BCC Minutes 03/08/2011 R
BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
March 8, 2011
March 8, 2011
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida
March 8, 2011
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager
Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Director
Ian Mitchell, Executive Manager to the BCC
Michael Sheffield, Operations Manager, CMO
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
I
I
I
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
March 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
March 8, 2011
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED 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. Rabbi Adam Miller of Temple Shalom
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
(Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. January 31,2011 - BCC/EAR Adoption Hearing
C. February 8,2011 - BCC/Regular Meeting
Page 2
March 8, 2011
D. February 9,2011 - BCC/Naples City Council Special Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating March 2011 as Purchasing Month. To be
accepted by Steve Carnell. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
B. Proclamation designating March 7 through March 11, 2011 as the 31 st
Anniversary of Know Your County Government Week. To be accepted by
Laura Gonzalez and John Vollmer. Sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
C. Proclamation designating March 13 through 19,2011 as Sunshine Week
In Collier County. To be accepted by Robert St. Cyr. Sponsored by
Commissioner Hiller.
D. Proclamation designating March 13 through March 19,2011 as Save
The Florida Panther Week. To be accepted by Lisa Ostberg. Sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
E. Proclamation designating March 20 through March 26, 2011 as Florida
Surveyors & Mappers Week. To be accepted by Dean Davis, PSM, Stephen
Higgins, PSM, and David Hyatt, PSM. Sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Collier County "Business of the Month" award to
the following three companies headquarted in Collier County; Ark Naturals -
to be accepted by CEO Jay Weiss and President Susan Weiss; Haynes
Corporation - to be accepted by Jim Dixon, Laura Dixon, Scott Dixon and
Greg Schultz; and Media Vista Group - to be accepted by Mayela Rosales
and Orlando Rosales.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Mary Barfield regarding Domestic Animal
Services representatives in Immokalee area.
Page 3
March 8, 2011
B. Public Petition request from Robert D. Fisher seeking the support of the
Board of County Commissioners in the community's efforts to compel the
Florida Department of Transportation to authorize the installation of a traffic
light at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Barefoot Williams Road, and the
entrance to Eagle Lakes Community Park.
C. Public Petition request from Timothy Nance representing the Golden
Gate Estates Area Civic Association requesting an increase in public
involvement and awareness in the development of the Collier County Master
Mobility Plan.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reQuires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County,
Florida, relating to Petition Number V A-PL20l0-739, for a variance from
Land Development Code Section 5.03.06 E.6 to permit a reduced side yard
(riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 39 West
Pelican Street in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
B. Appointment of member to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone
Development Agency.
D. Appointment of member to the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee.
Page 4
March 8, 2011
E. To update the Board on the general status of PACE programs and the
recommendations of the Collier County Energy Task Force (Task Force); to
request authorization to move forward to solicit information via Request for
Information (RFI); and to authorize staff to continue working with the Task
Force to develop a scope for a possible Request for Quotes (RFQ) for a
commercial PACE program. (Commissioner Coletta)
F. Discussion regarding the implementation of a system to help diminish
the posting of unwanted illegal signs which are littering our County.
(Commissioner Henning)
G. Verification of the legality of the C-2 grant funding to the County's
Freedom Memorial project and determination of corrective action, if needed,
by way of motion. (Commissioner Hiller)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral, in the amount of$100,000, for
New Hope Ministries, Incorporated in accordance with Section 74-203(i) of
the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances which provides criteria for
impact fee deferrals available to charitable organizations. (Amy Patterson,
Impact Fee Manager)
B. This item continued from the Februarv 22~ 2011 BCC Meetin2:.
Recommendation to award Contract #10-5572 for Wiggins Pass Permitting,
Modeling & Inlet Management Plan to Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc.
(CP&E) and authorize the Chairman to execute a contract in the amount of
$177,811. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
C. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. Recommendation to approve staff
recommendation that the Vanderbilt bathroom and concession facility be
built to conform to FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
guidelines for VE-14 elevated facility. (Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone
Management Director)
D. Recommend approval of the award ofRFP #10-5450 "Asphalt
Roadway, Concrete, Curb, Sidewalk and Driveway Installations" to multiple
firms for an estimated annual amount of $2,000,000. (Steve Carnell,
Page 5
March 8, 2011
Purchasing Director)
E. Recommendation to hire outside legal counsel to review, update and
comment on the current Board approved Purchasing Policy and proposed
changes. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director)
11. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. 1:00 P.M. Time Certain Notice of Closed Session. Notice is hereby given
that pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires
advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client
session on TUESDA Y, MARCH 8, 2011. The session, originally noticed for
a time certain of 12:00 noon, will instead be held at 1 :00 p.m. in the
Commission Conference Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building,
Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples,
Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager Leo Ochs, County
Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and Litigation Section Chief Jacqueline W.
Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss:
Strategy session related to litigation expenditures and settlement
negotiations in the pending case of Collier County v. South Florida Water
Management District, Case No. 09-7419-CA, now pending in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
B. 1:30 P.M. Time Certain Return from Closed Session. For the Board of
County Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney
regarding litigation expenditures and settlement negotiations in the pending
case of Collier County v. South Florida Water Management District, Case
No. 09-7419-CA, now pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
12. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Presentation of the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30,2010.
13. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Page 6
March 8, 2011
1) Election or re-election of the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Chair and Vice-Chair for 2011.
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 grant final Conditional approval of the roadway
(private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Andalucia
(Arlington Lakes PUD) pursuant to Section 10.02.05 C.8 of the Land
Development Code with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained and authorizing the release of the
maintenance security except to the extent necessary to ensure
completion of the final paving improvements.
2) Recommendation to grant final Conditional approval of the roadway
(private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Cordoba at
Lely Resort pursuant to Section 10.02.05 C.8 of the Land
Development Code with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained and authorizing the release of the
maintenance security except to the extent necessary to ensure
completion of the final paving improvements.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA)
to approve and execute an extension of Commercial Building
Improvement Grant 06/2010 Agreement between the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA and Augustina Taste of Chicago,
Page 7
March 8, 2011
LLC due to certain permitting delays. (3300 Davis Boulevard, Fiscal
Impact: None)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to direct the County Manager or his designee to
advertise an Ordinance amending the Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended, to
incorporate a provision clarifying the imposition of Water and Sewer
Impact Fees on geographic areas within the Collier County Water-
Sewer District until such a time when connection to the regional water
and/or sewer system is anticipated within a ten-year period as
identified by the most current Public Utilities Water and Wastewater
Master Plan Updates and the 2010 Annual Update and Inventory
Report.
2) Recommendation to approve aRight -of- W ay Consent Agreement and
Memorandum of Right-of-Way Consent Agreement from Florida
Power & Light Company for access on, over and across a portion of
property located at Naples HMA (Collier Regional Hospital), and City
Gate Commerce Center.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the Collier County
Parks and Recreation policy and procedures for the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) in Collier County
Parks.
2) Recommendation to reject associated vendor bids that were a result of
solicitation (ITB) #11-5635 Waterways Piling Installation and
Removal. The annual impact associated with this solicitation is
approximately $50,000.
3) Approve Change Order No.1 to Contract #10-5428 with Physician
Led Access Network, Inc. for a Health Information Technology Grant
with the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources
and Services Administration in the amount of $45,000.
Page 8
March 8, 2011
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign three
(3) subrecipient agreements for the State of Florida, Department of
Children and Families Challenge Grant for assistance to homeless
residents of Collier County. Total grant funding is $63,397 with pass
through funding at $43,397 for the three nonprofit subrecipients and
$20,000 to be retained by Collier County Housing, Human and
Veteran Services to support administration of the Homeless
Management Information System in Collier County.
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
contract amendments between the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida,
Inc., and approve a budget amendment which reflects additional grant
funding in the amount of$25,000 for the Alzheimer's Disease
Initiative program in the amount of $120,490.
6) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign
contract amendments between the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the Area Agency on Aging of Southwest Florida,
Inc., which reflects a decrease of grant funding in the amount of
$10,000 for the Home Care for the Elderly program for FYll.
7) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
subrecipient agreement with St. Matthew's House providing for a
$110,423 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of
Care (CoC) homeless assistance grant to aid with the cost of daily
operations and supportive services provided by Wolfe Apartments of
St. Matthew's House.
8) Recommendation to approve the proposed amendment to Ordinance
No. 89-11 removing "Key Island" from the attached list of barrier
islands, authorize the County Manager or his designee to advertise
said Ordinance, and return to the Board for final approval.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to authorize the Department of Facilities
Management to advertise and bring back for future consideration an
amendment to Ordinance No. 2006-03 (the Collier County Airport-
Page 9
March 8, 2011
Type Screening Ordinance) that will expand the airport-type security
searches to include individuals entering the Immokalee Government
Center (Courthouse) and the James V. Mudd Emergency Services
Center.
2) Recommendation to approve the award ofRFP #10-5373, "Energy
Management," and agreements to Johnson Controls, Inc., and Tampa
Bay Systems Sales, Inc. d/b/a Tampa Bay Trane Energy Services in
the estimated annual amount of $160,000.
3) Recommendation to authorize a Budget Amendment to transfer
$146,000 from County Wide Capital Fund 301, Project #52004, to
Roofing Repair Project #52161, so that sufficient funds are available
for replacing the existing, deteriorated roof on Government Center
Building C, housing the Tax Collector's and the Supervisor of
Elections' offices.
4) Recommendation to advertise the proposed amendment to the
Conservation Collier Ordinance No. 2002-63, as amended, which
provides for the ability to increase funding of the Conservation Collier
Management Trust Fund (174) by removing the annual cap of ad
valorem taxes that may be appropriated and allowing for transfer of
funds into Fund 174 from the Conservation Collier Acquisition Trust
Fund (172).
5) Selection of firms under Request for Proposal (RFP) #09-5262-S for
Engineering Services for Collier County.
6) Recommendation to approve of the award ofRFP #10-5548 Full
Service Auctioneer to Atkinson Realty & Auction, Inc.
7) Recommendation to accept reports and ratify staff-approved change
orders and changes to work orders.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding
between Collier County and Living Word Family Church.
Page 10
March 8, 2011
2) This item continued from the February 22~ 2011 BCC Meetin2:.
Report to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) pursuant to
direction under Item #10C at the February 8, 2011 BCC Meeting
providing an accounting of all public funds spent on the Jackson
Laboratory Proj ect.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
acting as the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Chairman
to execute the three attached Advertisement License Agreements with
MJA Publicity Corporation for advertising at the Marco Island
Executive Airport.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
acting as the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Chairman
to execute the attached Car Rental Service Concessionaire Agreement
with Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-
Car to provide car rental services at the Marco Island Executive
Airport, Immokalee Regional and Everglades Airpark.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners, acting as
the Airport Authority, approve and authorize the Authority's
Executive Director to execute the attached t-hangar standard lease
agreements for the Everglades Airpark, Immokalee Regional Airport
and Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Mitigation Program on
February 10,2011 at the Stoneybrook Community Center, Estero,
Florida. $15 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the Marine Corps League of Naples Seventh Annual
"Honor the Free Press Day" Luncheon on March 16, 2011 at the
Page 11
March 8, 2011
---
Naples Hilton in Naples, FL. $30 to be paid from Commissioner
Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association monthly luncheon on
February 17,2011 at Hamilton Harbor Yacht Club in Naples, FL. $18
to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the United Arts Council Stars in the Arts A wards Luncheon
on March 4,2011 at the Naples Grande Resort in Naples, FL. $95 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to files for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 12,2011 through February 18,2011 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the State of Florida Annual Local Government Financial Report for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010 as required by Florida
Statute 218.32.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Taxing Expert Fees
and Costs in the amount of$13,168 for Parcels 1 59FEE and l59TCE
in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Timothy Maloney., et al., Case
No. 10-2690-CA (Collier Blvd. Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact
$13,168).
Page 12
March 8, 2011
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreed Order Taxing Expert Fees
and Costs in the amount of$8,580 for Parcels 168FEE and l68TCE
in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Scott Faunce., et al., Case No.
10-2684-CA (Collier Blvd. Project No. 68056) (Fiscal Impact
$8,580).
3) Recommendation to approve the partial release of lien in the Code
Enforcement Actions entitled Board of County Commissioners vs.
Francisca Alas, Code Enforcement Board Case No. 2007-49, relating
to property located at 2592 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Collier County,
Florida.
4) Approve an Agreed Order awarding expert fees in connection with the
acquisition of Parcel 811 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Myrtle Preserve, LLC., et al., Case No. 07-0463-CA, Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Project No. 51101 (Fiscal Impact $21,511).
5) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a Proposal
for Settlement in the lawsuit entitled Darling Elie and Jadarrien Elie v.
Collier County, et. al., filed in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida, Case No. 07-l463-CA, for the sum of
$190,000 and authorize the County Attorney and Risk Management
Director to settle the lawsuit if the Proposal for Settlement is accepted.
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 has been continued from the February 22~ 2011 BCC meetio2:.
Page 13
March 8, 2011
Recommendation to approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 86-28,
as amended, relating to flood damage prevention, in order to adopt, to the
extent applicable, the regulations and policies set forth in the State of Florida
Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No.
1989-98, which ratified the establishment of the Ochopee Fire District
Advisory Board, in order to revise requirements relating to appointment and
composition.
C. This item has been continued from the February 22~ 2011 BCC meetin2:
and has been withdrawn by staff to revise and resubmit for Board
action at a later date. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending
Collier County Ordinance No. 2006-56, Rock Road Improvement Municipal
Service Taxing Unit, per the Board's January 25,2011 direction under
Agenda Item #16A2 to amend the geographical boundaries of the MSTU to
remove properties that no longer derive benefit from the MSTU's stated
purpose and to create an Advisory Committee to provide input to county
staff as to future projects within the MSTU.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-
8383.
Page 14
March 8, 2011
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commission meeting is now in session.
Rabbi Adam Miller of Temple Shalom is scheduled to provide
the invocation this morning. Is the Rabbi here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager Ochs, would you
fill in, please?
Would you please all stand.
Item #lA
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MR.OCHS: Our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on
these proceedings and all who are gathered here. We ask this a special
blessing on this Board of County Commissioners. Guide them in the
deliberations, grant them wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this
day and the days to come.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight.
These things we pray in your name. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Please join us in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, County Manager, you have some changes to the agenda
for us this morning?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
Page 2
----------------
March 8, 2011
AMENDED - APPROVED AND OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, good morning, Commissioners. These are
your agenda changes for Board of County Commissioners meeting of
March 8th, 2011.
First change is to move Item 17.A from your summary agenda. It !
will become Item 8.A. It's an ordinance related to flood damage
prevention in order to adopt to the extent applicable the regulations
and policies set forth in the State of Florida Model Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance. That item is being moved at Commissioner
Hiller's request.
Next change is to move item 16.D.8, and that will become item
10.F on your regular agenda. It's a recommendation to approve the
proposed amendment to ordinance number 89-11, removing Key
Island from the attached list of barrier islands. Authorize the County
Manager or his designee to advertise said ordinance and return to the
board for final approval. That item has been moved at both
Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala's request.
And there's an agenda note, we have a revision to that same
executive summary. And it reads as follows. It reads: Under the
considerations portion of the executive summary second paragraph,
the last sentence should read that this code does not contain language
prohibiting open fires, camping or leashed animals, as opposed to
unleashed animals on the beach. And we can get into that in more
detail when we present.
You have four time certain items this morning, Commissioners.
Item 12.A will be heard at 10:30. That's the presentation of your
consolidated annual financial report.
You have a shade session at 1 :00 p.m. to discuss the potential
settlement of a lawsuit between the board and the South Florida Water
Management District. The results of that session will be reported out
at 1 :30.
Page 3
March 8, 2011
And then Item 10. C regarding the FEMA response on the
Vanderbilt Beach restroom project will be heard at 3 :00 p.m.
And one reminder for the Commissioners, you can see all the
young people in the audience this morning. We're glad to have them
here. And I know we're all looking forward to having lunch with the
Know Your County Government Teen Citizenship Program
participants right across the parking lot at the East Naples United
Methodist Church from 12:00 to 1 :00 this afternoon.
That's all the changes I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
We'll go to the commissioners. We'll start with Commissioner
Henning today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. I have no ex
parte communication.
I would like to have on the regular agenda today 16 Edward one,
16 Edward two, 16 Edward five.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Those are going to be what items,
County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Those will become items 10.G, 10.H and 10.1.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Is that all, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, that's all, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the removal of the -- from
the summary agenda to the regular agenda, I have nothing to declare
and no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
I have nothing to declare from the standpoint of ex parte for
either the consent agenda or the summary agenda, and I have no
Page 4
March 8, 2011
further changes to the agenda.
Commissioner Fiala? I
I
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Good morning,
everyone. So nice to see young faces in our audience this morning.
Welcome.
I have no changes to the agenda, nothing to declare as ex parte,
and nothing to remove.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No changes to the agenda. I have
correspondence and e-mails regarding the ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ex parte on what item, Commissioner
Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The resolution of the boarding
(sic) zone of appeals.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much.
No further changes? Is there a motion of approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: As amended?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As amended.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve the agenda as
amended by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Hiller.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
Page 5
March 8, 2011
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
I
!
I
Page 6
------
Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 8,2011
Move Item 17A to Item 8A: This item has been continued/rom the February 22,2011 BCC
Meeting. Recommendation to approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 86-28, as
amended, related to flood damage prevention, in order to adopt, to the extent applicable,
the regulations and policies set forth in the State of Florida Model Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance. (Commissioner Hiller's request)
Move Item 16D8 to 10F: Recommendation to approve the proposed amendment to
Ordinance No. 89-11 removing "Key Island" from the attached list of barrier islands,
authorize the County Manager or his designee to advertise said Ordinance, and return to
the Board for final approval. (Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Fiala's request)
*Note: Revision to executive summary: Under the Considerations portion of the executive
summary, second paragraph, the last sentence should read This Code does not contain
language prohibiting open fires, camping or unleRshed leashed animals on the beach.
Time Certain Items:
Item 12A to be heard at 10:30 a.m.
Item llA to be heard in a shade session at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioner
Conference Room
Item llB to be heard at 1 :30 p.m.
Item 10C to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
Note:
Commissioners will be attending lunch with the Know Your County Government Teen
Citizenship Program at the East Naples United Methodist Church from 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.
3/25/2011 9:38 AM
March 8, 2011
Item #2B I
I
MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 31, 2011-BCC/EAR
ADOPTION HEARING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
I
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to minutes of the January I
31 st, 2011 BCC/EAR adoption hearing, is there a motion to approve
as written, or are there changes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, 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 COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
The minutes are approved unanimously.
Item #2C
MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 8, 2011 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: With respect to the February 8th, 2011
BCC regular meeting minutes, does anyone have any changes to those
minutes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No changes or corrections. Motion
Page 7
_______u _________ _.__ ____ ______ --------
March 8, 2011
to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Didn't you hear that? Didn't he say second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's what I thought.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #2D
MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 9, 2011 - BCC/NAPLES CITY
COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: February the 9th, 2011 BCC Naples City
Council Special Meeting minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 8
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
That brings us to proclamations. County Manager.
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS (ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 2011 AS
PURCHASING MONTH. ACCEPTED BY STEVE CARNELL -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, proclamation 4.A is a proclamation
designating March, 2011 as purchasing month, to be accepted by
Purchasing Director Steve Carnell. This item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
Steve?
(Applause.)
MR. CARNELL: Thanks, guys.
Item 4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 7 THROUGH
MARCH 11,2011 AS THE 31sT ANNIVERSARY OF KNOW
YOUR COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEEK. ACCEPTED BY
Page 9
March 8, 2011
LAURA GONZALEZ AND JOHN VOLLMER - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.B is a proclamation
designating March 7th through March 11, 2011 as the 31 st anniversary
of Know Your County Government Week. To be accepted by Laura
Gonzalez and John Vollmer. And this item is sponsored by
Commissioner Coletta.
Would you please come up.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Get your proclamation first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to present this to you and
then we take a picture of you, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then you get to talk on that.
MS. GONZALEZ: Good morning. I'm Laura, representing
Naples High School.
MR. VOLLMER: I'm John Vollmer, representing Barron Collier
High School.
MS. GONZALEZ: We wish to thank the Commission, County
Manager and all participating county officials, the Constitutional
officers and adults from 4- H, the League of Women V oters and the
Collier County Public Schools who have worked together to make the
Know Your County Government program possible.
MR. VOLLMER: Twenty-nine high school students from
throughout the county are participating, representing Naples, Barron
Collier, Immokalee, Gulf Coast and Corkscrew Christian School.
MS. GONZALEZ: Some of the things we have learned include
how Collier County was formed, registering to vote before your 18th
birthday, the different fields the Health Service Department is
involved in, Domestic Animal Service's diverse populations, the
impact the CAT system has made, and how the landfill and
wastewater treatment plants are maintained.
MR. VOLLMER: We've also gone to meet with the Collier
Page 10
March 8, 2011
County Public School Board to learn how the school budget is
approved, the Golden Gate Fire Department to learn about firefighter
schedules and their scuba teams, and the tax collector to learn about
how the money comes for the budget, the revenues gained.
MS. GONZALEZ: What impressed me the most is the amount
of water we use in Collier County, the Sheriff Department's
responsibilities, the early history of Naples, and the neatness of the
landfill, the amount of money and planning that goes into building a
new road.
MR. VOLLMER: We've learned about some of the challenges
facing Collier County, such as planning for an estimated population of
960,000 in 2065, the recent passage of the class size amendment, and
a lessened budget by roughly 12 percent that still shows signs of our
recent recession.
MS. GONZALEZ: Today we are also looking forward to
meeting the judge in a courtroom setting and having lunch with all the
Collier County Commissioners.
MR. VOLLMER: In addressing the board, we are able to add
another component to our learning process.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this program
and for your support.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 13 THROUGH 19,
2011 AS SUNSHINE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY. ACCEPTED
BY ROBERT ST. CYR - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Item 4.C is a proclamation designating March 13th
through 19,2011 as Sunshine Week in Collier County. To be
Page 11
March 8, 2011
accepted by Robert St. Cyr. This item is sponsored by Commissioner
Hiller.
(Applause.)
MR. ST. CYR: Bob Sr. Cyr, Director of Community Outreach
for the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Good morning, Commissioners, County Manager and staff and
citizens of Collier County.
I'm honored to accept this Sunshine Week proclamation on
behalf of Dwight Brock, the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and the entire
clerk staff.
Sunshine Week serves as an important reminder to all of us of the
public's right to know what their government is doing. As custodian
of public records, the clerk has made a concerted effort over the past
few years to educate the citizens of Collier County about how to use
the clerk's website, www.collierclerk.com, to access public records,
including court records, official land records, and board minutes and
records, including financial records.
In fact, in the last two programs, we had over 100 members of the
public participating in those sessions.
As we look ahead to Sunshine Week 2011, we are again offering
how to search public records using collierclerk.com, free and open to
the public, at three different locations at public libraries across the
county .
The first in the series will be held tomorrow, March 9th at 2:00
p.m. at the South Regional Library on Lely Cultural Parkway.
The dates, times and places of all the seminars are posted in the
newsroom at collierclerk.com.
I invite you, Commissioners, as well as the county staff, to join
the citizens of Collier County in attending one of these informative
and entertaining seminars during Sunshine Week, 2011.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 12
----- - -- --
March 8, 2011
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 13 THROUGH
MARCH 19,2011 AS SAVE THE FLORIDA PANTHER WEEK.
ACCEPTED BY LISA OSTBERG - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, Item 4.D is a proclamation
designating March 13 through March 19, 2011 as Save the Florida
Panther Week. To be accepted by Lisa Ostberg. This item is
sponsored by Commissioner Coletta.
Ms. Ostberg?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to say something?
MS. OSTBERG: I would love to say something, thank you.
On behalf of the friends of the Florida Panther Refuge, I would
like to thank the Commission for their ongoing support of Florida
Panther Week.
As many of you know, the third Saturday of each March is by
state statute Save the Florida Panther Day. And we just encourage
everyone, not just here in Collier County, but the state and the country
to help us support the protection and preservation of Florida panthers
in the wild.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta has
something to say before you leave.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is related to that. Recently,
at the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, we had an excellent
presentation by Protectors of the Wildlife, and it was regarding the
panther. And one of the things that we came up with in our discussion
that particular evening was the fact that we needed more public
awareness of wildlife around us for all sorts of safety reasons.
Page 13
March 8, 2011
And there was a suggestion made that we try to network back
with the Game Commission and with the Wildlife Federation and the
Federal Fish & Wildlife to come up with something in the way of a
video that will be able to be on our government channel on a regular
basis to make people aware of the fact that wildlife around them, how
to be able to live with them in a user friendly way, and to make sure
they don't present a danger to themselves or their pets or their
property .
And this would be an ongoing educational tool. We've in the past
held seminars throughout the county, but the only problem is we don't
do it on a regular basis and the information gets stale.
So this is something I'm going to be bringing to the Commission
under comments today. And I'm hoping at that point in time I get their
support -- not going to be a cost item -- to be able to get it on the
government channel when this particular video is put together.
MS. OSTBERG: I'd like to thank you in advance for that. I
think that would be wonderful.
I'm responsible for education and outreach with people. And I
spend a lot of time speaking with school groups, civic groups, just
public groups at libraries and whatnot about panthers and about
protecting themselves, their pets, their livestock and whatnot. And I
think that would be a wonderful avenue to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll have you part of the video
once we get this underway. Elizabeth Fleming will be helping to
coordinate it.
MS. OSTBERG: Of course. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 20 THROUGH
MARCH 26, 2011 AS FLORIDA SURVEYORS & MAPPERS
Page 14
March 8, 2011
WEEK. ACCEPTED BY DEAN DA VIS, PSM, STEPHEN
HIGGINS~ PSM AND DA VID HY ATT~ PSM - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4.E is a proclamation designating March 20
through March 26th, 2011 as Florida Surveyors and Mappers Week.
To be accepted by Dean Davis, PSM, Stephen Higgins, PSM, and
David Hyatt, PSM. This item is sponsored by Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
MR. DA VIS: My name is Dean Davis. I'm a surveyor for
Collier County. And I just wanted to inspire some of these young
people to try to get involved in the land surveying profession. Now
that it requires a four-year degree, there's a falling off of the number of
people that are actually in the profession.
And I just wanted to say that I've enjoyed it for the last 40 years
and it's been a great part of my life and it's a great service to the
public.
That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: George Washington started out as a
surveyor, and it worked out pretty well for him.
MR. DAVIS: Well, I have one thing to say in addition to that,
that actually three of the faces on Mount Rushmore were land
surveyors.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my son, who graduated from
Lely High School, was a surveyor, and then he went on to be a nuclear
scientist. So there's a lot to say about being a surveyor to start off
with.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, may I get a motion to accept the
proclamations?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to accept the proclamation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make that motion.
Page 15
I
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Henning, I believe.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY "BUSINESS OF
THE MONTH" AWARDED TO THREE COMPANIES
HEADQUARTERED IN COLLIER COUNTY: ARK NATURALS -
ACCEPTED BY CEO JAY WEISS AND PRESIDENT SUSAN
WEISS; HAYNES CORPORATION - ACCEPTED BY JIM DIXON,
LAURA DIXON, SCOTT DIXON AND GREG SHULTA; AND
MEDIA VISTA GROUP - ACCEPTED BY MA YELA TOSALES
AND ORLANDO ROSALES - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to item five on your
agenda this morning. It's presentations, 5.A. Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. I would like to make a statement
before we present the awards to the Business of the Month. There are
three of them. And 50 companies from 18 Florida counties were
named companies to watch by the State of Florida. And we're pleased
to announce that three of them are headquartered here in Collier
County.
Page 16
March 8, 2011
Collier County is home to a great many entrepreneurial
companies. We're excited that these entrepreneurs have been
recognized statewide for their accomplishments and contribution to
the local and state economies.
The statewide awards were presented by GrowFL, the Edward
Lowe Foundation and the Governor's Office of Tourism Trade and
Economic Development. And the firms have between them 750 to $50
million in annual revenue.
The Board of County Commissioners and the Economic
Development Council decided to name all three as the Collier County
Businesses of the Month for March. And they are: Ark Naturals,
Haynes Corporation, and Media Vista Group. We will bring them up
one at a time and take pictures, and then they will have an opportunity
to tell you a little something about their company.
MR.OCHS: Very good.
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, Ark Naturals' award is accepted by
CEO Jay Weiss and President Susan Weiss.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you like to tell us a little bit about
your company?
MS. WEISS: I would. I see our one slide is up on the videos.
My name is Susan Weiss. I'm President of Ark Naturals. Jay
and I, my husband and I, started this company in 1996. And first I'll
tell you about my company, and then I'm going to actually talk to the
young people out here.
I started my life as a high school history teacher, so I feel very
comfortable talking to you. We started our company with the frame of
mind that not only do humans save animal lives, but animals save
human lives as well. And by living a lifestyle that is as natural as
possible, we all have a potential to live a healthier, longer lifestyle.
And that is really what Ark Naturals is all about.
Our products are all natural, they're all made in the United States,
Page 17
-----
March 8, 2011
and they're really designed to solve a lot of problems, common
problems that people that own cats and dogs face.
Now I'd like to talk just for a couple of seconds about what
Collier County has done for us.
My husband and I came from Pennsylvania, and we decided to
pick a place that we wanted to live and then figure out how we were
going to make a living. And we picked Naples, as did so many other
people.
