND TRAVEL EXPENSES INCLUDED - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: That takes us to 10C on your agenda,
Commissioners. It's a report to the Board of County Commissioners
pursuant to direction under Item 9C at the January 11, 2011, BCC
meeting providing an accounting of public funds spent on the Jackson
Laboratory proj ect.
Mr. Mark Isackson will present.
MR. ISACKSON: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Mark Isackson with the County Manager's Office responding
to a request from the board for information last month on January
11th.
County Manager was directed to provide an accounting of public
funds connected with the Jackson Lab proj ect.
The report before you was structured based upon guidance by the
County Manager and represents staffs best effort to identify hours and
costs under the control of the County Manager and the County
Attorney.
This report does not account for costs which may have been
incurred by commissioners or other elected offices.
One edit note for your information. Yesterday the County
Attorney and I had a conversation, and the County Attorney noted an
error in the report. There were four specific contracts that were
provided regarding outside counsel, and those were classified under
the bond validation process, the land use category, with regard to the
arbitration hearing and the Sunshine litigation.
In error were legal expenses totaling $12,945.26 which were
Page 71
February 8, 2011
categorized under the validation process and should have been under
the land use category, as they pertained exclusively to the arbitration.
While the sum total listed in the report does not change, the
amount associated with bond validation process would now total
$18,057.45, while outside counsel costs connected with the land use
matter would be increased to $21,794.13.
That's all my remarks at this point, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mark, why did you not include
commissioners'time?
MR. ISACKSON: Well, that was the direction that I got from
the County Manager, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. Well, I think it should be
included.
MR. ISACKSON: If that's the board's direction, we'd be happy
to go back and provide whatever edits to the report that we can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have to say, I was really
impressed with the number, 95,000, considering the amount of time
that this proj ect has been ongoing and the public debate and the
volume of emails that were generated and all the litigation. I think it
really sets a new benchmark for efficiency in Collier County, and I
think it basically should be used as a standard for future economic
development, you know, recruitment, if you will.
It means that we need to budget very little money to recruit
businesses and really very little money for litigation, because it seems
a very small amount of time was expended for a very complicated,
very large proj ect with a lot of public controversy that lasted for a
number of years.
So I must say, for the fIrst time, it looks like Collier County was
efficient.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about commissioners'
Page 72
February 8, 2011
travel to Maine? Why wasn't that included in?
MR. ISACKSON: Again, sir, it was the direction of the County
Manager that we structure the report the way we provided it.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, I apologize if I misunderstood. If
you want -- if you want us to come back and add County Commission
related expenses, I'll work with Mr. Mitchell and your calendars to do
whatever you would direct.
I only accounted for the time that was under the control of my
staff, and I believe the County Attorney did the same. But I didn't
mean to omit anything intentionally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no. But I think it's worthy
of the public knowing this, and -- on -- in a board meeting.
MR. OCHS: That's fme.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my personal view. But
also there were meetings, public meetings, where staff was involved
when this Jackson Lab fIrst rolled out that staff attended these
meetings. I remember at the Telford Center, it was a meeting in
particular where there was a lot of staff there, and I think that time
should be included in the report to the public.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I noticed the omission of
the expenses for the commissioners, and I asked the County Attorney
and County Manager if somebody could put those numbers together
so we can include them in the report. Obviously, I don't think
somebody had any time to do that yet?
MR. OCHS: Mr. Mitchell may have, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioner, I've got the details of the
expenses for the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And that should have
been part of the original report, to be honest with you, and that's why I
requested it.
MR. MITCHELL: The total expenses for Jackson Labs for the --
Page 73
February 8, 2011
for three commissioners involved was $3,761.81.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think it's important to
note that Commissioner Coyle spent the lion's share of that. Just
kidding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How much was my expenditure?
MR. MITCHELL: Your expenditure, sir, was $1,084.27.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it's less than one-third, right?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, I'll give this detail to the County
Manager.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I would appreciate it, and
I did request this back on Monday when we met, to have that included.
And you're right; it was an omission.
One of the things that I really do want to glean from this -- and I
appreciate Commissioner Hiller's comments -- is if this went
unchallenged, which is very unlikely that something of this magnitude
ever would, how much would it have cost us to get to the point we're
at?
In other words, because of the challenges, what percentage of
that close to $100,000 was for -- because of the challenges that came
up, legal fees, discovery, or whatever?
MR. ISACKSON: That's in your report, sir, if you look at the
table. There was $43,450 in outside contractual costs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I know it's in the report,
but I thought to put it on the record is an important thing.
So in reality, we're looking at a fIXed cost that, you know, if this
was something that met the public scrutiny out there, wasn't
challenged, we would have had a cost to bring it to this point of about
$57,000. Am I wrong?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm wrong, okay.
MR.OCHS: It may have been less, sir. If you -- again,
regarding the arbitration hearing. If -- you can argue whether or not
Page 74
February 8, 2011
that would or would not have occurred, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But let's look at this as -- in a
different light. This was very interesting. As Commissioner Hiller
said in so many words, that this is a lesson, and from this lesson we
glean where we go for the next step so that our next approach that we
go forward with will be more in tune to what the public would expect.
I doubt we'd be dealing with agencies that are beyond our control
like the State of Florida and Jackson Lab where the negotiations took
place and never actually arrived at our front door.
Those types of situations are very, very difficult to work with.
And who knows what would have happened if the state did complete
their negotiations with Jackson Lab, what the [mal product would
have looked like and what the county would have done with it at that
time. We'll never know. We can only speculate. But what did we
learn and where can we go from here? That's the important issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, is your light on
from before or you --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I have something else.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just remembered. Mr.
Klatzkow, you went up to Maine also, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that included in this?
MR. KLATZKOW: I sent it to Mark. I don't know ifhe had --
MR. ISACKSON: It didn't get in the report, but Mr. Klatzkow
did indicate that he spent some $907,000 -- $907.
CHAlRMAN COYLE: Nine hundred seven thousand dollars?
MR. ISACKSON: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nine hundred and seven
thousand dollars, whoa.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me follow up on that.
Is that hard costs?
Page 75
February 8,2011
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. There was an airfare -- it was airfare,
hotels, car rental.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, isn't your time a value?
MR. KLATZKOW: I did it on the weekend, sir. I didn't include
my time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mark--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute. Is there any
staffmembers that went up to Maine?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the trip to Orlando?
There was staff on the bus, wasn't there? Were they riding the bus or
driving the bus?
MR.OCHS: I didn't go to Orlando, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: I did, but that wasn't as much for Jackson.
It was for economic development zones. Jackson was just -- came up
as part of it. Make known, it is a successful example of an economic
development zone, which this board has been looking at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I thought it was a
biomedical --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's part of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- like -- like we were going to
create at Ave Maria. I think that -- I thought that --
MR. KLATZKOW: That's part of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- was the justice for it.
You went, Shari, didn't you?
MS. MONETTA: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it all about Jackson Labs,
or was it about something else?
MS. MONETTA: Sanford Bernham.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Page 76
February 8, 2011
MS. MONETTA: Commissioner Coyle was on the bus, too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I was there. I didn't charge for my time.
MS. MONETTA: I didn't charge for my time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Didn't charge for lunch, didn't charge for
anything else.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mark, what I think would really be
beneficial in the spirit of full transparency for the public is for you to
take all the underlying work papers that form the basis for the
summary report that you presented and include it on the record so -- if
anyone wants to review it.
And the other thing I would ask is if since you received your
direction from County Manager Ochs, if he could pleas~ summarize
the parameters that were the basis that you compiled your information,
because obviously, you know, we're discovering that certain things
were not included because they were defmed as economic
development versus Jackson or, you know, whatever the case may be,
or Board of County Commissioner versus staff.
So I think if there's a clear understanding of the parameters of
this report, then we can have a better -- the public can have a better
appreciation.
I think the point that you made that -- how much did you say that
was expended by the county alone, like 40 or -- 40-some thousand
unrelated to outside litigation?
MR. ISACKSON: Staff costs, is that what you're referring to
now?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. ISACKSON: $51,241.93.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically 50,000 on, you know,
a multi-year, you know, couple of hundred million dollar project. I
mean, that really speaks, as I said earlier, to really a benchmark for
efficiency. And I think we need to keep that in mind.
Page 77
February 8, 2011
If we consider, for example, the cost of a Compo Plan
amendment, the fee being processed through CDES is, like, 25,000.
Just looking at it from a relative perspective, that really, really says
something.
So I think when we go to budget for economic development, we
need to keep these numbers in mind and keep our budget as efficient
as this one has proven to be.
My last comment is, with respect to Commissioner Coyle's
earlier remarks at the last meeting that the bulk of these expenditures
would be proven as related to all -- you know, to public record
requests, I mean, based on your report, that obviously was not the
case. And thank you for breaking that out for clarification.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now -- and my light's on now.
A couple of observations I'd like to make. Number one, the
arbitration hearing -- well, fIrst, Nick Casalanguida, can you come up
here, please?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida, deputy administrator.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Was the arbitration hearing about the
Rural Land Stewardship Area, or was it about Jackson Labs?
MR. CASALANGrnDA: Sir, it's a question about the rural land
stewardship receiving area -- one of those tongue twister words -- that
was going to have to come up regardless of Jackson Labs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it -- although it came up at the same
time -- and to be honest, it probably surfaced by Jackson Labs. It
really wasn't a Jackson Labs issue.
MR. CASALANGrnDA: Sitting in the arbitration hearings, it's a
question that had to be answered as a matter of --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So I would argue that the time,
staff time and the outside contractual costs for the arbitration hearing
were not related to Jackson Labs at all and shouldn't be included.
Page 78
February 8,2011
The others, I think, are perfectly valid except for the litigation by
others, and I think that trims the costs down considerably. Yes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One point of clarification. We were
waiting in staff for data and analysis to do an in-depth report. I think
one of the points Commissioner Hiller made -- and just for
clarification. A Compo Plan amendment is a detailed study, and
several times we said, if this proj ect is going to move forward, we will
expect data and analysis to come in.
So we never went into, as a staff, a data-and-analysis evaluation
of Jackson Labs. So if we had done so and the board had directed us
to, it would have been significantly more time. But that was pending,
I guess, the state's approval of the funds.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So it would have been much higher if
we hit that next phase, I would imagine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It would have been much higher for all
of us, but we never even got into the business of evaluating Jackson
Labs.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, sir, from a fiscal standpoint,
yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So -- now, the other point I'd like to
make is that, although staff dollars, as Commissioner Hiller says, are
reasonable and remarkable, I guess, the point is that none of those
resulted in additional costs to taxpayers. They were done by existing
staff; am I correct, County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So there was no incremental cost to
taxpayers as a result of the expenditure of that amount of time and
staff dollars because our people work for the time they need to get the
job done, and they're not working by the hour. So the staff dollars are
not an additional cost to the taxpayers.
But I also think that a lot was done in a relatively short period of
Page 79
February 8, 2011
time with not a lot of taxpayer dollars spent on it.
It was no secret to anybody that we wouldn't even start working
on the Jackson Labs proposal until sometime in November, and by
December we knew it was dead. So there was just no time spent much
doing that.
But in any event, the commissioners' costs should have been
included, but I don't want to leave the public with the impression that
they were not publicly revealed and approved. They all appeared in
our agendas, they required a vote of the members of the board, and
they were -- it was all public information and knowledge. It was
correctly revealed.
The problem is, it just wasn't -- filled it into the report, but it
wouldn't change anything, quite frankly, of any significance. But for
completeness, I agree with the others that we should include it, and the
County Attorney's time, too.
So with that we've got Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Hiller again. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
continue this item and ask the county to bring back a full accounting
of public funds spent on this proj ect to date, and that could be on the
consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that, but I think it
shouldn't just be to date. It should also include payables. Have we
received all the bills for all the litigation?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe so. I asked for it up to date. Now,
I've got continuing costs on Jackson Labs with the counter-claims but,
you know, to date you've got it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I just want to remark that the
issue about not being an increased cost to the taxpayer, it's a
reallocation of existing resources that could have been deployed
towards a more productive end.
So to that extent, merely that taxes didn't go up to cover this
Page 80
February 8, 2011
expenditure doesn't necessarily mean that the taxpayer wasn't
burdened. In fact, the taxpayers did pay for this, and those monies
could have been used alternatively.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you have saved any money,
Commissioner -- I mean, County Manager, if the people had not been
engaged in this activity? Would you have been able to cut your budget
and reduce your costs?
MR.OCHS: No, sir. With respect to the staff costs, those are
salaried employees. Their annual salaries are part of your adopted
budget. You know, unless they were laid off or hours reduced -- and I
don't think that's at all what the commissioner is suggesting -- but they
would have been working productively on some other proj ect,
perhaps, but it had no additional --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's exactly the point. They
could have been working on that.
MR. OCHS: It had no additional [mancial impact to your
adopted budget.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very good.
Okay. We have a -- we have a -- we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Hiller to bring this
back again and discuss it with the addition of the commissioners'
travel costs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, to put it on the consent.
MR. OCHS: I'm sorry, yes, to add the BCC costs and also the
travel expenses for the County Attorney that we inadvertently omitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any further discussion?
. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 81
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's scheduled.
Okay. Where do you want to go now?
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THREE IMPACT FEE
REIMBURSEMENTS, TOTALING $148,681.70, DUE TO THE
CANCELLATION OF THREE BUILDING PERMITS AND THE
SUBSEQUENT REAPPLICATIONS SUBMITTED UNDER NEW,
LOWER IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULES-APPROVED
MR.OCHS: The next item is 10D, Commissioners. It's a
recommendation to approve three impact fee reimbursements totaling
$148,681.70 due to the cancellation of three building permits and the
subsequent reapplications submitted under new lower impact fee rate
schedules.
Ms. Amy Patterson will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning. Amy Patterson, for the
record.
You have before you three impact fee refund requests due to the
cancellation of building permits and the subsequent reapplication
under a lower rate schedule.
These are before you because they exceed the $25,000 threshold
that's required that requires board action.
I don't know if you'd like -- if you have any questions or if you'd
like any further information on these.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion to
Page 82
February 8, 2011
approve the reimbursement of $148,681.70 due to the cancellation of
these three building permits and the subsequent reapplication
submitted under the new lower impact fee rate schedule as permitted
by law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Hiller
for approval, second by Commissioner Henning.
No speakers.
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 passed unanimously.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE SELECTION OF FIRMS
UNDER RFP #10-5572 FOR WIGGIN'S PASS PERMITTING,
MODELING & INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN TO COASTAL
PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. (CP&E) AND DIRECT
STAFF TO BRING A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT TO THE
BOARD FOR SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL - APPROVED; CCNA
COMPLIANCE CONFIRMED BY ASSISTANT COUNTY
ATTORNEY COLLEEN GREENE
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 10E on your
Page 83
February 8,2011
agenda this morning. It was previously 16E 1. And that is -- excuse
me. It was 16D 1, my mistake.
That's a recommendation to approve selection of frrms under
RFP 10-5572 for Wiggin's Pass permitting, modeling, and inlet
management plan to Coastal Planning and Engineering, Incorporated,
and direct staff to bring a negotiated contract to the board for
subsequent approval. And this item was moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin.
MR. OCHS: Hold on. What do you need? The podium?
MR. McALPIN: Yeah, the podium. We've got it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to -- Mr. McAlpin, if I
may, I'd like to -- and I've got this overhead in front of me. Can I just
direct a few questions and explain why I brought this forward? And I
believe -- I spoke to Marla yesterday, and I hope she conveyed what
my concerns were.
The real issue here is that you're basically -- you basically
solicited an RFQ, not an RFP but an RFQ, related to an RAI or RAIs
that came back pursuant to the 6/9/2009 contract work that was
presented to the state. And my understanding is that the costs for
these RAI's, the responses to these RAI's, are always included in
these initial contracts, and in that case it would have been the 6/9/2009
contract.
It is highly unusual and really out of our norm to be
compensating the engineering consultant to respond to an RAI or
RAI's. And I really don't understand what happened here and why it's
being done in this fashion.
My frrst question is -- you know, you can explain it generally,
but secondly, this engineering contract, how is that let and how much
was it for, the 6/9/2009?
MR. McALPIN: It was for $170,000.
Page 84
February 8,2011
F or the record, let me introduce myself. Gary McAlpin, Coastal
Zone Management.
Madam Commissioner, it was for $170,000, and let me just go
back a little bit here. We entered into a contract with Coastal Planning
and Engineering, it was approved by the board on June 9th, and that
was for the work associated with straightening out the Wiggin's Pass,
moving towards the -- straightening out the Wiggin's Pass channel
moving towards a long term master plan.
With that, we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That was just -- let me -- just to
clarify, that was just for the design work?
MR. McALPIN: No. That was the design, the engineering, and
the permitting. We entered into a contract with them. Prior to
entering into a contract with them, we worked with DEP extensively.
We've got their guidance during that period of time. We surveyed
them. We had done modeling in the -- previous to that, and we felt we
had a pretty good understanding of their guidance to us relative to this
proposal. They submitted a proposal. We reviewed it. We accepted
their proposal.
Their proposal was to straighten out the channel, build the sand
dikes to train the channel, and look at the re-nourishment on the park.
It included $60,000 worth of studies for the bathymetric, geotechnical,
and the sea-grass. It included a hundred thousand dollars worth of
additional fmal design modeling, the permitting, the engineering
permitting, and the [mal design, and then it included about $10,000 for
-- to get Barefoot Beach -- to come through with Barefoot Beach to
get that an area designated as critically eroded.
We operated in good faith. We had guidance. We prepared what
we thought was a complete engineering package.
Subsequent to that, as we got into this, DEP's guidance to us
changed. They came back with an RAI. Their RAI was much more
extensive than anything they had talked to us before about.
Page 85
February 8, 2011
It included four major items. They wanted a brand new inlet
management plan. They wanted a complete environmental impact
statement for this, although they had talked before previous that that
would not be required. They wanted us to model the ebb tide shoal,
and they asked for additional geotechnical work to be done.
Their guidance to us changed because of the influence of the
state park. The state park was concerned that anything we did would
impact them and impact them in a much more negative way.
Recognize with me that the park system reports up through
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and we believe that
they -- we were dealing with much more of an impact for the state
park than was necessary that clearly had changed.
When we received these guidance for these additional studies,
we realized that we -- at that point in time we needed to go back and
do a -- an RFP, and that's what we did. We packaged the scope
together, we were very clear with what we wanted to do, and we went
out for RFP, not RFQ but an RFP, so that we solicited the community
for the best qualified engineering firm to complete this additional
work.
And what we're asking you to do is to approve our selection of
that engineering firm, our recommendation that that engineering frrm
is the most qualified candidate to move forward with this -- with these
additional studies. That's where we're at, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand, when the initial
design work was contracted for, it was never contemplated that you
were going to have to do modeling of the ebb tide shoal to support the
permit or that there would be the need for an inlet management plan?
MR. McALPIN: That is correct. The inlet -- the ebb tide shoal --
we knew we were going to have to model the interior and exterior
channels. We provided extensive modeling previous to that. We
knew we had to do the fmal modeling. But the ebb tide shoal
modeling is some that DEP had asked us to do with the RAI. That
Page 86
February 8, 2011
was never discussed in all of our previous discussions or guidance
documents with them.
Prior to going into a proj ect like this, we have extensive
consultations with them. Remember, Commissioner, that we modeled
this prior to the fact. We had an extensive review. DEP and the park
system were part of our modeling team, the Wiggins Pass Inlet
Modeling Program, and this never came up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you didn't anticipate the A --
the EIS either?
MR. McALPIN: We did not. We had environmental-- they
had given us guidance on environmental items we had to do. We
knew we had to do a sea grass survey. We knew we had to do a
survey of the existing resources in there. We provided that. That was
provided in the _.: in the original package. That -- a complete full
blown environmental impact statement was never discussed or
anticipated with this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the reason I bring all of this
up is because, you know, as -- I mean, obviously you were over the
threshold to begin with, but you know the CCNA does not allow
piece-mealing of proj ects, that you basically can't carve a proj ect up
to fall under thresholds which is why -- you know, dollar thresholds,
which is why I asked the question about the price of the original
contracts.
And so basically, I wanted to be sure that there was, you know,
full compliance with the CCNA and that we were in no way approving
something that could later be argued as being piece-mealing and
contrary to statutory requirements.
MR. McALPIN: I could assure you, Commissioner, that we
work in lockstep with purchasing all through this process, and we
received our direction from purchasing. And if you'd like to, maybe
Colleen Greene from the County Attorney's Office would like to
comment on that.
Page 87
February 8, 2011
MS. GREENE: Good morning, Commissioners. Colleen Greene,
Assistant County Attorney.
I have reviewed this issue with the Purchasing Department and
Coastal Zone Management. And as you may be aware Commissioner,
that the CCNA was actually amended between the two RFP's that are
being discussed. So the fIrst contract award was in June of 2009, and
then the CCNA was actually amended July 1 st of 2009.
So when we issued the second RFP and the award that we're here
about today, we're acting in compliance with the amendment to the
CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do you want to explain the
amendment that occurred?
MS. GREENE: There are two provisions of the statute that
specifically apply to the issue here today, and that is the threshold for
construction services increase from $1 million to $2 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just clarify? I just asked
whether construction services were involved in this, and according to
Gary, the clarification was that it was not.
MS. GREENE: Well, the design -- if the design for the
construction --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. GREENE: The design services are what are being procured,
but they will defme the construction to be done, so if the construction
costs are anticipated to exceed over $2 million -- so the amendment
was from a one million threshold to a two million threshold. And the
second part of the amendment was, they added the term "fixed term"
to a different type of contract in the continuing contract defmition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you clarify how the impact of
a change in law from one million to two million affected this contract.
MS. GREENE: Well, it's my understanding, Commissioner, that
based on the additional information that we received from DEP, that
Page 88
February 8, 2011
the design services, the cost of the design services, would increase
substantially, and the cost of the estimated construction would
increase substantially, and we felt that it was -- the most responsible
thing to do was to issue a new RFP in compliance with the CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So while we're talking about
170,000 for the original contract and this solicitation for 177,000, are
you telling me it's -- this is going to be in excess of a million dollars?
MS. GREENE: The construction may be in excess of $2 million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In excess of $2 million now?
MS. GREENE: Yeah. I don't know the cost of the construction.
That's what I'm told from staff. The construction costs may exceed
two million or, in the alternative, design services may exceed in
excess -- well, clearly in excess of 35,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MS. GREENE: Probably in excess of 200,000. That's also part
of the same amendment to the CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I'm familiar with the
200,000 amendment. I just, I guess -- I'm not an expert on the CCNA,
but I'm having a problem understanding the construction, you know,
two-million-dollar threshold and how it relates to all of this here.
MS. GREENE: Well, there's also the threshold for design
services, and in this case --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I know.
MS. GREENE: -- the design services will exceed $200,000,
which is another triggering point for the county to issue a new RFP.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I can see that. Obviously if
the original design service was 170,000 and now we're looking for
another 177. But, you know you raise an interesting point about the
million to two-million-dollar threshold, and it's something Marlaibrought up in our conversation yesterday, and I didn't understand it
then.
Page 89
February 8, 2011
I would really appreciate if you could maybe write me a memo and
clarify how all that ties into this contract --
MS. GREENE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you know, based on the
historical facts and the prospective budget.
MS. GREENE: Certainly. We can talk about it, and I can
provide you a memo.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MS. GREENE: And I do know that at issue here are the design
services, will be in excess of $200,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but the issue of construction
costs were brought up yesterday, and you brought them up this
mommg.
MS. GREENE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's what I want to focus on,
because I really don't see how that all ties into this.
MS. GREENE: Okay. And I can get more information on the
actual construction costs from staff.
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, I would also add that this item has
gone through the Coastal Advisory Committee and has been approved
by the Coastal Advisory Committee. It's also been approved by the
Tourist Development Council.
And we have been working with the Wiggin's Pass -- a work
group for the Wiggin's Pass for the last two years, and they have
reviewed this and input it into it and helped us develop a criteria and
scope. So we think we have good community acceptance for this.
We have to work through the issues with DEP and the park
system. And this RFP, if we move forward to the next step for the
contract, will allow us to do this. We're just asking you at this point in
time to approve the selection and the ranking for -- of the selection --
staff selection committee.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is there a motion? Commissioner
Page 90
February 8, 2011
Hiller, you pulled it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I make a motion to approve
subject to, you know, confrrmation of the discussion that we had here
today that what is in -- what is being approved is done in compliance
with the CCNA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can either you or Colleen certify
that it's in compliance with the CCNA?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Both should.
MS. GREENE: Yes, Commissioner. It's my opinion that we are
acting in compliance with the CCNA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And, Gary, are you in agreement
with that?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, Commissioner. We have followed
purchasing policy as we understand it. We've worked with the
purchasing organization. And from my background and knowledge,
we are in compliance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And just for the record, the Executive
Summary Report was approved by Colleen Greene, JeffKlatzkow,
Cheryl (sic) Pryor, Leo Ochs, Marla Ramsey, Steve Carnell, Lyn
Wood, Hailey Alonso, and Gary McAlpin. So all of those people
reviewed this originally and certified that it was legally sufficient.
Okay. Thank you very much. We have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller for approval, seconded by Commissioner
Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Page 91
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously.
Do we have something we can do in ten minutes?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's pretty much it then.
Item #llA
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE A REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO BID ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTY AT FOUR CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN
FORECLOSURE SALES SCHEDULED BY THE CLERK IN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. JEAN CLAUDE
MARTEL, CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO. 10-720-CA, IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE COUNTY'S
FORECLOSED LIEN INTEREST - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. I believe you can. It would be your next
item on the agenda. It's 11A that was previously 16K5 on your
consent agenda. It's a recommendation to authorize a representative of
the County Attorney's Office to bid on behalf of the county at four
code enforcement lien foreclosure sales scheduled by the clerk and
Board of County Commissioners versus John Claude Martel in an
amount not to exceed the value of the county's foreclosed lien interest.
And this item was moved at Commissioner Hiller's request from
the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good morning.
Page 92
February 8, 2011
The reason I brought this forward is because -- was because when
I was reviewing this agenda item, which was on consent, I consulted
with the County Attorney and asked him, you know, if this is typical.
And I got the answer that it wasn't and that somehow this related back
to the -- and correct me if I'm mistaken, of course. But this is what we
talked about. It relates back to Bayshore; is that correct?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Jeff
Wright, assistant County Attorney, for the record.
This relates back to one particular street within the Bayshore
Triangle area. It's called Karen Drive. And Mr. Martel has been one
of the most frequently cited code violators.
So to answer your question, it's within the Bayshore Triangle
overlay, but it's in a -- on a street called Karen Drive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And why are we bidding on this,
and why do we not bid on, you know, other projects where there are,
you know, habitual offenders or whatever term you use in Code
Enforcement?
MR. WRIGHT: No, that's a great question. We have -- as I
believe you're aware, we have somewhere around 150 or 200
foreclosure actions where the county's a party. Very rarely does the
county bring a foreclosure -- offensively bring a foreclosure except
for, in my experience at least in the code enforcement context, in the
last five years we've brought one offensive foreclosure action, and it
happened to be against this same gentleman, Mr. Martel.