Jay and I have been in other businesses, we have brought other
products to market. However, what -- one of the things I'd like to say
to the young people is, is although Nancy Reagen says just say no, I
will say to you, never say no. And that really is regarding the
intellectual horizon that I hope that you'll participate in.
When Jay and I arrived in Collier County, we decided that we
would take advantage of every single thing that Collier County could
offer. And one day shortly after we arrived, and we were starting this
business in a category that nobody wanted and nobody heard of and
everybody thought we were totally nuts to do, we saw a little ad in the
paper at the very old Chamber of Commerce building and we decided
-- they were going to give you some business information. And we
met Dan Regelski, who was our first person that we actually met in
the business community in Collier County.
And he started to mentor us and gave us some information and
told us about some people that we could network with. We originally
had -- our original accountant and our original attorney, actually she's
still one of our attorneys, were recommendations from Dan Regelski,
and again, they were Collier County people.
From there we came in contact with Tammie Nemecek and the
Economic Development Council. We had an opportunity to -- I
actually had an opportunity to talk to students of Florida Gulf Coast
University. And then from there we got involved in the Economic
Development Council and they were the ones who told us about the
Page 18
March 8, 2011
GrowFL program.
So that's what I say to you when I say, don't say no. Because you
just never know what is behind another door. And it's kind of like
buying a cookbook, you may not make every recipe in the cookbook,
but if you take away one recipe, that is something that you're going to
be able to apply to other things.
And that's really what Collier County and the Economic
Development Council and the small business administration and the
GrowFL program have done. Each one of these things have given us
an opportunity to really think outside of our own box. Because that is
definitely a problem in small companies. Large companies have
access to so many more resources.
So the GrowFL program actually provided resources, kind of like
timesharing, because they provided resources that the state is paying
for, and we had a chance to tell them what our specific needs were,
and we got a few hours of this and a few hours of that, and it was
really very helpful.
I want to thank everybody at Collier County, the State of Florida.
It's been an amazingjoumey. We have been able to, obviously, hire
more people. We have been able to also pass it forward, because
we've gotten involved with a Naples foundation called The Brody
Foundation for animal-assisted therapy. And this year we decided that
we would become a primary sponsor.
And their outreach started at the Moorings, where they were
helping actually originally seniors who had, could be emotional
problems, it could be physical problems, and these dogs were trained
to reach out to them to help them recover in different ways.
The thing that is so great, that The Brody Foundation has been
approached by the Shelter For Abused Women, and they will be
bringing that program to the Shelter For Abused Women also in
Collier County, and we will continue to sponsor them in every way
possible.
Page 19
March 8, 2011
So I guess it's what's goes around comes around. And we love
living here, as probably everybody in this room feels the same way.
And I want to thank all of you for all of the little pieces along the way
that we have been able to use to grow Ark Naturals. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much for being here.
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, our next Business of the Month
recipient is the Haynes Corporation. And their award will be accepted
by Jim Dixon, Laura Dixon, Scott Dixon and Greg Schultz.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's going to accept the award?
Okay, Jim, here you go. Congratulations and thanks for being
back.
Are you going to say something?
MR. DIXON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, good.
MR. DIXON: First, I'd like to thank the Commissioners for this
award. We do appreciate it. It's been a great year for Haynes. As
many of you know, we also got the Excellence Award from the EDC
for export. So Haynes Corporation is on a roll this year, which is very
good.
We have a great team at Haynes Corporation. We do just about
everything that you can think of in manufacturing, from very close
tolerance work to very, very stringent tolerances all the way through.
We're going to do a little video on our company. So Greg, if you
want to go ahead and do that?
MR. SCHULTZ: Haynes Corporation's been in business here
since 1988. And we manufacture fuel injection equipment for large
bore diesel engines, and mainly for all the trains in the world. We
take care of the rebuild program and new equipment for tugboats, tow
boats, stationary engines such as Caterpillar tractor, John Deere
tractor, Cummings, Detroit Diesel and big off-road dump trucks,
Page 20
March 8, 2011
mining equipment, offshore rigs. And we manufacture everything
here in town 100 percent.
We also have a business out in California where we make small
parts. The plan is to move that here to Collier County.
Haynes Corporation bought several different product lines to
improve our growth throughout the year, starting acquisitions in 1972
and ending this year.
So every time we get an opportunity, we either -- Jim has a
philosophy, if we can't beat 'em, buy 'em. So we take another
acquisition on, and there's always different ways to grow your
business, and you never stop looking for those opportunities.
Some of the engines, I don't know if you're all familiar with
them, but some of the big equipment we deal with are companies like
Caterpillar, General Electric, John Deere, Fairbanks Morse,
Cummings, Detroit Diesel. And you may have heard those. Maybe
your grandfather's got a truck with them. Maybe you've seen a
bulldozer out there building your new home.
But we provide the power that goes into those engines. And our
main thing is to try to conserve fuel, try to hit the emissions, to reduce
emissions and the footprint here in Collier County and all over the
world. Most of our customers are large engine users such as Union
Pacific Railroad, CSX Railroad, the UP Railroad. We deal with India,
Bangladesh, South America, Brazil. If there's a big engine running,
our equipment's on there.
We employ here in Collier County about 80 employees. We plan
on moving more in. We make injectors that you see in that picture,
fuel pumps and other component parts.
And thank you everybody here at Collier County. Thank you for
all your assistance from the county, the state. It's been a good year for
us. It's been a good 20 years for us, and we hope to be here 20 more.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I took a tour of Haynes recently, and
it is a site to behold. The place is as clean as can be, and yet
Page 21
March 8, 2011
everybody's working, everybody knows what parts are doing, and I'm
amazed to see all the equipment that they had in there. Maybe
sometime you can give one of the high schools or something a tour in
there to show these young people the opportunities that lay in front of
them.
Thank you. Thanks again for that tour.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our next recipients of the Business
of the Month award go to Media Vista Group. To be accepted by
Mayela Rosales and Orlando Rosales.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to have something to say,
I'm sure, right?
(Applause.)
MS. ROSALES: Good morning; Board of County
Commissioners, County Manager, Mr. Ochs, and staff and citizens of
Collier County.
We feel very honored and proud to receive this recognition after
nine years, when we opened Media Vista Group from the garage of
our house in 2002.
The mission of Media Vista Group was to serve and
communicate and also inform the growing Hispanic community back
then in 2002 that also represented back then the 16 percent of the total
county population. Now Collier County has 25 percent of the
Hispanic population in this area.
Media Vista Group is a very unique company. It's a
multi-platform media that includes different type of media itself: A
television station, the Southwest Florida affiliate of Azteca America
Network, which is the third largest network in the country. We
produce through our television station 1 7 hours of local programming
to serve the Hispanic community throughout the five counties in
Southwest Florida.
Page 22
March 8, 2011
Also, we are the creators ofD'Latinos brand (phonetic). We are
the first and oldest daily television show in Southwest Florida, also
touching relevant topics to our local audience, such as immigration,
education, health, financial, community information and much more.
Also, Media Vista is the publisher of the D'Latinos Magazine, a
sleek and free publication with a high quality content that also is a
collectible item with 75,000 readers in this area. I
As a young company, also we believe that the online product and I
to inform through the technology is very important, so we developed
in 2003 as well, www.d'latinos.tv that now is a very popular Spanish
portal with national and local information that also affect in a positive
way our audience.
Media Vista, as I said, was an idea and a concept that also
brought a lot of entertainment information to our audience.
And as I said before, we open our company with a philosophy to
inform the community, but also to bring that information that is key to
continue development and also enhancing a community that will
continue to grow.
Now we see a Hispanic community that is complied (sic) by
professionals and people that bring a lot to the economy of Collier
County.
Now we have around 15 employees in our company. They are
from different countries of Latin America. Some are great people that
also we have able to develop their work papers. And also they are
legal residents and of course citizens of the United States.
Our company started with an investment of$15,000, and now
bring revenues of more than $1.5 million.
So thank you to Collier County, because since we came in 1996
from Venezuela, we believe that this beautiful area as Naples was the
most amazing place to develop a company that now has studios, the
television studios and continues serving the whole community.
So thank you so much for this recognition.
Page 23
March 8, 2011
I also would like to recognize the Economic Development ,
,
1
Council, because they have been great supporters of our company. i
i
And my husband and President and CEO, Orlando Rosales, is a big
believer of the growth of businesses in this area. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, we have one other
award to make, and we're going to make this one to Commissioner
Fiala.
This is in recognition for her contribution over many, many years
to the arts in Collier County. She was provided this award by the
United Arts Council of Collier County for her excellence in leadership
in the arts community.
So it's with great pleasure that I present this award to a deserving
Commissioner Fiala.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now I'm crying.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have to go to the podium to do this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't. Thank you. I just -- I
want to tell you, I was so honored. This was such a humbling
experience. And thank you so much for doing this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's our pleasure. And thank you for all
you do for our community. Thank you.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM MARY BARFIELD
REGARDING DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IMMOKALEE AREA - DISCUSSED
MR.OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that brings us to item six on your
agenda this morning. Those are public petitions. Six A is a public
petition request from Mary Barfield regarding Domestic Animal
Page 24
March 8, 2011
Services representatives in the Immokalee area.
Ms. Barfield?
MS. BARFIELD: Good morning, Commissioners.
MR. OCHS: Your name for the record, please?
MS. BARFIELD: Okay. My name is Mary Alice Barfield. I
live at 3065 State Road 29 North in Immokalee, Florida. I've lived in
Florida since 1962, and at this same address for 41 years.
I'm here to address a situation that we have in Immokalee, and it
is about the animal control services that we receive over there.
I found out during a recent situation that I was involved in that
we have no full-time animal control officer in Immokalee. I don't
know why. It doesn't make sense. Immokalee residents should expect
and receive the same services that any other citizen in Collier County
receives. And we obviously don't.
Why don't we?
First thing I'm going to get told is it's because of the economy
and budget cuts.
Well, I know you have a hard time dealing with that. But that
doesn't matter. Immokalee still wants their fair slice of the pie, and we
should receive it.
The situation that I was involved in involved two dogs that were
next door to me who were allowed to run loose late afternoon to night,
through the night, every day, who were left alone for days and days at
a time running loose, arguing with my dogs through my fence.
I have -- or I had four dogs that run loose in my five acres of
property. It's chain link all the way around. I make every effort to
make sure that my dogs are at home and that I'm taking care of them
responsibly.
However, some people don't do that. And this is what happened.
I came home one afternoon and couldn't even get in my gate because
the dogs next door were in front of my gate, my dogs are on the inside
of my gate. They're trying to fight through the gate. I was not about
Page 25
March 8, 2011
to get out of my vehicle to shoo these dogs away. They were already
in a frenzy, and I didn't know anything about these dogs, what they
might do.
lt ended up I had to drive down the road and wait from 12 to 15
minutes for those other dogs to leave before I could get in my yard.
Unacceptable.
My grandson came home one night, had trouble getting in.
Unacceptable. He went next door to talk to the people. No one was at
home, which was normal.
This rocked on and rocked on, and my grandson wanted to take
care of the situation. I said, no, we do the right thing. I would call and
report it to Animal Control.
On January 28th, on Friday, I reported it to Animal Control. I
heard nothing from them, no follow-up call, nothing. I knew nothing.
Finally on Monday, February the 7th, I received a call that the
two dogs from next door were seen dragging a brown dog by his leg
down in front of my fence. I rushed outside. By then the two dogs
were in the pasture on the south side of my fence and my dog was
dead outside my gate.
These dogs were observed doing this. And the person who saw it
signed a complaint, a statement, and we filed it with Animal Control.
When this happened on February the 7th, I called 9-1-1 and told
them, while I didn't have a situation involving human life, I did have a
situation that I needed help with.
The deputy came, he contacted Animal Control, and made
contact with the supervisor, who informed him -- her name was Dana
-- informed him that she was on her way home from work, she didn't
know anything about the complaint but she would check into it the
next day, which would have been Tuesday.
I didn't hear anything. I called. She wasn't available. I left a
message. She didn't return the call.
Wednesday came, I got home from work, there was no -- nothing
Page 26
March 8, 2011
on my caller I.D. to say anyone had called.
Called again. She wasn't in. Left a message.
Finally, late the afternoon of Wednesday I received a call from
her. And I said, you know why I'm calling, don't you? Well, no,
actually, I don't.
Aggravate me? Oh, yeah. Obviously not doing her job.
So I brought her attention to what the situation was. Of course
she had all kinds of apologies and I'm sorries, I'm sorries, I'm sorries.
Doesn't matter then. I don't care what her apologies were. They didn't
matter. Not to me.
While I was talking to her I looked out my front window and I --
I need to get back to it. Monday night after all that happened, Animal
Control did finally send an officer out there. It was well after dark
when they got there. And this whole thing started around 4:00 in the
afternoon. Well after dark when she got there. And she was able to go
next door and get the German shepherd. The pit bull we didn't see, we
didn't know where he was by then.
So when I was talking to the lady from Animal Control on
Wednesday, I looked out my front window and I could see the bull
dog in the yard next door and I told her that I could see him. So she
said she would send a control officer right away. Dark. One shows
up. About two hours, same as Wednesday. Not good. Not
responsible. And not giving me the service that I need as a resident of
Immokalee.
Finally, I found out later that they were able to finally get the pit
bull, and the dogs were taken in. And because the complaint was
made about someone saw them actually with my dog, the two dogs
were put down by Animal Control.
And, you know, this whole thing, none of the three dogs needed
to die. N one of them needed to die. The two next door should have
been being taken care of by their owner. Had they had been, my dog
wouldn't be dead.
Page 27
March 8, 2011
So we have three good dogs that, you know, are no more. And
they were just doing what dogs do. Just doing what dogs do.
I want to close with a statement, that I can stand before you and
everyone else here and I can make it looking you right in the eye, and
I have no apologies for making this statement. It would have been so
easy to have handled this situation differently. And I could have
handled it differently by myself and no one would have known what
happened to the dogs. And you know what I mean. But no, I chose to
do the right thing. What did the right thing get me? A dead dog, and
nobody accepting responsibility for what happened.
I'd wanted a bloodhound for a very long time. They're expensive.
I'm on a fixed budget. I didn't feel that I could spend the money for
this. Last year my son and his family gave him to me for my birthday.
He was more than special to me.
And I wonder, who's accountable here? Who is accountable?
Someone needs to be. Someone needs to be.
And the other thing I want to know is who is responsible for
policies and procedures of Animal Control? Whoever it is, they need
to take a second look or a fresh look at what those policies and
procedures are, because they are not adequate. They're not adequate.
The last thought I want to leave you with is: I am truly sorry that
I did the right thing. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Ms. Barfield.
Now, so that you understand the procedure, public petitions are
generally not acted on at this point in time. We take a vote to bring
them back, because there obviously are a lot of facts we've got to
gather. But we can have a -- I know that Commissioner Coletta would
like to talk with you briefly about this.
But if we don't resolve it immediately here, we have an
opportunity to bring it back for a full hearing so we can get staffs
input and try to find out what went wrong.
MS. BARFIELD: Okay, thank you.
Page 28
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if we could, I think that
we can start the direction going in the right way.
First place, Ms. Barfield, thank you for being here today. I
invited you here today and I'm glad you accepted that invitation,
because it's important you come before this board to be able to express
the shortcomings that we have within our system. Due to budget cuts,
due to personnel cuts, whatever it is, it doesn't matter, the end result
was is that you lost your pet and two other people's pets were also
destroyed because of what took place.
All these things hopefully could be avoidable in the future. And
that's why you're here today, is so that we can try to make an
impression upon this Commission as we go through the budget
process.
Regrettably, when we start to cut the budget, and we've been
cutting the budget for the last three to four years, and when it gets to
the cuts, one of the things we never cut is, of course, our -- dealing
with the safety and welfare as far as EMS, as far as fire departments,
the Sheriffs Department. We try to hold those things at a level to be
able to protect the public. So when they go to it, the budget that's
usually cut is those parts of the budget that have the least resistance.
And Domestic Animal Services has taken cuts in the past. I can
remember even to cover some of the shortfalls that were there in the
past we came up with a system to be able to put the prisoners that
were nonviolent prisoners to work at Animal Services to help pick up
some of the slack.
The thing is, is that these cuts have got so deep now that the
response time is getting to be worse and worse. And if we keep going
forward the way we're going now with budget cuts, and if another
person's eliminated -- I believe there's 10; we're going to hear from
Domestic Animal Services in just a moment.
Because what happened to you can't go unanswered. We need to
be able to keep this in the forefront. We're going through a budget
Page 29
March 8, 2011
cycle and we have to know what it is.
You're absolutely correct, Immokalee should be given
consideration on this. An isolated community of 26,000 people, 20
miles away from the next urban center in the far corner of the county,
you know, it's a difficult place to reach. And if a person was stationed
some place close by Immokalee or in Immokalee, it would make a big
difference in the long run.
But let me give the mic. up now -- would you please give up the
mic. to Domestic Animal Services. I'd like them to respond to what
took place and maybe offer some suggestions what we can do in the
future to avoid something like this happening again.
And once again, thank you for taking the time off to come here
today.
MS. BARFIELD: I appreciate the opportunity, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Did you want to schedule this for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, this will only take a few
minutes. There's no reason why we have put it on the schedule for
long discussions in the future.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. TOWNSEND: Good morning, Commissioners. Amanda
Townsend, your Director of Collier County Domestic Animal
Services.
Before I talk about how we schedule our officers and what kind
of response times we have and what have you, I'd just like to publicly
express our sympathy from myself and from DAS to Mrs. Barfield for
the loss of her pet. My entire staff are pet lovers and we understand
how difficult that is. Doesn't make it go away, but I wanted to express
that first.
Over the last several years at DAS, of course we've experienced
the same sorts of budget cuts that other General Fund departments
have. We've seen about a 22 percent reduction in our staff. That took
us from 13 animal control officers to currently we have 10. We've
Page 30
March 8, 2011
done everything we can to create efficiencies in the way we schedule
and the way we respond in the face of the smaller budgets.
We made a real significant change for FY10, and that is we took
our animal control officers from working 7:00 to 7:00 shifts to
working 24 hours a day. We have three officers on in the morning,
three in midday and three in the evening, with one overnight officer.
That means that we're only carrying a pager and responding to
emergencies only for about 14 hours a week, as opposed to what used
to be about 78 hours a week.
We're able to cover the calendar, we believe, and respond to the
citizens' needs at the time they need us and when they're home, when
they -- instead of during the work day when average people are
working, much better. However, it is true that the geographic areas
that the officers are covering are now larger. Because we're covering
the clock better, we may not be covering geographically better.
However, I think that overall we're being able to make contact
better.
And in both of the instances when we responded to Ms. Barfield's
home, it was about an hour and a half. Generally we have an officer
who is working in the Estates and Immokalee area. We have four
officers who stage their vehicles, three at the Golden Gate Estates
branch library and one at the university extension. So they are able to
begin their shift right out in the area where they're needed, and we
stage other vehicles in the north end and south end of town. So we
have a reduced staff, but we are doing the best to find deficiencies and
do the coverage we can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. And when it comes
time for the budget, I hope this discussion will come up again so we
can start to weigh the safety of people. Because this is also a vital
service that we can't stretch any farther than it is now. The service has
to stay intact.
Also, too, I think some point in time in the future, not today, we
Page 31
March 8, 2011
need to discuss the role of the Sheriffs Department as a first
responder. When you have a dangerous dog situation, I don't think that
we should have to wait for one of our animal control people to show
up, which may be two hours or longer. If a deputy can respond in a
matter of minutes, if the animal is obviously a dangerous animal and
threatening the deputy and everyone else around, the deputy carries
what's called a gun, which could solve the situation immediately. And
I think we need to make that clear at some point in time, empowering
the deputy to be able to take such action.
Thank you so much for your help today on this, and thank you
again, Mrs. Barfield, for being here.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next public speaker?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM ROBERT D. FISHER
SEEKING THE SUPPORT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS IN THE COMMUNITY'S EFFORTS TO
COMPEL THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF
A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 41 AND
BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD AND AT THE ENTRANCE TO
EAGLE LAKES COMMUNITY PARK - DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: Next public petition is 6.B. It's a public petition
request from Robert D. Fisher, seeking the support of the Board of
County Commissioners in the community's efforts to compel the
Florida Department of Transportation to authorize the installation of a
traffic light at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Barefoot Williams Road
and the entrance to Eagle Lakes Community Park.
MR. FISHER: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners, and
good morning to the County Manager and his staff, and to the County
Page 32
March 8, 2011
Attorney and all the residents of Naples.
MR.OCHS: Your name, sir, for the record?
MR. FISHER: Yes, Robert D., as in Douglas, Fisher.
I have handed the County Manager a copy of a petition that we
put together out in the area of Hitching Post. We had it out there for a
week and we got signatures of 865 people supporting the petition for
the need for a traffic light at the intersection of Highway 41 and
Barefoot Williams Road, directly across from the Eagle Lakes Park.
I think, you know, everybody who lives out there has felt that the
traffic light was needed there for several years now. But the traffic,
quite frankly, has been getting worse and worse. And in fact, in the
last five weeks there have been four accidents at that intersection,
which you can verify with the Sheriffs Office, if you'd like.
So it's actually -- it is getting worse. And I think the need, you
know, for a traffic signal there has become more and more apparent.
You know, I am advised by county staff that the state, who has
been doing their warrants study, has completed that and is now saying
yes, a traffic light should go there, okay. So we were very gratified to
hear that news. And we'll be very gratified to hear when, you know,
that is scheduled for.
And we're not being unrealistic. I stopped in and talked to a
Tuesday morning coffee group in Hitching Post this morning and I
told them, you know, don't expect you'll see the light before probably
next October, you know. You know, I wish it would be earlier, but I
don't expect it will be.
But still, it gives them hope that at least when a lot of them come
down for next season, they'll be able to, you know, safely get in and
out without getting hit.
I'm also concerned about the, you know, number of children who
come into the park in the evening. That park is heavily used. And a
lot of the kids walk there and come by bicycle and, you know, cross
41 to get into the park. And, you know, it's a pretty dangerous place.
Page 33
March 8, 2011
Now thankfully, we haven't had, at least to my knowledge, any
children hit there, okay. But, you know -- and I just hope that nothing
does happen. But I think it's really incumbent upon me to request that
the board, you know, fully support this need for the traffic light and
try to, you know, put some pressure on the -- you know, on the state to
get that light there as quickly as possible.
And I do know that the company that owns Hitching Post Plaza,
which is a group of shops there, that they -- you know, they're on the
hook for part of the expense of adding, you know, additional turning
lane and that sort of thing. And my understanding is they're quite
willing to step up to that financial obligation and do it.
So that's my request, ladies and gentlemen. Please do whatever
you can do to try to make this traffic light happen sooner. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Okay, who was first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it was Henning then it was
Hiller, then it's me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. Commissioner Henning?
MR. FISHER: Do you have any questions for me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Good morning. I'm glad
you recognize that this is a state road, state issue. Have you contacted
your state representatives?
MR. FISHER: No, I haven't. Had this not been approved by
warrants, I had talked about getting on the agenda for the MPO
meeting at which I had hoped to present a copy of the petition to the
state representative at that meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's no state representatives
at that meeting.
MR. FISHER: Well, I understand there's a fairly high level state
representative at the MPO meeting. Is that not true?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a secretary for the federal
Department of Transportation.
Page 34
i
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A state representative --
MR. FISHER: Yes, transportation department, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: State representatives are elected
officials. You have a senator and a State House of Representatives,
and their offices are in this building.
MR. FISHER: I understand that. And this is perhaps a step I had
planned to take had the warrants not proved, okay, that the light was
needed.
But this was -- you know, then you got this -- I get tired of seeing
the frustration of people, okay, out in that area of not getting a traffic
light and finally drew up a petition and put it out for signature, okay, a
little over a week ago, okay. And this is my first step in presenting
this petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have any -- we have
say-so on the state, but we don't control the state. The elected officials
in the state, and you have two representatives in your area, I think you
can probably resolve this pretty quick if you contact their office.
Do you know your state representatives?
MR. FISHER: Yes, I do. And I will go ahead and contact them,
okay.
All I'm trying to explain to you is we only got this petition signed
for a little over a week, okay, and this is my first presentation. I
wanted to present it to this board first because the county does meet
with the state, the transportation departments, okay, and I think a
county can put some pressure on, especially when there's a county
park at that intersection, okay?
So that's the support I'm looking for here, okay? I know that the
state has to actually approve, you know, the light by warrants, and
they have recently done that, okay?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you'll get the support you need
from the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. FISHER: Thank you.
Page 35
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Ochs, I was wondering if Mr.
Casalanguida could comment on this and, you know, what his position
is with respect to a light at that intersection and what he perceives as
the need.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Feder would be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wonderful, thank you.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Growth
Management Administrator.
Commissioner, we fully support the signal and have. As a matter
of fact, we brought to this board an agreement back in October 23rd of
2007 to go forward with the signal, which was approved by the state at
that time. At that time they made it contingent upon the development
there at Hitching Post.
Time has gone by where that was not -- didn't come forward, so
there's no action that could be taken.
Since that time the developer, new development, Mr. Shucart,
has stayed to the commitment and the community's desire. And in
fact, the warrants are now met, even without that expanded
commercial development. And DOT has concurred in that.
Mr. Shucart may want to respond. But I understand he is
consistent with what we had in agreement previously, that he will
cover the design, the permitting and the construction cost including
the turn lane requirements up front, and then he'll get 66-and-one-third
impact fee credit back in District 4. We'll continue to work with
others who have proportionate shares, or would have, as well as
possibly with our own Parks and Rec. That was what was agreed back
in, as I said, October 23rd, 2007.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically, if I understand you
correctly, staff has already been working on this --
MR. FEDER: Yes, as a matter of fact --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and maybe if you could work
Page 36
March 8, 2011
directly with this gentleman to assist him.
MR. FEDER: We definitely will. And with Mr. Shucart, who is
the one stepping forward to cover the cost up front.
Again, staff, Tony Khawaja, with our traffic operations, worked
directly with DOT's traffic ops. When they looked through the
numbers they had some doubts, and he was asking the right questions
about why doesn't this meet the warrants. They agreed it does, and
we're moving forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's wonderful. And I think
Commissioner Henning's suggestion that this needs to be brought to
the attention of the state reps is absolutely correct, because they're the
ones who have jurisdiction, and we can only support what our
constituent --
MR. FEDER: Yeah, in this case, should DOT pull back, I think
that's critical. But I think they're moving forward with us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
As Norm said, this was already approved years back, and then it
was rescinded. And one of the problems has been trying to get that
warrant back. Because the company that was involved in this and was
going to pay part of that then went bankrupt. That was WCI.
Chris Shucart -- raise your hand, Chris, thank you for being here,
really appreciate it -- has stepped in recently. The need is definitely
there. This park is the park that I've been trying so long to get a
community center in. And so when you see the people, because they
have no place to go there, in order to get any food or -- there's one
small vending machine that doesn't work very often, so they have to
run across six lanes of traffic pushing their stroller. It's a sight to
behold, I'll tell you. It's scary.
And so we've needed it for a long, long time. So now Chris has
said that he would front the money for us. And he's here to verify
Page 37
March 8, 2011
that, by the way. That's been one of the hold-ups for us also. Ifwe got
the warrant, the state doesn't pay for this light, we have to. It's just a
state road, but we have everything to do with whether that light gets in
there or not.
So Chris then has worked out an agreement, and I'd love to have
you mention it, with the transportation department to front this money.
Chris, would you like to mention that?
MR. SHUCART: Good morning, Commissioners. Christopher
Shucart, for the record.
I wanted to acknowledge that Mr. Feder was correct, we will
stand by the already agreed to obligations in the DCA agreement. We
look forward to moving forward and putting in the traffic signal on a
timely basis.
And just a side note, thank you, Commissioner Fiala, for all of
your support on this traffic signal and everything else you do in the
East Naples area.
And also, to Mr. Fisher and the community residents that have
supported this traffic signal, we appreciate their support and
everything that they do as well too, thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Yes, Bob Fisher had --
and Chris Shucart have given yeoman's time in order to make this
happen. And I want to thank both of you very much.
And Norman and Jay, thank you also for working with them.
Now let's get that light in quickly as possible. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
That brings us to the next item.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM TIMOTHY NANCE
REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA CIVIC
ASSOCIATION REQUESTING IN INCREASE IN PUBLIC
Page 38
March 8, 2011
INVOLVEMENT AND AWARENESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF COLLIER COUNTY MASTER MOBILITY PLAN - MOTION
TO STOP ANY WORK BEING DONE BY WILSONMILLER AND
MULHERE & ASSOCIATES AND BRING BACK AT A FUTURE
MEETING - FAILED
MR.OCHS: It's item 6.C. It's a public petition request from
Timothy Nance representing the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association, requesting an increase in public involvement and
awareness in the development of the Collier County Master Mobility
Plan.
Mr. Nance?
MR. NANCE: Commissioners, Tim Nance, presenting for the
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. A little handout that I
gave you hopefully will be an aid to assist you in following along.
I've brought along a few things just to help me, because this is
something that really defies a 10-minute presentation, but I'm going to
do my best.
I'm coming before you today to really talk about some concerns
that I have with the process and the transparency that's going on with
the development of the Master Mobility Plan. And I want to bring a
few things to your attention. And really, I hope today to open the
discussion so that you might consider what is going on with this
project.
In order to know where we're going, pretty much you have to see
where we've been. And I want to just spend a couple of minutes
talking about the project itself.