It's not typical for us to do that. In five years, one foreclosure.
And as you can see from the amounts, the fines were over $400,000
for one code enforcement lien.
So it's atypical, we hate to do it, but when nothing else works,
this is what we resort to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you have any pictures?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, we do. I believe code --
Page 93
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of this particular case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. WRIGHT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're not looking for dog
pictures or children pictures.
MR. WRIGHT: And Commissioner Hiller --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I understand about the
foreclosure, but you're going to bid on these foreclosure sales. So
you're looking to acquire these properties.
MR. WRIGHT: Right. And this is a very --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a second issue to the
foreclosure question.
MR. WRIGHT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I mean it's really the bidding.
While you've got two parts that are unique and different, partly the
foreclosure and partly the bidding, it was more the bidding on these
properties, you know, that was of interest to me, you know, why we
are looking to acquire more properties.
And also, by the way, how much do you anticipate it will cost?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, fIrst of all, we have the photos. And I just
wanted to point out that this item is very narrow and focused. It is to
have someone from our office go to the courthouse for the auction.
It's a bidding item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. WRIGHT: We want to make sure someone's there.
Because if we don't have someone there to protect our hard costs --
which is what we perceive as our most important interest based on
board direction, we want to get our hard costs. Ifwe don't have
anybody show up, someone could bid a dime, and we wouldn't get
those hard costs.
MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff, let me interrupt you. There are four
properties being foreclosed on. David Jackson expressed interest in
Page 94
February 8, 2011
three of the properties as part of his, you know, rehabilitation of the
area, and it was because of that we're asking for the right to bid. If
nobody was interested in any of the properties, we wouldn't be bidding
on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would be worthwhile
putting that in the consent so that we have a better understanding of,
you know, why we would be approving something like this.
MR. WRIGHT: And I just want to make sure I understand your
comment.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, we did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's in the -- it's in the Executive Summary,
the reasons why we're doing this. In fact, it went to the Community
Redevelopment Agency for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you're right. I do remember
that. Thank you for pointing that out.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I did have that.
MR. WRIGHT: This is just a taste. There's a lot of photos. I
don't know how many the board would like to see. I have four here.
And last time -- and, Commissioner Hiller, I just want to make clear to
you, this did go to the board for the original filing of the lawsuit back
in '09, and at that time we presented several pictures.
So there's a lot of pictures. You get the idea looking at this, but I
could continue to put them up if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That looks like a yard sale.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And are we going to -- we're going
to go ahead and rehabilitate these houses then through the CRA; is
that the intent?
MR. WRIGHT: I think -- my role in this is to file the lawsuit and
obtain the auction.
MR. KLATZKOW: David, could you answer that question?
Page 95
February 8, 2011
MR. WRIGHT: I'm not sure what the plan is after we get them.
I understand Mr. Jackson has his eyes on them, but there is a statutory
procedure for disposing of them once they're in the county inventory.
It's also possible -- there's a lot of uncertainty within an auction.
Someone could show up with their checkbook and outbid all of us, so
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. WRIGHT: There's -- if we do obtain the properties --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then we would transfer them to
the CRA, and then the CRA would rehab them?
MR. KLATZKOW: But with board approval.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: We'd be coming back to the board. We
would declare them -- typically the way we would do this, we would
declare these properties as surplus, all right, and then Mr. Jackson
would take an item to the board, request, acting in his CRA capacity,
asking for permission to acquire the properties.
And typically the CRA would simply make the county whole,
back taxes, hard costs for Code Enforcement, that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that total cost is?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have that off the top of my head.
MR. WRIGHT: I know our costs were $2,635.82. That's just for
the lawsuit. Code Enforcement has some numbers as to what their
hard cost is that they're going to try to recoup via this foreclosure.
MR. KLATZKOW: But understand, the county's not out any
money here. These are -- these were fmes that simply accrued over
the course of time; a hundred dollars a case, you know, over the
course of a couple years adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, you know, whatever the county acquires of this, it's not real cash.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 96
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, maybe Dave just wants to -- I
was go~g to say that what these properties became were junkyards.
And Mr. Martel, he -- that was kind of like the way he liked to live.
It became dangerous for all the little kids in the neighborhood, and it
became a real problem because it also housed a lot of creatures that
were not too good to be living around.
It became a safety issue. And I guess the neighbors reported it --
because it's tucked way in the back. You need to go down on that
street sometime and see for yourself. It's very interesting.
But anyway -- and so with the CRA's efforts to try and clean up
that area and bring it around and bring it up a notch, I think that -- I
shouldn't speak for Dave, but I would guess that by cleaning this area
up, it will begin the process of cleaning up that whole street and
maybe bringing it a step above.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. When this thing goes
forward as far as when you go before the -- you know, where they
have the auction or the distressed sale, whatever you call it, could we
get a report back of what the outcome of that was?
MR. WRIGHT: Absolutely. I'm expecting four separate sales,
and there should be a number for each sale. I could bring that back to
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Do we mission -- or a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a mission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Omission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We'll go on a mission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That we approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 97
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further 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: All opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. And we are now
going to break for lunch. We'll be back at one o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
Where we going?
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2011-30: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A
RESOLUTION AMENDING SCHEDULES ONE, TWO, THREE,
SIX, AND SEVEN OF APPENDIX A TO SECTION FOUR OF
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-73, AS AMENDED,
. THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT UNIFORM
BILLING, OPERATING AND REGULATORY STANDARDS
ORDINANCE. THESE AMENDMENTS INCLUDE PROPOSED
RATES FOR WATER ANI) WASTEWATER SERVICES WITH
EFFECTIVE DATES OF OCTOBER 1, 2011, AND OCTOBER 1,
2012, FOR SCHEDULES ONE, THREE, AND SIX; PROVIDES
Page 98
February 8, 2011
EFFECTIVE DATES OF APRIL 1, 2011, OCTOBER 1, 2011, AND
OCTOBER 1, 2012, FOR SCHEDULE TWO; AND PROVIDES AN
EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 1, 2011, FOR SCHEDULE
SEVEN - EXCLUDING AFPI FEES UNTIL AFTER THE IMP ACT
FEE STUDY IS PRESENTED - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we're going to Item 8 on your
agenda. It's advertised public hearings. Item 8A. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution amending Schedules 1, 2, 3, 6,
and 7 of Appendix A to Section 4 of the Collier County Ordinance
No. 2001-73, as amended, the Collier County Water/Sewer District
Uniform Billing, Operating, and Regulatory Standards Ordinance.
These amendments include proposed rates for water and
wastewater services with effective dates of October 1, 2011, and
October 1, 2012, for Schedules 1, 3 and 6, provides effective dates of
April 1, 2011, October 1,2011, and October 1, 2012, for Schedule 2,
provides an effective date of March 1, 2011, for Schedule 7.
And Mr. Tom Wides will present.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you give us an overview, Tom,
quickly.
MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioners, for the record, again, Tom
Wides, the operations support director for Public Utilities. If I may
briefly, I'd like to introduce our delivery team here this afternoon. We
have Rob Ory, the principal from public resources management group,
our rate consultant here. Rob?
We also have his -- one of his folks, Bryan Manse, who's done
much of the detail work on the studies with us. We have Bala Sridhar,
who is on my staffwho's worked deeply on these studies over the--
over ten years now with me. And we have Tom Schmellic (phonetic),
our director of engineering. Dr. George Yilmaz. I don't see him here
yet in the crowd, but he'll be here shortly, from our -- our wastewater
director.
Page 99
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There he is.
MR. WIDES: There's George now. We have Paul Mattausch
here, our Water Department Director, and, of course, Mr. DeLony, our
administrator here for the division.
Finally, there's a number of other folks that I really need to
recognize for their work in these programs, not the least of which is
our -- is Joe Ballone, our manager of Utility Billing and Customer
Service, and his support staff that's tried to help us along the way here.
So that briefly is some of the people that have been working --
I'm sure I've left some out.
But as you'll know, and as noted in the executive summary,
we've had a number of guiding principles for the utility that we've
upheld over the years, and we've kept them in place as we've
approached these studies. I just want to briefly hit on them, and then
I'll go right to the meat of this.
First off, remaining in compliance. That's been our primary
guiding principle for us. And being in -- being consistent with the
special act that created the utility.
We've also tried to maintain the principle that the rates must be
sufficient to recover the costs of providing service. We've maintained
a very good position in the credit market as a Double A Rated Utility
with the rating agencies, and this is -- this will ensure into the future,
as we do and when we do need to do borrowing, that will be available
to us. It also helps us in the refinancing market when, in fact, we need
to refmance our bonds so we can get terms on existing loans.
We're also trying to keep those user rates low or medium on a
longer range basis rather than spiking them over time, so we've tried to
maintain that strategy.
Finally, as you can see, comparable and justifiable user rates.
Now, today we're going to be presenting four studies to you. The
fIrst one is the Collier County Water/Sewer District Rate Study. That
is part of this Item 8A. The second one is the IQ water rate study,
Page 100
February 8, 2011
which is part of 8A. We'll cover later on in the discussion the
wholesale rate. That's part of 8C. And then, of course, Goodland is
also part of 8A.
So the user rates, the irrigation quality rates, and the Goodland
rates are part of this 8A discussion today.
Just to give you some idea of our public involvement on this -- in
this process, we've provided reports, attended meetings beginning in
October of2010 with the County Manager, our staff, and in some
cases our consultants attended meetings with the various stakeholders,
with the Productivity Committee and their subcommittee. We spent
four separate meetings with them.
We had -- in December we had a meeting with the Goodland
Homeowners' Association. Also prior to that, back in April of 20 10,
we at that time met with the Goodland Homeowners' Association to
give them an idea of what we saw coming on the horizon. And, of
course, along the way we've kept communications.
We also provided approximately 50 responses to detailed
questions from the Productivity Committee which I believe they've --
they've responded that they felt them quite satisfactory and gave us
their vote of confidence.
Quickly here, I'll give you our recommendations, and then we'll
seek your guidance going forward.
First off, we're recommending no water and no wastewater rate
increases in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. We're recommending
adoption of the proposed user rates for the Goodland Water District
for fiscal years 2011, which would be April 1 st of 20 11, and then
October 1st of2012 and October 1st of2013.
We also want to reinforce the pass-through of the bulk service
costs from Marco. We'll talk to that as you desire.
Next item is the proposed IQ water rate increases. We're
recommending adoption of those rate increases for 2012 and 2013.
And, fmally, which is part of Item 8C, we'll discuss and
Page 101
February 8, 2011
recommend changes to wholesale water rates for fiscal year 12 and 13.
One last piece to the recommendation, we're asking today --
although it's included in your exec summary, we're asking for the
AFPI section to be deferred until we bring back the impact fees on the
22nd of February in that board meeting. And at that time we'll ask
you to -- we'll recommend adoption then. So we'll be changing our
resolution slightly to delete that, pending what comes out today.
And lastly is we would -- we would recommend that we continue
to perform these study updates on an ongoing basis.
Having said that, before I go any further, Commissioners, I have
a brief discussion of each -- of each of the fee studies, or I can respond
to your questions as you would wish.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you have -- do
you want to ask questions now?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Go ahead. I didn't see any
recommendations from the Collier County Utility Authority.
MR. WIDES: The Collier County authority, which -- does not
legislate or regulate the Collier County Water/Sewer District; that is in
the purview of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Why the implementation
of March 11th of these fees? Isn't that what I seen?
MR. WIDES: Sir, if I may, these -- what we're recommending
for the water and wastewater user fees is no change.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I know that.
MR. WIDES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the implement- --
MR. WIDES: I was just going to go one at a time, but I'll --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I know why. Because the
AFPI, which you're recommending for us to continue that, that's a
change. I see.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 102
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, if there's no further
questions, I'll make a motion to approve, and also in the fee resolution
to exclude the AFPI fees for a further date.
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve but exclude AFPI fees until the impact fees are presented at
the next board meeting, and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further 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.
MR. WillES: Okay.
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, thank you.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2011-31 : RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A
RESOLUTION ADmSTING THE COLLIER COUNTY W ATER-
SEWER DISTRICT BULK SERVICES WATER RATES WITHIN
THE HAMMOCK BAY SERVICE AREA, AS AUTHORIZED
BY THE POTABLE WATER BULK SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
Page 103
February 8, 2011
DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, DATED
MAY 9~ 2006 - ADOPTED
That takes us to Item 8C on your agenda. It's a recommendation
to adopt a resolution adjusting the Collier County Water/Sewer
District bulk services water rates within the Hammock Bay service
area as authorized by the Potable Water Bulk Services Agreement
between Collier County Water/Sewer District and the City of Marco
Island dated May 9, 2006.
Mr. Wides?
MR. WillES: Again, Commissioners, the recommendation here
is that effective October 1 st of 2011 we would apply a rate increase
for the bulk service provided to Marco Shores of a rate -- from a rate
of $3.31 per thousand gallons to $3.54 per thousand, which is
reflecting our current cost of service to provide bulk water to Marco
Shores.
As you'll know, Marco Island Utility actually services Marco
Shores; however, we entered into an agreement back in approximately
2006 where Marco Island requested us to provide bulk service to, if I
may, the front door of Marco Shores, and then Marco Island Utility
actually provides the service within. So we're providing bulk service,
bulk water.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 104
February 8, 2011
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.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Good job.
Item #8E
RESOLUTION 2011-32: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT PETITION
CP-2006-11, DAVID TORRES, FOR HACIENDA LAKES OF
NAPLES, LLC FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA) FOR
REVIEW AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMMENTS (ORC) RESPONSE — MOTION APPROVING
OPTION #3 W/TRANSMITTAL TO DCA — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 8E. It's a
recommendation to approve Growth Management Plan Amendment
Petition CP-2006-11, David Torres for Hacienda Lakes of Naples,
LLC, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
for review and objections, recommendations, and comments response.
This is a transmittal hearing.
And Robert Mulhere will present for the petitioner.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you, and good afternoon. For the
Page 105
February 8, 2011
record, Bob Mulhere, here this afternoon on behalf of Hacienda Lakes
of Naples.
With me this afternoon on the project team, George Bauer, who
is the principal owner of the project; David Torres, who is the project
manager; Rich Y ovanovich, who's the land use attorney; Dwight
Nadeau with RW A Planning; Ken Passarella, who's with Passarella &
Associates. He's the ecologist on the project; and Fabricio Ponce,
who's with Tindale Oliver, who's the transportation consultant.
I have a brief presentation, and key word "brief," and then I'll
open it up for questions and answers.
On the visualizer you have a -- an aerial of the subj ect site. The
project is outlined in yellow. You can see that access is from Collier
Boulevard, and some of the project, quite a portion of the project, is
located at the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock extension and
Collier Boulevard.
What you have before you is a transmittal hearing, and it's the
fIrst step in a two step process.
You'll have this project coming back to you after DCA review.
At that time you will see the PUD, DRI, and also the adoption hearing
for these Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
There are four proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
We have staff recommendation of three of those. I'll briefly describe
those, and I'll spend a little more time on the other -- the fourth
proposed amendment.
The fIrst three amendments, one would allow us to increase the
density in the rural fringe -- the urban fringe district from 2.5 to 2.8.
That's an increase of .3 units per acre. These are not new units.
These are units that are within our proj ect or transferable development
rights. Presently we cannot use all of the transferable development
rights within our proj ect that are within one mile of the urban
boundary because of the density cap.
Since this is a master plan proj ect, we think it makes sense for
Page 106
February 8,2011
us to be able to utilize those units. We're not asking for all the TDR's
that we have within the proj ect but only those that fall within that one
mile that would be eligible for use within the urban residential fringe.
The second proposed amendment deals with allowing us to
reduce the native preservation in the urban portion of the proj ect and
to actually preserve more of the much more highly valuable natural
resource lands to the east.
By way of introduction, we had met with a number of
nongovernmental environmental groups, including the Conservancy,
Florida Wildlife Federation, and Collier County Audubon, and their
concern was that we minimize the impacts to the east.
And although we have the right to develop in portions of the
rural lands through the density blending provisions, we redesigned the
proj ect several times to address their concerns and minimize the
impacts to the east.
And we asked them if in the process they could support lowering
the native preservation in the urban area and increasing it in the rural
area, and that's exactly what we've done, and that's what that other
amendment allows us to do.
The third amendment is relatively minor. We had proposed to
have a business park within the proj ect, and we need direct access to
an arterial. And in meeting with the staff, they made a suggestion that
we identify The Lord' s Way as the access for that business park.
And so those are the three amendments that staff supports.
We went to the EAC; they supported all of the amendments. We went
to the Planning Commission; they unanimously supported all of the
amendments.
The fourth amendment deals with the activity center acreage,
and a portion of the activity center acreage houses a portion of the
hospital property on Collier Boulevard. That actually houses a point
of ingress and egress to Collier Boulevard and also a power plant.
That's 9.1 acres of the activity center that wasn't needed to be
Page 107
February 8, 2011
activity acreage. And my client, at the time that he provided that
property to the hospital, had read the Comprehensive Plan, and the
Comprehensive Plan allows for reconfiguration of a mixed -- of a
master plan mixed-use activity center.
When you read it, you would -- you would surmise from the
plain language that you could do that administratively. As it turns out,
since that property changed hands, we could not do it administratively
and, therefore, we included that as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
as well.
I do want to put one other exhibit on the board. There is -- thank
you.
There is something a little bit unique about this activity center
and that is this large FP &L easement that runs north and south and
occupies approximately 5 acres of this quadrant.
And so when you look at the total increase in acreage by
reconfiguring it, it really only is about four acres of additional activity
center acreage and just brings the quadrant back up to the 40 acres that
were originally designed.
As I indicated, we did receive unanimous support from the
Planning Commission. One of the things that they looked at was the
PUD for the hospital, which lists on that tract only a hospital use as a
permitted use, and that was part of the reason why they supported the
reconfiguration of the activity center.
So at this point I would open it up to questions from the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Board members? Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't Lord's Way a private road,
or is that a public road?
MR. MULHERE: It's a private road, Commissioner. We will
have to improve that road to county standards, and we understand that,
but we have easement rights to utilize the road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will it become a public road at
Page 108
February 8, 2011
that time? I mean, you're talking about commercial.
MR. MULHERE: Yes. It could, if it's designed and upgraded
to county standards, there's no reason why it wouldn't and couldn't
become a public road, and I would assume that anybody that has
those easement rights would prefer to see that scenario be the
outcome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sure Norm would love to
use general fund monies to maintain that in the future.
MR. MULHERE: That will probably be part of the negotiation, I
would imagine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- what's the concept for the
north/south Wilson Boulevard Extension?
MR. MULHERE: Benfield Road Corridor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Benfield Road. Do you have
that?
MR. MULHERE: It -- I do have an exhibit, and I'll put it on the
visualizer. I did want to say that that's a point of discussion that's
evolving and changing, the exact location as we go through the PUD
zoning process. We were asked to reserve sufficient right-of-way for
that future corridor, and we have done that.
The exact location, I think we just got a -- yesterday, if I'm not
mistaken or the day before -- a new set of comments from staff on the
PUD, which is not part of what you're hearing today, but one of, I
think, the comments dealt with revising the location to move that a
little bit further to the west.
So it's still evolving, but I do have an exhibit that I can show you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's going to stop at -- how
is that going to connect north and south, north to Davis or --
MR. MULHERE: Okay. Here's the corridor exhibit. This will
show extending beyond our property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Take it all the way out so I can
see the whole thing, please.
Page 109
February 8,2011
MR. MULHERE: That's really as much as we have on there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's as much as we have. You
know, we were told, even at a six-lane configuration of951 or Collier
Boulevard, reaching its capacity (sic). I don't know if this is going to
be a reality.
So I guess I would need transportation's help on that. And if
we're -- if we're -- if we're going to reach capacity on all zoned land,
shouldn't there be any contingency upon approval of the GMP?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, for the record,
Nick Casalanguida with the Growth Management Division. I'm the
one who brought, I guess, the Wilson-Benfield corridor study at the
time the board adopted this study with the recommendation we work
with developers as they came forward and, you know, participate to
manage that corridor, and that's what we've done with them.
We've worked with them to adjust the alignment accordingly,
and as Mr. Mulhere pointed out, we're going to come back with a little
bit of shift that works with them, the Water Management District
concerns.
What we've denoted in the study is that primarily in the 25-year
planning horizon, around the David/I-75/Collier area, that's going to
fail by a 25-year period, whereas the middle section will do a little bit
better.
We're working with them through the PUD section at this point
in time because we didn't have enough information. Staff was
comfortable that at transmittal we had enough time with the ORC
report coming back to you and an adoption hearing. By that time we'll
have the proper information in terms of the better location.
So we were comfortable transmitting as it is right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are you looking at as the
right-of-way for this Benfield Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Between 100 and 140 feet, and it
depends on the area. We're looking at a suburban cross-section.
Page 110
February 8, 2011
We're looking at a four-lane facility with a design speed of about 45
miles an hour.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Suburb cross-section.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Urban to suburban, that's why we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- haven't done that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought it was going to be an
escalade or something like that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Suburban is a four-lane?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I may not have -- you may not have
medians, curbs. You may have, you know, curbs on the outside but no
curbs in the median. You may have curbs in the median but no curb on
the outside, so it's a combination of an urban section or a rural section.
But we're not anywhere near a stage to determine the whole corridor
design.
When you get north of 1-75 in that area by Wilson, it might be --
it's -- we have it totally designed as rural, which is an open
cross-section with no curbs. So that's why I'm saying, right now
they're building two lanes potentially in their proj ect in an alignment
that we could potentially work with a four-lane road in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How far down would that go?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All the way to 41 in the corridor
study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: East 41 --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- down -- that would be even
south of the school, Manatee school there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it would be west of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would be east -- east?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it's west of that Manatee
School there, in that location. I don't have that full corridor study in
Page 111
February 8, 2011
front of me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we'll know more by
the adoption when it comes back?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can show you the full corridor, but
we'll have a better alignment on their property by the time of the
adoption -- we're at adoption hearings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a reassurance that to the
north and south you can have those connections to run it further north
and further south?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have that in the PUD. We have
easements, reservation areas that we have. They're only looking in the
PUD portion of it to build what works for them to connect their north
and south pod. But it is in a footprint that we would use later on if we
permit the road that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just need some kind of
reassurance at adoption that it is doable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will do, will do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Along the same lines that
Commissioner Henning was talking about -- fIrst of all, this for
transmittal is fme with me. I just have to say that up front.
The Conservancy has also approved this, but they have some
reservations when it comes to Benfield Road. Because of this corridor
being so wet, and have such sensitive areas for protection, wildlife,
and so forth, they have some great concerns.
But as Commissioner Henning brought out, we will be discussing
that next time, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And possibly -- possibly we can do
something about making sure we protect the areas rather than opening
them up and actually destroying them. So I'm concerned with that.
Page 112
February 8, 2011
I understand what you're trying to do now is reserve the area. On
the other hand, there's also some limitations as far as what it's going to
do to the surrounding areas. And we all know what happens when
you put a road through.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, let's not kid ourselves.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we will be talking about that
when it comes back to us.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. And I can bring back some
information that we brought to you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sure the Conservancy will be
here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMM~SSIONER FIALA: Along with most of the other
environmental groups.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's your last, probably, north/south
road issue on your long-range plans. So we will talk about -- we'll
bring everybody back up to speed with the information we brought to
you when we did the study.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's going to be a 12-lane, as I understand
. . h?
It, ng t.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Double decker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, that's what I figured, with a couple
of flyovers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, we have someone from the
Conservancy who's registered to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not ready yet, I don't think.
Commissioner Coletta. You'd rather wait?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait till after they speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Only one person?
Page 113
February 8, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Just one person, yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Call the name, and we'll get
started.
MR. MITCHELL: Caitlin Weber.
MR. OCHS: Sir, we have the staff presentation, too, whenever
you're ready for that.
MS. WEBER: Caitlin Weber here on behalf of the Conservancy
of Southwest Florida.
The Hacienda Lakes proj ect and current comprehensive plan
amendments have been in the review process for many years, and the
Conservancy had a number of significant concerns with both.
We still do have concerns about the extent of impacts to wetland
and listed species habitat, and we continue to discuss these matters
with the applicant and submit our technical comments to the state and
federal permitting agencies; however, at the county level, looking at
the proj ect, which is contingent upon the amendments before you and
looking at the current language of the amendments from an
environmental perspective, the Conservancy is not opposed to the
proposed amendments as presented today.
We did have significant concerns over the amendments in their
past iterations. We shared our concerns with the applicant, gave them
our recommendation, and I do want to acknowledge that significant
improvements were made.
Maintaining the Swamp Buggy Park in its current location and
removing a proposed amendment to expand uses within Rural Fringe
NRPA Sending Lands being an important example of unofficial
modifications made to the project and amendment submittals.
We look forward to working with the applicant and the county as
the DRI and PUD move through review and approval and hopefully
address our remaining concerns on the county level issues, including
concern that county staff is attempting to tie this development proj ect
to design, permitting and construction of the Benfield Road Extension.
Page 114
February 8, 2011
As you are well aware, the Benfield extension is controversial
and is also fraught with environmental incompatibility and agency
opposition. There are any number of noncontroversial road proj ects
contained within the long-range transportation plan that the county
could require Hacienda Lakes to contribute to, projects that do not
involve such extensive impacts to natural resources.
. We believe that county staff should reassess their pursuit of
Benfield extension as part of the Hacienda Lakes approval.
From a feasibility standpoint, it also seems practical from the
county's perspective to direct developer contributions to roads that
have a high probability of becoming a reality.
The environmental impacts associated with the Benfield Road
extension make its future construction certainly questionable.
Collier County must do much more extensive review on the need
impacts and feasibility of the Benfield Road extension before making
contributions to it, a requirement of any development's approval.
Tying Hacienda Lakes to the Benfield Road extension is
premature and inappropriate, and we want to make you aware of this
concern early on, prior to your hearing on the Hacienda Lakes PUD.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Excuse me, but we're -- the issue today really isn't the Benfield
extension. That's just part of the process that we had to do to reserve a
road capacity for some time in the future, if it's needed or not needed,
that a decision can be made. And it's a smart move to make.
And I heard the same objections that were raised with the Wilson
Boulevard extension, with the Vanderbilt extension, with the
Everglades interchange. Keep in mind at all times, you've got to
balance these factors with the fact that mitigation's being done all the
time to be able to enhance what's out there as far as our wild lands and
Page 115
February 8, 2011
..
preserves go, and that's been proven by the fact that our wildlife
population as far as bears and panthers, which are some of the species
we measure what's taking place, have been growing at a predominant
rate to the point that they're talking about opening a bear season to
bring them under control now.
So, you know, we've got 60 percent plus of Collier County
already placed into conservation easements. And I hate to drop that
on you, but we've already got into something that's far removed from
where we're trying to go.
So let me come back to the question that I have at hand, if you
would, please, Mr. Mulhere. Your neighbors, your immediate
neighbors around where you are now, are they -- do they have any
apprehension with this development going in? How do they feel
about it? Have they come to the meetings and expressed any dismay?