The Master Mobility Plan was set forth with a grant from the
Department of Energy, which you approved in July of2009. It's
designed to help us conform with House Bill 697, which says we have
to make an impact on greenhouse gases, and that's pretty much
projected to be vehicle miles traveled.
Page 39
March 8, 2011
Where has it gone since then? Well, I don't think that the
commission or yourselves had any reason to believe that the proj ect
was going to develop the way it has. But what it has actually done, it
has changed into just something to comply with that legislative
direction, but it's turned into what appears to be a comprehensive
build-out study.
Before you is a little bit of information on Phase 1 that's been
presented as part of this comprehensive build-out study, and that is the
way Mr. Jeff Perry from WilsonMiller presented it to the Collier
County Planning Commission when he addressed them in February.
But the first page, which is Phase 1, which you'll see up here on
the visualizer, are a list of24 plans and programs that are to be
reviewed before we can go forth with development of the Master
Mobility Plan, according to our planners.
As you can see here, all these projects that are listed encompass
millions of dollars, thousands of hours of public meetings, meetings in
the sunshine. Many of those are living documents, documents, some
of them are out of date a little bit, some of them are subject to change
from time to time. And most of them have the longest horizon of 25
years.
If you add environmental plans, programs and studies, you add
several dozen more that were supposed to be evaluated, put together
and collated as part of Phase 1 of the project.
The second page that I'm going to show you is basically the
Master Mobility Plan home page, which is on the Collier County
website. And this illustrates how it has become a comprehensive
build-out study. And that means that we need to take the documents
that I just talked about in Phase 1 that have been all joined together so
that we have one body of information, and somehow we need to
project these out through the year 2085, or perhaps farther, 2065,
2085, who knows, somewhere between 50 and 75 years, farther than
we've ever done before.
Page 40
March 8, 2011
The proj ect has definitely changed from what was presented to
you when you passed it by a three to two vote in 2009. If you'll look
at it, the Master Mobility Plan is being presented as a single unified
planning document. And the words concise and practical appear
throughout all sorts of discussions about it. But I don't see how
anything of this magnitude can be considered in any way concise or
practical.
It says the Master Mobility Plan will revolve around the
following master plans and concepts -- which apparently we're going
to produce:
An infrastructure master plan. Apparently that talks -- that means
roads, government facilities, libraries, parks, fire, landfill, water and
sewer.
A land use master plan, which locates the public services and all
residential, commercial and industrial land uses.
A third master plan, a mobility master plan, which is supposed to
generate information on how we're to handle alternative
transportation, transit and pathways.
A fourth master plan, wildlife crossings, and habitat preservation.
Well, I just discussed the fact that there are several dozen
environmental studies and programs and plans, all which are going to
have to be not only evaluated, but extended to the next 75 years.
And finally, signed memorandum of understandings. That is,
signed documents. Signed documents that define, validate and
document commitments and expectations. And when we talk about
signed commitments, I haven't seen anywhere in here where we're
going to do any financial impact analysis on a commitment that the
county might sign.
Finally, the line down below tells a story that the Master
Mobility Plan will culminate in the adoption of the above plans and
agreements.
Five master -- four master plans and a bunch of signed
Page 41
March 8, 2011
documents and agreements. This is far from what we talked about
when this plan was originally presented to you in a to-minute Power
Point.
In the end, what is suggested is there will be changes to the
Growth Management Plan and the LDC.
The third page is getting into what my real concern is, and that is
the public process. What I like to refer to this calendar is, is six
months and done. So far we're two years into the study, we still
haven't -- we're still discussing the purpose of the Master Mobility
Plan, we've yet to begin discussing the principles and their practical
application.
So what does the public get to input on four new master plans,
signed letters of agreement and a Master Mobility Plan?
Well, if you'll take a look, you'll see that we're going to get two
public workshops, one in June and one in September. They'll
probably be an hour and a half to two hours. And this is what Mr.
Casalanguida tells us is the purpose of these is to tell the public what
we want to do. Review your presentation on July 28th, 2009, and
that's what you'll find out. There's supposed to be preliminary
presentations before the Collier County Planning Commission and
then this board in August and then a final one in December.
There's not enough time, not enough transparency, and no
sunshine.
The next sheet is the stakeholders list. I don't know whose final
authority it was to select them. I guess they're defined in the contract.
But those are the people that are invited to participate. I can't really
tell from this stakeholders list who represents the interests of the
taxpayer. I do know that by my analysis, and we could discuss it
further if you're interested, over 66 percent of the people that are on
the current stakeholders list are there because they're paid or it's their
job to be there. Sixty-six percent.
The product definitely differs from the grant with the five master
Page 42
March 8, 2011
plans and how they will be used. I'm going to skip over that page.
And finally to my final point, and that is the fourth thing I want
to talk about, and that is transparency and the authors of the program. I
And that is basically the contractors that are being hired to do it. I
I think there is a very huge apparent conflict of interest in the
authors of this work and plans that are supposed to be made in the
Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code.
WilsonMiller and Mulhere and Associates have done tremendous
work for eastern landowners and the primary property owners in the
Rural Lands Stewardship District, including Ave Maria, Barron
Collier Corporation, Collier Enterprises, the Easter Collier Property
Owners. They cannot serve two masters. I don't see how these
consultants, although skilled people, can be paid by the government
and by their private clients' competing interest to do the same work.
They're basically receiving checks from two sides to do the same
work.
These are the same individuals, I'll remind you, that testified
against the county when we were discussing the four-to-one super
majority issue on RLSA zoning changes. The Estates community in
that case lost protection of the super majority for the large border that
we share with the Rural Land Stewardship District.
I'm not aware that the Board of County Commissioners has been
aware of the changes in how this plan was to be developed, whether
WilsonMiller was selected to do the work or that if indeed they did
have any conflict of interest. I find it unconscionable that these
individuals are supposed to write regulations intended to govern their
largest clients.
Indeed, if you'll take a look at the work order and their scope of
services, they even wrote their own scope of work. I don't know if
that's normal or not, but I think it's a problem.
I believe if these consultants remain as the authors and the
principal planners on this project, the Master Mobility Plan will have
Page 43
March 8, 2011
lost all legitimacy and credibility. I think it will be criticized from
here on out.
Finally, you'll see a copy of my letter from the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association. As it exists, I think the process and
the product is fatally flawed.
I have some specific other comments on things that I think
maybe can do (sic) that ought to be done to handle it but I think I'm
out of time. So I'm going to throw it open to whatever action you feel
is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Nance.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was one of the two that voted
against that. I remember it, and this really needs to come back. And
I'm appalled. The information that was given to the -- at least me, and
I'm sure my colleagues just a few days ago about how great this
Master Mobility Plan has taken place. And I did see WilsonMiller and
Mulhere and Associates as part of the subs.
That needs to stop right now. That is unconscionable and just
simply irresponsible for the people -- like you said, who is the master
here? Is it the people with the more money? I don't know. But that is
a real concern, and I would hope the board would direct to stop for
these consultants until we bring it back, go back to the original --
majority of the commissioners wanted, what the public's
understanding what this Master Mobility Plan was. My
understanding, if I recall, was the increased density.
But I'll make that in the form of a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion to bring this
back to the Board of County Commissioners for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- review and interpretation.
It's seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just a clarification, to
Page 44
March 8, 2011
immediately stop any work done by the WilsonMiller and Mulhere
and Associates on this plan until we can straighten this out. That was
included in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, very well, that's a clarification
of the motion.
Is there any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to hear the rest of the
presentation and the other commissioners first, please.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then let's -- you know, this is
public petition, we're not supposed to be arguing this thing here. It
would be better if we did it during the public hearing. Nobody is
really -- a review of this process has not been advertised. There are a
lot of people -- you're concerned about transparency, you're concerned
about public participation, don't you want the public to participate in
the debate concerning this motion?
MR. NANCE: Yes, sir. Well, you know, if you would allow me
another moment, I would like to go down my list of what my
particular suggestions are to you, sir, if you have the time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, we certainly have the time. I
would be surprised if the board would refuse to bring this back for a
full hearing. So why do it twice?
MR. NANCE: All right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You've made your point that you have
some concerns. We can listen to the staff if they'll give a brief
presentation concerning this. And -- but we have a motion on the
table here that we're going to have to deal with at that point in time.
So would Nick Casalanguida like to deal with this issue?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Briefly, hopefully. Because I don't
know that we can solve the whole thing without a full advertised
hearing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd be happy to talk to you,
Page 45
March 8, 2011
Commissioners.
Commissioners, for the record, Nick Casalanguida, your Deputy
Administrator. I have Debbie Armstrong here as the Project Manager.
I think the public involvement plan is one of the most extensive
we put out in Collier County. You have two public meetings, four
presentations in front of the board. I think the discussion about
transparency is -- I can't say enough that it's not there. I think we have
an open website. We have 400 people listed on the stakeholders list.
Had an excellent kick-off meeting, where, you know, 40, 50 people
attended and we broke out into work groups.
I think the goal of the plan at the end is the reduction of vehicle
miles traveled. What the board will eventually get is a bunch of
recommendations from these plans, concept plans that will drive the
need for us to discuss these land use regulations and GMP
requirements proposed in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
I've heard Mr. Nance's discussion here. I don't agree with 95
percent of what he stated.
Commissioner Henning, to your point of Mr. Mulhere, he hasn't
done any work for the RLSA. He's done the Immokalee Area Master
Plan. I think he's very well qualified.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He defended the interpretation
of the RLSA against staff.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he has worked on the rural
fringe.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, that needs to be all
separated.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I guess that's the board -- you know,
that's a board discussion. I think he's a very knowledgeable person.
My thought process is Steve Tindale is the lead on this project, who is
not from Collier County. He is the main focus. We hired two
Page 46
March 8, 2011
subcontractors who have extensive knowledge. Mr. Perry was a
former MPO Director. Those are gentleman that will be working with
staff.
And as I said to Commissioner Hiller, who I spoke to about it,
I'm ultimately responsible for this project. It's my name that goes on
the signature line when it comes to the board as an executive
summary. So, you know, I will take recommendations from
consultants, but ultimately you hold me accountable for what we
present in front of the board.
So with that said, if the board wants to bring this back, I think
you have an excellent opportunity here for us to do an excellent
project. But if you'd like to discuss it further under regular agenda, I
have nothing to hide. I'm excited about this project, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think there's any need to
defame Bob Mulhere or WilsonMiller. Bob Mulhere, for one, is
extremely knowledgeable. Yeah, he did do the work on the RSLA.
He's been involved in the Immokalee Master Plan. Why? Because
he's extremely knowledgeable. He knows the background. He has
years of service within the county working here, and then as a
consultant he even broadened that experience considerably more.
You've got to remember that these organizations, when they
work for you, they're your client and they're going to represent your
best interest. I have total confidence in Wilson and Miller and I have
total confidence in Bob Mulhere and I have total confidence in our
staff to proceed.
I think this is a big rouge (sic). I'm not too sure what the exact
direction of it is, but it's less than transparent. I for one have no need
to bring it back. I think we're right on course with it. I have total
confidence in staff and the direction we're going.
But Nick, we did have some things that were said here that need
to be clarified for everyone that's here. Project has changed
Page 47
March 8, 2011
dramatically from its conception.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, I have the project charter that the
board looked at. Again, without making this a long debate, we talked
about all these master plans.
The ultimate goal when I come to the board per the charter is to
bring you concepts in how we'll reduce vehicle miles traveled. If I
vary from that when we come back to the board at the finish of this
project, then I've deviated from what I said. That's not my intention.
We're going to have a -- when this plan is done, the only thing
you'll be adopting as part of this master plan is a bunch of
recommendations to tell staff to go to Phase III, which is you've told
us how to reduce vehicle miles traveled to the board, we agree with
staff that those are good ideas, now put those into functional land
development regulations and Growth Management Plan policy
changes. That's all that happens at the master mobility plans. Your
plans as presented as part of this are concept plans used to develop
those ideas, nothing more.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Financial impact statements.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, everything that we bring to you in
terms of land development regulations or Growth Management Plan
changes, you're going to ask us what fiscal impact it has. We'll be
happy to explain that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stakeholders.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Over 400 of them listed right now, and
we have an open website. I think that list will grow. The opportunity
that we're going to put all the documentation that we get from our
consultants on a website so that any stakeholder or the public can
download that information.
The 18 working groups, we've opened up the last half hour to the
public to attend and have break-out sessions with us. I think I've gone
more than what the LRTP would do, more than what the, you know,
other master plans have done. I'm being as open as possible.
Page 48
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Consultants wrote their own
scope of work.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, when we developed some of this
stuff, we asked the consultants to write what they think the work will
be. They give it to us in white and we read it and send it back and we
say no, this is what -- because it's a way for them to understand what
we're telling them for work. But we finally signed the contract.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I want to tell you, my fellow
commissioners, true transparency. Let's go with true transparency
now.
This has nothing to do with this study. It has everything to do
with an election in 2012, somebody trying to set the framework for it.
Any way we can bring discredit upon everyone in county staff or
anyone that deals with county staff, some people are looking at it as a
positive avenue to be able to go to be able to reach a certain objective
in 2012.
I recommend that we keep this going forward and I will not
support the motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you very much.
Couple of things. In light of this petition, I have a copy of the
contract that this board approved for Tindale-Oliver. And when this
was presented, it wasn't represented that WilsonMiller and Mulhere
were going to be sub-consultants.
And when I look at this contract, the contract provides services
by consultant, and in Section 10.1 refers to the employment or
contract with or use of services of any other person or firm by
consultant as independent consultant or otherwise shall be subj ect to
the prior written approval of the owner. And I assume that means
Collier County.
It was never disclosed to me that these consultants were going to
be part of this agreement. I do have a concern about the conflict of
Page 49
March 8, 2011
interest.
The contract also provides in Article 13, 13.1, consultant
represents that it presently has no interest and shall acquire no interest,
either direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner with the
performance of services required hereunder. Consultant further
represents that no persons having any such interest shall be employed
to perform those services.
I have concerns. And, you know, Mr. Casalanguida, you and I
spoke about that, and you admitted that yes, it should have been
disclosed at the hearing when Tindale-Oliver made his presentation.
However, it did not. It was not presented.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, for clarification, I didn't say it
should have been disclosed. What I said was, if a contractor hires a
subcontractor, they need to tell us that. But they have every right to
hire subs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it has to be with our approval
and it should have been disclosed, and it wasn't. And I made my vote
on the assumption that Tindale-O liver was going to be doing the
study, not that it was going to be delegated to any other firm,
specifically WilsonMiller or Bob Mulhere.
As far as the transparency and the involvement of the public, I'm
looking at your schedule, which is included in this package, and I
actually have some concerns. Because this came up when we were
dealing with the parks master plan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And one of the concerns I had was
that the parks master plan used these focus groups and didn't provide
for public hearing once the plan was completed before it came to the
board for a vote.
And when I look at your schedule, I see the same thing. Well, I
see that you have two public workshops in June and September. The
project is anticipated to culminate in December. And I see no public
Page 50
March 8, 2011
forum or forums in December when this project is completed where
people should have the opportunity to look back and say, you know
what, no, this isn't what we wanted.
The other concern I have is, you know, when I look back to the
House Bill with the objective of being greenhouse gas reductions, and
specifically I guess what's on the website where it says that you will
rely on, you know, the coordination of data from these existing studies
like, you know, the Horizon Study, East of951 and so forth, and then
all of a sudden it jumps into these master plans that, if I understand
correctly, have not been -- that don't even exist. Is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I can answer the questions that
you raised.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But do they exist?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, we're developing those plans.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have we voted on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was part of the charter, ma'am.
That was in the project charter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which was approved when?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: July of2009.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 2009?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So that was when I was not
here, which is why I'm not familiar with that. And all of these have
been budgeted for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As part of the grant, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And do we have public hearings
scheduled on all these?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am, as part of a group. I'll
answer your question as part of public involvement.
When you look at this, you've had a stakeholder kick-off on
February 25th. And what Tim didn't mention to you is that we've
been working on this for a whole year ahead of this collecting data.
Page 51
March 8, 2011
That was Phase 1.
So for a whole year we've gone out and looked at everybody's
information, whether it it's internal to the county or outside of the
county, the RLSA, rural lands, Fish & Wildlife, DPA, any maps that
we can find for a year, the consultant in Phase 1 has been doing that
data collection. So to say that a year later or two years into the
process we're not taking our time and collecting that information is
extremely false.
We had a meeting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I didn't say that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was one of the things the
petitioner had said this morning.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But how were they -- how are we
collecting all this data if we just let the contract now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You had a Phase 1 part of the contract
--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- that was done by work order to
collect data to provide it for the Phase 2 part of the contract.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who had that -- who was that
work order with?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was with three to four, several firms.
I can dig up the information.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to see the work order.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How much was it for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't tell you off the top of my head
but I can get you that information. CH2MHill was involved, RW A
might have been involved. Several firms that had access to
information compiled that information.
Let's talk about the public involvement for a second, because it
keeps coming up.
Page 52
March 8, 2011
Two public meetings, 18 break-out sessions, two stakeholder
work group sessions, on the website, two times in front of the planning
commission, two times in front of the board. I mean, that's pretty
extensive in my mind. I think it's pretty transparent.
I've also said to them you have access to our proj ect manager
on-site any time you want. When we have our work group sessions,
attend them afterwards.
I think I've gone a little extra on this public involvement plan to
make sure that there's the ability for people to reach out and look at
this. So--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you help me on the
stakeholders, where it says stakeholder group interviews and
stakeholder meetings; you've got 12 and two. Who specifically is
going to be invited to these meetings?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Different stakeholders will be
interviewed by the consultant, Tindale-Oliver. They may be by phone
interviews, they may be group interviews. The Conservancy, Tim
Nance and the Golden Gate Civic Association are considered
stakeholders. So they may meet with the Golden Gate group and say,
what are your concerns with the project. So that's pretty extensive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So your -- that's basically part of
your interview process where you're going to interview these people?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That doesn't satisfy my concern.
Because again, I see the public workshops, of which there are two, and
they are not at the conclusion of this proj ect.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are to the tail end of the project
in August, September, and then you have planning commission
presentations. So there's another opportunity for the public to attend
and voice their concerns as well too.
So you will get multiple opportunity to make sure that, you know
-- another thing we're doing I don't think that's been done before is our
Page 53
March 8, 2011
website is interactive when it's up. It's up this week, I'm told by
Debbie, but she said caution, make sure there's no bugs in it.
Every document, every conversation, every email, anything we
have can be uploaded to the website for anybody to view. All the
files, all the maps, the working documents will be open to the public.
That's unprecedented since I've been here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's all very well and
good and I appreciate you for doing that. I'm still left with the
concerns that I expressed.
And the other thing is, you know, the fact that we're using a
professional engineering firm. And I don't know how much they're
going to be paid under this, whether or not the CCNA applies. I
actually asked staff about that, and their response -- not you,
purchasing -- and their response to that was, well, technically it doesn't
need -- the CCNA doesn't need to apply because they're not going to
be sealing these documents.
I don't know if that's the correct interpretation of the CCNA.
And so I question whether letting, you know, this proj ect to this
company in this fashion is in conformance with the law, whether this
contract is even legal under the circumstances. And I would ask when
this comes back that staff please -- and if finance would look at this
also, please, and let me know whether the CCNA has been complied
with, with respect to WilsonMiller's participation as it's expected in
total, not piecemealed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, are you finished?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think so.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Good, thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you know what bothers me a
lot as I'm listening to some of this going on is it sounds like there's
some kind of a vendetta going on. And I'm very uncomfortable.
Because they don't like a firm or two firms, no matter how
Page 54
March 8, 2011
knowledgeable they are and what good work they do, they don't like
their opinion or their representation on a certain proj ect, so they want
to put them down. That's wrong, in my opinion.
And to carry on some kind of a vendetta or a political maneuver
for that is -- it leaves me very, very uncomfortable. I don't like that at
all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, in the end, my name
and Debbie Armstrong's will be the name on that project as it comes
forward, so you'll hold us accountable.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well-- and I know that. I know,
Nick, because I've seen what you've done in the community since
you've taken over and I hear what you've done from the community
because I'm out there listening all the time, and I know you would
never put your name onto anything unless you can stand by it. And
you, in my opinion, are of the highest credibility. So thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, my light is on now. My light is
on now.
Had I not heard Commissioner Henning and Commissioner
Hiller make their statements, I probably would have voted in favor of
their motion. But I am absolutely astounded at what is happening here.
Bob Mulhere, you have joined a growing list. Started out with
Gina Downs, then me, Cedar Hames, Paradise Advertising,
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala, Jack Wert. You have
joined us all. But you have to be punished, like we have to be
punished, because we might disagree with one or two commissioners
here.
I think that's outrageous. And I would never support a motion
based upon that kind of logic and hatred. So I'm going to call the
question.
All in favor of this motion, to bring this back for hearing, please
signify by saying aye --
Page 55
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on, hang on. I think under
our rules that you have to have full debate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Every one of you has had a chance to
speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to have debate after the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I am calling the motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to have debate after the
motion. There are two rounds of debate after a motion is called.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have just had all of you speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It doesn't matter.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right, I'll take a vote of the
commlSS10ners.
All in favor of terminating debate and calling the question, please
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Point of order.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, there are three. It passes 3-2, I
would presume.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can't go against our
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, you can't. It's a violation of
the ordinance, and I would ask the County Attorney to opine. We're
governed by Roberts Rules, and Roberts Rules provides that there are
two rounds of debate after a motion is on the table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we take a break, please?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to, but let's get this over with.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that Commissioner Coyle's actions
as Chairman was proper here.
Page 56
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
All right, now I will call the question. All in favor of the motion
made by Commissioner Henning and seconded by Commissioner
Hiller, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
The motion fails 3-2, with Commissioner Coletta, Coyle and
Fiala objecting to the motion. And we are going to take a break for 10
minutes and give you a rest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like the record to reflect
that I disagree with the County Attorney's opinion as to Roberts Rules
and I would like the basis for his determination, if you could please
provide that to me.
(A recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you handling this meeting all by
yourself?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I will do so if you don't get up here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I vote to end the meeting.
MS. KINZEL: No, I've got good news.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, what are we going to argue about
now?
Item #12A
PRESENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 - MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT-
APPROVED
Page 57
March 8, 2011
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, we're going to go to 12.A on your
agenda. It was a 10:30 a.m. time certain hearing. It's a presentation of
the comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended
September 30,2010.
Miss Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Director, will begin
the presentation.
MS. KINZEL: Good morning, Commissioners. And actually,
this is a good news item. So, for the record--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're not prepared for that.
MS. KINZEL: Well, hopefully by the end of the presentation
you'll be happy with us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're an optimist.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel, Director of
Finance and Accounting for the Clerk's office.
And we do have a good news item for you today, which is the
presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,
commonly referred to as our CAFR.
And as you know, this is our year-end process. It takes a few
months to gather all of the information for the year ended September
30th of2010. And the preparation of this information requires a lot of
people. So if I could just take a few minutes to recognize those people
and offer a few thank yous.
First of all, to the county staff, the department heads and
administrators, in the Office of Management and Budget, and Mark
Isackson and County Manager Leo Ochs. And of course the Board.
We appreciate the cooperation in providing information so that we're
able to prepare the financial statements for Collier County.
Would also like to thank all of the constitutional officers, which I
don't see anyone here today, but the Sheriff, the Property Appraiser,
Tax Collector and Supervisor of Elections. Their financial reports are
also included in the CAFR for your review.
Page 58
March 8, 2011 I
Obviously very important to our year-long process in gathering
information and taking care of the financial information of Collier
County is the finance and accounting staff led by Derek J ohnssen, our
Accounting Operations Manager, his assistant Kelly Jones, Lead
Senior Accountant.
And stand up -- they were embarrassed but I made them come
down. We're only a floor away. And these are just some of the
people that help all year long to put together this information for the
financial report.
(Applause.)
MS. KINZEL: They're humble and fearful of public
presentation, but I told them they really do deserve it.
We'd also like to thank -- thanks guys, from me also.
We'd also like to thank the external auditors, Ernst and Young.
Obviously it makes our job a little easier when they bring in a
knowledgeable staff and we're able to work and get the work product
out as quickly as possible for your review.
We have with us today Mr. John DiSanto, who is the Executive
Director with Ernst and Young. He's going to make a brief
presentation. He needs to put some items on the record for the board's
consideration. And he will provide you with some of the required
information regarding the audit.
We'll be available to answer any questions if you should have
them after the audit.
And before I turn it over to John, we'd also like to let the public
know that immediately upon your approval, and we hope it will be
approved, obviously, the entire report --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Do we have a choice?
MS. KINZEL: No, not really. But it's still good news.
It will be available on the Clerk's website at collierclerk.com.
And if you go to the Clerk to the Board functions drop-down, we will
have the full CAFR out there for the public's view.
Page 59
March 8, 2011
We also will put a hard copy of the budget in the library branches
for those people that may not have access to a computer.
So with that, John, thank you.
MR. DiSANTO: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair,
members of the board. As Crystal mentioned, my name is John
DiSanto. I'm an Executive Director with Ernst and Young, and I was
the partner in charge of your audit this year.
I do appreciate the opportunity to come before you to present the I
results of the 2010 audit of Collier County.
As far as the reports that we issued as a result of our audit, we
issued unqualified or a clean opinion on the basic financial statements
or the CAFR of the county. We also issued separate unqualified or
clean audit opinions on the separate financial statements of the
constitutional officers. We also issued a separate unqualified opinion
on the financial statements of the county water and sewer enterprise
fund.
We also issued reports on internal control over financial reporting
and compliance with laws and regulations in accordance with
government auditing standards. And in that report we disclosed no
material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls
over financial reporting, and no instances of noncompliance with the
many laws and regulations to which Collier County is subject.
We also issued a report on compliance with the requirements
applicable to each major federal program and state program, and on
internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular
A-133 and the Florida Single Audit Act.
We did audit eight federal grant programs and five state
programs. We issued what we call a qualified or an except for opinion
on only one program. And the other 12 programs were unqualified or
clean audit opinions.
With respect to the management letter and state reporting
requirements, we did mention two immaterial comments that related to
Page 60
March 8, 2011
single audit findings. They primarily related to approvals of certain
reports that are submitted to the federal agencies.
How do those audit results compare to the prior years? On this
next slide we showed how that compared to the prior two audits. You
will note that total audit adjustments, both recorded and unrecorded,
were four in 2008, eight in 2009, and four in 2010. And I'll talk
briefly on those a little bit later on.
Findings considered to be significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses related to internal controls over financial reporting. Back
in 2008 there was one finding, and there was none in either 2009 or
'10.
Single audit findings, 2008 we audited 11 programs in total
between federal and state; four of those had qualified or except for
audit opinions, seven were unqualified. 2009 we audited 15 programs;
four were qualified as well, eleven unqualified. And in 2010 we had !
13 programs; only one was qualified and 12 of them were unqualified. I
And I think the thing to point out there is while maybe the
number of total findings we're having in the single audit, the audit of
the grant programs, has not necessarily changed over the prior three
years, the severity of those comments has significantly changed and
become much better. So they've become less severe as we've gone on,
which did not result in us having to qualify as many opinions on the
programs as we had to in the past.
And as far as the management letter goes, we did not have any
comments in 2008. We had four in 2009. All of those four were
adequately addressed in 2010. And we had the two comments that I
referred to earlier in 2010 -- in the 2010 audit.
The next two slides are really just for your informational
purposes, just some financial data showing three-year data for the
general fund as a percent of total expenditures. You will note between
2009, 2010 that there was some improvement, in that the fund balance
covers more of the total annual expenditures.
Page 61
March 8, 2011
Just as a rule of thumb, total fund balance, a rule of thumb is you
want to have at least 25 percent. And unreserved undesignated fund
balance you should have or you want to have about 15 percent. And
those are set by the Auditor General and the GFOA as far as their
recommendations.
And there's some information there comparing you with some of
your other close counties, the ones that were available, anyway, at the
time that we went to press, as Manatee and Sarasota. And they have
always had much higher fund balance reserves than many of the other
counties in the state. But again, that information's really just again for
your information.
This next data just shows some information regarding debt
outstanding per capita. And again, you'll note that over the three-year
trend for Collier County's standpoint, the average dollars of debt
outstanding per capita has declined, which again is a positive trend.
There are some required communications. Those are the matters
that, as I've mentioned in the past when I've been here, that were
required to communicate to those charged with government
governance and organizations such as this board. I'm not going to go
through each and every one, but I'm going to highlight some of the
more important ones.
The first one regarding the auditor's responsibilities under
generally accepted auditing standards, I do want to point out that the
financial statements are the responsibility of management. Ernst and
Young's responsibility is to issue an opinion as to whether or not those
financial statements present fairly the financial information of the
county .
Also with respect to internal controls, we are responsible for
obtaining an understanding of those internal controls to enable us to
plan and perform our audit, not to issue a separate opinion on those
internal controls. And again, we did issue an a clean or an unqualified
audit opinion on the financial statements of the county for the fiscal
Page 62
March 8, 2011
year ended September 30,2010.
Also with respect to the quality of the accounting principles and
policies used by management in preparing the financial statements,
those have been consistent year over year and also consistent with
both industry standards and those standards that are required by the
actual bodies that set those standards.
We did not encounter any difficulties in performing the audit. In
fact, we continue to receive excellent cooperation from both the
County Manager's staff and Clerk finance staff.
Unrecorded differences I'm going to cover in total. There were a
total of four audit differences. And what those really are is those are
transactions that actually the paperwork comes in subsequent to the
end of the fiscal year but the transaction actually was incurred prior to
the end of the fiscal year. So we work closely with management on
those items to determine those that are material enough to identify and
record in the financial statements.