MR. MULHERE:. Well, we've had several-- several meetings.
I'm unaware of any statements of dismay or concern. I mean,
obviously they were interested in what our proposals are, and that's
why they came to the meetings. I think there's at least maybe one
person here who could speak for himself. But, you know, it's a pretty
big proj ect. If we have one or two people -- I don't know that
anybody's in opposition. I didn't -- I didn't notice that at any of the
meetings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And how are you
accommodating your neighbors to be a good neighbor? Could you
share any of that with me?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the -- look, we're going to go
through the development review process, so we're going to meet or
exceed all of the typical kinds of requirements that you put into a
residential development for our own interests, for marketing interests
and for our neighbors.
The business park that we've designed has been designed so as to
minimize the impacts to the residential neighbors from the existing
Page 116
February 8, 2011
Swamp Buggy and Junior Deputies.
And so -- and also, I neglected to mention a couple of things.
One was that the Planning Commission did have a condition, and
that condition was to move the shooting range to an indoor shooting
range, which we thought was a good idea for everybody.
So, yeah, we will design the proj ect so that there will be no
impacts on the neighbors, except positive impacts.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The staff and Collier County Planning
Commission agreed on all six items except one.
MR. MULHERE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, I presume you have accepted the
modifications that the staff and the Planning Commission have
expressed in their approvals --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- for all of the items except the one on
commercial square footage.
MR. MULHERE: Yes, the 9.1 acres of activity center.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I would be interested in seeing
how you want to address the one item that is contentious here. The
others seem -- everybody seems to be in agreement. There's no
serious disagreements at alL But I'm most concerned about the issue
of commercial.
MR. MULHERE: And thank you for asking that. That's one of
the things I wanted to add, which is why I stood up again. On the
advice of my legal counsel, I needed to mention something I failed to
mention, which is our market analysis. And we did do an exhaustive
market analysis, which is required in these circumstances.
And I think staffs position is that there's sufficient commercial
that already exists out there, capacity to serve the needs of the
population.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Already exists or already approved?
Page 117
February 8, 2011
MR. MULHERE: Approved, not necessarily built.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: And, in fact, there's quite a bit of vacant
space. And so, you know, theoretically approved. But our position is
that the market analysis that we did demonstrates that just based on
our residential density of 1,760 dwelling units, that residential -- the
density associated with those dwelling units is sufficient to support the
commercial that we propose. Notwithstanding the fact that if we
develop the business park, you'll have some additional capacity, some
additional demand.
It really becomes a function -- and this is the discussion that
we've had many times before the board. It really becomes a function
of the market as to who is able to develop the commercial to meet the
needs fIrst, and that is partly a consideration of location.
And this commercial quadrant in a commercial activity center
located at the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier
Boulevard is an appropriate location for commercial to serve the needs
of our future residents and the surrounding community.
But if we fail to build that and that demand is met by some other
commercial need, then we would be the ones that would not have a
market to support the commercial that we would build.
In today's -- in today's environment, you just don't go out and
build something. You have to get fmancing and so on and so forth.
We're of the opinion it's the appropriate location. Our market study
shows that our residents -- the other -- the other indication is that, you
know, we'd be forcing people out onto the arterial roadway to go to
some other location as opposed to accessing it directly from within our
proj ect, which is what we -- what we are encouraged to design is a
mixed-use project that's internally accessible for walkers, bikers, and
vehicles and transit, and that's what we've done. So that's our position.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: And the Planning Commission did support
Page 118
February 8, 2011
that unanimously, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. OCHS : You ready to hear from staff, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. We're ready to go.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record,
Corby Schmidt with the Comprehensive Planning section.
I'm showing on the visualizer the table, I believe, on -- in your
version, Page 139. I've modified it a bit to show the differences and
recommendations between your Planning Commission and staff.
And, again, there's agreement on five of those six items, and
where there is disagreement or different recommendations is on that
item for the mixed-use activity center expansion by more than 9 acres.
Also part of the executive summary -- and I believe it's in your
version on Pages 137 and 138 -- are additional requirements being
recommended and conditions that would either be forwarded with the
adoption of this Comprehensive Plan amendment or to be applied to
the planned unit development portion of the development on those
pages, and you've seen those six items there.
The recommendation showing on Page 138 is really a one of
three situations. And that fIrst recommendation is the original or the
initial recommendation from staff. That does not include expansion of
the mixed-use activity center.
The second choice is the straightforward recommendation as it
came from the Planning Commission that does include the additional
acreage at that corner.
And the third version is, of course, the edited or improved
.version of Planning Commission's recommendation with additional
edits to make it more like the rest of the document.
Again, to be brief, I'm prepared to answer questions as welL
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'd like to ask a question of
Mr. Casalanguida.
Page 119
February 8, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In my meeting with you and Mr.
Feder in reviewing this proj ect, this item was discussed, and it was my
understanding that staff was in agreement with the recommendations
to transmit with a modification from the CCPC. So I'm not sure I
understand what happened.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think we talked about that we
had a concern about commercial. I think the comments I made were,
in talking to our staff and myself, is we don't worry as much about
commercial as we do residential because, as Mr. Mulhere pointed out,
you know, commercial has a way of satisfying itself. If there isn't a
demand there, then people won't build it.
So I think staffs was a soft denial that we could live with the
Planning Commission's recommendations; however, you know, we
have to go by the market studies that's presented to us. And when
there's too much, we recommend not approving that much
commercial. But as --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But what you just said is that you
could live with the recommendations presented by the Planning
Commission?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not as concerned about it based
on Mr. Mulhere's comments. We agree with that, that commercial is
self-adjusting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's not really a major concern?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't say it's a major concern.
Staff and I feel that it is too much commercial, so we put that on the
record, because we're going to be consistent with other proj ects as
they come forward.
If we don't have a litmus test to make a recommendation then,
you know, why --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So--
Page 120
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But is the recommendation still not
to transmit based on that, given the fact that it is a market driven
issue? And given that, you know, you really don't oppose the
recommendations made by the CCPC?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. The recommendation is to not
include that additional commercial from staff, but what I'm telling you
from a staff perspective, if the board was to say, if we did exclude it,
are you extremely worried about it? We would say, no, we're not
extremely worried about it. But to be consistent, as we review
commercial projects, we feel that it's too much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if we approved it to transmit, it
really wouldn't be causing a major problem?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't believe it would cause a major
problem, and I think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or any problem, for that matter.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, that's left to be said. Ifwe
approve commercial based on just that mentality, I think we'd have an
issue. I think DCA will make comments when they see the staff
report and they see the detailed information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No one's going to bring -- build a
proj ect that isn't profitable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: At the building stage, that's correct.
We're at the GMP adoption stage. It's a little bit different.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I mean, again, it goes back to
the market driven argument.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't know. I'm getting mixed
signals because, you know, on the one hand, I'm getting the message
that it's not significant, that there's essentially a self correcting
mechanism in place. The CCPC didn't see a problem with it, yet
Page 121
February 8,2011
you're still emphasizing not to transmit. I mean, I just -- I don't really
see the basis.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We get guidelines that we work with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. But, I mean, we
can't --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll give you another example that
might clarify.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You understand my dilemma with
the statement you made?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I do. And this might help a little bit.
When we looked at GMP adoption phases for the Randall
Boulevard curve and Golden Gate and Wilson, same dilemma came
up. When you look at an area and you look at concentric circles
within a certain location, you say, there's too much commercial there,
and that's a general statement. When you look at a proj ect specific
location, you might say, commercial would benefit that area.
And I think what the Planning Commission heard from Mr.
Mulhere's comments as well, is that having commercial next to a large
residential pod has a benefit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It certainly does.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we look at commercial all around
the area. There's too much of commercial already approved. So that's
one of those issues that continues to come up. Same--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's a balancing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a balancing, but we need to kind of
use a consistent litmus test and tell you we have a lot of approved
commercial on your books.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because obviously, I mean, if
there's commercial right beside a residential, then it's less of a burden
on our roads if those residents can use the amenities provided by that
commercial facility as opposed to driving down to some other
commercial location.
Page 122
February 8, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Same argument was had in the Golden
Gate/Wilson/Benfield Commercial Subdistrict, and that was put to the
voters, and the voters renowned ( sic) supported that proj ect, so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the bottom line is, we would
not be remiss if we voted to transmit with the modifications from the
CCPC?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'd like to make a motion to
approve Suggestion No.3, or -- what is that, exhibit -- that reflects
CCPC recommendation with additional -- with additional staff
proposed provisions to provide housekeeping measures for the
purposes of clarity and proper formatting. This staff alternative
version is labeled in each page, page's footer as part -- in part, as
revised, further oppose CCPC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a transmittal, correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Yes, thank you, yeah, for
transmittal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve Alternative 3 of staffs recommendations, seconded by
Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hiller, Hiller. I think I seconded
that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, Commissioner Fiala was before you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Didn't I? No, but I thought I
seconded it. You said Henning, just for clarification for the record.
Page 123
February 8,2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said Henning. I know I heard
her, but I didn't hear Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did Henning go fIrst?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you second it? I thought --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's on first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was on first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we put it down as a double
second and get on with life?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think I seconded even though
Commissioner Coyle said Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. Where we are now
with the motion, recognizing the fact that this is a transmittal and not
adoption, is this restricting it or allowing the commercial to stay
within the bounds that the petition originally came forward with?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is. It's just as originally proposed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
And then, of course, we can reconsider that if we need to when it
comes back for adoption.
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you. I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. We -- I have one question to
ask you. All of your staffs recommendations have been blended into
Recommendation 3, is that correct, with the exception of the density
issue?
MR. SCHMIDT: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So Alternative 3, accepts CCPC (sic)
recommendation on the density issue, and it accepts the staffs
recommendations plus the CCPC's recommendation on all the other
items.
MR. SCHMIDT: It does.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a correct statement?
Page 124
February 8,2011
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and seconded by somebody.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just -- that I -- thank you
for clarifying that, Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It could be Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It could be Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could be Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Starts with an H.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That actually may change. No,
I'm just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right. We might have it changed
next week. But nevertheless, there is discussion. Commissioner
Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to clarify -- and thank
you for bringing up the clarification on Option 3. Going back to the
one that we were discussing, the not to transmit and to transmit with
modifications for CCPC, does Option 3 consider transmittal with
modifications from the CCPC on the acreage allowed for the southeast
quadrant?
MR. SCHMIDT: It does.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
With all the discussion, I think I was getting a little concerned there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor of the motion, 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 125
February 8, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passed unanimously.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 13 on your --
yes, excuse me, I'm sorry. Let me back up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Item #13A
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
NEGOTIATE LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, SUBJECT TO
APPROVAL BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, RELATING TO EXPANSION OF THE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT POND AND
APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY GRANT TO FUND THE PURCHASE
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, that's right. Item 13. 13A was previously
Item 16B 1 on your consent agenda. It's a recommendation to
authorize the Community Redevelopment Agency executive director
to negotiate land purchase agreements subj ect to approval by the
Community Redevelopment Agency relating to the expansion of the
Gateway Triangle Stormwater Management Pond and approve an
application for a Federal Emergency Management Agency Grant to
fund the purchase of the subj ect property.
This item was moved from the consent agenda at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Mr. Jackson is here to present.
MR. JACKSON: David Jackson, executive director,
Page 126
February 8, 2011
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner, would you prefer just to
ask questions?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I would. One of the
reasons I brought this forward was because there was really very
little information there about the price of the piece of land. And it
may not be material, but I just really didn't have any information in
the packet to support my ability to approve this on a consent without
more disclosure.
And it may all be well and good, and I want to just give you the
opportunity to bring forth the facts about, you know, what this piece
of land is, how much it is, how it compares, you know, relative to
other pieces in terms of market value and, you know, what is the
basis for your decision to acquire this land; was it specifically
recommended in some study and, you know, the reference to that
study. Information of that sort would help me better make a decision.
MR. JACKSON: Point of order, Commissioner. I think you
need to pass the gavel.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There you go.
Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA Meeting is in order.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, David. Good catch.
MR. JACKSON: Just a matter of policy. I didn't know if I was
standing here working for the County Manager or if I was working for
you as a CRA board.
Since this is a CRA issue, there is no land targeted, Madam
Commissioner. This is for approval from the CRA board to go out
and try to fmd adjacent properties from willing sellers to expand the
Gateway Triangle pond.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There was a map in the agenda
Page 127
February 8, 2011
packet that had sort of like little lines going this way, what you wanted
to acquire versus lines going that way which, you know, you had
acquired. Are you not targeting --
MR. JACKSON: Are you talking about -- there was a bunch of
dotted lines in there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. JACKSON: That was the fIrst and second acquisition of
land which constitutes the pond today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And my eyes aren't serving
me very well. Let's see here. I think the different lines -- I think -- I
guess the different lines said, you know, existing and prospective.
Just -- I mean, do you -- have you -- when I was just looking -- thank
you so much.
MR. JACKSON: Let me clarify it real --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It was -- it's very, very small. It
was also kind of hard to read. But, you know, this is what I was
looking at.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am, if I may explain.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, thank you.
MR. JACKSON: Phase I, Phase II, which is the photograph
which I've got up on the visualizer and it's in your attachment there,
that's Phase I and Phase II of the pond. Phase II is completed. The
graphic at the bottom was showing that there was multiple acquisitions
of land over time in which to create the pond as it exists today.
All this executive summary is asking is for you to give me
direction to go and acquire other properties that are adj acent to the
pond to expand it from willing sellers.
It will all -- it will all come back to this board with the contracts
for approval or denial. There is no land targeted specifically . We have
no appraisals and no agreements at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the basis for your
desire to go out and purchase these additional lands above and beyond
Page 128
February 8,2011
what's already been done? Is there a specific --
MR. JACKSON: That's Exhibit A in your package.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what specifically in that
addresses this?
MR. JACKSON: Well, it's Exhibit A, and there are highlighted
in there all the things in the redevelopment plan of 2000 that says that
one of the things we will solve in the Bayshore area and the triangle
area is the localized drainage and stormwater problems -- drainage
problems, and here is the lady right here after --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I appreciate that. Is there any --
are you dealing with any consultant --
MR. JACKSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- who's advised you which
properties to acquire that would benefit this objective?
MR. JACKSON: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would that be beneficial ifmaybe,
you know, a consultant or, you know, like, for example, a drainage
engineer were consulted to assist in, you know, identifying which
properties would best serve the objective of solving these drainage
problems?
MR. JACKSON: That has already been completed. There's
already -- there's already a South Florida Water Management District
permit for the entire area, all 1 72 acres of the residential land that
surrounds the pond as it exists today.
We currently have a $2.7 million grant from FEMA to correct
some of the localized swales, ditches, and culvert programs --
problems that we have in sight. But that doesn't take care of the other
amount of water that comes into the area. There's already a localized
permit in operation. All we have to do is acquire more land, modify
the permit, and dig a bigger hole to put the water in.
I do not need a consultant. I do not need to expend any more
CRA money on consultants. All I need to do is acquire property.
Page 129
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how much money do you
anticipate spending?
MR. JACKSON: Unknown until you identify the properties and
agree to a selling price. If you want to go out and buy a house, you
may have something in your budget, but you don't know until you find
the house that you want to buy, and then you negotiate with the seller.
That is the same process here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I'm -- Commissioner Fiala,
I mean, you know this area well. You understand the issues. Can you
help me out and give me a little more explanation? Because I'm
missing something.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. I think I would be missing it, too.
What we've had historically is a tremendous flooding problem
in this area. And awhile back they realized that the area cannot be
improved and redeveloped until they solve the flooding problems.
So then we voted -- the County Commission voted to allow them
to start buying some land. We had stormwater working with us to
identify how we could put these ponds into place. And I believe the
county also participated in the funding of that in order to start draining
it, which they have done, but they've found that it needs to be
expanded, and so that's what he's in the process of doing now. .
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And has the county stormwater
division identified the lands that should be targeted that best
accomplish the end of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think they have any land in
particular that is identified, but it has to be in that area to connect, you
know, so that it can move the water.
I'm -- I'm right on spot, right?
MR. JACKSON: You're correct, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Any other questions?
Page 130
February 8, 2011
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do I hear a motion?
MR. JACKSON: I'll put another graphic that's a little bit larger,
which is nothing more than a blow-up of what you have there.
The green area there, and part of the dog ( sic) lake, is -- because
we don't have a current aerial -- the pond has been expanded. But as
you see, the properties that are in and around, adjacent to or abutting,
and whatever term you want to use, will be the property owners that
we will go to and discuss if they want to sell.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you use a pen and just
highlight it so I know exactly what area you're talking about.
MR. JACKSON: The pond as you see today, this was Phase 1.
I've put in there a little -- covered it up with a PowerPoint
presentation. This is what Phase II is today, Phase I, Phase II. The
adjacent property owners are those to the south, those to the north, and
those to the east. We're not going to affect any of the commercial
properties, because it doesn't quite work out well enough for us.
Most of the drainage in the area comes from northeast to
southwest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're looking to acquire the
homes on the other side of -- on each side of the blue and the red or in
the red -- in that red quadrant?
MR. JACKSON: We will start with the people in the red
quadrant, because that's the lowest land and the oldest homes and the
most willing sellers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I see. And those properties, you're
going to get appraisals and you're going to go make offers based on
appraised values?
MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am. We have to do that. That's county
policy.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's good. And -- all right.
Well --
Page 131
February 8, 2011
MR. JACKSON: So I'm just looking for. approval from the board
to go forward and come back with contracts and agreements for you to
review and approve in accordance with policy, and then we would
expend the money for it.
The only part there is in the fiscal considerations that you may
want to consider is the reason, in the second part of this, is to go after
a FEMA Mitigation Grant because there is Federal Funds to go out
and buy land and demolish homes and turn it into green open space for
stormwater. That would be the best option for us in that we, the CRA,
or we, the county, would not expend any funds on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. That makes the most
sense.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're the Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm the Chair. I'm next. Excuse me. That
scared me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It scares me too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't blame you.
Just by way of explanation -- this is really simple. A long time
ago there used to be a lake up just a little bit further that took all of
that drainage and they didn't have this problem, and what happened is,
over the years, it somehow got filled in, but mostly when they tore
apart the Gordon River bridges, they made a deal with the state.
They said, you can just drop your debris from the Gordon River
bridges in here, which then eliminated the pond entirely, and then the
houses started -- started flooding. So that's what prompted it in the
fIrst place.
And with that, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Already have one motion.
Page 132
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, do you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And you've got a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Henning made the motion, and a second
by Commissioner Coletta. I'm sorry. I'm just --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- trying to help.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 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, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Commissioners. I'll be back with
contracts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA Meeting is adjourned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Adjourned, okay.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to Item 14 on your
agenda, public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No public comments?
MR. MITCHELL: We don't have anybody registered, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Any general topics?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No general topics.
Okay. We'll start with the County Manager as far as
correspondence and communications is concerned.
Item #15
Page 133
February 8,2011
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Just one quick item. I received this
morning, from the County Attorney just prior to starting the meeting,
a small packet of documents that his staff and my staff have been
working jointly on that will -- will form the basis of the new
Certificate of Public Need and Necessity for the North Naples Fire
Control District.
The question for the board is, there's a couple of documents here
that require the chairman's signature. Would you like us, Jeff and I, to
place this on the consent agenda at your next meeting so you can see it
and approve it, or do you want to just have the chairman dispose of it?
Pleasure of the board. You haven't seen it yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: That's the only reason I'm bringing it up. Even
though you've obviously approved the certificate issuance, you haven't
seen the documents.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How extensive is the change?
MR. OCHS: I'm going to let Jeff help me here. There's a two
page -- I guess, which would be the certificate, then there's a
resolution and a couple of boundary maps.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I mean, we think it's fairly vanilla.
I mean, we took a standard form and just --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you just put the change on the
overhead?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can put the documents on the
overhead.
MR.OCHS: Sure. I don't know if you can see all that. That's
the fIrst page of the document. Kind of -- I'll let you take a minute to
take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Tell us what changed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was never -- it was never
Page 134
February 8, 2011
on the agenda.
MR.OCHS: No. This is a brand new -- we've never issued this
certificate before. That's my point.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, oh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't you tell us the details
of -- the fmer details of the agreement. It's a non-transport ALF --
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. This is the--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- agreement.
MR. OCHS: This is the certificate that you'd issued to North
Naples Fire to allow them to provide non-transport ALS services in
their district, and obviously it lays out --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would it hurt us to have it on the agenda
next time? I mean, I'm not trying to delay it, but doesn't the public
really want to see what it is we did? .
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm just bringing it for the decision
of the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I've got to remind you, at
the last meeting we came down on myself and Commissioner Hiller
for putting an item on the agenda, and it was moved to the next
agenda. So, you know, we got to be fair about this across the board.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought. I mean, it's
important -- we're not -- I mean, nobody's saying they want to rehear
it. It's not like it's going to be -- we're going to try to change the vote.
We just want to --
MR.OCHS: We can make it--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- have some time to look at it.
MR. OCHS: -- an approval resolution on consent under the
County Attorney and move out, if that's --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I would prefer to do that. I don't know
how the majority of the commission feels about it.
Page 135
February 8, 2011
MR. OCHS: I just need three nods from the commissioners, and
that's what we'll do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. What do you want to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got one, two nods. Just
public?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know if anything's changed.
As far as I'm concerned, we already approved it. You know, I
would just prefer to take 15 minutes and go read it just to see what
changes you're talking about, and if it -- if it's substantially the same,
we could then just approve it. Is that something that would be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because this is nothing more than
memorializing the vote that we took. You just basically put it in
certificate form; is that not correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. Typically, we -- typically we
would have included this as part of the original agenda package, and
you would have seen it. Unfortunately that wasn't done. And the only
issue is whether or not you want to do it here and now or wait the two
weeks and have it come back.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I support what Commissioner
Fiala says. I think we should take a break, we should read it. If it
memorializes what we voted on, we should get it signed today.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It bypasses the public hearing, and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the part that was --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- that's the real issue. In the interest of
transparency, I suggest we put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I have a problem with that,
because you constantly ratify contracts after the fact. You constantly
ratify actions that were already taken by staff on an ongoing basis as a
matter of practice.
MR.OCHS: Well, Commissioner, if I would -- not to be
argumentative, but those are typically standard form contracts that the
Page 136
February 8,2011
board has seen and approved originally, and then -- they're standard
forms --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Isn't this standard?
MR.OCHS: We've never issued one of these except--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But isn't it, like, standard
statewide? I mean, isn't this done across the state? I mean, this is a
uniform practice. This is not unique or different.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is the fIrst time the board has seen
something like this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the fIrst time the public's seen
something like this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: By all means, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just -- you know, we're
always looking at a better way to do business, and I kind of
understand now that if -- about the public outreach we have to do.
I mean, the last meeting it was made clear to me, if you want to bring
these things up, don't wait till Thursday to get it on the agenda. Get it
on on Wednesday so you've got due public notice. Okay. If that's the
game rule we're going to run by, we should stick by it.
You know, it's not going to make any difference, because this is
going to be on the consent agenda. There isn't a time factor that's in
there that's any kind of problem. There is no opposition that's going to
come up to be able to remove it. It's just a matter of transparency.
I mean, it's a new direction that we established and we should
stay with, my own feelings. But, you know, whatever the will of this
commission is, so be it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it will be determined by three
nods, and I don't think we've got three nods. We've got two nods. Is
there a third?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Nope, okay.
Page 137
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, put the question in a
different context and make sure you've got three nods on that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was already on the agenda.
It's not apples and apples. It's apples to oranges. And what you
wanted to do was put something on the agenda that's never been on the
agenda before. This has been on the agenda and has been approved by
the County Commissioners, and the County Manager just wants to go
over and give us the fmer details of it and make sure that that was the
wishes -- the wish of the board when we made that vote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, it's really not worth
all -- may I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I? The -- and there's no
really -- reason that we have to get into a deep argument about this.
The world's not going to come to an end if we decide this is it. But
didn't you just say a few minutes ago, Leo, that this was not --
document was not presented with the package like it should have
been, or did Jeff say that? I misunderstood.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. Our typical practice would be to
include documents with the original agenda. It wasn't done because
the original-- your original packet was for motion to deny, so nobody
prepared one of these, then there was a reconsideration and it changed.
It's two pages -- it's two pages long, if you want to look at it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't want to look at it.
Whatever the commission wants.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's the principle. Okay. Do we have
three votes to approve this item now rather than putting it on the
agenda so the public can see it next meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion and second and vote on
it, because that's the only way we can do it legally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
Page 138
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to support what
Commissioner Fiala proposed, is that we take 15 minutes as a break
to read it, that it be, you know, presented on the overhead for review
so it's fully transparent so the public can see what document is being
approved.
It's a ministerial act because the vote was already taken, the
deliberation was already heard, and we just need to make sure that the
document that is being signed has the wording that conforms to what
was voted on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Is that a motion? Is that a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I guess that's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's a motion. Commissioner
Fiala, do you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You second it, okay.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
And I would like to say that putting something on the overhead is
not a replacement for public advertisement so that all the people in the
community will know what we're doing. So you want to take a few
minutes and read it? And then you can approve it.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We're ready to do what we were
going to do here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chair, may I call somebody up
Page 139
February 8, 2011
to the --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Absolutely -- absolutely not. You're not
even on the mic yet. You have to identify yourself for the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My name is Donna Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I -- I didn't see any difference
here, so I talked to Jennifer Belpedio, our County Attorney, and to
Jorge Aguilera.
And, Jennifer, would you come up and tell me what differences
are actually on here? I had thought that there would be something,
you know, major, but please tell me.
MS. WHITE: Good afternoon. Jennifer White, assistant County
Attorney. Thank you for the opportunity to go through this document
with you.
I will go over the form and explain to you where there are
differences for this one in comparison to the prior COPCNs and the
permits.
F or the most part, this is your standard form document. We were
able to make a couple of changes to accommodate this COPCN, which
is different because it's a non-transport COPCN and requested by a
fIre district.
So with that said, the main differences relate to the vehicles, and
that's towards the midsection of the document that states Collier
County, Florida, advanced life support non-transport. It's the
document that does not have the whereas clauses in it.
And here we've added a new category of vehicles, and that is the
non-transport ALS engine, ladders, squads, and other vehicles, and
we've completed the number of vehicles like we would with any other
COPCN. .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's what we voted on before
was that they would be allowed to have non-transport vehicles, right?
MS. WHITE: Yes, in essence, you did. When you approved the
Page 140
February 8, 2011
application, you approved the use of these types of vehicles. We just
made the revisions to the document to reflect the unique nature of the
COPCN.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. WHITE: Something to mention while we're speaking about
vehicles is that there's an Attachment A to this document, and that
Attachment A lists, I think, 14 vehicles. These vehicles are referenced
by vehicle year and model and vehicle identification number. These
numbers -- these vehicles are different than the ones that were
presented to you in the application, and it's my understanding that the
difference is because the application was submitted originally in 2009.
So the application contained vehicles that existed at the time of
application and not what, of course, exist today. This document
contains the vehicles that exist today.
The next area that also is slightly different is regarding the fIrst
paragraph, and in this paragraph I drafted language to allow additional
vehicles to be included within the authorization of the COPCN. That
was at the request of the district.