There were four of those during the current year audit. Of those
four, three were significant enough to record in the financial
statements, and those are recorded in the financial statements. One of
them was determined to be immaterial to the financial statements by
management. And we concurred with management's position on that.
We also did not have any disagreements with management in
performing the audit.
As far as fraud and illegal acts go, we did not identify any fraud
or illegal acts in the course of performing our audit. And as I pointed
out earlier, there were no significant deficiencies or material
weaknesses in internal controls.
And that's really all that I wanted to cover specifically related to
the results of the audit. Again, I'll ask if anybody on the board has any
questions regarding the audit or the results of the audit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Questions?
Commissioner Henning?
Page 63
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I always -- the first tab I always
go to is your recommendations. And I noticed -- and I think the board
needs to be commended for recognizing that we had a -- we have a
director that had a potential conflict volunteering for not for profit and
also awarding those.
MR. DiSANTO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we have taken action for
our employ -- well, the County Manager's employees through that.
MR. DiSANTO: Yes, sir. Yeah, that was a comment we had in
the 2009 management letter. And we are required to indicate the
status of all those prior year comments in the current year audit. And
as I mentioned earlier, we had four comments in 2009, and all of them
had been addressed by management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you separate out the debt
services between general and enterprise?
MR. DiSANTO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't -- do you have
anything putting those all together where we are historically?
MR. DiSANTO: I believe the very last item there is the total
outstanding debt per capita, on that slide. I think it's on Page 7 or slide
seven.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DiSANTO: You'll see the third line is governmental
activities, debt outstanding, and the fifth line it would be is the
business activities. And then the very last line is the total.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you're comparing Sarasota
and Manatee. Is that similar in -- yeah, it is, the population.
MR. DiSANTO: It's similar. Those also were the only counties
that had their CAFR completed as of the date that we completed.
Your CAFR was completed as well. So we only had older data for
other counties, like Lee County, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the -- okay, so the per capita
Page 64
March 8, 2011
kind of tracks what Tax Watch has done for several years.
MR. DiSANTO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any other
information where we stand through the whole State of Florida?
MR. DiSANTO: We do not have all that analysis put together. I
know through the County Manager and Clerk Finance Office, they do
put a lot of benchmarking data together. And, I mean, I'm sure either
Derek or Crystal can talk to specifically what they have. But they do
track a lot of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to create any work
for -- any more --
MR. DiSANTO: I think they actually already have it, a lot of
that, so I think they can certainly give you what they do have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, no other questions, thank you
very much. Appreciate it.
MR. DiSANTO: Great, thank you again for your time this
morn1ng.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to accept --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to accept the CAFR by
Commissioner Henning.
Second by?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 65
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Good, thank you very much.
MS. KINZEL: Thank you very much.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2011-48: APPOINTING GARY MCNALLY TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes us to item nine on your
agenda this morning. 9.A is appointment of member to the
Environmental Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: This is your district, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we
approve the committee's recommendations for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Gary McNally.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion to approve Gary McNally 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.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Page 66
March 8, 2011
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2011-49: APPOINTING JOSEPH E. WALL TO THE
COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: 9.B is appointment of member to the County
Government Productivity Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Joseph
Wells.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wall.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Coletta
to approve Joseph Wall, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2011-50: RE-APPOINTING MICHAEL FACUNDO,
FLOYD CREWS, JAMES I. W ALL, CARRIE WILLIAMS, ANA
SALAZAR, AND JULIO ESTREMERA AND KITCHELL SNOW
TO THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - ADOPTED
Page 67
March 8, 2011
MR.OCHS: 9.C is appointment of members to the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve all seven
applicants.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. They are reappointments. The
motion is to approve the reappointment of all seven.
And the motion is made 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.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2011-51: APPOINTING PATRICIA C. FORTUNE
TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: 9.D is appointment of member to the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Patricia
Page 68
March 8, 2011
Fortune.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve Patricia Fortune, and seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Item #9E
UPDATING THE BOARD ON THE GENERAL STATUS OF PACE
PROGRAMS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY ENERGY TASK FORCE (TASK FORCE);
REQUESTED AUTHORIZATION TO MOVE FORWARD TO
SOLICIT INFORMATION VIA REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
(RFI); AUTHORIZING STAFF TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH
THE TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP A SCOPE FOR A POSSIBLE
REQUEST FOR QUOTES (RFQ) FOR A COMMERCIAL PACE
PROGRAM - MOTION TO EVALUATE THE COMMERCIAL
MARKET - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: 9.E is to update the board on the general status of
P ACE programs and the recommendations of the Collier County
Page 69
March 8, 2011
Energy Task Force to request authorization to move forward to solicit
information via a request for information and to authorize staff to
continue working with the task force to develop a scope for a possible
request for quotes for a commercial P ACE program. This item was
placed on the agenda by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much.
At the direction of this commission, the P ACE study is moving
forward and we have a great committee and a little bit of assistance
from staff, thanks to this commission.
At this point in time Steve Hart, who's been the brains and the
energy behind this, is going to give you a report and ask for your
opinion about --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: At least the energy. Good.
MR. HART: He's being generous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me for interrupting just a
second.
You talked about PACE, but they might think it's PACE Center
for Girls. Could you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, that's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- tell them what P ACE is?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Steve, I turn it over
to you.
MR. HART: I'll be happy to. Thank you Commissioner and all
Commissioners.
Good morning. My name is Steve Hart of Collier County Energy
Task Force.
And yes, thank you, Commissioner Fiala. While the PACE
Center for Girls is a marvelous organization that needs to be helped
and promoted in every way, P ACE as we're talking about is actually
an acronym for Property Assessed Clean Energy. And it's a concept
through which property owners can work with local government to
access funds, loans, if you will, to make energy improvements --
Page 70
March 8, 2011
energy saving improvements to their homes.
And so -- and why we're here today is we had -- to remind you
all, we had come to you last spring to talk about P ACE in general as a
concept and then to move forward on it.
P ACE as a concept has run into some roadblocks at the federal
government level in that the Federal Home Mortgage Administration
and the Office of the Controller of the Currency have both objected to
the mechanisms by which P ACE loans are made and then collected to
private homeowners.
They have not raised objections to exact same methods being
used to make loans and repayments from commercial property
owners.
And so after reviewing this for several months, while those
roadblocks are being worked out in Washington, we thought it would
be prudent and appropriate and useful for our community if we could
start to take some steps forward to implement a PACE project here in
Collier County for commercial property owners.
In short, if we move ahead -- and I'll explain to you what the step
is going to be here in just a minute -- but if we move ahead a few
months down the road, the owners of commercial property in Collier
County would be able to access some funds in the form of loans to
make energy saving improvements to their pieces of commercial
property. Those loans would then be repaid over time as an
assessment that goes out as part of the property tax bill every year.
And so what we're specifically asking you for today is
permission to move ahead with a request for information to seek
information and perhaps models and perhaps parameters and
descriptions from companies and entities that are establishing
themselves to come into local markets and provide the funds, run the
P ACE project for local government.
So we're seeking your permission today to go out and request
information from those companies and ask them to come back to us
Page 71
March 8, 2011
and tell us how they would run a commercial PACE project in Collier
County.
There is no financial obligation on the part of the county, there is
nothing that would put the county's credit at risk, there is nothing that
would put the county's bond rating at risk. And indeed, that would be
fundamental to our request for information, that none of those -- those
are basic standards that could not be violated. And so this is going to
cost the county nothing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Except for a minimal amount of
staff time.
MR. HART: Except for a minimal of staff time, correct. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to approve that
direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have some public speakers,
but we have a motion to approve you continuing to evaluate this in the
commercial market. It was seconded by Commissioner Fiala. And
how many speakers do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Just one, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gee, his time is up now.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell and I'm here on behalf Collier County Audubon Society.
I don't want to delay your approval of giving this direction, but I
do want to just note that we are very supportive of this direction to
seek more information.
I'm working with Steve and a number of other folks and the
Commissioner -- Commissioner Coletta, a number of other folks in the
Page 72
March 8, 2011
community on ways to increase energy efficiency and create jobs in
our community in the process. But we're held up from continuing
without having more specific information on commercial PACE
programs. So that's what this is all about today.
I also want to note that Collier County Audubon Society and The
Conservancy joined together with Together Green with the Audubon
Society to sponsor an energy audit for both the City of Naples and
Collier County. That audit showed that 95 percent plus energy use in
our community is actually in the private sector, not in the public
sector.
While our government, you all, can present a great example and
help be facilitators for energy efficiency in the community, the bulk of
that energy efficiency actually is accomplished in the residential and
commercial sector. Thus this has a great potential for doing some real
good in energy efficiency.
A final thought is that as these energy efficiency concepts in our
community develop, I think Collier County would do well to consider
a regional approach coordinating with Lee County, as well as some
intergovernmental coordination with, say, the school board and other
municipalities.
Again, please move forward with direction to continue with this.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you, Brad.
Okay, we have a motion on the table. All in favor, please signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like -- sorry, we have a comment by
Commissioner Hiller.
Page 73
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Why does the board have to
approve the group's request for additional information?
MR. HART: The Florida Legislature last year, in adopting its
Florida PACE law, established local governments as the facilitator for
these projects. County governments, city governments, coalition of
city and county governments, however, those governments want to set
that up. And so that's why. Because according to Florida law, local
government is the facilitator of the PACE project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But the task force can -- which is
basically a coalition of, I guess, private citizens and government
employees or --
MR. HART: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is that? It that what it is?
MR. HART: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, you could go forward and
get that information and then just bring it back to us. I'm not sure, is
there any cost associated with the request for additional information?
MR. HART: Other than just a few, couple of hours of staff time,
no. And it would be ultimately the county who would award a
contract, the eventual contract for the third-party administrator to
develop and operate the PACE project.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's not what's being put
forth today?
MR. HART: Not yet. All we're asking for right now is just a
request for information. It's the first step in the process. We want to
hear from the entities, companies that are positioning themselves to
run PACE projects. We want to hear from them exactly how they
would envision a commercial PACE project operating in Collier
County, where they would get their money, how they would run it,
how they would even publicize it and coordinate it through the various
county offices and with the property owners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 74
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I will call the vote once again.
All in favor of the motion to approve, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion passes 4-1, with
Commissioner Hiller dissenting.
MR. HART: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #9F
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
SYSTEM TO HELP DIMINISH THE POSTING OF UNWANTED
ILLEGAL SIGNS WHICH ARE LITTERING OUR COUNTY -
MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK INFORMATION
REGARDING AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM AT A FUTURE BCC
MEETING AND TO ADDRESS THE POLITICAL SIGN ISSUE
BEFORE THE 2012 ELECTIONS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us to item 9.F, if I --
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, it's a discussion regarding the
implementation of a system to help diminish the posting of unwanted
illegal signs which are littering our county. And Commissioner
Henning brought this item before you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. This was actually
brought to my attention by a constituent. I'm not sure if you received
the same correspondence. But I thought it was worth discussing and
hopefully directing staff to take a look at it, see if there's a cost benefit
from doing that.
Page 75
March 8, 2011
My observation, especially on the weekends, is code enforcement
officers are out there in the right-of-way picking up signs. And, you
know, they are trying to abate the problem as fast as they can. But
really, code enforcement is supposed to enforce.
But I do appreciate resolving the issue. The problem is it's
continuing over and over and over. I would hope that we can establish
a program like this to diminish the unwanted signs within the
right-of-way.
And I welcome any comment, Diane, you have on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I like the one that you provided us
concerning St. Johns County. I think that's a good solution.
MS. FLAGG: Good, morning, Commissioners. Diane Flagg,
Code Enforcement Director, for the record.
And Commissioner Henning, we do appreciate the suggestion.
We do have a call in to St. Johns County to find out what system they
do utilize. We've also contacted some of our colleagues here within
the county, because they also have some phone systems they use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does some of your
employees, you know, having to go out there on the weekends or even
during the week picking up these signs, what kind of feedback are you
getting?
MS. FLAGG: Well, I did put this out to the management team
and they were supportive of this if we could purchase a system that
would make these phone calls. I think everyone's seen the signs,
Cloudy Headlights, Yoga Is Here types of signs.
And they do collect the signs, come back to the office, make
contact with the businesses, advise them that they cannot put these
signs in the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commission Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I noticed during the last
election cycle that this was also a big problem with respect to the signs
Page 76
March 8,2011
that were placed not only in the median but on properties which were
abandoned properties, properties without the permission of
homeowners.
And so I would suggest that we also at the same time look at the
sign ordinance and determine whether we need to do something to
amend that ordinance so that you don't have to deal with what you
dealt with in the last political election cycle. Because that took up a
great deal of your time. And it really created what you could call a
sign pollution.
We don't want to restrict anybody's right to advertise themselves
in a campaign, but maybe, for example, suggesting that, number one,
they get the permission of the homeowner and that, you know, you
have one sign per candidate on a residential home, just like we have
with respect to the commercial properties, and no signs in the medians
or in the right-of-ways of the county.
And I don't know if that would help you, but I know how much
time you had to spend with all the complaints that you received the
last go-around.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, I have no problem
bringing it back. But I have to tell you, I have a real problem with
Robokoff, you know. I don't give a darn if it is a business or an
individual. It doesn't seem like that's the kind of nature of government
we're trying to create, you know, with terrorizing people through
continuous calls that keep going into them at all hours of the day and
it doesn't have any shut-off times that I can see.
But I know we talk about this at great lengths, we try to come to
some ways to reach an agreement on it. But I do believe maybe it
would be something in the way of fines, anything else we can do.
But, you know, this sounds like tactics that I really don't want my
county government involved in. But I'm willing to bring it back.
Page 77
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make a motion, if there
is no further discussion, to bring this back to review the sign ordinance
and to review, you know, what systems are in place to deal with
diminishing the posting of unwanted illegal signs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Hiller to bring
back for consideration.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that. Yes, and I'd
like to also add to that motion, if I may, encourage all of our
constituents to write us and tell us what they think of this so that when
we come back we'll have some information from the public as to how
they weigh in on this idea.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may. It's a very, very broad motion.
Are we going to limit it to Commissioner Henning's suggestion that
we use this telephone system, or do we want to look at other --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that I think is the problem. You're
talking about a complete review of the sign ordinance under the
current --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we just went through--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which will take months and months and
months.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We just went through updating the
sign ordinance at not a small expense.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. But you're absolutely right, I
would like to see us take this in segments.
The people who violated it the most in my opinion during the last
election were state politicians running for state office. They
consistently put the signs in the right-of-way, on property that was
vacant. They didn't ask anybody's permission, they just had workers
Page 78
March 8, 2011
go around and start sticking up signs everywhere. And it included
Governor Scott, his signs were scattered all through the City of Naples
in places that were unauthorized. But the city does not enforce it; they
don't do anything about it.
In any event, my preference would be to deal with this, this issue
that Commissioner Henning has brought up, and get it done, and then
we can begin to address the other issue. We don't have at least a local
election coming up for another, what, year and seven months -- or
something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what my second is. Is that --
tell me how your motion reads again. I thought that's exactly what we
were talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Essentially. But what I had said
was -- actually, could I have the court reporter read back what my
motion was? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Court reporters can't read that stuff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This one is special.
(The court reporter read back the motion.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, let me pull my second
because I agree that I wanted to address this issue.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Then the motion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought I seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ian?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who did?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, Commissioner Fiala seconded that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, the motion dies for lack of
second.
Commissioner Henning, would you like to make amotion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I think it's
important to actually do both. But seeing that it's not going to happen,
Page 79
March 8, 2011
I want to make a motion that we ask the County Manager to take a
look at this, bring it back and see if it is fitting for the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second your motion. I'm
willing to discuss it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. A motion to -- by Commissioner
Henning to bring this back for a hearing, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
And by the way, I don't -- I'm not opposed to a review of the
entire ordinance. I just think that if this is a big item, let's try to get it
resolved and then move on to the next step.
We have public speakers, Ian, or not?
MR. MITCHELL: We have no speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You need to turn off my light there.
Okay, any further discussion?
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are we going to address the
ordinance in part as it relates to some specific illegal signage, or not at
all? Because we could limit the scope of our review of the ordinance
to, you know, certain types of signs if we know those type of signs are
more particularly a problem over other signs.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, three of the
commissioners -- well, two of my colleagues said that we do have a
problem, especially during election time. Why don't we address this
before the 2012 election so it is not a problem.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So the clarification of
Commissioner Henning's intent is to deal with the issue he raised first,
and then deal with the broader issue of political signage and other
signage before the next election. Is that correct, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is there a second?
Page 80
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Diane, it was -- would you
agree it was a big problem this last election?
MS. FLAGG: We spent quite a bit of time on election signs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was awful looking too.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
Is there a second to Commissioner Henning's motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seconded the original motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, did you? Okay. How about are you
okay with his clarification?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the fact that the we'll deal
with the sign issue at elections later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: In all in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MS. FLAGG: Thank you.
Item #9G
VERIFICATION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE C-2 GRANT
FUNDING TO THE COUNTY'S FREEDOM MEMORIAL
PROJECT AND DETERMINATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION,
Page 81
March 8, 2011
IF NEEDED~ BY WAY OF MOTION - DISCUSSED
MR.OCHS: Takes us to 9.G on your agenda, Commissioners.
That's a verification of the legality of the C-2 grant funding to the
county's Freedom Memorial project and determination of corrective
action if needed by way of motion. Commissioner Hiller placed this
item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have any backup material or
paperwork or anything? I didn't get anything in my --
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All the material that -- may I
speak?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All of the material that I relied on
to ask the question has been material that has been presented to you
that you have used in drawing your conclusions. The only difference
is is that I looked at it for the first time. You've already looked at all
this information. And in looking at it, I had some concerns.
Now, what I will say from the time that I initially had concerns,
and the only thing I'm addressing is the Freedom Memorial to the
present, the Clerk of Courts has announced that he is going to be
auditing the tourist development department. And he mayor may not
be looking at this in that process. I'm not sure if he is.
The concern I had was I became aware through a series of
discussions with the County Attorney's Office and through
representations of the County Attorney's Office at the last TDC
meeting where the information was finally confirmed to me, that the
Freedom Memorial Task Force is not a nonprofit. And that what I also
found out is that the Freedom Memorial is not a noncounty museum.
And my concern stemmed from the fact that what happened was
over the prior years, as was explained to me by the tourist
development staff, was that there are -- there's a category of funding
Page 82
March 8, 2011
within the tourist development tax that is for -- it's earmarked for
county and noncounty museums. And essentially grants can be
awarded through either of those two categories. And those grants
would be awarded, for example, under the county museums for the
benefit of county-owned museums, owned and operated museums.
And in the case of noncounty museums, the grants are awarded to
noncounty museums owned and operated by nonprofits.
And, you know, obviously right now we're very limited on funds.
So with respect to grants awarded to those noncounty museums that
are owned and operated by nonprofits, the pool of funds is small. And
if funds are being handed out from that pool of funds to somebody
who does not qualify under the law, because this is an ordinance that
we're governed by, then you've got now these other noncounty
museums out there who are being deprived of the availability of those
grant funds.
And basically what I found was that in fact the Freedom
Memorial Task Force is not a Florida nonprofit. It's not registered as a
corporation. It's not registered as an entity allowed to solicit public
donations. It doesn't have an IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter. And
it does not own and operate a noncounty museum. So it never would
have qualified as a non-county C-2 museum grant candidate.
Notwithstanding, the task force submitted grant applications
where they represented themselves as nonprofits. And I understand
that these applications were prepared by county staff that sat on that
task force, and through these representations obtained these grant
funds which were earmarked for noncounty museums owned and
operated by a nonprofit. Now, obviously that causes me some
concern.
There has been an opinion written -- it was an Attorney General
opinion, I believe, that the County Attorney pulled in the past that said
that county museums could qualify, obviously as I said earlier, for
tourist development dollars. And that -- or if a project was shown to
Page 83
March 8, 2011
promote tourism, that it could qualify for tourist development dollars.
However, in this case, what happened was funds were granted from a
pool that was specifically restricted by ordinance.
So, you know, we can do one of two things: We can wait and see
what the Clerk of Courts determines, or we can, you know, decide to
do what's provided for in these grant contracts, and that is basically if
it was not appropriately let, is reverse the transaction, bring those
funds back to the TDC accounts and then allow the noncounty
museums owned and operated by nonprofits to avail themselves of this
money and apply for the grants that they otherwise would have been
eligible to apply for but for the fact that the decision was seemingly
incorrectly made to award this money to this particular group for this
particular proj ect.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we wait until the
Clerk does his audits.
What I find amazing is last year, through the minutes that
Commissioner Coyle has, the -- there was a suggestion that Paradise
donate 100,000 to the Marco Island Museum, but that isn't what took
place. So maybe the Clerk can find out what happened between, you
know, that meeting of the Tourist Development Council and what
actually took place.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I have no concerns either way.
The -- but what you just stated was incorrect, Commissioner Henning.
The TDC did not recommend that Paradise Advertising provide
$100,000 to the historical museum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, members did.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, they didn't. No member on the TDC
board said anything about doing that. They said quite the contrary.
They said, this is your money, you do with it as you please. Mr.
Hames then said, well, I will take your direction.
And I said very clearly, no, that's not the motion that's on the
Page 84
March 8, 2011
table. The motion on the table says this is your money. If you want to
donate it to somebody, you have the freedom to do so.
So that allegation that the TDC somehow directed the allocation
is simply false.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I just want to read
something in for the record. And this is -- okay, this was from the
July 27th, 2010 executive summary prepared by staff, and it was
approved for legal sufficiency by Jeff Klatzkow, the County Attorney,
on July 14, 2010.
And in part what happened was when they were talking about
Category C- 2 grant applications -- and I'm going to read directly from
the executive summary.
Let me just read this over here for you.
It basically says, the request for fiscal year' 11 is to support the
continuing construction of the Memorial. The original request was for
$87,856. The grant review committee noted that this memorial is
owned and managed by Collier County and therefore does not qualify
according to the grant guidelines for C- 2 noncounty owned or
operated museum funding. Funding should come from the C-l county
owned or operated museum funds.
So the recommendation is for no funding of this project this year,
unless it can be added to the capital projects for county museums.
And that finding was upheld by the County Attorney's office, as I
said before, that, you know, this was funding improperly awarded
because it was a -- the task force was not a nonprofit, it did not own or
operate this proj ect. This proj ect is owned and being built by the
county, but it hasn't been declared a county museum.
And I think that probably goes to the public policy discussion
that was had around the time that all these funding questions were
going on, because the Board of County Commissioners did not want
to use general fund dollars to fund its museums. It wanted to limited
Page 85
March 8, 2011
museum funding to be solely sourced from tourist development tax
dollars.
Obviously if the memorial were to become a county museum, it
would also have to be funded by these tax dollars, and right now the
construction is projected to be about 1.8 million. And we don't have
1.8 million in tourist tax dollars to fund this project with. And the
board doesn't want to fund museums with general fund dollars. And
obviously this would set a precedent contrary to the public policy that
has been adopted.
So I would agree with Commissioner Henning. I think -- I would
like to make a motion that we wait to find out what the Clerk
determines in the course of his audit. And if his determination is that,
you know, these monies should not have been granted as they were,
that it be, you know, refunded to the tourist development dollar
accounts, and then allow the noncounty-owned museums to submit
grant requests and qualify for that newly available funding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller to wait until the Clerk's audit is complete,
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Now, for discussion, I will also read a couple of things into the
record. And I want to make specific note of the fact that none of these
allocations were made by the TDC at the time when I was chairman of
the TDC. So any attempt to imply that I somehow guided these funds
to the Freedom Memorial is false.
As a matter of fact, Commissioner Henning was the chairman of
the TDC at the time and in fact he had this to say about the request:
Chairman Henning stated the council should make a finding that the
Memorial would be a tourist attraction and recommend the Board of
County Commissioners revise the ordinance to provide flexibility to
see the Memorial constructed.
Jack Wert made a similar recommendation, and Colleen Greene,
Page 86
March 8, 2011
Assistant County Attorney, stated she would need to review the
funding policy and provide an opinion, which she subsequently did.
So there is ample evidence to suggest that the proper process was
followed.
But in any event, we have speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we'll call the speakers
before we vote.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Rosalie Rhodes.
MS. RHODES: Hi. For the record, I'm Rosalie Rhodes, and I
am a voting member of the 9/11 Freedom Memorial Task Force. Prior
to that I was just a person who helped collect money.
This is not a project that's owned by the county. The land was
donated by the City of Naples. We worked very hard. This is a
grassroots endeavor. We collect money. We work very hard at doing
this. The fact that this has become a contention between members of
the board upsets me greatly. This seems to be more of a personal
matter than it is a matter of what is good for the constituents of this
area.
I find that upsetting. That's my personal take on this.
This is a charitable event. We work with -- we sit at the
Chamber and we discuss it. Mr. Coyle is not a voting member of our
board. He may offer an opinion periodically, but he is not a voting
member. What he says does not necessarily get carried forth.
The rest of us do. I work with many of these people here where
we are out asking for money and getting money with the people from
our community, people who come here, who donate one dollar at a
time. Because if you listen to me, I ask for one dollar at a time for
people to come and to donate. And that's a long hard road for this
Memorial to be finished. One dollar. And it's a very long road.
We have many of the retired firefighters who will come up, and
they did a tournament and gave us money. A company that I worked
Page 87
March 8, 2011
for did a benefit and gave us money.
The fact that you keep auditing and trying -- we are, by the way,
eligible for charitable contribution under IRS Publication 526. That's
printed. That's now part of our publication. And this has been agreed
to by the County Attorney, if I'm correct on that. It was reviewed and
agreed to by the County Attorney.
This is a project that the people of our community and the people
who come to our community are looking forward for its completion.
Honestly, if this is an issue that -- between you, sit down and
have a cup of coffee, talk about what's bothering you and go on and let
this issue stand. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I have
the opportunity to answer a few of the comments?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Certainly you have the right, but I don't
want to be cross-examining all of the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Of course not.
I really appreciate what you said and I appreciate all the hard
work that you're doing for the proj ect.
It's not about the project, it's about the process. And we're guided
by laws. And no matter how good a project is, we are still, as
fiduciaries of the public tax dollars, required to ensure that all the
expenditures of public funds are legal.
So whether it's your project or any other project that may have
received funding in this manner, it -- let me put it in you this way:
The ends don't justify the means.
So while I appreciate your concern, this has nothing to do with
any other members of this board. This is the fiduciary duty of the
Board of County Commissioners. It is also the fiduciary duty of the
members of the Tourist Development Council to ensure that the
expenditures made are legal, meaning in conformance with the
ordinance.
Now, let me just add a little bit further. You are, as the Freedom
Page 88
March 8, 2011
Memorial Task Force, a loose association of individuals, you're not a
legal nonprofit.
And with respect to what you were reading, the determination by
the County Attorney's Office as to the deductibility of donations
relates to the fact that these donations are being made to the county,
not to the task force. So I just wanted to clarify that for your
understanding.
And again, the proj ect is wonderful, I support it. I know Jerry
Sanford, for example, one of the -- I believe he's the chair or the --
MS. RHODES: Yes, he is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's a wonderful man and he
knows how much I support the proj ect. He and I have discussed the
project. I know many individuals who support the project and who
know that I support it.
Notwithstanding, the law is the law, and we're all bound by it
equally.
MS. RHODES: It appears to me that it's already been
adjudicated by the agencies, as well as voted on here, so that would
mean that it should stand as it does.
The money has already been spent. We're in the process of doing
what we need to do for this proj ect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I appreciate what you're
saying. But if it was awarded contrary to what the law allows, it
would have to be reimbursed and the Board would have to decide how
that would happen. And the county (sic) was spent by the Board of
County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Samuel Cadreau.
MR. CADREAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Samuel A.
Cadreau.
Just to give you a little history behind myself and this Memorial,
I am a product of two military personnel, so I have a lot of interest in
Page 89
March 8, 2011
this Memorial. I also sit on the board and I am a retired firefighter
from right here in Collier County, 25 years for the City of Naples.
I sit on this board with a lot of pride. This board consists of
volunteers. Not one member of this board draws a paycheck, gets any
compensation to gas, to go out and raise money for this. And I find it
appalling that we are being portrayed as an agency that is not
nonprofit. It really is appalling. Because we go out there, we spend
our time.
I will tell you, my wife just automatically knows, I'm never home
on the weekends. I am the keeper of the steel from ground zero. I
take that to every event. I'm proud of it.
Now, if there's a snafu in the paperwork that we applied for these
funds from TDC that to say that we were not a part of the county,
because we are an umbrella, the county is an umbrella of this
Memorial. The county does not put county tax dollars into this
Memorial, but we fall under the umbrella because it is in a county
park. We have to meet all the requirements by way of the county and
by way of the city because it is in city property in the city limits. And
we go through all the procedures. We make sure all these procedures
are handled.
Unfortunately yes, if it's a snafu when we filled the paperwork
out requesting these funds from the TDC and it was declared as a
noncounty project, we apologize. And we will make those
corrections.
But to turn around and really look at this and throw a gauntlet
down to say no, you're not eligible for this -- because this is a
Memorial. It's just like the Washington Memorial in DC; it's just like
any other memorial in this United States. It's something that the
tourists are going to come to, okay, and that's what we're here for, to
clarify this.