Additional language that I included was this requirement that
they provide us with 10 days written advanced notice. Ms.
Donaldson, the attorney for the district, has advised me that she found
that language acceptable.
This is important for the district because they're telling me that it
might be that their vehicles are not in service and that they might have
to use different vehicles. I'm sure Mr. Aguilera could just provide you
more details about that.
And the last change to this document is regarding -- it's actually
on the top of the second page, and it was an addition I included that
was based on direction from the board at the last hearing when the
COPCN was approved, and it is the requirement that the district
complies with the protocols of the medical director. That was
specifically stated on the record.
Page 141
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- so you've just added the
things that we asked for at the last meeting?
MS. WHITE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And, County Manager, will you please
explain to us your concerns about the county ordinance and the
modifications thereto?
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, yes. We will need to come back to
this board with some amendments to your current COPCN ordinance
where there appears to be some identified conflicts with the recent
certificate that was issued.
For example, Section 15 of the current COPCN ordinance reads
in part that each paramedic must be certified by the county medical
director. Each paramedic must work with a Collier County EMS
ambulance for a sufficient length of time for the ambulance service
medical director to properly judge his capability.
Obviously you have a separate medical director with the new
certificate holder. They are not, in our opinion, bound by this section,
and we'll need to clarify that.
So we would propose, as a staff, we go through, and we are going
through the current COPCN ordinance to attempt to identify any
conflicts or potential conflicts and bring those back to the board
essentially as a housekeeping item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about Section 7D?
MR. OCHS: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is that a real concern or imaginary
concern?
MR. OCHS: It's too early to tell, sir. And Commissioner Coyle's
referring to Section D, which reads in part that the proposed service
will have sufficient personnel and equipment to adequately cover the
proposed service area.
You know, as we work through the transition and speaking -- and
Page 142
February 8, 2011
You know, as we work through the transition and speaking -- and
I'll let Jorge address it. But the early communications are there may
only be a few -- as many as two ALS engines ready to go into service
in North Naples. They obviously, by the application, can have up to
10 of those 14 units. So we would obviously like to see them ramp up
as quickly as possible.
So this defmition in the ordinance that requires that they -- that
the certificate holder have sufficient personnel and equipment to
adequately cover the proposed service area is an item that we will
continue, obviously, to need to work with North Naples on.
We've got their commitment that they're trying to ramp up as
quickly as their new training protocol would allow. But, you know,
frankly, when you apply for the certificate, you may think or assume
that you're prepared to take on the full coverage of the district, but I
don't think they're at that position yet.
And I'll let Mr. Aguilera address it.
MR. AGUILERA: Good afternoon. For the record, Jorge
Aguilera, deputy chief of medical services for the district, North
Naples.
Mr. Ochs is correct is we're going to go and ramp up as quick as
possible. Remember, there's a new protocol that just came out
February 1 st. So we're doing our diligence with training here starting
next week, then in March.
And as we ramp up and these paramedics get credentialed and
tested by our medical director, we will start putting up units. So our
thoughts is, immediately, two of the rapid response squads that exist
that have been reported by the Blue Ribbon Committee as something
they would like to see, and then in short order, as we get people out of
training and through the medical director and through testing, we'll put
up the rest of the apparatus.
So we're just as excited and .looking forward to putting up aslmany units as we can as quickly as possible, making sure that these
Page 143
February 8, 2011
muster.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But as you ramp up, the point is that we
-- the County Manager is also recommending that we evaluate some
changes to the ordinance so that you won't be out of compliance with
the ordinance, right?
MR. AGUILERA: Whatever he's -- yeah. Whatever changes
they're going to make, they're going to make to the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I'm just suggesting, you know, we
ought to do these all together. But that's --
MR. AGUILERA: Well, like I said, we're ready to move
forward. We've got our training going next week. It won't take us
very long to get up our two units up immediately. And then
following, we'll get the rest of them up, so --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we've always got the overhead, so
we can inform the public whenever we want to by --
MR. AGUILERA: That's fme.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- putting it up on the overhead.
Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. The County Attorney, Mr.
Klatzkow, help me with this just a little bit.
This item that's before us now, would legal justification to vote
against it be because I didn't think there was enough public scrutiny,
or would that not be a legal reason?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can vote against this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But would that be a sufficient
legal reason to be able to do so?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is -- this is going up to the
state, and it's -- Mr. Y ovanovich, this is going up to the state, and it is
subj ect to approval by the state, correct?
Page 144
February 8, 2011
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We're going to have to get a state
license for this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So when you get your state license
is when you start performing. I mean, you can't begin to perform --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- those services. And these --
these are essentially supplemental services to the services that have
been provided by the county in that area.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And our application was to
supplement your services, not replace your services. So we -- this is
the fIrst -- we needed this approval in order to get the state approval,
and then we will ramp up as quickly as we can to supplement your
services to provide better services in North Naples.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the only reason I bring that up
is I don't want there to be -- I don't want there to be a disconnect
between EMS and what you intend to do, because EMS basically still
has to provide those services as you ramp up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- I just wanted to clarify
that, because I don't want it to be perceived by EMS that merely
because we're signing this, it hasn't yet been approved by the state,
and then they have to bring their team, you know, to the standard of
training deemed necessary by the medical director to be able to match
the county's protocols.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did Jeff Page want to say something?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. I would like to have the chief just make a
couple remarks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. PAGE: Thank you. For the record, Jeff Page with EMS.
I will tell you I was taken aback when we had the meeting with
North Naples staff Friday. I think you remember my quote in the
Page 145
February 8, 2011
paper about how we would be able to count on them in a manner that
we never were able to before based on what the application read.
We envisioned that they would be able to, fairly quickly, come
up to where they were before where, in the original interlocal
agreement they guaranteed seven ALS engines 24 hours a day, and
they really kept up with that, in some cases even more than that, now
to fmd out they're only getting -- being -- providing two initially, that
did take me aback.
But with that said, we do realize that while they're ramping up,
we will be there, of course. But if you remember, during the meeting
we talked about maybe allocating resources out of there at some point
when they did get ramped up.
So just to be clear, we do have an expectation at some point with
resources that they're going to be providing that we can reallocate that.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, one other reminder in that regard.
There were some representations also during the discussions that
had to do with the concerns expressed by the board about the handoff
in the field to the ambulance and in making sure the continuity of care
was maintained, and the commitment that I heard at the time from the
district was, you know, in order to allay that concern, that their
paramedics would ride in the ambulance to the hospital whenever that
was required.
Now, obviously, who's going to decide when it's required. You
know, we'll work that out hopefully. But the point is, if there's only
two engines in the whole district operating at an ALS level and you
have to have those medics accompany you in the ambulance, you're
going to be fairly short in that district.
So I think it -- it behooves them to ramp up sooner than later,
particularly if we're going to need to ask their paramedics to ride in the
ambulance with us to the hospital, as was -- as was assured during that
discussion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Makes sense.
Page 146
February 8,2011
When do you expect to ramp up?
MR. AGUILERA: As we get training. As I said, we already
have training sessions set up, so as we get the paramedics through,
we're going to ramp up. You know, it's a responsible way of doing
this. It's taking it -- making sure that they're ready to go with the new
protocol.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You absolutely have to ensure that
everybody is properly trained and properly supervised. So there is a
time factor, since you're just getting the license. But I mean, I think
what Leo said is absolutely right, and I think it's absolutely essential
that you work with Chief Page to ensure there is a coordination
between, you know, what you're bringing online as your staff
completes the necessary training to ensure that the standard of care is
maintained.
MR. AGUILERA: Absolutely agreed upon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And his staffmg concern so that,
you know, while you are supplementary, that to the extent, obviously,
that you are supplementary, he can also redeploy to the east where,
you know, we do have a shortage. And the whole intent here is to,
you know, raise the standard in the east as well, because we would be
able to redeploy some resources to that end of the county.
MR. AGUILERA: Completely agreed upon, which is why we
initiated the meeting with Chief Page and his staff, and we met and we
started to talk about what's the next coming steps of phasing this in as
go along.
So we completely agree with you, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. The reason that I felt that it
was okay to move forward was because most everything -- the
changes in here were just things we had already voted on and we had
stipulated they had to be part of the agreement, and so -- and now they
Page 147
February 8, 2011
were just showing that they were a part of the agreement.
Some of this talk makes me a little bit nervous. Leo, are you
having a problem here?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am. I'm just -- you know, again, in the
spirit of full disclosure, this board, or at least some of you, I think,
voted the way you did on the COPCN question because you had some
assurances by the district that the continuity of the care would not be
an issue and that if you granted this COPCN, as Commissioner Hiller
said, it would increase overall assets and allow your EMS department
over time to potentially redeploy into areas where our response time
wasn't where we'd like it to be.
So I think what Chief Page is expressing to you is that, you
know, he's just concerned that that happen sooner than later and that,
you know, whether -- I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course --
MR. OCHS: -- supplemental or primary. But the point is, we
certainly made some representations to the board that we were going
to look to move some assets out of that district into other areas in
need, and we can't do that if there's only a couple of ALS units in the
field in North. And I know that they don't want that either. They
want to ramp up as quickly as they can. But we wanted to let you
know that right now, we're -- you know, until we get the certificate
issued by the state and they get their training fmished, there's going to
be a period of transition here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So--
MR. OCHS: At some point, if we don't see that progress, we will
come back to you and talk to you about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, if we didn't grant them
the COPCN, they couldn't start, so then they couldn't move forward --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so then it would even be longer,
Page 148
February 8, 2011
and this would never get into motion. So I guess the sooner the better.
So --
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that we can -- they can at least
begin. And if they never had a COPCN, they would never be out
there working anyway. So I guess -- okay. You've cleared it up.
Now I can move on.
MR. OCHS: I mean, they've had a medical director for over a
year, so they know what they need to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Well, there are two things I need
to ask you. When are you going to present to us the changes for the
county ordinance that are necessary to assure that there's proper
coordination between North Naples and the county?
MR. OCHS: I would think that would come to you in your fIrst
meeting in March, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So we'll have that at that point in
time.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The second question is one that I really
need to -- to direct to the North Naples Fire District. I have sat
through meeting after meeting to have representatives of the fIre
district maintain in the most forceful terms that their paramedics were
fully qualified, fully trained to utilize all of the tools in their kit, and
they were being denied the opportunity to do that by Dr. Tober.
Now we say we're going ahead with COCPN -- COPCN, and I
hear, well, we really can't field more than two units. So clarify this for
me. What's going on?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: The way it was eXplained to me is that
it's going to take about three or four weeks for us to get our state
license. We believe we'll be fully ramped up by that time period,
okay.
We're going to work to be fully ramped up by that time period.
Page 149
February 8, 2011
We may have a couple of -- we may be a few people short, but by the
time we get through this state process, we are going to ramp up.
Now remember, we have a very detailed training process, which
you wanted us to explain to you all, which we haven't been able to
implement because we haven't had the authority to implement that
training program.
We're going to do that, and we think by the time the state license
is issued we'll be able to provide a fully ramped-up service.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Rich, not once, not once in all the times
the North Naples Fire District has been before us to debate this issue
has anybody ever said their people were not fully qualified paramedics
capable of using all the medications in that kit. Not once.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You changed the protocol on February
1st.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forget that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Were they certified to do it before
February the 1 st? Could they --
MR. AGUILERA: By the medical director, no, sir. We were
basically at the fIrst aid level. So the responsible thing to do is take
the protocol with our medical director, go through an appropriate level
of training, get them refreshed, get them credentialed, and get them
working. That's the right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I agree it is the right thing to do.
MR. AGUILERA: And that's what we're doing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But that's not what you were telling us a
week ago or two weeks ago.
But nevertheless, we'll -- you're going to get your certificate, and
then we're going to see what happens.
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. I'd like to compliment
Commissioner Fiala. Her analysis of the situation and her conclusions
Page 150
February 8, 2011
based on the fact that this is the fIrst time the fIre district is getting
their COPCN and as a result this transition period is necessary and is
exactly correct.
MR. OCHS: So I will-- the County Attorney and I will submit
the documents, and the board is authorizing the Chair to execute those
on behalf of the board?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think that's the case.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Have we already called the vote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you haven't.
MR. OCHS: No, you haven't.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already voted on this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already voted on this?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we said we were going to take 15
minutes.
MR.OCHS: I thought that's why you took a break, sir, to take a
look at the documents.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Didn't we vote on it at
the last meeting to authorize the -- approve the CC --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, COPCN.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not going to approve this one
then?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MR. OCHS: No. This was just the document.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you just answer the
question. I mean, I have a question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We did?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
Page 151
February 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So are we voting on it
again then?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we voting on?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not voting. We just agreed
that this document represents, you know, what was voted on at the
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Without voting and without
public advertisement, but make sure you put it on the overhead so
everybody can see it, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I got to speak.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know,_ Jeff, you're holding
your breath over there.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think the motion would be to
authorize the chairman to sign this document.
COMMISSION:ER COLETTA: I agree. That should be -- at
least get this thing down to a point where it went through a process
and got to the final direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Then I'll make the motion to have
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners authorize to sign
the document presented in this meeting, specifically the Collier
County, Florida, Advanced Life Support Non-transport Permit for the
North Naples Fire Control District, Permit No.1, with all exhibits
attached thereto and; secondly, to authorize the Chair of the Board of
County Commissioners -- actually to authorize and direct the chair of
the Board of County Commissioners to sign the North Naples Fire
Control and Rescue District Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, Advanced Life Support Non-transport Services document
and the exhibit thereto, as presented.
Page 152
February 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it passes 3-2 with Coyle and Coletta
objecting.