So I hope you will take this under great consideration, look at
this. If we need to reconsider the paperwork and all to make this right,
Page 90
March 8, 2011
I understand. But please, don't look at it that it's not going to be a
tourist attraction for this area to take this money back away from it.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you going to speak again,
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just -- County Attorney
Klatzkow, could you restate for the record what you advised the
Tourist Development Council at the last meeting as to whether or not
the task force is a nonprofit? Colleen Greene stated on the record that
the task force is not a nonprofit.
MS. GREENE: It's not a 501(c)(3).
MR. KLATZKOW: They are an organization. They are not for
profit. They are a nonprofit organization. The ordinance does not
require that be a 501(c). That's why we established the account with
the Clerk, so that all monies flow into the Clerk's funds for his review.
But they are a nonprofit organization. They do not get a cent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they eligible to solicit
donations?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Why not?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you tell me what basis they're
eligible to solicit donations under?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am, I'm not going to be interrogated,
okay?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just asking for information.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. I'm not going to be interrogated
here, okay? We reviewed this matter, okay, we spent hours answering
your questions. At the end of the day, all right --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't believe you spent hours
answering my questions.
MR. KLATZKOW: At the end of the day -- do want testimony,
we can get into that too.
Page 91
March 8, 2011
At the end of the day, ma'am, the Attorney General years ago
opined that memorials can be eligible for TDC fundings, all right. A
memorial by definition can be considered as an overall part of the
museum umbrella. This Memorial is part of the county museums.
The county museums cover two types of museums: Museums
operated by the county and museums operated by nonprofits. That's
the way the ordinance is set up, all right.
At the time the C-2 monies were given, at that moment in time,
this was a nonprofit organization that came to the TDC and requested
the monies. Not the county. Over the course of time this project has
evolved a bit. But at that time those funds were given, it was properly
C- 2 money. At this point in time, you could argue --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: At that point in time was it a
noncounty? Was it a noncounty museum? You just said it was--
MR. KLATZKOW: It's a county museum. But a county
museum can be operated by the county or a county museum can be
operated by a nonprofit. That's the way the ordinance is set up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if it's a county museum --
MR. KLATZKOW: They're still county museums.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. If it's a county museum,
and if you're .saying it's a county museum, then it would awarded
funding under C-1, not C-2.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's not true. What I'm saying is that
there are two types of county museums: There's county museums
operated by Collier County and there are county museums operated by
nonprofits. That's the way the ordinance is structured.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't believe so. I believe the
ordinance clearly says that it's noncounty museums.
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you like to see the ordinance,
ma'am?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Hold on a minute. We're running out of
Page 92
March 8, 2011
time here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have other speakers, don't we?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we do.
Commissioner Hiller, you can get your answers later. We're not
going to have a hearing on this thing today.
Who's the next speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Gerald Ladue.
MR. LADUE: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chairman. For
the record, my name's Gerald Ladue, designer of the Freedom
Memorial.
There's been well over 32,000 visitors to the Freedom Park since
November, 2009 until this day. That's only accounting for the time
that there are park rangers there, which is in a time frame -- not on?
Am I talking?
Do you want me to start again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. LADUE: That's only accounting for the time that there are
park rangers present, and that's only the time frame from 9:00 to 5:00.
The parks are open for 12 hours a day.
While out on our fundraising events, we are greeted by more and
more members of the community that go to the park specifically to
visit the Memorial site and then to walk through the park and its great
paths they have there.
The matching grant funding from the TDC has made it possible
for the Freedom Memorial to become a major tourist destination for
future generations to come.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Is that the last speaker?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, some observations. This
Page 93
March 8, 2011
government body, its commissioned staff, advisory boards have gone
to great lengths to avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance
of conflicts of interest.
The motion before us is almost meaningless in that the Clerk is
exercising his constitutional responsibilities. And we'll get that report
back at some future time. His findings will stand on their own, and
I'm sure that we will eventually receive a finding from the Clerk that
mayor may not require action at that time. So I'm kind of confused
why we're going with the motion.
Suggestions for the future, to help facilitate future resolutions to
procedure would be I would recommend that when someone has an
issue that seems where there's a propri -- an issue of -- I'm getting a
little passioned on this and I'm trying to hold myself back so I don't, I
want to keep this thing as clean as possible to be able to get to where
we need to be.
If there's any improprieties that someone suspects, anything as far
as the legal takes place, rather than hash it out here day after day, time
after time, arguing with the counter arguments, listening to two people
that are very learned attorneys go back and forth on the issue, my
suggestion is that if a person really thinks they have something that is
of criminal intent, to take it to the Sheriff's Department, take it to the
State Attorney General or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to
whatever agency would be able to handle it. Let them do the
investigation. And let the chips fall as they may.
That won't happen, because there's nothing here that raises that to
that level of concern.
So where are we going with this motion? One more time, I need
it restated so that I can understand it and see if it makes any sense to
me.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I can remember that far back, it was a
motion to delay action until such time as the Clerk completes his
audit. And that was the extent of the motion.
Page 94
March 8, 2011
Commissioner Hiller has been extremely successful in changing
my mind concerning how I will vote on the motion. I was originally
inclined to do so, now I'm not, because I believe that she continually
casts a cloud over almost any group or individual that she doesn't like
or who disagrees with her. And so I don't think that cloud should
linger. I think we need to get it solved pretty quickly.
Now, it's been back before the commission, I think this is
probably the fourth time. It will be back again in another couple of
weeks. And it will probably continue as long as there's some dangling
thread that can be pulled. So I am not inclined to continue this kind of
dialogue any further. So I certainly am not going to support the
motion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my observation, so we
can continue on, is Commissioner Hiller did say she would like to find
a way to help fund the Freedom Memorial to complete it.
But I have a question for the County Attorney on the matter and
Sunshine Law. I know we're in a public meeting. I just want to ask,
can Commissioners whisper in another Commissioner's ears during a
proceeding?
MR. KLATZKOW: If it's about the matter that's being
discussed, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But if it's about the order of how
people fall and where they get to speak, in other words, Commissioner
Coyle gets very busy with the proceedings that's taking place, he
doesn't know where he is sometimes on this lit board, who it is. Not
that the man's getting old and feebleminded, he's not. And I didn't say
that. But occasionally I have to refer to who it is he should go to next
ifhe loses it. And he asks me, and sometimes I don't even know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Actually, what I did was I asked
Commissioner Coletta if he wanted to speak now or at the end of the
Page 95
March 8, 2011
public speakings, and he said, I'll wait till the end.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just want everybody to be safe.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that. We'll keep
digging until we get to some level we can all deal with, I'm sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, now we have Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I don't really feel there is a
need for a motion. I did it merely to -- for the public's benefit to state
the position of the board is understanding that an audit is being
conducted and that there is no action that would be taken today by
way of this motion.
I really do respect the hard work and the commitment to this
project made by the volunteers, and I support this project also.
That being said, if these funds were improperly granted -- and
just so you all know, this year the task force wanted to make a grant
application again. And as you heard me read, the determination was
made that based on all the same facts under which grants were
provided in the past, this year you would not be able to get the grant
for the reasons that were stated earlier and supported by the County
Attorney.
So just so you understand that.
Now, I would submit that we've done everything we need to do
here today. It is the board's duty to determine the legality of
expenditures. And if these funds were improperly granted, other
nonprofits who work just as hard to promote their causes, which are as
important as your causes, would have been denied those funds that
you got.
If those funds were given to you legally, no problem, you know,
stays where it is. But if those funds -- and we're not talking about
criminality here, we're talking about the legality of expenditures
pursuant to ordinance. If these funds were improperly let by mistake
Page 96
March 8, 2011
or for whatever reason, they would have to be reimbursed to the TDC
fund and we would have to find another source of funding. And it
could be TDC funds, it could be general fund dollars.
So I just wanted to explain that to the members of the public that
are here today.
And with that, I don't think we need to have a motion. I think,
you know, the facts are what they are. The Clerk is auditing and we
await his results and we'll make our determination at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you pulling your motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I will. I don't think there's a need
for it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you're welcome to make one,
if you want to make one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to go have lunch with
those fine young adults.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's about time for that.
But there -- the County Attorney agrees that it was legally done.
He has done the appropriate research to determine it was legally done.
The board, majority of the board in the past believes it was legally
done. Commissioner Henning apparently believed it was legally
done, because he recommended approval. The only people who don't
believe it was legally done, really, now, is Commissioner Hiller.
And this is certainly not the end of it. You will recall that this
process started out with an allegation that somehow I had something --
I had some gain as a result of Paradise Advertising's contributions.
And then it turns out that when that couldn't be proved, another shot
was fired, and that was an allegation that Jack Wert had somehow
guided a contribution to you.
And when that was disproved, now we find that they're taking a
look at the paperwork that was submitted by you, which, by the way,
was approved by the TDC and ratified by the Board of County
Page 97
March 8, 2011
Commissioners.
So the only people who have an opinion that it was wrong is
Commissioner Hiller and, unfortunately now, Commissioner Henning.
So I would like to determine if a determination or a verification of the
legality of this is necessary at the present time.
County Attorney, do you feel that the board needs to vote on the
verification of the legality of this funding to the Memorial?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ultimately it's not your vote to do that. I
mean, ultimately at the end of the day we have an action that's already
transpired. The Board's actions are presumed to be valid. At the end
of the day it would take a court order to overrule it at this point in
time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Very well. Then
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to make one point.
If in fact these prior grants were valid, then why are you denying this
association of people the ability to apply for a grant this year? I mean,
you -- basically I read what was stated, and it was your opinion and
the opinion of the grant committee that this task force did not qualify.
Why are you depriving these people the funding from the TDC's C-2
grant category this year?
They wanted to apply for 89,000 and you all, county staffunder
County Manager Ochs, you under your office said no. Why don't you
let them to be apply for that money?
And why isn't this group, if you're correct, getting 89,000 this
year from those TDC C-2 grants?
I think you're depriving them. If you say they're right, then they
should have the right to apply and they should be awarded those
monies, correct?
I mean, you were granted the monies in the prior two years. Why
are you denying them the right this year?
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want an answer?
Page 98
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, please.
MR. KLATZKOW: The project has evolved over time. You
don't -- you know, it's like saying in the first quarter of a football
game, you know, why did you run instead of pass because in the
fourth quarter you're down by 14 points.
I mean, you have to take --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Fortunately, I don't play football.
MR. KLATZK9W: Fortunately. You have to take--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But fortunately for some --
MR. KLATZKOW: You have to -- ma'am, we are given a
question. At that point in time we look at all the current facts and
circumstances. They change over time. At this point in time it's my
opinion the project has evolved away from the point where C-2
funding would be appropriate. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I can just offer some clarifying
information. What I understood happened was that it was determined
-- or it's common practice that you get money for construction only for
two years. And after that you become ineligible for it. That was a
determination I think that was made by Jack Wert. But that's what I
thought happened.
But in any event, we are going to take a break for lunch. Thank
you all for being here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Before you break, we'll need to come back
after the lunch so we can then announce the shade session and the
break-out for that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We come back in here--
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- and then announce it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then we should be back here at
1 :00 sharp, is that -- do we have to be back here at 1 :OO?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
Page 99
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then it looks like 1:15, okay?
(Luncheon recess was taken.)
Item #llA
NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION
286.011 (8), FLA. STAT., THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DESIRES
ADVICE FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION ON TUESDAY,
MARCH 8, 2011. THE SESSION, ORIGINALLY NOTICED FORA
TIME CERTAIN OF 12:00 NOON, WILL INSTEAD BE HELD AT
1:00 P.M. IN THE COMMISSION CONFERENCE ROOM, 3RD
FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3299 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
NAPLES, FLORIDA! IN ADDITION TO BOARD MEMBER,
COUNTY MANAGER LEO OCHS, COUNTY ATTORNEY
JEFFREY A. KLATZKOW, AND LITIGATION SECTION CHIEF
JACQUELINE W. HUBBARD WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE. THE
BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL DISCUSS: STRATEGY
SESSION RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES AND
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PENDING CASE OF
COLLIER COUNTY V. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, CASE NO. 09-7419-CA, NO
PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - CLOSED SESSION
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, the Board
of County Commissioners meeting is now reconvened. And I am
going to read a notice of closed attorney-client session.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to
Section 297.0018, Florida Statute, the County Attorney desires advice
Page 100
March 8, 2011
from the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client
section on Tuesday, March the 8th, 2011.
The session originally noticed for a time certain at 12:00 noon
will instead be held at 1 :25 in the commission conference room, third
floor, W. Harmon Turner building, Collier County Government
Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
In addition to board members, County Manager Leo Ochs,
County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and litigation section chief
Jacqueline W. Hubbard will be in attendance.
The board in executive session will discuss strategies related to
litigation expenditures and settlement negotiations in the pending case
of Collier County versus South Florida Water Management District,
Case No. 097419CA now pending in the circuit court of the 20th
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
The estimated time for this session is 30 minutes. Okay, is there
anything we need to do?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we serve them donuts and coffee
while we're gone or anything?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I hope so. Because I didn't get any
lunch.
If we -- we are going to be in recess while we do this and we'll
return here as quickly as possible.
(The Commissioners exited the boardroom.)
(Off-the-record discussion.)
Item #llB
FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
REGARDING LITIGATION EXPENDITURES AND
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN THE PENDING CASE OF
Page 101
March 8, 2011
COLLIER COUNTY V. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, CASE NO. 09-7419-CA, NOW
PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - MOTION DIRECTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO MAKE A COUNTER OFFER OF THE SETTLEMENT -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, the Board of
County Commissioners meeting is back in session.
In closed session over the last 45 minutes the Board of County
Commissioners has considered a legal strategy concerning our lawsuit
against the South Florida Water Management District and we have -- I
will put a motion before the board now that we direct the County
Attorney to submit a counterproposal for settlement to the South
Florida Water Management District.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there discussion? I hope not.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in -- no, that's because it was done in
private.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion passes unanimously.
Page 102
March 8, 2011
That brings us to our first item of the afternoon.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's your advertised public hearings.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2011-52: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER V A-PL2010-739, FOR A
VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION
5.03.06 E.6 TO PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN)
SETBACK FROM 7.5 FEET TO 0 FEET ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 39 WEST PELICAN STREEN IN SECION 31,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: The first item is 7.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. The resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County
Florida relating to petition number V A-PL2010-739 for a variance
from Land Development Code Section 50.3.06.E.6. Permit or reduce
side yard riparian setback from 7.5 feet to zero feet on property
located at 39 West Pelican Street in Section 31, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we'll start with Commissioner
Hiller as far as ex parte is concerned.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I received communications.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I received communication and
I have them here for public notice. I also communicated with the
people within the community just to get their feelings about this issue,
and I'd add everything was a positive response. I found no negative
Page 103
March 8, 2011
responses whatsoever. So I'm going to just say that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And with respect to item 7.A, I
received and reviewed the Collier County Planning Commission's
staff report and companion item report on the boat dock itself.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I have had some
correspondence on this, and also I reviewed the Planning
Commission's report and talked to staff about it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Received Planning
Commission's report on this item.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, will all people who are going to
be giving testimony in this hearing please stand and be sworn in.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well.
Who's going to make the initial presentation?
MR. SCOFIELD: Good afternoon. For the record, Rocky
Scofield, representing the petitioner, Paul Schneller.
I'll go into as much of this as you want me to. This was
originally to be on the summary agenda. It was pulled because of the
letter from one of the neighbors. This was all dealt with at the
Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, Rocky, can I just ask you a
question -- just ask you to hold for a minute.
Do we have any public speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir, we don't. We have no public
speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a short --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any Commissioner who hasn't --
MR. SCOFIELD: I'd love to sit down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is there any Commissioner who has an
objection to this item.
Page 104
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. The reason I have my button
on is we have no objections, I've communicated with the community,
so I'd like to make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay--
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I just have something I have
to submit for the report, just the warranty deed and the final settlement
agreement.
Is it okay if I do that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Please, go ahead. And I should make an
announcement here. This was originally planned to be on the
summary agenda, so it wouldn't require a hearing, because all of the
advisory committees had unanimously approved it, nobody had
disagreed with it. But there was a statement made by a neighbor
alleging that the petitioner had no riparian rights here. And that
statement caused it to be moved from the summary to the regular
agenda, and that statement has turned out to be false.
MR. SCOFIELD: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. So that's why we can do this
without any further hearings.
Now, did you want to read those things into the record or you just
wanted to place them in the record.
MR. BELLOWS: Just place them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you have already done that?
MS. GUNDLACH: We were just placing the documents in the
record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, and that's it. So the documents
are there. The staff has no problem or concern with respect to this
petition; is that correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Fiala, you were in the middle of -- motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I made a motion to approve.
Page 105
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- making a motion to approve. It was
seconded by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the way they should all go,
right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Rocky, I'm sorry
to cut you off short but --
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2011-07: ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE
NO. 86-28, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FLOOD DAMAGE
PREVENTION, IN ORDER TO ADOPT, TO THE EXTENT
APPLICABLE, THE REGULATIONS AND POLICIES SET
FORTH IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA MODEL FLOOD DAMAGE
PREVENTION ORDINANCE - MOTION TO AMEND THE
ORDINANCE BY ELIMINATION OF THE AUTOMATIC
RENEWAL CLAUSE - ADOPTED; MOTION FOR STAFF TO
BRING BACK A PROPOSAL FOR REMAINING 10 BASINS AND
Page 106
March 8, 2011
A FUNDING SOURCE AND PLAN - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Commissioners, your next item is Item 8.A. It was
previously item 1 7.A on your summary agenda. This item has been
continued from the February 22nd, 2011 BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to approve an ordinance repealing Ordinance No.
86-28 as amended relating to flood damage prevention in order to
adopt to the extent applicable the regulations and policies set forth in
the State of Florida Model Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. This
item was moved from the summary agenda at Commissioner Hiller's
request.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. The reason I moved
this from the summary agenda is because information came to my
attention that leads me to believe it's premature to adopt this new
ordinance. And specifically what I learned was that the flood maps
that would be adopted, or readopted by this ordinance, in fact are less
than correct.
And I learned that staff had revisited two of the 12 flood basins
and determined that, using the most recent LIDARS, that in fact
16,000 homes -- and I'm going to enter these maps into the record--
16,000 homes within these two basins, and it was actually about
15,000 in one of the basins, were incorrectly designated as requiring
flood insurance when in fact they don't need it.
And it does seem that the maps for all 12 basins are incorrect.
And right now the current ordinance that's being presented before
us doesn't have to be presented at this time. In fact, the ordinance
normally is presented after a letter of determination is received by the
board from FEMA that they have accepted the maps. So really, at this
time I don't see that we should be accepting the ordinance.
Now, that's not to say that the work that has been done should be
disregarded, because at that point in time that FEMA makes a
Page 107
March 8, 2011
determination that the maps that we were going to present with the
correct elevations are the maps that are going to bind Collier County,
we will have to submit an amended ordinance. So I think we should
wait til that happens. And I really don't think we should be voting this
ordinance in as presented.
And Mr. Casalanguida, you and I have talked about some of the
provisions in this ordinance that leave me very concerned. Like, for
example, the automatic adoption of maps without giving us the
opportunity to challenge those maps with FEMA where they might be
incorrect.
So what I would like to propose today is that we don't adopt the
ordinance but rather that we direct staff to amend all the maps to
conform to the most recent LIDAR and thereby relieve so many
citizens in Collier County of the requirement of flood insurance that
they would be bound to with the current maps that have been
submitted.
And I think we need to do everything we can to protect the
citizens from, you know, yet another regulatory-driven expense. So
I'm going to enter these into the exhibit -- as an exhibit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would you like me to answer some of
those? Kind of elaborate a little bit on that, if I could.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Of course.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
Deputy Administrator for the Growth Management Division.
I would hesitate to use the word incorrect. We just have more
accurate maps now on the 2010 versus the 2003 LIDAR. It's the only
difference. Incorrect leaves the people to believe that the information
is flawed rather than we have higher reliability with the information
we have currently.
What I would suggest, based on your comments, is the one point
I would agree is I think the ordinance does a better job explaining
requirements for flood prevention in the county. The one thing that I
Page 108
March 8, 2011
do agree with you on is putting or eliminating the automatic adoption
in this ordinance. And that's a simple strike-through we can do that
with the County Attorney's office.
I still recommend adopting the ordinance we worked with
Commissioner Henning, it's been to DSAC, CBIA, heavily vetted.
You could wait. I think having the ordinance in place without
automatic adoption gives the board a little more flexibility in the
future. To do what the Commissioner's proposed, the other 10 basins
and the coastal modeling will take us anywhere from 18 to 24 months
and cost the county close to half a million dollars.
Now, that said, that's a good thing in the sense that we've seen
from the two basin study we provided you is, there is there is huge
benefit to the residents of Collier County doing that. Without a doubt
it's the right thing to do. The question is, can you afford to pay for it
in one sum? Would it affect FEMA's letter of final determination and
the timing of it, it may not.
Now, there are three potential scenarios that FEMA will present
us with. We've submitted two appeals for the two of the basins. They
could accept those appeals and come back with the final maps with
these two basins modified and the rest being the older information,
less accurate information.
They could comment and say this information needs more
analysis, request us to do more work.
Or they come back and say you should be submitting all 12
basins before we accept two and not the other 10.
It's in process right now. We don't know what they're going to
tell us right yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you not spoken to FEMA?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have. We've spoken to their
consultant, they're reviewing the maps, which should be -- Baker is
their consultant, so he --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is Baker saying?
Page 109
March 8, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Baker is just going to review -- is
reviewing them right now. He's going through the technical review of
our submittal. They were only submitted two weeks ago, three weeks
ago. So he's in process of analyzing what we've done.
The exhibits you've put into the record shows close to a
16,000-acre difference in two basins. That's amazing. Just a rough
analysis from staff talks about $4 million dollars of dollars saved by
residents that will not have to spend money doing a letter of map
amendments.
So my recommendation from staff would be to adopt the
ordinance with one change, that you take away the automatic adoption
clause in it and have staff come back when the new maps are ready.
That would give the board up to six more months to consider what
action you could take. I don't know if it would be appropriate. But
you could wait as well as too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a concern that, you know,
by adopting this ordinance that accepts these maps as they are. You're
going to go through, as one constituent said in an e-mail to me, for
example, what happened in Naples Park when you look at the
difference between 2005 and 2010 flood maps. And I'm going to read
this straight out of this e-mail.
It says, do you really want to put people through the sort of
you're in, you're out, you're in, you're out, Chinese fire drill again and
again.
And I would have to agree with that.
For the record and for the benefit of the public, could you please
describe to us the difference between the old ordinance and this new
ordinance you're proposing so people, you know, can appreciate what
the differences are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. I can read this or I can put it on
the viewer. I'll read it and then enter it as an exhibit, if I would.
Major changes between the current adopted ordinance and the
Page 110
March 8, 2011
proposed flood damage prevention ordinance. One of the changes is
less impacted differences between the proposed ordinance and
ordinance 86-28 as amended.
The current adopted ordinance requires the use of pile foundation
for pools constructed within a VE zone, whereas the proposed
ordinance does not. So it's less restrictive in the new ordinance.
The currently adopted ordinance identifies the coastal high
hazard area as all the land seaward of the coastal construction control
line, whereas the proposed ordinance identifies the coastal high hazard
areas as all lands within the VE flood zone. Less restrictive. So these
are benefits.
The currently adopted ordinance requires plats to include flood
zone locations and flood elevations. The proposed ordinance does
not. So less restrictive.
The one I've highlighted in red is the automatic adoption clause,
that I would suggest changing. The currently adopted ordinance
contains specific penalties for violation of the ordinance provisions,
whereas the proposed ordinance refers to the consolidated code
enforcement. Makes it a little clarified -- clarifies that a little bit.
The proposed flood damage prevention ordinance contains
specifics criteria for floodproofing nonresidential structures. That was
one of the things people wanted, put that criteria in there. I that, I
would think, is a positive.
The currently adopted ordinance identifies the lands to which this
ordinance applies as all areas of unincorporated Collier County,
whereas the proposed flood ordinance talks about the special flood
hazard areas only, although giving us jurisdiction over building slab
elevations, as it's done in the past.
The proposed flood damage prevention ordinance contains
clarifications and criteria on considerations for a variance for
approvals.
So I think the ordinance has benefits. I think going with the state
Page 111
March 8, 2011
model ordinance that we've gone with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain the last one.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have criteria in there for
variances where you would talk about how you would apply for a
variance. It gives you more of a road map on getting a variance,
whereas the other one does not. It's not as clear.
The direction from this board, prior County Manager has been go
with a less restrictive ordinance, go with a base model ordinance from
the State of Florida and FEMA, and don't add things.
I'll tell you that when Robert first presented this ordinance over a
year ago, there was an uproar from your staff because it was putting in
a lot of restrictive requirements. This is bare bones, and I think it's an
improvement. Again, I recommend you don't do the automatic
adoption, but that's a simple sentence change we can do with the
County Attorney and have the Chair sign it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which maps would be adopted as
part of this ordinance?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd still have the old maps that are
currently adopted as part of this ordinance. The maps don't change,
the maps will not change until FEMA submits the--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So, as of right now, whatever the
zoning classification is for a home will remain as is until the new
maps based on the restudy of the basins will be submitted.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Careful when you say that. The
existing maps stay in place until we get a letter of final determination
from FEMA and then a six-month period. We've only submitted two
basins. We could get that information in August of this year and then
be in the six-month period but still be in the process of updating the
other 10 basins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So really, shouldn't we be moving
forward as quickly as possible to get those basins updated so that
people don't have to be bound by the insurance they're currently being
Page 112
March 8, 2011
bound by?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it may not change their
insurance but, yes, absolutely. I think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If it takes them out of the flood
zone?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. Especially with all these
folks that have shown up --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We just looked at two basins. The
majority of one is in Commissioner Henning's district. As you can all
see, there's this small portion in my district, this small portion in
Commissioner Coyle's district, and this area in Commissioner
Henning's district was reevaluated against the latest LIDAR. And as a
result of this right here, 15,000 homes no longer have to have flood
Insurance.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Acreage, I would --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Acreage, right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My only caution is, I think this
information is coming to you quickly. Commissioner Henning had
asked for the information, we provided to the board. County
Managers' direction was to prepare a brief, talk about the cost and
bring it to the board on an upcoming agenda item.
I think -- you're bringing it up now. If you're asking for my
recommendation, absolutely, do the 10 basins in the coastal mine.
Cost is close to a half million and time frame is 18 to 24 months. So if
that's the board's will to bring back a proposal, I can certainly do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to make a motion to
do just that, to bring back a proposal to amend the flood maps to make
them more accurate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: More -- is that the correct
terminology, not less wrong?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: More accurate.
Page 113
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to do that anyway,
right? We're already doing that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're doing it for two basins.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now I'm saying to do it for all 12,
not to just do it for the two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But who's going to
appropriate the money?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's what we have to -- and
that's what I'm saying, you need to let us know where that money is
going to come from.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's the board's direction to bring
back an item, talks about the cost and the time frame officially, that
gives us time to work with the County Manager and budget office to
talk about the funding and the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think it would be a -- because it's 16
or 18 to 24 months, you'd be in Fiscal Year 12 as you pay some of this
out. But the item in front of you is the ordinance. So my
recommendation is adopt it with that clause out.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager, go ahead.
MR. OCHS: Just one comment, just so we're aware of some of
the practical implications, particularly for Commissioner Hiller. We
have a project to build a restroom at the Bluebill beach access point.
The board has repeatedly asked us to build that on grade. We believed
we were able to do that based on what we believe will be the new
map.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be wonderful.
MR.OCHS: However, if that final map now is delayed for 24
months, technically we can't build that project on grade, because right
now it's in the VE zone--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, but what --
MR.OCHS: -- it won't change to AE zone until the maps, Nick,
Page 114
March 8, 2011
if I'm correct, are finalized. So if we don't have a final map, the only
way we can proceed with going vertical on that proj ect without having
to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about a LOMAR?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You can't?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, a LOMAR is not -- you wouldn't
be able -- there's no information you provide that would show that the
elevation was greater than you have right now.
To elaborate a little on what the County Manager said, it may be
relevant to a point is, FEMA has our information for these two basins,
they're going to come back in the next two months and tell us what
they want us to do. It could be to adopt the maps with these two
basins modified as the county proceeds with the study for the other 10
basins. It could be we want to see all of the work. I won't know if
there will be a delay until FEMA replies to the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, you've worked with this
ordinance for a long time. Is it less restrictive than we have now or is
it --
MR. KLATZKOW: The old ordinance is so old that it's -- as a
matter of law we have to replace it. This is a good ordinance we've
given you. It's the least restrictive ordinance we can come up with at
this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know. It's taken a lot of work
from residents and advisory boards. You said at the last meeting
there's no need to rush into --
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no need to rush into it. Ifwe don't
adopt this ordinance now, if it's a month from now, two months from
now, Nick, correct me if I'm wrong, there's no repercussions at this
point.
Page 115
March 8, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not at this point.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sooner or later, FEMA's going to say, you
know, guys, you've got to adopt an ordinance. We have one on the
shelfnow, but we're not under that pressure.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could wait. There is some less
restrictive provisions from our old ordinance, that's why my
recommendation was just take out that automatic adoption clause and
that way we're covered. We can -- gives the board the most amount of
flexibility when you get the new maps.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nick, help me with this a bit. If
we approve this today, would there be a cost saving in those two
basins that have the maps in place?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Won't have anything to do with those
two basins. What you're approving today is an ordinance that will let
you drive what happens when you finally get one. It will be up to
FEMA how they respond to those two basins we submitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if we continue sometime in
the future, there will be no negative cost impact on the residents of the
two basins?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. If you adopt it today or adopt
it later, there's no negative or positive impact today with this
ordinance to those two people.
We're still going to -- we're proceeding on two parallel paths.
Once you adopt the ordinance, that project is done until we have the
maps come in. Then you would have to make one amendment to this
ordinance later is to notate the new maps and adopt those maps.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it's a good idea to continue
this, why do we have it in front of us now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the only thing in there that's
cautionary is the dates. I pointed out, I put on the record some of the
less restrictive requirements that you don't have in your old ordinance.
Page 116
March 8, 2011
By adopting that today, those would apply even under the old maps.
So those are helpful to people in that sense. So you get a little bit of a
benefit by adopting the ordinance without that automatic adoption
clause.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then it is better if we adopt this
today because it will help some people and it will probably also pave
the way for the next maps to go through this process; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, as long as --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I'd like to make a motion to
approve this with the addition to take out the automatic renewal.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve with the
elimination of the automatic renewal clause by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Hiller.
We have no public speakers on this, Ian?
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any further discussion by
Commissioners?
Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Two things. I want to make sure
that we give staff direction to bring back the proposal for funding to
redraw the maps for the other 10 basins as soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. And the other thing I
would like to say is that with respect to LOMAR, it could be done.
The City of Naples did it for their bathroom for the Port Royal Club. I
have it right here. And it was successful. And it allowed for the Port
Royal bathroom to be, I guess, brought down to ground level.
No, I just -- because he was -- this is part of the floodplain map.
So I want to address it because you raised it and because the county
Page 117
March 8, 2011
manager raised it under this item.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Without the benefit of knowing what
they've done, I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have it here for your review.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd like to take a look at it.
MR. KLATZKOW: You now have two motions, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have two motions now, it
needs to be incorporated in one or we need to vote --
MR. KLATZKOW: I would recommend you take the first
motion and then take the second motion separately.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my motion was to approve this
agenda item with the change of eliminating automatic renewal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Which I second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All in favor, please signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The second motion is that staff
bring back a proposal to amend the floodplain maps for the remaining
10 basins and to provide us with a, you know, a funding source to
allow for the payment of that project at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion by Commissioner Hiller to bring
back a plan for finishing up all the other maps, and a funding source.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 118
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Seconded by Commissioner Fiala, by the
way.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: l\ye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: ~t\ye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's done.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION
IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL, IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000, FOR
NEW HOPE MINISTRIES, INCORPORATED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 74-203(1) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES WHICH PROVIDES CRITERIA FOR
IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS AVAILABLE TO CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS - MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, that takes you to item 10 .A, a
recommendation to approve and authorize the chairman to sign a
charitable organization impact fee deferral in the amount of $100,000
for New Hope Ministries, Incorporated in accordance with Section
74-203(1) of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which
provides criteria for impact fee deferrals available to charitable
Page 119
March 8, 2011
organizations.
Ms. Amy Patterson, your Impact Fee Manager is able to present
or answer your questions.
MS. PATTERSON: Good afternoon, Amy Patterson for the
record. I do have a presentation, if the board would like me to go into
that, or if --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not really.
MS. PATTERSON: -- or if you'd like me to answer your
questions, I'd be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What option are you
recommending?
MS. PATTERSON: I'm recommending that we utilize the
existing charitable organization impact fee deferral which provides
$100,000 to qualifying entities. It's for a period of 10 years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm okay with that.
MS. PATTERSON: It is secured by a lien on the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to hear from public
speakers, first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: How many do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, we have no public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Who's standing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is the gentleman from New
Hope Ministry.
MR. SMITH: My name's Pete Srnith. We're from New Hope
Ministry --
MR. MITCHELL: They're not registered --
MR. SMITH: And I'm here just to answer any questions that you
might have.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve
Page 120
March 8, 2011
staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye"
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: ~Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: "Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
Good presentation, both of you.
MR. SMITH: Thank you very much.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks, Pete.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unique presentation.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION AWARDING. CONTRACT #10-5572 FOR
WIGGINS PASS PERMITTING, MODELING & INLET
MANAGEMENT PLAN TO COAST~AL PLANNING &
ENGINEERING, INC. (CP&E) AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$177,811. - MOTION TO APPROVE W 1ST AFF TO LOOK FOR A
LONG RANGE SOLUTION - FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A
SECOND; MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AND
Page 121
March 8, 2011
PRESENT SCOPE OF SERVICES TC~ THE DEP, SUSPENDING
EXPENDITURES AND ACTIONS UNTIL A SCOPE OF
SERVICES REPORT IS RECEIVED FROM DEP - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, 10.B reads, this item is continued
from the February 22nd, 2011 BCC meeting. Recommendation to
award Contract 10-5572 for Wiggins Pass permitting modeling and
inlet management plan to Coastal Planning and Engineering,
Incorporated, and authorize the chairman to execute a contract in the
amount of$177,811.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, County Manager. For the record,
Gary McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
If you remember back to your February 8th meeting, the BCC
approved the ranking of the RFP solicitation to Coastal Planning and
Engineering. And this was for the second portion of the work
associated with Wiggins Pass.
At that point in time prior to the original award of the contract,
we had sat down with the agency, we had worked through what was
required in terms of having pre-application meetings and discussions
with them. They gave us direction on what was required for the
permit application at that point in time. We submitted the permit
application to them. They came back with some significant RAI's,
requests for additional information that were major studies and major
field work which was excluded from Coastal Planning and
Engineering's contract. We believe that that was as a direct result of
input from the state park.
And what we have done is we've solicited a proposal from
Coastal Planning and Engineering for $177,000 for those items as we
see listed on the item in front of you.
We're asking for approval of that contract, Mr. Chair, and I'll
answer any questions the board has at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Commissioner Hiller?
Page 122
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, Gary, first of all, I want to
say thank you for sitting down and talking to me about this contract.
My concern about this contract relates to the underlying contract
that triggered the need for the RAI's. And my concern with respect to
that original contract was that it was not let in conformance with the
CCNA, which is obviously a very significant issue, because if that
contract was not let pursuant to the CCNA, it would be in violation of
the statute and the contract as a result would be void.
So while we did meet and Colleen Greene from the County
Attorney's office gave me some insight into this, there were some facts
which in the course of our discussion I was not aware of. And then
when I came -- when I found out this information, I came to the
conclusion that in fact the underlying contract was not let in
conformance with the CCNA.
And I also came -- as a result of reviewing the information that
was provided through the County Attorney's office, I also am very
concerned about responding to this RAI. So I'd like to just share some
of that information with you and, you know, I would appreciate your
feedback on it.
First thing is is that the County Attorney relied on the
qualification that the underlying contract issued in 2006, which was a
continuing contract because it had a fixed term and it exempted the
bidding of the original engineering design and permitting contract for
this project.
As it turns out, that isn't the case. There was a letter which I did
not receive, but which the purchasing department and the Board of
County Commissioners received back in 2009 that basically came --
that basically said that calling a contract a fixed term contract does not
change the fact that their continuing contracts as defined by the
reference to the Statute 2.87.05, Florida Statutes, Subsection 2,
Subsection G. And this letter came from the Florida Institute of
Consulting Engineers from the president.
Page 123
March 8, 2011
I had the opportunity to speak to the attorney, Roy Young, of the
Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers, and described the facts of
this contract, and of this contract -- of the 2008 contract, the 2006
contract, the 2008 contract and the contract that's before us today.
And he basically confirmed my concern, that in fact these were not let
pursuant to the CCNA and that they are problematic.
The other issue that concerned me was the RAI itself. And with
respect to the RAI, my concern was actually multifold.
The first concern I had was when I actually read the RAI that
came back from the state. And for the record, RAI is request for
additional information, which is dated March 24th, 2010. And what
this RAI said was, while this is by no means a final agency action or
notice of intent thereof, it does represent staff review of your
application and considerable experience in permitting matters.
And then it goes on to say, we are sending you these comments at
this early stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the
further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on
permit issuance.
That is a very serious statement. And when I read through the
RAI, I was concerned because it seemed, one, what they wanted
seemed to have already been provided under the original contract, and
the work maybe was just calling for a report. So I questioned why we
were basically duplicating the effort.
And then in some instances what this RAI was providing
suggested that this permit application in of itself was seriously
problematic. In referring to wording out of the county's own RFP, it
talks about Mr. Bob Brantly, Robert Brantly, who is the engineer for
FDEP, saying that -- suggesting that the restoration of a fully
developed ebb shoal may be required under the new Florida statute
regarding inlet, which would have to be built by direct placement of
sand. There's a concern that the inlet will not perform acceptably
without a fully developed ebb shoal with the initial construction.
Page 124
March 8,2011
And here's some key wording. This alternative can have a
significant cost for the county over the selected alternative since it
may contribute to costly and frequent dredging to implement the
project, an alternative which is not being presented in this permit.
So when I looked more closely at the RAI contract, it seemed
that putting this RAI contract out for an RFQ, even though you call it
an RFP, was an attempt to somehow correct the failure to do so for the
original contract providing for the permitting and design work, which
can't be done.
And then the second issue was that the scope in this RAI contract
seemed to include what was already provided for and paid for under
the earlier contract, for example, meetings. There was 17,000
provided for RAI in the original contract. The -- you know, preparing
the inlet management plan, the technical analysis for that already
should have been done. So basically you would provide a report
there.
I don't understand why we're including a county EIS in this
particular contract, since it's a county, not a state requirement, and
should have been incorporated in the first proposal. You know, the
modeling of the ebb shoal as reported in the RAI was already done but
was deemed insufficient. So I mean, I'm not sure why we're paying for
incomplete work.
And I couldn't find anywhere in the RAI where additional
geotechnical field information was required. And I mean, that, for
example, is 50,000, you know, just one item.
So the -- and then the other thing that was concerning is there
were scope of services included in this contract, they were also
included in the original contract, neither of which was costed out. So
what we really have in front of us is an incomplete cost of the
contract, for example, with respect to construction services and
surveying and certification related to those construction services --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller, excuse me for just
Page 125
March 8, 2011
a moment. Do you want any answers to these or do you just want to
go through a list of accusations?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not accusations, it's a
summary of what I had observed that left me very concerned with
what's before us today, as well as with the contract that came before
us. And I wanted Gary to have the opportunity to hear my concerns.
And I also want those concerns reflected on the record because I think
they're important.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For the moment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can you remember all the things that she
said about this?
MR. McALPIN : I could remember a number of them.
Commissioner, would you like us to talk (tape picks up here) about the
CCNA issue first?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, let's start with that.
MR. CARNELL: Steve Carnell, for the record.
Commissioner, if you could, could you explain for me what Mr.
Young and your position is in terms of what the apparent violation of
the CCNA is?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. When -- just looking
at the history, and I have some notes, in 2006 you basically hired
CP&E and Humiston and Moore, CP&E being Coastal Planning and--
what's the --
MR. CARNELL: Engineering.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Engineering, yes, thank you.
Coastal Planning and Engineering and Humiston and Moore were
hired pursuant to a continuing contract on May 9th, 2006. And the
terms of this contract were 500 annually for each of the firms and
expenditures over 90,000 to require BCC approval. This contract was
never amended with these engineering firms.
This is a continuing contract, the intent being that you would be
Page 126
March 8, 2011
basically assigning smaller tasks pursuant to this contract to these
firms, correct?
MR. CARNELL: It was a fixed term contract at the time we
placed it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But regardless of the term, it was a
continuing contract. And the intent being to assign -- it wasn't for a
specific task but it was rather to assign tasks as they came up --
MR. CARNELL: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to these various firms.
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And then in 2008 you asked
CP&E to do modeling for Wiggins Pass for about 145,000 under this
continuing contract, correct?
MR. CARNELL: Under the contract you're talking about, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, right.
And then -- and you basically issued a purchase order for that?
I'm sorry, a work order for that?
MR. CARNELL: That sounds like the correct amount there, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did that to go to the BCC for
approval?
MR. CARNELL: The $145,000? It may not have. If it was after
October, 2006, the board had amended its purchasing policy to raise
the staff authorization level to $200,000.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So it didn't go to the board
for approval. But then pursuant to this modeling that was done, the
decision was made to pull a permit, do design work up and do
engineering work, correct? For Wiggins?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So then in 2009, CP&E
was asked by the county to develop the design, engineering and
permitting of Wiggins Pass for a total cost of 161,717, again pursuant
to the 2006 continuing contract.
Page 127
March 8, 2011
MR. CARNELL: That sounds correct, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that occurred on or around
June 9th, 2009 that the Board of County Commissioners approved this
as part of their consent agenda.
So at that point in time the study had been done, the county knew
what they wanted to permit. And essentially the way the statute reads
before it was later amended, it provides that if there's a continuing
contract where the scope -- the value for the scope of services is in
excess of $50,000 and the construction costs related to the project for
which this scope applies is in excess of a million dollars, then that
service has to be contracted through an RFQ. And so essentially that
was the conclusion that Roy came up with and that essentially this
would have had to have been at that time, pursuant to the statute as it
existed at that time, put out for -- as an RFQ. Which it wasn't.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. Okay, thank you. Let me address that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure.
MR. CARNELL: The -- as Commissioner Hiller said, the fixed
term contract was competed publicly in 2006. And since 1996, the
Board's purchasing policy has contained a provision identifying the
concept of fixed term contracts, a fixed term contract being something
like what Commissioner Hiller just described, where you would
engage a firm -- not strictly a professional service firm, but in this case
we'll talk about professional service firms -- to provide services on an
as-needed base without, as she said, without a fixed scope of work.
Rather, they're available on an as-needed basis to provide work on a
task-by-task basis.
And the -- we have been operating under that premise since 1996.
And we had viewed fixed term contracts as being different than
continuing contracts that Commissioner Hiller is talking about, which
are defined in the CCNA, the Florida Statutes. And the difference
being that a fixed term contract is exactly what it says, it is for a fixed
period of time.
Page 128
March 8, 2011
Maybe the easiest way to understand it, it's an ordering
agreement. Any time during the life of the agreement we can place a
task order for services needed.
The continuing contract language in the CCNA does not have
that descriptor; historically in 2006 did not have that language in it.
And it was our interpretation through the staff and the County
Attorney's Office that the fixed term contracts that the board had
created in the purchasing policy, which we were using for things in
addition to CCNA services, were not strictly continuing contracts as
defined under the statute.
So when we competed the fixed term contract in 2006 we
believed we were satisfying the requirements of the CCNA, because
we did it through the CCNA, we had an open competition to hire in
this case two firms to be available to enter into fixed term contract.
We think from a policy standpoint fixed term contracting is a
superior methodology because it puts a limit on the relationship, a
maximum of four years. A continuing contract lives in perpetuity.
The contract can be -- essentially go on indefinitely with the
understanding that there is a termination clause that either party can
get out of the agreement. But from a public policy standpoint it
doesn't require what I'll call cyclical competition, whereas a fixed term
contract does.
Now, that was 2006 we entered into those contracts. And then
the work orders that Commissioner Hiller is talking about were issued
between 2006 and somewhere before July 1 st, 2009.
In the 2009 legislative session, the law, the statute was amended.
And they changed the definition of continuing contract to say -- they
inserted a phrase that said whether it be for a fixed period of time or
not.
Prior to that, that phrase wasn't there. Prior to that, the law did
not speak to this issue in terms of whether a fixed term contract and a
continuing contract were one and the same. So we were operatinga
Page 129
March 8, 2011
under the interpretation of our purchasing policy that had been in
place 10 years prior.
And as I said a moment ago, you hear some discussion about
thresholds approvals. At the time the contract was signed, there was a
provision in there that said work orders exceeding $90,000 would be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. And in October of
2006, the purchasing policy was amended to increase that
authorization from 90,000 to $200,000.
And so again, in 2009, July 1st, an amendment to the CCNA was
signed into law, took effect, that from our view, County Attorney's
Office, Purchasing Department's review, our standpoint, brought fixed
term contracts under the definition of continuing contracts.
Now, Commissioner Hiller referred to the scope of services that
the -- were involved in these work orders. There was a work order
issued, if I'm not mistaken, not only one to Coastal Planning and
Engineering, but another one issued to Humiston and Moore during
that 2006 to 2009 window, and it would be considered study activity,
preliminary activity. It was not design activity at that point for
constructing the improvements to the pass.
In July of 2009 the law changed and Mr. McAlpin and I had a
subsequent conversation shortly thereafter where we said as you move
into the next phase, now we're under the CCNA thresholds, so any
future purchases are going to be subject to the continuing contract
prOVISIon.
So we -- essentially the rules of the game changed at that point in
time and that's the point in time where we began following the CCNA
continuing contract provisions. And essentially we now treat fixed
term contracts and continuing contracts as one and the same with
regard to CCNA activity.
You have anything to add to that, Gary, regarding the work
orders?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, can you give us your
Page 130
March 8, 2011
opinion as to whether or not there was any inconsistency with the
CCNA?
MR. KLATZKOW: We had this policy in place 1996. At that
point in time whoever the County Attorney was reviewed the policy
and signed off on it. We utilized that policy for 13 years until the
legislation changed. In the 13-year time there was never any
challenges to my knowledge of the policy. You know, I don't know
what else to say.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it is in your opinion now that there
was no violation --
MR. KLATZKOW: Back in 1996 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- or even of the ones that we have done
more recently?
MR. KLATZKOW: I can speak of the ones we've done more
recently. And I don't think there were any violations.
Now, back in 1969, if you want to bring it back in time to say
review it then, would I come up with the same answer as my
predecessor? I don't know. But for consistency's sake, this office has
always viewed prior decisions of former county attorneys as being
binding on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's English law, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Stare decisis, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is a really confusing issue.
It's confusing more.
What continuing contract do we have that goes on forever and
ever?
MR. CARNELL: We don't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't.
MR. CARNELL: The fixed term contracts have time provisions
and limits on them. That's -- you picked up on exactly the point we're
Page 131
March 8, 2011
making, that we put limiters on them by policy, by design.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They all have to come back --
they have renewal clauses in them.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they all need to come back.
So why are you trying to confuse us up here?
MR. CARNELL: I'm not trying to confuse anybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we talking about
continuing contracts when we don't have any?
MR. CARNELL: Well, because the law has changed.
If I could, this whole situation is a little bit like, I'll use the
analogy, you're driving down Davis Boulevard, the speed limit's 45
miles an hour. For whatever reason, the FDOT or Mr. Feder lower the
speed limit one day to 35 miles an hour. That does not mean the
people who drove 45 the day before were in violation of the law,
because the law has now changed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we working under fixed
term contracts now?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir. But we're treating them as continuing
contracts -- we're treating them as one and the same, as of July 1 st,
2009. We believe prior to then there was a legitimate legal distinction
between the two. And we frankly thought ours was -- the fixed term
contract was superior, because we thought it was more competitive
because it was saying there will be a four-year limit on the
relationship.
Continuing contract has no such limiter. You could stay in
privity with the same engineering firm for 20 or 30 years under a
continuing contract. We don't do that, but we could.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've never done that, right?
MR. CARNELL: We have not, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So in the statutes it's talking
about fixed term or continuing?
Page 132
March 8, 2011
MR. CARNELL: It uses the word continuing. But it says in the
definition of continuing, they dropped in a phrase saying whether for a
fixed term or not. They added that to the definition in 2009.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Were they just defining what
they always mean?
MR. CARNELL: Well, I suppose. That might be the industry's
View.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, that's what the
legislation changed. Did they change it because that was always their
intent?
MR. CARNELL: I don't know. The -- there was a dispute
between us and others in the industry about whether fixed term or
continuing contracts were one and the same. We weren't the only one
having this disagreement with the engineering society.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So depending on the legislation
intent or their clarification, it could be an issue.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. But going forward we have simply --
we have stopped making the distinction for CCNA purchases. From
the point it became law, we have followed the law. We have treated
fixed term contracts and continuing as one and the same from that
point forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- in the executive summary
it doesn't say what the TDC's recommendations are. Did you get a --
did you take it to the TDC?
MR. McALPIN : We did, Commissioner Henning. We took it to
the CAC, we took it to the TDC, and they both approved it. This was
thoroughly vetted in both organizations. We had a Wiggins Pass
subcommittee and this was thoroughly vetted there. And we also had a
work group that comprised industry stakeholders and this was vetted
there. All four of those groups approved this recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All I was asking is about the
Board's sanction--
Page 133
March 8, 2011
MR. McALPIN: The Board's approved it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- advisory boards. Because it
wasn't in the executive summary.
Did I miss it somewhere? I couldn't find the TDC in there. I see
the Coastal Advisory Committee. It was a--
MR. McALPIN: We did have all of our boards approved it. If
that was not listed in there, then that's my error.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It says at the Tourist Development
Council's November 22,2010 meeting, this item was approved 8-0,
right there on the front page of the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe it's this agenda
that I have here.
You know, I don't -- how do we get what the legislation intent
was? Was it a clarifying or was it new law?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's new law, sir. It's -- in essence we're
talking about a loophole, all right. When you really come down to it,
in home rule? Under home rule authority we were using fixed term
contracts because the legislature was regulating continuing contracts.
Over the course of the years the professional folks got tired of that and
simply in essence closed the loophole, making those contracts one and
the same. So now we're being regulated by the state as to this issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can we depend on -- I
mean, it's your opinion, anybody's opinion, but is it written
somewhere that this is a new opinion?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it was a change --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: New change to the law?
MR. KLATZKOW: It was an actual change in the statute.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not a clarification --
MR. KLATZKOW: Not a clarification --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- like was said earlier.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it depends how you want to -- it was a
change in the statute. It was a physical change to the statute that
Page 134
March 8, 2011
eliminated this loophole.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Ian, let's call the first speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker is Ken Humiston.
MR. HUMISTON: Ken Humiston with Humiston and Moore
Engineers.
Just as a point of information, in your packet of background
information, you got a summary of proposers which lists Humiston
and Moore Engineers, as the one nonresponder to this RFQ.
When staff described this proj ect at a previous meeting, they
pointed out that the RFQ had actually been sent out to more than 100
engineering firms.
So as one point of information, I'd like to point out that Humiston
and Moore Engineers was not the single nonresponder to this but was
in fact among the vast majority of engineering firms that got this RFQ
that did not respond.
I can only speculate as to why we were listed as the one
nonresponder on the information that you were given, because we,
perhaps unlike the other nonresponders, actually sent a letter in
explaining why we were not responding to this RFQ.
That letter was addressed to this Board of County Commissioners
through the Purchasing Department. And what I wanted to do, since I
did not see that letter in the back of the information that was given to
the Board, is to provide the Board members with a copy of that letter
and have it entered into the record. Because it explains why we did
not respond to this RFQ, or RFP, as it was called.
I think this is important to us in particular because someone could
look at the information you were provided showing that we were the
single nonresponder to this and possibly draw the conclusion that
Humiston and Moore Engineers is for some reason not interested in
lending their expertise to assist the county with management of
Wiggins Pass, which I assure you is very far from the truth.
Thank you very much.
Page 135
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the letter's not too long, can
we just read it into the record?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think he's going to give it to us.
We've got it. It's one page.
MR. HUMISTON: It's a single page letter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you please read it?
MR. HUMISTON: There's some related information.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good. Thank you.
Let's call the next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here
on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
And the specific item today before you for discussion is the
awarding of a contract. The Conservancy is not here to give you an
expert opinion on the details of the contract, but to share our
perspective on why the work contained within the contract is so
important and needs to proceed. And we ask that you be cognizant of
that as you go through your discussion today.
The Conservancy was a member of the Wiggins Pass modeling
evaluation work group which began meeting in April of 2008, tasked
with examining the modeling study results and recommending the
optimal option for management of Wiggins Pass based on a number of
factors which were and still are: Safe navigation, minimizing erosion
at Barefoot Beach, lengthening the dredge cycle, doing all of that in
the most environmentally compatible manner, and having an option
that was cost feasible and the most economical.
Our working group reviewed the feasibility of all the alternatives
based on these five goals. After meeting for over a year our final
recommendation was submitted to the CAC, the TDC and the board
for their and your review and approval. And in 2009 the decision was
Page 136
March 8, 2011
made to proceed on the new long-term dredge permit that would
realign the channel.
The Conservancy supported this particular design for the proj ect
because the model demonstrated that soft engineering -- in other
words, no structures -- would work, it would increase the length of
time between maintenance dredgings, would keep the pass open and
would do so in the least environmentally damaging manner possible.
The Conservancy did extensive research on the benefits and
drawbacks of structural versus non structural alternatives for Wiggins
Pass, and we also requested that the proposal be reviewed by an expert
in the field of shoreline dynamics.
Dr. Orrin Pilkey, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences and
founder and director emeritus of the study of developed shorelines
within the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.
Dr. Pilkey reviewed the CP&E recommendations and modeling
for realignment of the channel and he concluded that he agreed with
the recommendations and felt the county should proceed forward with
that.
So the bottom line is that in-depth research, review and planning
are behind the Wiggins Pass permit application. It has been very
thoroughly vetted by the stakeholders and experts with a significant
amount of money already going into the process.
We're in the final stretch. DEP has their remaining outstanding
concerns and questions, and this contract will allow the county to
answer those questions and will put in place a state approved inlet
management plan which is required by state law, and we believe that
will be a benefit to the community.
That being said, if you believe that a peer review of the modeling
data is something that's important, we encourage you to have an
impartial expert do such a review. But we ask that that review not go
back to square one and start arguing the merits of structural versus
non-structural. We've done that, we've had that thorough discussion
Page 137
March 8, 2011
for the past three years, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars
have gone into the current design. So let's focus on the channel
realignment and make you comfortable with the project and the
contract that's before you today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Joe Moreland.
MR. MORELAND: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Joe
Moreland.
I'm speaking really as the chairman of the subcommittee of the
Coastal Advisory Committee that over a period of several years has
studied this and been involved in reaching a really big consensus of
the stakeholder groups in this.
In particular, I think I would like to plagiarize the comments of
my colleague, Nicole, and adopt her comments as my own. I often
like to plagiarize her testimony in these gatherings.
I can only add emphasis in a couple of points from what she said.
One is we would welcome a peer group review, if you feel that is
appropriate.
Two, recognize the enormity of the accomplishment where we
had taken a community of stakeholders who were very diverse, and in
often case aggravatingly so, to form a consensus which is contained in
the proposal.
It is a job that is needful of being done. It has an enormous
amount of resources and human sweat equity already into it. It has
arrived at a conclusion which substantively is non-contentious in the
community. Terribly important.
So we urge that you give as much weight to that as you possibly
can.
We must stand mute, however, as to any allegation or belief that
there were improprieties in the awarding of the contract. Having had
some experience in government contract law and otherwise, you can
always find something. And we've had enormous number of
Page 138
March 8, 2011
congressional hearings, which have I think reached the same
conclusion, no matter which side of the issue you may be on.
So if something's been illegal, I share with my colleagues here
that needs to be straightened out. But if there is a manner in which
this can be recognized as de minimis and nobody actually taking amiss
the result of it, I think it's a good example of a case that the outcome
would indeed justify the means in arriving at it. Because the means,
should it be wrong, based on anything that we've heard so far, I think
is subj ect to enough dispute that you could go ahead and do it if you
believe in the cause.
I urge you to do that. But that decision is not the CAC's, it's not
the subcommittee's, gentlemen and ladies, it is yours.
My blessings, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, that was your last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a 10-minute break
for the court reporter. Be back here at 3:30.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Board of
County Commission meeting is back in session.
We have finished the public speakers for item 10.B. We will
now go to the commissioners. And I believe Commissioner Henning
was next.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Mr. Humiston in here is
saying he doesn't believe that the approach will achieve the county's
goal and reduce long-term inlet management cost and extended life of
maintenance of dredge cycle.
I know that I was in favor of trying to do something, either
harden it so we don't have to keep on dredging it every other year. I
don't know if that was the opinion of the majority of the board, but I
know I did hear at least one colleague.
Page 139
March 8, 2011
And Gary, can you tell us, there's no hardening of any surfaces;
is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: This is a soft engineering approach,
Commissioner Henning. And the reason it's a soft engineering
approach is for a number of reasons.
When we had the discussion prior to putting in the permit
application after the first modeling approach that we went through, the
DEP came back to us and said it would be very, very, very, very hard
to get structures permitted here. For a couple of reasons.
And I used four verys. One is because the property on either side
of the pass is owned by the state. They own Delnor- Wiggins State
Park and they own Barefoot Beach.
The second point they made was that this was a natural inlet and
it's an unstructured inlet, and their goal and objective right now is to
keep the inlets natural.
The third -- so we knew we were going to have a really difficult
time with the agencies doing that. That's not to say that it could not be
done, but it would be -- if we're looking at a two-year permitting
process, this would be a lot longer than a two-year process.
The other reason, Commissioner, is that because this does not
conform to our Land Development Code and the Growth Management
Plan that we have within the county right now.
And lastly, that all of the stakeholders and the surrounding
environmental communities were against hardening of the structure.
So we would have a significant battle internally with our own
community, with our stakeholder groups.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, let me just -- thank you.
Those stakeholder groups don't have to approve dredging of that
pass every other year.
Tell me about the GMP and LDC, the complex about putting a
fixture there.
MR. McALPIN: I saw Bill Lorenz here, and he could speak to it
Page 140
March 8, 2011
a little bit better than I can, ifhe's still here. We do -- it does, since it
is a natural coastal area, it does not allow it to harden the pass --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bill's here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you get an official
interpretation of that?
MR. McALPIN: We have spoken to Bill before.