Okay. Do you have anything more you wanted to bring up,
County Manager?
MR.OCHS: I wouldn't dare, sir. I wouldn't dare.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Smart.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I mean, the last thing was so simple and
quick.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How about County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Mitchell?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. We've been asked to pass a
resolution which would effectively take out the Southwest Florida
Expressway Authority, so I just want some indication from the board
that we can bring forward the resolution at the next meeting to do that.
There is an issue. Lee County Commissioners have already
given their board the authority to do that. There is a question over
some funds that are -- that are still available, and they will be split
Page 153
February 8, 2011
between Lee and Collier County depending on how much monies
were actually paid into the fund in the fIrst place. But we would like
to bring it back at the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have three nods.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We've got three nods.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. That's all?
MR. MITCHELL: That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's enough.
Commissioner Hiller, anything; correspondence,
communication?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not at this time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: See, this is the time when we can talk
among ourselves.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I know. How lucky.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I so look forward to this moment.
I've been waiting for it all day.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one thing. The other night
I was at the Hungarian American Club, and they presented this
actually from the Hungarian Government thanking us for putting up
the statue downstairs, and they went on and commemorated all of this.
But I just wanted you to know that we, as a county, have received
this, and they just happened to have my name on it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. Well, congratulations.
I don't have anything.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good. We're on a roll.
Page 154
February 8, 2011
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as tomorrow's meeting --
are you done?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As far as tomorrow's meeting, it
was advertised as a meeting. In the past we've had workshops with
the City of Naples. Any action that happens in -- at the city of -- town
-- city hall meeting/workshop, whatever it is, would that have to still
come back to the Board of Commissioners for approval?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. All right. The other
thing is, I'm seeing more and more ALF, adult living facilities, being
asked to rezone, and I don't recall if we asked to try to get a count
from our staff on what the approved ALF is out there and what is
appropriate, more important, because that seems to be the -- what's
happening out there is we have all these approvals, and I haven't seen
any of them break ground yet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One has. The Arlington.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Arlington.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one in East Naples, the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In Lely Resort.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and that was a -- that was
a church, was that a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, uh-uh, no. The Lutheran
Church of America, or whatever they call it, is the one that will be
building that, yes. And it's upscale. It's kind of something like Bentley
Village, and they've already cleared the ground, and they've got quite
a few units sold already. They're not going to start actually going
vertical until they've got 70 percent of the units sold. But that's the
only one I know of.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I just want to make sure
Page 155
February 8, 2011
that we're doing the proper land planning. I wouldn't mind living next
to one anyways because it's kind of quiet or dead sometimes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Bad choice of words.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, quiet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Quiet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very quiet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe a little polka music.
Anyways, this past Sunday was a historical event, never to
happen again in our history, and it wasn't that the Green Bay Packers
won the Super Bowl. It's the fact that Ronald Reagan had his 100th
birthday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know how much
everybody appreciated him. And I want to read his farewell address,
if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But fIrst of all I want to read his
view about government, of the economy, and he sums it up as -- in a
few short phrases. "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on moving, regulate
it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we're doing exactly that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, enough said with that.
Anyways, Ronald Reagan's farewell address, talking about our
government. Ours was the fIrst revolution in history of mankind to
truly reserve ( sic) its course of government, and with three little
words, "We the People." "We the People" tell the government what to
do; it doesn't tell us. "We the People" are the drivers; the government
is not the car. We decide where it should go, and by what route, and
how fast.
And almost in all worlds, constituents (sic) are documents in the
government and tell the people what privileges they are (sic).
Our Constitution is a document in which "We the People" tell the
Page 156
February 8, 2011
government what to do. "We the People" are free.
And it just reminds me of we -- we are a representative form of
government, and we are truly, on this board, a diverse representative
( sic) of government.
And that's all I have. And I'll make a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to adjourn, second.
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: We're out of here.
*****
**** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR THE VERONAWALK OFF-SITE FORCE MAIN, COLLIER
BLVD. (C.R. 951), AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR
THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A2
Page 157
February 8, 2011
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR TALL OAKS, PHASE 3B, 525 BAREFOOT WILLIAMS
ROAD, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER'S
DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A3
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR
WILSON BOULEVARD FROM CR 846 SOUTH FOR 1.5 MILES,
WITH TWO (2) RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL COST OF
$150 FOR THE VOLUNTEER GROUP, GOLDEN GATE SDA
LIGHTS PATHFINDER CLUB
Item #16B1 - Moved to Item #13A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16B2
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S (CRA)
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR PURCHASE (RFP) FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO UPDATE THE 2000 CRA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RETURN WITH A CONTRACT
FOR BOARD APPROVAL - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C1
AMENDMENT NO. A01 TO AGREEMENT NO. 4600001937
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, RENEWING AN
Page 158
February 8, 2011
EXISTING AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLEMENTAL COLLECTION
OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY SAMPLES IN COLLIER
COUNTY (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $60,000 OF EARNED
REVENUE) AND TO APPROVE AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENT - FOR COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS AT
FIFTY (50) SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING
LOCATIONS WITHIN BASIN AND COASTAL WATERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY AND TO MEET FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
Item #16C2
AMENDMENT NO. A02, RENEWING SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AGREEMENT
NO. OT061098, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. AOl,
TO CONTINUE MONITORING GROUND WATER IN COLLIER
COUNTY IN FY 20 11 (ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $116,000
OF EARNED REVENUE) - EXTENDING A THREE YEAR
AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTY'S SEMI-ANNUAL
MONITORING OF SEVENTY (70) GROUND WATER SITES
Item #16D1 - Moved to Item #10E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D2
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF A GRANT WITH THE STATE OF
FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TO
ACCEPT FUNDING FOR A THREE YEAR CRIMINAL mSTICE,
MENTAL HEALTH & SUBSTANCE ABUSE REINVESTMENT
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $548,490 - TO PLAN,
IMPLEMENT OR EXPAND INITIATIVES THAT INCREASE
Page 159
February 8, 2011
PUBLIC SAFETY, AVERT INCREASED SPENDING ON
CRIMINAL AND JUVENILE mSTICE, AND IMPROVE THE
ACCESSIBILITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT
SERVICES FOR PERSONS WHO HAVE MENTAL ILLNESS,
AND/OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDERS AND RISK
ENTERING THE CRIMINAL OR JUVENILE mSTICE SYSTEMS
Item #16El
RESOLUTION 2011-25: CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE DEED
CERTIFICATES FOR THE SALE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE
TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE
2011 CALENDAR YEAR - LOCATED OFF OF LITTLE LEAGUE
ROAD IN IMMOKALEE~ FL
Item #16E2
RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKER COMPENSATION
AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED AND/OR CLOSED
BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION 2004-15 FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY11-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E3
REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS - FOR THE
PERIOD DECEMBER 15~ 2010 THROUGH JANUARY 12~ 2011
Item #16E4
MODIFYING A BUDGET OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
Page 160
February 8, 2011
CONSERVATION BLOCK GRANT (EECBG) FUNDED BY THE
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA),
AND AUTHORIZE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO REALLOCATE FUNDING IN BOARD APPROVED GRANT
PROJECTS AS NECESSARY, AND AUTHORIZE THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — FUNDS REMAINING
WILL BE USED TO IMPLEMENT THE FINAL PHASE OF THE
MASTER MOBILITY PLAN AND THE PARK AND REC
ENERGY SAVING LIGHTING PROJECT
Item #16E5
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A $200,000 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) LAND AND WATER
CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF) GRANT APPLICATION TO
PARTIALLY FUND CONSTRUCTION OF THE GORDON RIVER
GREENWAY PARK CANOE/KAYAK LAUNCH — LOCAL
MATCH IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
CANOE/KAYAK LAUNCH FACILITY, TRAILS, A PICNIC
PAVILION & PLAY AREA, AND PARKING & RESTROOM
FACILITIES
Item #16F1
DONATION OF ONE (1) SURPLUS AMBULANCE TO EDISON
STATE COLLEGE VIA THE EDISON STATE COLLEGE
FOUNDATION (ESTIMATED VALUE: $6,000) — WILL BE USED
BY STUDENTS IN THE EMS PROGRAM FOR PRACTICAL
EXPERIENCE INCLUDING STRETCHER PROCEDURES,
CARING FOR THE PATIENT IN AN AMBULANCE AND
EMERGENCY STAGING
Page 161
February 8, 2011
Item #16F2
ACCEPT INSURANCE PROCEEDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$59,570.59 AND AUTHORIZE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR AED'S AND UPGRADING EMS FIELD COMPUTERS —
FOR FUNDS RECEIVED FROM JOHN'S EASTERN AND WERE
USED BY EMS ON LEGAL SERVICES IN THE PRIOR YEAR
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2011-26: APPROVING AMENDMENTS
(APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS
OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2010-11
ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16G1
SELECTION OF THE FIRM UNDER #RFP 10-5600 FOR CEI
SERVICES FOR THE MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT TAXIWAY
AS URS CORPORATION SOUTHERN (URS) AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO BRING A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT TO THE
BOARD FOR SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL — INCLUDES
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT,
VERIFYING PROJECT COMPLIANCE IS BEING MET, AND
FOR GRANT MANAGEMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS
SUPPORT SERVICES
Item #16G2
CHANGE OF AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY IN THE FEDERAL
Page 162
February 8, 2011
A VIA TION ADMINISTRATION (F AA) ELECTRONIC
CLEARING HOUSE OPERATION (ECHO) SYSTEM FROM
THERESA COOK TO CHRIS CURRY AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE REQUIRED FAA FORM -
REQUIRED TO REQUEST DRAW DOWNS ON OPEN GRANTS
Item #16Hl
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 29TH AND 30TH,
2011 AS CAPAlCRABAYSHORE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS
DAY. PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE AT THE
FESTIVAL - ADOPTED
Item # 16H2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 29TH THROUGH
FEBRUARY 4, 2011 AS THE BAND OF THE U.S. AIRFORCE
RESERVE WEEK. PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE
AT THE CAP AlCRA BA YSHORE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS.
SPONSORED BY COMMISSIONER COYLE - ADOPTED
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 163
1611
THERE WAS NO
NUSCELLANEOUSCORRESPONDENCE
AGENDA ITEM #1611
FOR THE FEBRUARY 8, 2011
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS MEETING
February 8,2011
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 8, 2011
THROUGH JANUARY 14, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 15, 2011
THROUGH JANUARY 21, 2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J3
USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS FOR SUPPORT OF
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, PUBLIC SAFETY EDUCATION
AND OTHER LARGE SCALE INCIDENT SUPPORT - REQUEST
BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO APPROPRIATE $5,000 IN
SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS OF COLLIER
COUNTY
Item #16K1
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING FOR FEES AND COSTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $16,400 FOR PARCEL NO. 179RDUE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO B.
YZAGUIRRE} ET AL.} CASE NO. 07-2746-CA (OIL WELL ROAD
PROJECT NO. 60044) (FISCAL IMPACT $16~400)
Item #16K2
CONTRACT WITH TRAUNER CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.,
Page 164
February 8,2011
FOR EXPERT CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE COUNTY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 FOR THE CASE OF KER
ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A ARMADILLO UNDERGROUND V.
APAC-SOUTHEAST, INC. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 09-
8724-CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO. 63051)
(FISCAL IMPACT: AN ADDITIONAL $75~000)
Item # 16K3
ACCEPT OFFER OF JUDGMENT FROM 524 BROADWAY
COMPANY, LP IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000 FOR PARCELS
122 AND 123 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
WILLIAM PILGER, ET AL., CASE NO. 06-1125-CA (COUNTY
BARN ROAD PROJECT NO. 60101) (FISCAL IMPACT: $26~152)
Item #16K4
REQUEST FROM COLLIER COUNTY'S SCHOOL BOARD FOR
A RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE TOWN OF AVE
MARIA TRI-PARTY DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
AGREEMENT WITH AVE MARIA DEVELOPMENT, LLLP AND
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO INCORPORATE RECENT CHANGES TO THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
ALLOWING DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION IMP ACT FEE
CREDITS TO RUN WITH THE LAND UNTIL USED OR
TRANSFERRED - REGARDING A 46-ACRE DEDICATED SITE
IN THE AVE MARIA SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR AN
ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL
Item #16K5 - Moved to Item #IIA (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Page 165
February 8, 2011
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2011-27: PETITION VAC-PL2010-2196, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A 20-FOOT
WIDE ACCESS EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND
MAINTENANCE CREWS, OVER LOT 26, BLOCK B, PALM
RIVER ESTATES UNIT NO.7, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGES 28
THROUGH 30, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
THE SUBJECT PORTION OF THE EASEMENT TO BE
VACATED IS MORE SPECIFICALLY DEPICTED AND
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A"
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2011-03: PUDZ-2007-AR-11381, MARS ILEA
VILLAS, LLC, REPRESENTED BY TIM HANCOCK OF
DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT (A) AND AN
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITH
REMOVAL OF THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY FOR A
PROJECT KNOWN AS MARSILEA VILLAS RPUD TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 27 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 10.25
ACRES, IS LOCATED WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD
SURROUNDED BY ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL
ACADEMY mST NORTH OF IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES,
Page 166
February 8, 2011
UNIT 5 IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST~ COLLIER COUNTY~ FLORIDA
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:51 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'1uLW. ~
FRED COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST: ,1~. ;:':i:,i " ,
DWIGHtE':',B~~K, CLERK
';iJ',/ ,
test ., '.'~t......C'~c~'
...turt .:..." ';., :H":;'V
Theslminutes approved by the Board on l111~ 20,1 , as presented
_ ~ or as corrected .
...,
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, NOTARY
PUBLIC/COURT REPORTER.
Page 167