Bill, this is not a highjack, but the issue is that with hardening
Wiggins Pass relative to the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code, we had spoken before and the opinion was that
this is -- that our policies do not allow that. Would you like to speak to
that issue?
MR. LORENZO: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Land
Development Services Director.
I'm working from memory here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should really -- I mean, if
we ask the public, they have to get an official interpretation or
something like that. Why doesn't the county so we can have some?
Are we better than the citizens?
MR. McALPIN: No, Commissioner, I don't believe we are better
than the citizens. Again, what we're trying to do is we're trying to
qualify how to proceed on this. And when we had our discussion we
did not believe we needed a written analysis of the Land Development
Code and the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because you didn't think it
would work, right?
MR. McALPIN: No, because for all the items that we talked
about before.
So relative to that, if that is a requirement, we certainly could
make an official request relative to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it was the majority
of the board that wanted to harden that surface so we don't have to
dredge it every other year.
Page 141
March 8, 2011
Am I wrong, Commissioner Coyle? I know that you were in
favor of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, if it were me I'd build a concrete pier
on both sides of it and get done with it forever.
MR. McALPIN: Well, I'm not saying that that's not the best
solution --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to spend taxpayer money on
this for as long as we live.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we're not saying that that's not
the best solution, but with a soft engineering approach what we have
and under what we're trying to accomplish here would do with the less
environmental damage, the marching orders that we were given, that a
soft engineering approach that we can get a four-year between
renourishment cycles is what we anticipate at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: What you really mean is a soft
engineering approach is the politically correct approach, even if it
costs taxpayer money forever and ever and ever, right? That we are
really not looking for a more permanent solution to this problem, we
don't really care how much we have to charge the people to keep
doing this dredging it over and over and over. And you know that's
what's going to happen, don't you?
MR. McALPIN: We will have to -- any solution we have, even
with a jetty, Mr. Chair, is going to require dredging. Doctors Pass has
a jetty on both sides and we dredge it every five years. And so we
dredge Gordon Pass --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The jetty just isn't long enough, okay.
MR. McALPIN: I'm not saying that a jetty is not the best
solution, Commissioner. What I'm telling you is that --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm just kidding--
MR. McALPIN: -- you and I will both get more gray hair trying
to make that happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He can't get any more gray hair.
Page 142
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. McAlpin, I don't know if I
agree with that, because things have changed. People are getting tired
of so much government, of, you know, either in their lives or
regulations of government that creates more and more tax dollars
being wasted. So, I mean, I just have a different opinion on that. I
know what you're trying to accomplish. But really, the politics stop
here.
MR. McALPIN: Understand, Commissioner. And at the board
meeting with the city, we were directed to take this and bring this back
to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and also
potentially the Governor.
We intend to do that, Commissioner. We intend to work this
thing through. But we're not to that point yet. We're still going to
have to answer, have an inlet management plan, we're still going to
have to do the geotechnical studies. We're still going to have to do the
-- modeling the ebb tide shoal. Everybody that we have talked to, Ken
Humiston is in agreement, that straightening out the pass, there's not a
question associated with straightening out the pass. The question
becomes do we add a jetty after the fact or can it be maintained with
soft engineering on a four-year cycle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me just interpretate (sic)
what you said. What you're saying is the goal is still the same as the
board, is that we want a long-term fix. And if that calls for later on
hardening, that's -- what we're doing today is not going to get in the
way?
MR. McALPIN: What we're doing today is straightening out the
pass. And it would be -- it would be the first phase we have to do in
either way, Commissioner, okay? We believe that this would be the
first phase and the only phase, and that soft engineering would be a
four-year cycle. But then we could add --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Page 143
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are we doing here? Can
we go for a fixed structure out there to keep it from having to dredge it
every four years or every other year?
MR.OCHS: If that's the pleasure of the board, sir. We have a
recommendation on this contract. If you'd like to do something
different, just tell us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your interpretation is the
same as mine, that this contract will prevent us from going after a --
some kind of a hardening structure to prevent the --
MR. OCHS: It will prevent us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm just trying to get an answer.
I'm not getting an answer to my question.
MR. OCHS: May I ask for the question one more time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do we get to the Board's
goals and objectives so we don't keep on having to spend money
dredging this pass out and we have surety for the residents up there to
use it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got a suggestion, if you might
want to listen to it --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala is next. Let her talk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just a suggestion to answer all of
these things, including working with The Conservancy.
I think that we ought to take this as a step one and we ought to
approve this contract as it is, but with the provision, and write this into
the contract that we -- and into our minutes, that we want to see how
this works first. And if indeed we have to go back again because this
isn't going to be somewhat of a permanent fix, then the next time we
go at it we make it a permanent fix.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying to me is what
we're doing here is not going to narrow -- the end of the day that we
can still go back and put in a fixed structure?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't see why not. I think
Page 144
March 8, 2011
first of all this is changing the whole pass, right? Because it's
straightening it out now, right? And it's realigning it somewhat. And I
think that we have to give it a chance. We have to see how that
works.
If indeed that works and we don't need to do anything further and
it's a good fix, well, then let's just go with it. But if it isn't a good fix
and if we find that it fills in and it doesn't work, we should make it a
permanent fix.
But this way then we answer everybody's needs and concerns.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The modeling and the
management plan is what we're saying we're going to do --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for that pass.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is not putting a fixed
structure in there if it doesn't work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, but I'm saying add that to the
contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree what you're saying
(sic). You can't add it to the contract, you ask staff to get to where we
want to be, and that's a long-term fix.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. Okay, what I'm saying
is if this doesn't work as a good fix, and it might not be a permanent
fix but it might be a more environmentally friendly fix and it will last
us a lot longer because now we're changing the configuration of that
pass, if we find it doesn't work, we should be writing it into this
ordinance or contract or whatever that then we will go back with a
permanent fix. Because if -- it's true, we don't want to continue to do
this every year or two. This is not a good way to address it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could I make a suggestion that is a
compromise here? If one of the two of you would make a motion to
approve this contract with guidance to staff that they look at a longer
Page 145
March 8, 2011
range solution that will reduce the commitment of taxpayer dollars to
constantly redredging, that seems to get us where both of you seem to
want to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I wish I would have said that.
That's beautiful. I make that motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, is that acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what you're saying is if
this doesn't do it, we're not approving it. You want to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Look for a longer range solution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so that motion was made by
Commissioner Fiala and was seconded by Commissioner Henning.
And Commissioner Hiller is next to speak.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This solution is going to cost
between three-and-a-half and five million dollars; are you aware of
that?
And are you also aware that that doesn't include the engineering
design cost, which will-- right now is approaching -- it's actually over
500,000 and it's going to be significantly more?
And that what you have before you here by way of a contract
specifies 177,000 but has services in here that haven't been costed out
related to the construction?
That the state is claiming that this is going to have material
adverse environmental impacts on both the north and the south shores
of Wiggins Pass? And what they're saying is that there's a statute that
is going to require -- regarding inlets, which basically would have to
be built by direct placement of sand, and that pursuant to this
alternative that's being presented here today, that on top of the
three-and-a-half on the low side, five million on the high side for this
project that we're talking about -- what we're really talking about here
is a $6 million fix, so you appreciate that. It's not a $177,000 fix. It's
going to have additional significant costs to the county over the
Page 146
March 8, 2011
selected alternative.
I mean, this is not -- I'm really concerned about a very material
proj ect that the state is coming back to us saying you've got real
serious problems with what you're proposing.
And then I'm also concerned about the fact that we have a
contract here that says it's for 177,000 and it isn't, it's for much more
than that. And the scope of services is not merely for the response to
an RAI, but it's also for these additional services. And that we have
already paid in part and the work is already being done in part and
paid for under the previous contract related to what we're paying for
again in this RAI.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And what is your solution, not do
anything at all?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, my solution is to follow the
lead of where Commissioner Fiala and Henning were starting to go up
until the point of approving this response, and that is not to approve
this response and revisit this, not expend any further funds in this
proposal.
I just want to ask one thing of Gary, if I may. Gary, have you --
did you provide a proposed scope of services to DEP engineering to
get, you know, basically pre-approval before we started spending all
this money on this?
MR. McALPIN: We sat down with DEP. We had two meetings
with them. We gave them our review package for the modeling. And
we reviewed their comments and concerns for the scope of services.
We got their input into it. Yes, ma'am, we did that.
Did we physically write up a scope of work and hand it to them
and ask them to review it? No, they don't do that until you submit a
permit application.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my concern there is why you
are surprised about what they came to you with. Because if you told
them everything up-front, you know, what they're asking for in
Page 147
March 8, 2011
addition should not have been a surprise and should be contemplated
in the RAI that was provided for -- or the responses to the RAI
provided for in the initial contract.
MR. McALPIN: Except, Commissioner, when they changed
their position based on input they received from the state park system.
So what they told us initially and what they told us after the fact in
the RAI, requested after the fact in the RAI, was completely different.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, my position on this would
be to deny approval of this contract and basically have staff revisit
what is being proposed to take into consideration alternative options.
Like, for example, what Commissioner Henning is proposing.
Because what we are moving into here is going to be, based on
everything I'm hearing, upwards of $6 million as a temporary fix. So
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you prove that? Do you have
something to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's what I was told. I had
a meeting with Steve Keehn, with the engineer that does this, and I
asked --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who is Steve Keehn?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Steve Keehn is the gentleman who
spoke to us about the Wiggins dredging in the past. He's the engineer
with Coastal Planning and Engineering who is essentially the project
managerlengineer for this.
And I sat down with him, and it was part of my education, and he
took me through this entire project with Gary McAlpin and Marla.
And during our conversation it came -- because I wanted to know
what the cost of this proj ect would ultimately be, I was told it was
between three-and-a-half and five million.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said six million.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's not including the
design, engineering and, you know, construction oversight costs,
Page 148
March 8, 2011
which are a separate cost. I'm talking just about the pure construction
costs. So then we've already expended 500,000 for, you know, the
design engineering so far. And we're probably going to spend a lot
more on that portion.
So adding that -- I mean, if you want to be conservative, then
take the five million plus 500,000, and say five million, 500. But, you
know, at the low side you're looking at three-and-a-halfmillion
excluding the design engineering, and on the high side you're looking
at five million, you know, plus the design and engineering.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, look, we can argue this point all
day. It's really a fairly simple decision. Ask yourself, do you want to
do anything at all? What are the options? One is a soft option, one is
a hard option. I'd be willing to bet you that both of them are going to
be very expensive. The hard option is going to be more expensive
than the soft option.
So you're not going to avoid the cost by disapproving this
contract. You're going to pay the cost no matter what you do, whether
it's this contract or the next contract you select.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No you'd be --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to pay the cost. The issue
really is what is -- what are the consequences of not doing it at all?
Let's just suppose we decide to save the money and not do the
project at all. How much is that going to cost? What is that going to
-- how is that going to impact Wiggins Pass?
MR. McALPIN: We are dredging Wiggins Pass every other
year, Commissioner. It's about--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no, no, let's don't dredge it anymore,
just stop dredging it. End of story. What's going to happen?
MR. McALPIN: There will be economic impact. Boats will not
be able to get in and out of the pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Property values will dramatically
collapse for the people who live there; right, is that true?
Page 149
March 8, 2011
MR. McALPIN: That's correct, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So you really don't have an option of
doing nothing. You have an option of doing a soft proj ect or you have
the option of doing a hard proj ect.
Now, if you go with a hard project right off the bat, I can
guarantee you that the environmentalists are going to be beating us
over the head from the very beginning. So that means you're doing
nothing for a very long period of time.
If you go with a soft approach, you're going to have time to
evaluate the effectiveness of the soft approach and then develop a plan
for a longer term solution. Either option is going to cost us a lot of
money. But we don't have the option of doing nothing and saving the
money. We have to do something.
So I would suggest we get on with whatever it is you want to do
and I'd -- I'm happy to go with anything except the nothing option.
And the longer we delay doing it, the greater the impact is going to be
on the people who live there. And that's a very serious issue.
Now, who's next? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to be very brief. I
hope that the Commissioner of that district will make a motion and
then we can go and try to figure out if we got something that will work
for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've already got a motion on
the floor.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah, got a motion already.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to deal with that.
Commissioner, if I may, staff hasn't said to me that this proposal
will not prevent us from doing a hard fix. They haven't said that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is do a
Page 150
March 8, 2011
soft fix, and if that doesn't work, well, tough. Because they haven't
reassured us that doing a soft one is -- we're going to be able to take it
to the next step like you're saying.
So the motion was do a long-term fix, and I would presume that's
going to be a hardened fix.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, the motion was not that at all. The
motion was to approve this contract as it is recommended, and provide
guidance to staff to begin studying a longer term solution. That was
the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to
remove my second, because it was my understanding is we want a
long-term fix. Again, people up there, like you said, need reassurance.
And, you know, if we're not going to have a long-term -- a soft is the
only way we're going to go because we can't get reassurance that we
can go back and do a hard surface, because this is a management plan
that we have to approve with a soft fix, then it's crazy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Look, you're going to have to dredge the
pass whether you build jetties there or not. At least initially. So doing
a soft fix initially doesn't preclude you from doing anything later on, it
gives you an opportunity to solve the problem of access in the pass
now, so that you don't have the impacts on people's property values,
and it gives you time to work on a longer term or hard fix for the long
term.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, we
approved either last meeting or two meetings ago a dredge. That's the
immediate one. It was an emergency dredge. What we're looking at
is doing a long-term fix for Wiggins Pass, a soft fix, okay? So you and
I both agree that a soft is not going to do it, you really need to put
something hard in there to protect the pass so it doesn't shoal in. It's
not going to happen with this approval.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner Coyle, we can take a
two-phased approach, as you suggested, move forward with a soft
Page 151
March 8, 2011
engineering approach which we believe will get us four years.
If for whatever reason that's not acceptable --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Forty years?
MR. McALPIN: Four years. Four years.
If for whatever reason that's not acceptable or other situations
arise, then we could move towards make a permit application for a
structure at the end of Wiggins Pass.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Henning has removed his second.
Is there another second to this motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I ask a question--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- relating to the motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you don't get a second, are
you prepared to make amotion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask a couple of
questions and then I will make a motion.
Could you explain why the construction costs are not included in
this, and they are part of the proposal, and what are they?
MR. McALPIN: We have -- this is for the engineering, the
balance of the engineering associated with this project. We will go
out, prepare the package and then we'll bid it. We've estimated the
construction costs to be three-and-a-half to $5 million. That would
repair Barefoot Beach, that would straighten out the channel, and that
would build an ebbtide shoal.
And that's what we expect -- as we look at it right now, that's
what we're expecting that we would have to do relative to this item.
So, you know, we just wanted to identify the construction costs as part
of this, what we would have to do with this approach.
Page 152
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who would be paid those
constructions costs?
MR. McALPIN: We would go out and bid this to coastal
contractors, marine contractors who could do the work.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What I'm referring to is the
construction related work in this contract. If you look at the contract,
the contract specifically refers to construction services to be provided
by the engineer.
MR. McALPIN: Oh, typically there's a little bit of construction
services provided by the engineer. That would go to Coastal Planning
and Engineering. And that would be for -- there would be a level of
monitoring that they would have to do during the next phase of the
project, during the construction of the project, because they have to
certify that the actual installation is completed as per the design. They
have to stamp it. So there's a -- there's some level of construction
observation that has to happen as a result of that.
The actual day-to-day operation of managing the construction
and looking out for the construction would be done with our staff.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's already included in this
contract that's before us. It was also already included in the previous
contract. But in this contract there's no pricing for it. How much is it?
MR. McALPIN: There's no pricing in it because it's not being
proposed at this point in time. This contract would be for taking it up
through getting the permit, doing the permit engineering, doing the
detailed design and bidding this project. After that there'll be a
monitoring phase that would go on. Those are usually relatively
small. I'm going to guess it's in the range of $35,000, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Having heard everything here today, there's one comment that
you made that stands out, Mr. McAlpin, and that is that once the
permit is submitted that you have the ability to submit a proposed
scope of services to the state to have an evaluation as to whether what
Page 153
March 8, 2011
you are intending to do is something that they would in fact approve
before we start expending more funds. And I would submit that that is
exactly what should happen before this contract is approved.
So I would make the motion that we ask staff to prepare a
proposed scope of services to be presented to DEP and get DEP's
feedback on that before we commit to any more funding towards this
proj ect and responding to this RAI. This RAI has been outstanding
for a year, and the state I don't believe will have any problem with
providing that information to us before we expend any more funds
towards this project.
The second part is that spending money on the soft costs when
ultimately we'll spend money on hard costs really makes no sense if
we should be going straight to, I should say, hard structures, if those
are permitted or some alternative plan.
So I would say right now that we suspend any further activity till
we get that scope of services presented to the state and their response
back as to guidance as to how we should proceed before any more
money is spent on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion by Commissioner Hiller to
suspend any more action on this project until we get a scope of service
and feedback from the state concerning our proposal.
And did that capture the essence of the motion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Commissioner Hiller?
Okay, all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed, by like sign.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 154
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it passes 3-2 with Commissioner
Fiala and Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask, how long will something
like this take to the state and how much jeopardy will it cause the
people in that area?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Commissioner knows. I
guess you've probably studied the situation -- forgive me.
Commissioner Hiller has taken responsibility for it, just like we
have before with different projects in our area. And so, you know, if it
fails because we're not moving in a timely basis, you know, that's just
one of the penalties we pay and lessons we learn in life. I don't know
what else to say.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no, there's nothing else. I
understand that, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may, I'd like to comment on
Commissioner Fiala's concern.
We have just done an emergency dredge which should last --
these dredges last approximately two years. So I think we have ample
time. If the state were to deny this permit, we would be that far along
and in a worse state, because A, we would have lost the time, B, we
would have lost the money. So we're better off knowing ahead
whether or not the state will approve this permit if we should in fact
proceed or if we should look for alternatives.
And thereby we're actually saving time, and we would be able to
allocate those dollars to a better solution if the state feels that what
we're proposing is not the best.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason I asked the question
about time, we were held up for the Marco Island Airport for six
years. We were held up with the LASIP project for 16 years waiting
for permits. So I felt that that was a legitimate question.
Page 155
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's very fair.
And not only that, we have an existing permit that allows for the
dredging, as we have been doing. So as far as the level of service, we
are able to maintain it by continuing to dredge as we have in the past
so that the residents of the community will not be deprived from their
ability to boat.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Time will tell.
Okay, we are done with that item.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I still remain concerned with the
validity of the letting of the original contract. Just for the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then maybe we ought to just scrap the
contract entirely and not do it at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't we have a time certain?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, we have one at 3:00. We're just on
time.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION APPROVING STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE V ANDERBIL T BATHROOM
AND CONCESSION FACILITY BE BUILT TO CONFORM TO
FEMA'S NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP)
GUIDELINES FOR VE-14 ELEVATED FACILITY - MOTION
DIRECTING STAFF TO GET ACCURATE ELEVATIONS USING
A SURVEYOR TO VERIFY THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE
PRESENTED BY MR. SNYDER AND IF THE ELEVATION
PROVES TO BE LOWER, FILE A LOMAR FOR A MAP
REVISION WITH FEMA; IF FEMA GRANTS THE ELEVATION,
TO BUILD THE BATHROOM EXPANSION AT GRADE
WITHOUT THE CONCESSION STAND AND DECK; IF FEMA
DOES NOT GRANT REVISION, STAFF TO ALSO LOOK FOR
ALTERNATIVES SUCH AS BUILDING BATHROOMS AT THE
Page 156
March 8, 2011
PARKING GARAGE, STAFF IS TO ALSO LOOK AT THE
ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE BEING DONE AT ORANGE PARK,
PORT ROYAL AND AT THE MOORINGS - FAILED; MOTION
TO HAVE STAFF VERIFY ELEVATIONS, SUBMIT LETTER TO
FEMA AND IF GRANTED, TO BUILD AT GROUND LEVEL
WITH THE PRIMARY FOCUS ON THE BATHROOMS. IF FEMA
DOESN'T GRANT THE PROJECT, STAFF TO BRING BACK
ALTERNATIVES BEFORE BUDGET HEARINGS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. It's Item 10.C on your agenda. It's a
recommendation to approve the staff recommendation that the
Vanderbilt bathroom and concession facility be built to conform to
FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program guidelines for VE-14
elevated facility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And this, by the way, ladies and
gentlemen, is a hearing on whether or not the construction should be at
the FEMA level or at ground level. It is not a rehearing of the entire
project. It is only about one thing, do you build it at FEMA level or
do you build it at ground level. That's end of story. Okay?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the record, in case you don't recognize me, it's Gary
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to make a motion to
disapprove.
MR. McALPIN: That's my luck today, Commissioner.
The staff approved -- excuse me, the board approved on
7/27/2010 the design/engineering of the permitting and the
construction contract bidding to do an elevated structure conforming
to the VE-14 regulations at Vanderbilt Beach.
Subsequent to that, you asked us to come back and determine to
what extent that building structure at grade, not elevated, would affect
our community rating system.
Page 157
March 8, 2011
We have done that. We sent a letter out on January 26th under
the Chairman's signature and we received a response on 2/19.
Essentially, Mr. Chair, what the agencies have told us is that we
participate in the community rating system and that as a member of
the community rating system we receive for the residents a premium
reduction of about $4.3 million a year. That's for 59,000 residents
throughout the county. If we would build this facility at grade, that we
would be in violation of county ordinances and the National Flood
Insurance Program, and as a result that they would recommend that
our community rating system be dropped to a level 10, which would
essentially wipe out all of the premiums that would -- the premium
savings that the residents in the county would enjoy.
So with that, Mr. Chair, what staff is recommending is that we
move forward with the recommendations that we build this structure;
we build this as an elevated structure conforming to the VE-14
regulations, as you have previously directed us to do.
I can go through some quick slides to refresh your memory on
what this facility looks like, Mr. Chair, if you'd like, or we could just
move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, we have only one question to
answer today -- or one decision to get from the Board of County
Commissioners is: Do we build it at ground level or do you build it at
FEMA level. That's the only question that needs to be answered.
How many speakers?
MR. MITCHELL: Fifty-seven.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty-seven speakers? At three
minutes apiece --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to be here for a long,
long time. I hope you don't want to break for dinner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three hours.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So we'll start with the first speaker. Let's
get going.
Page 158
March 8, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Alan Adlestein.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to operate from two
podiums. So we'll call two names. If one of you would go to each
podium, we'll try to expedite the project.
MR. MITCHELL: Ted Raia. And he'll be followed by Mary
Johnson.
Mary Johnson?
MR. RAIA: Good afternoon. My name is Ted Raia.
What started as a need to renovate and add more bathrooms has
grown into a major project to include a restaurant and deck. There
appears to be an adequate number of taxpaying restaurants in the area
and an unobstructed view of the Gulf all the way to the horizon.
What are needed are improved bathrooms for elderly and
handicaps. To reach the new level of bathrooms, they'll have to
ascend five ramps in need of a bathroom. The Americans with
Disabilities Act requires that handicap ramps cannot be longer than 30
feet, cannot have a slope greater than one on 12 and a rise of no
greater than 30 inches.
Each ramp meets those requirements. However, the sum of the
ramps equals 126 feet, almost a half football field on an incline. And
the rise is over 11 feet. They may meet the letter of the law, but
definitely not the intent.
We should first be asking FEMA for permission to expend the
bathrooms at ground level before requesting to build an elevated
restaurant and deck. I believe the staff is too young to understand the
physiologic needs of the elderly and handicapped.
Commissioner Coy Ie, your letter to FEMA was respectful and
benign, although I wish it had focused on just the bathrooms.
However, the response from a different federal official seemed
inappropriately harsh and threatening. You had directed FEMA to
refer all inquiries to the coastal management director who favors the
plan. It would be interesting to know what transpired. Was this
Page 159
March 8, 2011
wording intended to influence the commissioners to vote in favor of
the plan?
If you create this hardship, I'm sure you will be hearing from the
many elderly and handicapped, both residents and tourists.
Please bring this -- one of you who voted for it, please bring it
back on the table, because I know what the vote is for here now, and
it's not a satisfactory vote. Bring it back on the table and look at this
again in two phases. Get the bathrooms at ground level where they
belong, and then if you want to do a second phase of a restaurant, do
that differently. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Mary Johnson will be followed by Arthur
Chase.
MS. JOHNSON: Okay, I'm here for the Mangrove Action
Group, and we are a nonprofit organization that seeks to foster
stewardship and environmental awareness to preserve and protect
mangrove ecosystems, as well as the natural shoreline of Collier
County.
Our primary focus is Clam Bay, but we have also been following
the proposal for construction at the Vanderbilt Beach bathroom and
concession facility.
We're very concerned about the footprint of this facility which
would encroach into the natural dune line seaward of the coastal
construction control line on the west, and on the east it would
encroach in the required setback from the preserve.
We're also concerned about the overall size of the facility, the
30-foot height of the facility which would intrude in the context of the
natural unspoiled stretch of beach at Vanderbilt Beach. It's one of the
its most attractive features.
We recognize the need to provide larger and better maintained
bathroom facilities. However, we urge the county to seek the
necessary FEMA variances so that this facility can be built at ground
Page 160
March 8, 2011
level, which would improve accessibility as well as bring down the
roofline.
We also urge the facility be restricted to restrooms without
extensive decking, view and platforms and side ramps so that the
footprint can be reduced, which would better suit the limitations of the
site.
Thank you for your consideration. And I do have a copy of the
statement.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Can I ask you a question? Do you want
us to disregard FEMA's position and just build it at ground level and
thereby lose the discounts we have on property insurance? Is that
what you want us to do?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Okay.
MS. JOHNSON: It's my understanding that there are other
facilities that have been built at ground level, at Blue Bill and
Tigertail. And so I think that hopefully this one could be
accommodated as well.
(Applause ).
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And the fact that FEMA has told us that
we cannot means absolutely nothing to you.
MS. JOHNSON: Well, I heard that for the first time today, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Coyle, may I
comment on your remark?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If you feel compelled to do so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I do, I feel extremely compelled.
Because I think it would benefit the members of the community and
this audience.
So you all know, I recently found out that our floodplain maps
are less than accurate. And as a result, our floodplain maps, hopefully
the board will approve them being redrawn to accurately -- to moree
Page 161
March 8, 2011
accurately reflect what is the elevation of a specific property.
This morning we learned just by reevaluating two basins, and one
basin in particular that constitutes the majority of Commissioner
Henning's district, 15,000 homes, all right, which would have been
deemed to require flood insurance became exempted because of the
error in these maps.
I spoke to staff. And Mr. Casalanguida, if you would like to
speak to this, where the question of how these maps currently reflect
the elevation for this particular area applies to this situation. And it
would seem to suggest that the revision of these maps would in fact
reduce the requirement of the height because it would change the zone
that this bathroom would be in.
Now, what I also found out is we can do a site specific map
revision, and it's called a LOMAR. And in fact, the City of Naples did
it, and I have what the City of Naples did right here for the Port Royal
Club. And they were able to, by doing a map revision for the Port
Royal Club's bathroom, they were able to then have that bathroom
built at grade.
So Mr. Casalanguida, you looked at the maps and you believe
that in fact a revision -- yeah, please, go ahead -- a revision would
potentially result in this being outside of the VE zone. And I know of
course that it would be subject to review by the consultants.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, for clarification, just
let's be clear. You're correct, the maps as shown now or documented
now are less accurate than they will be. I'm not as confident in what
you're saying about the flood zone on the coast. There is no -- the
reason why we're picking up such a discrepancy in the suburban rural
area is because of that one-foot grade change.
Along your coastal line, if you look at this diagram here, your
beach front, Gulf Shore Drive, the area where the bathroom sits right
now, notice it's all in red in a VE zone. There's nothing I'm confident
about that the one-foot elevation change would change the velocityS
Page 162
March 8, 2011
zone of wave action in this area.
Now let me show you what's proposed under the current FEMA
maps. I'll put it on top. It adjusts that line to there. This is where
your existing bathroom is. Note the blue from AE to VE.
Even with the one-foot separation, I don't believe that even with
the new maps we have your coastal line is going to change
dramatically. Now, that said, I won't know for sure until they model
it. Because there's nothing from a storm action that would change
dramatically from say water level going landward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this based on a most recent
map?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is existing adopted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where is the reconfiguration based
on the most recent LIDAR, the 2010 LIDAR?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You haven't done the coastal boundary
yet. The two maps I gave you don't include the coastal boundary yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this proposal right here doesn't
consider the 2010 LIDAR.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, it doesn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let me ask another question.
The AE-12 zone, which is the blue area --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- could the bathroom without the
deck and without the restaurant be built in AE-12?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't see how, ma'am. Because Gulf
Shore Drive is here and then the only way you could go in the AE
zone is to go in this area. I don't know who owns that property.
MR.OCHS: It's a preserve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it a preserve?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I was just wondering if that
were possible.
Page 163
March 8, 2011
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, to clarify, your one-foot
change in elevation based on a new LIDAR I don't think is going to
have much impact on your coastal modeling. I don't believe that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't know what map this
was modeled after.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was modeled after the old
LIDAR.
But even if you raise the ground a foot on the land, your wave
action, your velocity zone where the storm's coming in, you're not
going to have that much of a difference.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you clarify what you said to
me during the break then? Because that's a little different than what
you're saying now.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure what I said --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That you said that you thought it
could be -- that it could in fact be --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What I said at the break was I wanted
to see what the city had done. Because you had mentioned --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's right here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, I haven't seen that document
yet.
Well, it would be hard for me to understand what they've done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you can go ahead and make a
copy for yourself and we'll enter it in the record.
I asked Ken Humiston -- where is -- is he here? Can you see --
Arthur, could you go into the hall and see if Ken Humiston is here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your letter map amendment, you'd
want to show documentation that the elevation has changed. Let me
give you an example. Let's say between the 2001 LIDAR something
had happened where the ground had been raised in this area and the
2010 LIDAR didn't pick it up. Because we talked about in the Estates
as they fly these LIDAR's, they don't pick up small pockets. Even
Page 164
March 8, 2011
these paths. So homeowners may have to do a letter of map
amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But if there's nothing to amend, in
other words, the grade hasn't changed, I have nothing to amend. The
grades on the coast are the same as they were all the time. I don't have
an area that the sand is built up or we've built up arbitrarily, it's the
same.
So a letter of map amendment is a technical document that says
the grade around here that you've flown on your LIDAR is
inconsistent with what is actually on the ground.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, I understand.
And that's basically the one hope that we have.
Commissioner Coyle, can I ask Ken Humiston to maybe
comment on the LOMAR to see if that would be an option for us?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I don't understand the point, quite
frankly. The only choice we've got is to build it at the FEMA level or
to build it at grade. If -- or not build.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or don't build it, yeah, that is an
option.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'll say once again, this is not a
rehearing for the decision to build it. If you want to have something
reconsidered, it must be done in accordance with our policies. The
time for reconsideration of that project is gone. It is over.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: It was in the summer and we
weren't here.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Wonder why. On purpose.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, sure.
So the point is that we have one decision to make here -- and we
can take all night to make it, if you wish -- and the decision is whether
we build it at one level or we build it at another level. It's that simple.
Page 165
March 8, 2011
Okay, let's finish up with the speakers. We're going to sit here
and debate this --
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chase will be followed by Susan Snyder.
MR. CHASE: My name is Arthur Chase. I'm a retired state
senator from Massachusetts. I'm now a resident of Pelican Bay.
And I certainly agree with everything that Mary Johnson said and
Ted Raia, so I'm not going to repeat those statements.
But I also understand that the existing bathrooms are now in the
preserve. That being the case, I think that there should be more
checking by the County Commissioners to see what can possibly be
done.
Building to the second level should be almost out of the question,
because it serves no purpose. You're looking for bathrooms -- and as
Ted Raia pointed out, you would have to walk uphill a half a football
field in order to reach it, and we have to be prepared for an awful lot
of accidents on the way up. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Susan Snyder will be followed by Bruce
Burkhard.
MS. SNYDER: Commissioners, my name is Susan Snyder. I
live at the north end of Vanderbilt Beach and a board member of the
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
I also question the excessive planned height of this building.
And I heard prior to this meeting that FEMA requires that the building
be at a greater elevation than the existing bathroom building.
At the same time I've seen the plan for bathroom facility at the
north end of the beach near Wiggins Pass entrance showing a
one-story ground level building.
Why would there be a difference in the FEMA requirements at
two ends of the same beach? Well, one possibility is the elevations
are varying. So on March 5th my husband used an altimeter feature
on his GPS to compare the elevations at both locations.
Page 166
March 8, 2011
The proposed area of the south, we just went right to the
bathroom that exists right now and laid it on the floor of the bathroom
level. The top -- that level is at 13 feet above sea level. And then we
went to the bottom of the ramp and that was 10 feet above sea level.
Then we went to the north end of the beach by the pass. The
ground level is at four feet. So we're talking four feet at the north end
with a level at the bathroom being at ground and we're talking about
something at the south end which is twice the elevation requiring an
elevated area.
So then I thought, well, maybe it's the flooding issue. So I
looked at the FEMA preliminary DFIRM viewer map which shows
the south facility is at a zone labeled -- I got VE-13, not VE-14.
VE means, for the people in the audience, that this area has a one
percent chance of being flooded by a storm surge created by
wind-related events like hurricanes and tropical storms.
Special flood plan (sic) management requirements apply in these
zones, and one states that all buildings must be elevated on piles or
columns so they don't flood.
The 13 that follows the VE designation is the base flood
elevation. If you look at my thing up here, therefore 13 feet above sea
level is the elevation FEMA requires.
Since the present facility is 13 feet above sea level, additional
height for a new facility is not required by FEMA.
(Applause.)
MS. SNYDER: However, there is a FEMA compliance problem
at the other end, since the location straddles the line between zone
AE-12 and VE-13.
Those zones, AE-12's, require that communities in Zone AE must
require -- they must require that all new construction have the lowest
floor elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Twelve feet is the
base flood elevation and ground level is four feet.
To be in compliance, that bathroom facility should be elevated to
Page 167
March 8, 2011
eight feet, if that's what we're looking at.
In conclusion, both the south and north facilities should provide
adequate, modern, well maintained bathroom facilities that meet
FEMA height requirements. But those height requirements are not
that much. To comply with FEMA, the bathroom facility at the south
end of Vanderbilt Beach does not have to be any higher than the
present one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ma'am, your time has expired.
MS. SNYDER: I know.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Bruce Burkhard to be followed by Sue
Levall.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I please ask a question on
that, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, if we
could get through this a little faster.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, give me a hint.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was suggested that Mr.
Casalanguida check into the permitting process of the Port Royal Club
facility. Why don't we give that direction. And I think that will
hopefully satisfy the speakers concerns, if it can be built at grade.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I interject on that?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a minute. Let's stay on this topic.
Yeah, I think that all that will do is have this hearing all over
again. We'll go off and check on that and then we'll come back and
have another hearing and hear the same people say the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Here's the thing. You need a
variance, a land variance, correct? You might not have enough votes
to get a land variance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think they need -- my
understanding from meeting with Gary is that four variances, if I'm
Page 168
March 8, 2011
correct, if my memory serves me correctly, is required. We would
need the mean high water variance, the vegetation line variance, the
coastal construction setback line variance. I forget what the fourth
. .
vanance IS.
When Commissioner Coyle says, you know, this is only -- I
mean that it's already been done, it isn't done because we can't even
get a permit before the board approves these variances. We haven't
even applied for a permit because the board hasn't approved these
vanances.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could finish.
My concern is we're going to kick this down the road, keep on
spending money at the direction that we have been going and
ultimately not do anything. So if there's a way to accommodate the
public, Mr. Casalanguida is very capable of bringing back an answer
what Commissioner Hiller -- Nick was talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, you're talking about him bringing
it back at some future date?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A future date to see if we can do
it based upon what happened in Port Royal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well--
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It just means we repeat all this stuff
again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you're going to repeat it
forever until we get what the public wants.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You do bring up an interesting point
about the variances. If you need four votes to get the variance for this,
why are we talking about it at all?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. If--
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Vote it down.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Gary, I'm looking for somebody for an
answer.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, those four items would be
Page 169
March 8, 2011
covered under one variance, which would be under the CCSL variance
that we would request. If we built the bathroom in its current location
right now exactly on the same footprint, we would need a CCSL
variance anyway. So we're going to need the variance if we build the
same bathroom, because it runs through -- we have the -- it runs
through the CCSL --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not the point. The point is, if you
need four votes for the variance, then why are we talking about this
since we know there's not four votes. here to approve it? Why are we
even talking about this?
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: Commissioner, when the design for this project was
approved by the board last year, the vote was 4-1, I believe. And so,
you know, I guess we didn't anticipate --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Things change.
MR.OCHS: Yeah, well, they do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You didn't anticipate I was going
to win?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So really, the point is that no matter
what we decide here, when we get to the point of getting the variance
we're not going to have enough votes to go ahead. So why are we
doing this?
(Applause.)
MR.OCHS: It's the direction that the board gave us at the time.
If you want to change direction, then we take a new one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I'd like to do, just so
-- I'm sorry, go ahead, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, everybody is saying four here.
Page 170
March 8, 2011
Variance is a three, unless I'm missing something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's only one
Commissioner saying four.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. What I'm saying is that I'm hearing
conversation that it's four votes. Unless there's a special rule here
dealing with this type of variance, our variances require three votes,
not four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, my point
hasn't changed. And I don't mean to interrupt, we want to stay on the
same topic. We don't know if we're going to get the variance. We
might not have enough votes.
If there's a way to satisfy -- listen to the taxpayers, I think we'll
be better of getting that variance.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, you know, you can kick this
down the road, we can see how we can satisfy the taxpayers, or give
direction to bring a variance and see where it goes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Jeff, are you listening?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there some way we can get
through that point to make sure that there's three commissioners who
will vote for it? I mean, this went through one hell of a process to get
where it is today. And if this is going to be an obstacle, it's something
we should come across sooner than later.
Help me through this now. How do we get to the point we get to
vote a variance? Do we have to --
MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to have to take public
testimony during public hearing, you're going to have to listen to that
public testimony in public hearing before you make up your minds.
You cannot predetermine the issue.
Page 171
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so let me go through this
a little bit in order.
If we go with approving this today as far as building this
according to FEMA's requirements as it is here, then it still has to
come back for us (sic) with a variance which will require three votes
also; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct. But you'll have a different
issue then. Your issue won't be one story or two stories, your issue
will only be the variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, right now the issue is yes
or not. We're reasonably certain we're not going to be able to build it
other than two stories unless we keep the present one now, right?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not true.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, your issue was the FEMA letter. That's
all the -- that's the only issue that's before you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're right back to the
original premise that we had when we started this meeting, that the
whole issue is dealing with FEMA at this point in time.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The variance is down the road
when we get through this part.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's get on with the speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me ask a question. I've
been waiting patiently.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm so sorry, I didn't mean
to go in front of you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right.
Let me ask a question. The bathrooms as they are are not
adequate anymore, we all know that. And let me ask a question.
Can we rebuild on the same piece of property without going upc
Page 172
March 8, 2011
and without -- and with FEMA approval, or must we go up? Because
I don't want my insurance bill to go up. Everybody that pays flood
insurance now, according to this, says our flood insurance will go up.
But is that really true, or can we just build it at grade?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, if we build the exact same
structure at the --
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No. No.
MR. McALPIN: -- if we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please don't talk out there. I'd like
to hear the answer.
MR. McALPIN: Ifwe build the exact same structure now, we
would have to build it elevated, okay? We'd have to build--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You cannot build --
MR. McALPIN: We would have to build an elevated structure,
because it is in a VE-14 zone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And FEMA says --
MR. OCHS: At the present location.
MR. McALPIN: At the present location it would be a VE-14. It
would be elevated.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why did you stipulate at the present
location?
MR.OCHS: Ma'am, because you asked me if we rebuilt it at the
present location. So I was just trying to answer your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I didn't know if there was
maybe anything there --
MR. OCHS: No, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- if we moved it somewhat. No,
okay, fine.
Because here it says according to the FEMA, flood insurance
policyholders now enjoy more than $4.3 million in premium savings
every year. The county is expected to have a much more robust and
effective flood damage prevention program compared to a non-CRS
Page 1 73
March 8, 2011
community. And the proposed development by the county does not
reflect the CRS Class 6 standard. County's participation in the CRS
will be placed in jeopardy. Should the county proceed with the
development of this non-compliant building, we will recommend that
Collier County be retrograded to Class 10, which provides no
premium savings. That means everybody's insurance goes up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, not everybody's. It's 60 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, anybody that doesn't -- that's
not in the flood --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The 60,000 people --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pay flood insurance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, it would be about $70 a
year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all of your flood insurance, you
that live on the beaches, as well as mine will go up. And I don't really
want my insurance to go up. It's killing me as it is to be out of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, this is flood insurance, not
homeowners insurance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I pay flood insurance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I know, I do too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I just wanted to know if we
could just go at grade. No, we cannot. Okay.
So in other words, we could do nothing and leave this thing just
crumble, right?
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Probably.
And I will also say this: I asked that same question two years
ago about why did we have to elevate it. And I insisted on an answer
from the staff because I thought it was ridiculous. And I got the same
answer then that I got this time but I asked it myself of FEMA.
So I've asked that twice, and I've gotten the same answer, that we
cannot do this at grade. So nevertheless, let's have the next speaker.
Page 174
March 8, 2011
MR. MITCHELL: Bruce Burkhard will be followed by Sue
Levall.
MR. BURKHARD: Bruce Burkhard, 283 Oak Avenue, in
Vanderbilt Beach.
I'd like to point out that this same commission direct the staff, as
you just pointed out, Commissioner Coyle, to reduce the size of the
proposed bathroom facility at the north end of Vanderbilt Beach.
What was the reason? To save construction costs, thus being
financially responsible. That's what this commission mandated the
staff to do.
In the name of reason and consistency how can this same board
contemplate a two-story facility that would be both larger and more
costly than the north bathroom?
Furthermore, the north bathroom did not require any variances
since it's sited well behind the coastal construction setback line. I
don't deny current bathrooms are inadequate, but let's be consistent
and most of all let's be financially responsible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Insurance. There you go.
MR. MITCHELL: Sue Levall will be followed by Marcia
Cravens.
MS. LEVELL: Sue Levell, Pavilion Club.
County government is pure democracy working. I would like to
say, you have been trying to accomplish this mega structure for
several years. Many of us in this room continue to come to these
meetings.
Now, this one was approved over the summer when the snow
birds were gone, so some of us couldn't really be there involved in
that. And some of you weren't even up here because you weren't
elected yet.
However, what was needed and is still needed is restrooms.
Restrooms that are clean and well maintained and larger than they are.
Now, in order to get more tourist tax, there's a grandiose plan to build
Page 175
March 8, 2011
restaurants and observation decks and all of the above. Those are not
needed. The taxpayers do not need to pay for the construction costs.
The taxpayers do not need to pay for pensions for maintenance. They
do not need to pay for personnel. They do not need to pay for salaries.
They need clean restrooms. Yes, they will probably have to come up
not nearly as high as they would if you have a restaurant or an
observation deck. That is what you were asked by taxpayers probably
to provide, not to provide what you are suggesting and what you're
trying to vote on.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Marcia Cravens will be followed by David
Jeskie.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon and thank you for this
opportunity to speak. I am getting a little bit of laryngitis here, so I
hope you can understand me.
I'm currently the chair for conservation in Collier County for the
Sierra Club Calusa Group. My statements reflect consideration and
recommendations from that perspective. I also have approval to make
a recommendation from the main chair of the Sierra Club Calusa
Group.
I sent all of you an e-mail with some considerations. I'm going to
reiterate some of those for the record.
Because of Vanderbilt Beach's popularity there is an undeniable
need to increase the number of stalls and need to improve maintenance
of cleanliness at its restroom facility.
Our members of the Sierra Club have not voiced any other needs.
I respectfully add an observation: That our five Collier County
districts have limited funds, and every dollar that's unnecessarily spent
on this proj ect reduces the availability of that fund for proj ects in your
districts. It's not just the cost of constructing the initial building, it's
the ongoing cost of maintaining it. And that will not come from TDC
funds, that will come from general funds. That reduces what's
Page 176
March 8, 2011
available to each of you in your districts and your citizenship.
The natural resources of the beach and dune are permanently
altered by this massive project, thereby reducing the public's ability to
fully enjoy the existing beach and dune. There are potential adverse
impacts to sea turtles, birds and other species that may be affected by
this plan.
FEMA regulations do not justify the planned height with several
layers of stairs and four or five levels of ramps necessary for access to
it. In this instance blind adherence to FEMA regulations would cause
height related hazards for all persons and hinder access for those who
have physical impairments.
I believe someone was going to cede time to me?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Wait a minute, hold on. Hold on. Who
is ceding time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Her husband.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I've got three hands up. I don't
have any names up.
MS. CRAVENS: I only need one.
MR. CRAVENS: Tom Cravens.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Tom Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: I think that's all I need, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS . CRAVENS: The businesses at -- to get back to the height
related hazards for all persons, and that height also hinders and in
some instances would completely impede access for handicapped
persons.
The reality is that all visitors to Vanderbilt Beach Park need easy
access to restrooms.
Also, businesses near Vanderbilt Beach Park have to compete
with a public funded concession facility in this plan.
There seems to be a real appetite -- a growing appetite for
constructing larger and larger projects within our coastal zone area.
Page 177
March 8, 2011
Many feel that that is not the correct way to go, that this is a fiscally
irresponsible way to deal with our funds.
There's nothing at Vanderbilt Beach Park right now that obstructs
a view of the entire length of the beach or the Gulf of Mexico from
any point along that beach segment.
There is indisputable fact by the people that you can see here that
there's heavy opposition for what is being proposed here. We're being
told that we can only limit our comments to whether or not this
particular plan, one plan, no alternatives, whether it gets built at grade
level or whether it gets built at 14 feet higher.
I would like to comment that that should not be the only plan.
The existing facility is in the preserve. I believe there could be an
alternative plan that would move that facility back somewhat more
towards the -- more landward, and that it could be either improved by
adding more bathroom facilities to the existing structure or to build it
at the same footprint at the same grade that it currently exists. The
original structure was built at AE-13, that was the flood zone at the
time that it was built. And there really should be no reason why you
cannot continue it at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if the FEMA says we can't and
the FEMA says all of our -- maybe you don't care about your
insurance rates, but there are about 15,500 other people that do. And
so when you keep saying that, do you think it's okay to charge
everybody else rather than abide by FEMA's rules?
MS. CRAVENS: Commissioner Fiala, FEMA was only referring
to this one conceptual plan. They have not weighed in on any
alternative plans. Unfortunately --
(Applause.)
MS. CRAVENS: -- the public has not had any ability -- there
have been no alternatives. There has been no response to a request for
alternatives. The public only wants to improve the bathroom facilities,
and the opposition is to this expansion that includes an observation
Page 178
March 8, 2011
deck and a concession. So this has not been addressed by FEMA.
They have not addressed an alternative of only building bathroom
facilities.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: David Jeskie will be followed by Mary
Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: I already spoke.
MR. JESKIE: Yes, my name is David Jeskie. I live at 1713
Birdie Drive, in Mr. Coletta's district.
Two years ago I decided to move to Collier County from up
north. I started a family two years ago, and have been a big supporter
of Collier County government.
Approximately six months ago I went forward and poured my
life savings into a facility at 15 5 Vanderbilt Beach Road. Used to be
the Old Circle K building.
Over the last four to six years it has seen three to four different
owners, all running it at different levels, not running it at a very
acceptable level.
Recently I was informed of this concession facility. I didn't
know in Collier County that government competes with private
businesses. Where do you get off on putting a concession stand in a
facility when you have numerous businesses surrounding the beach?
(Applause.)
MR. JESKIE: It just appalls me that -- you know, the design is
great if you're in the middle of a state forest and there's no other
facilities around.
You know, I hear a lot of speculation that, you know, one of the
commissioners wanted to get his name on the building and this and
that. That's great. Put his name on one of the stalls in the existing
bathroom.
(Applause. )
MR. JESKIE: I really find it appalling that we've come to this
Page 179
March 8, 2011
level where you're looking to propose a big pink elephant out on the
beach.
Fortunately I provide a lot of the restroom facilities for the
beachgoers, and I do it with pleasure, okay, knowing that there's a
beautiful view, there's a pristine beach. And not one of my customers,
nor have any of my local neighbors on Birdie Drive in Valencia Golf
and Country Club, Mr. Coletta, provided any support for this. It was
nice to push it through in the summer months when no one was
around. I really find it appalling that you're even at this level.
I really strongly suggest that the commissioners take a step back,
look at it from strictly expanding the existing bathrooms. The existing
bathrooms are nicely tucked away out of view.
And I will continue to provide a beach residence with bathroom
facilities. But please, don't put me out of business by competing with
me from a concession business. I didn't know you guys were in the
hot dog business also. Okay, leave that to the private industry, okay.
I'm more than happy to compete with my next door neighbor on
providing soft drinks and facilities. The economy's tough enough. It's
tough enough making a dollar year around, but it's even harder when
you have a county that's going up against you in providing concession
stands when there's plenty of opportunity within 100 feet of your
existing facility. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Rick Medwedeff.
And he'll be followed by Mary Balen.
MR. MEDWEDEFF: Commissioners, Rick Medwedeff. I'm the
General Manager at the Marriott of Marco Island, and we are one of
the largest providers of the tourist tax dollars that are collected, if not
the largest. And I just wanted to voice my opposition to this mono --
massive structure of $1.2 million bathroom facility.
I think it's indicative of a more core problem and that is that this
fund, Fund 183, beach park facilities, has amassed $11 million.
Page 180
March 8, 2011
There's $11 million sitting in this fund. And yet our county struggles
to market itself to the general public.
We have the lowest percentage of funds of our tourist tax dollars
going against marketing of any of our competitors. Over the last three
years our -- Naples Community, Collier County, had a 54 percent
occupancy. That was the average over the last three years. Miami,
Key West, Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale who are our big
competitors had an average of 64 percent occupancy, 10 points of
occupancy higher than 'us.
I would suggest that the community leaders in those communities
have accurately put the money to good use in bringing tourism to their
communities and employing the people that work there.
I would remind the County Commissioners that there are 30,000
residents in our county that work in tourism. I'm not sure what -- I
know there's 300,000 that live here. I'm not sure what percentage of
the working force that represents, but I would suggest it's a significant
percentage of the working force. And our working force is getting
less hours than our competitors because we are misaligned in our
allocation of our tourist tax dollars, significantly.
My suggestion is we have to relook at the funding of how we
spend our money. We need to bring more people into our community
to employ these 30,000. I've raised this issue to the county
commissioners in workshops and suggested that one of our biggest
issues is airlift into our destination. We don't compete. I suggest we
rechannel monies to do a better job of competing.
I think that we can refurbish bathrooms for a lot less than $1.2
million. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mary Bolen will be followed by Michael
Seef.
MS. BOLEN: I'm Mary Bolen and I'm from Pelican Bay.
And we do need more restroom facilities down there, but we
Page 181
March 8, 2011
don't need this monstrosity of a structure. I mean, this is a beautiful
natural area. Take a look at it. It doesn't blend in with anything, it
just sticks out like a sore thumb. We've got things that we don't need
there, we didn't ask for.
Please just give us what we want. And I think from all the
comments you can see that what you've got there is not what we want.
(Applause. )
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Seefwill be followed by Robert
Schubring.
MR. SEEF: Michael Seef. Good afternoon.
I am a resident of North Naples and I serve as the chairman of the
community affairs for Beachwalk. And I think we have pretty much
total agreement that this white elephant, or as the gentleman before,
said pink elephant, costing more than probably $1.2 million as stated,
probably is closer to 1.4, and we know what kinds of overruns we
have on a variety of projects. Plus the operating costs, which come
out of the general funds, as was mentioned before also.
So on the basis of the total cost -- and providing restaurant and
concession and viewing areas is not something that we need. And at
this time when we have limited funds which probably should be
directed to other things like marketing and sales for tourists and for
beach renourishment and other purposes around.
Now, as far as the FEMA issue and, you know, building up high
or staying low, one of the things -- my understanding is that we are
allowed by FEMA to expand the current at grade facility by 50
percent of the value of the current facility. Now how that's valued, I'm
not sure. But being a coastal -- being a very wonderful location in
terms of coast, it should be valued quite high. So maybe that in fact
will enable us to have a significant expansion.
Basically we're just looking for ADA requirements and to avoid
the 200 feet of ramp and high elevation that we've been talking about.
So consider that, consider going back to FEMA and inquiring what
Page 182
March 8, 2011
that option is.
In summary, I also believe that however -- whatever the
bathrooms are, they're not in themselves going to attract peoples to
this beach. And we'd like to keep it pristine, because people come for
the ambience of the beach, not for the toilets and washrooms and
concession stand.
So again, based on cost, based on what tourists and what local
residents want and based on some options from FEMA, let's not just
go and assume that we're going to have this high structure, $1.4
million, concession stand and viewing area, et cetera. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Schubring will followed by Bobbie
Lublin.
MR. SCHUBRING: Good afternoon. My name is Bob
Schubring. I've been in this county since 1980. I worked for Kraft
Construction all my life, or it seems like all my life. I built the
courthouse, I built the jail. I don't know what all I've built in this
town. And I have never ever seen anything that looked like that.
(Applause.)
MR. SCHUBRING: Florida Gulf Coast High School, I built that.
It's a beautiful facility.
That's an ugly facility. I'm sorry, folks, that young man that
spoke, we're taking away his livelihood. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be. J. Rigg Haupt, and
he'll be followed by Stephen Cosgrove.
MR. COSGROVE: I'm Stephen Cosgrove and I'm here for
myself and as a member of Co-ed. I had a presentation put together to
talk about financial responsibilities. I didn't know at the time we were
just going to talk about two choices.
I think when you listen to these things, it's very interesting. I
Page 183
March 8, 2011
think Commissioner Coyle gives us a false dichotomy on our real
choice today. And when Mr. McAlpin speaks, he uses exact wording
to get what they -- I think they have a perceived notion of what they
want the outcome to be.
I don't think we have a false dich -- only two choices, a FEMA
level or ground level. I think Ms. Cravens mentioned there's other
alternatives. One of the other alternatives could be to make the
restrooms floodproof. I would like to ask the commissioners,
somebody could ask the staff to look into floodproofing the existing
things, putting electrical code above flood level. You just build the
design completely different. And you look at it a floodproof, which I
think FEMA has some designs on that. And I don't know all the laws
on that, but I think it would be worth looking into.
I think it's interesting that one of our commissioners has no
problem taxing every home $50 a year on their property for Jackson
Labs but now has an issue with maybe 4.5 million in "FEMA penalties
to just flood elevation.
(Applause.)
MR. COSGROVE: So I think there's a little bit of change there.
And Mr. McAlpin spoke, he used words like build the exact
structure. Well, of course if you build the exact structure, if you ask
for that you're going to get the answer that you want. But if you ask
what can we do, how can we do this at ground level that we have right
now, you might get a different answer.
So I would ask that you ask a different question when you go to
FEMA. Don't ask for building an exact structure or saying can we
have FEMA level or just grade level with penalties. You know, I
think we should work with the Collier County code also, take some
time to defer this proj ect to see if we can get around that or find a way
to -- put our good attorneys here to use to find a way to get around
some of those penalties. You know, who says we have to have them
just because we have one answer or two answers that way?e
Page 184
March 8, 2011
So again, there's another choice. I think we should offer this
young man over here a low cost loan from our Economic
Development Council to rebuild his building at code and maybe we
could give him a long-term lease to let 'em use our restrooms --let the
county use his restrooms (applause) so we don't have to come up--
even in the budget, I was going to talk about your budget. You talked
about creative thinking. Let's get some creative thinking in Collier
County instead of tax and spend. Let's move on with this and hope we
aren't stuck with this monstrosity.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Michael Moore, and
he'll be followed by Daniel McGuire.
MR. MOORE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Mick Moore, and my family owns and operates the Vanderbilt Beach
Resort on Vanderbilt Beach.
We're concerned about the proposed bathrooms for two reasons:
First, as a speaker previously said, as an owner and operator of the
hotel, we actually collect tourist development taxes. And we're very
concerned about the wasteful expenditure of TDC funds.
Although we agree that the current bathrooms need to be
expanded, I agree with the speakers who have said that the only issue
that FEMA has addressed is the design that was proposed.
We have experience with flood-gating and we've seen on Fifth
Avenue and Third Street that buildings can be flood-gated and
flood-proofed and built at ground level, even in a FEMA area.
So why hasn't that question been asked? Why hasn't something
been proposed with that possibility? And if it hasn't, why don't we do
that before we just jump off and build a two-story facility that nobody
in the area wants.
Secondly, it seems to us that a much better use of the money
would be for beach renourishment, which is one of the things the TDC
monies are designed to be used for. And that would directly expand
Page 185
March 8, 2011
the beach, Vanderbilt Beach.
And if you're truly concerned about beach access, then the most
direct approach is to expand the area of the beach. There's been no
beach renourishment in the area for more than five years. Why are we
going to wait to deal with this issue until we have a crucial problem?
Are we going to make it an emergency like Wiggins Pass so that one
day we suddenly have to have an emergency beach renourishment like
has been done in other parts of the county?
I suggest that we should look at spending TDC monies for what
they're for, which is beach renourishment and other tourist
development activities, not expanding the bathroom for local
residents.
Second, although I understand the commission's position on not
bringing this issue back, almost everybody who has spoken today has
asked the commission to do that. Because the initial design with the
concession stand is one that causes a lot of concern to business owners
like me, and it certainly causes concern to concessionaires in the area,
included Buzz's Lighthouse. Buzz's Lighthouse is a small restaurant
not far from the public beach. And your decision to put a concession
stand in a -- allow a concession stand in this facility will not only
impact the beach store, it will also impact Buzz's Lighthouse.
So we ask you to take the affirmative and realize that it is time to
reconsider this.
Let's explore expanding the bathroom facility and keeping it at
ground level by flood-gating the structure. Let's go back to FEMA
and let's ask them questions without a preordained answer. There's got
to be a way that we can find a way to do this. We're doing it at the
north end. There's a bathroom facility going in at ground level. Ifwe
can do it there, why can't we do it on the other end? Let's go back and
ask the right questions. Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're going to take a IO-minute break
Page 186
March 8, 2011
for the court reporter. So we'll be back at 5: II -- 5: 12.
(Recess. )
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're back in session.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I hear a baby.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Is she a registered speaker?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Not yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Call the next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Kaye Miller, and
she'll be followed by Bob Vezza.
MS. MILLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Kaye Miller for the record.
I'm here to say that I am in support of updating the bathrooms at
Vanderbilt Beach. I am, however, against the building to be built at
FEMA heights. I think it would be a distraction at our beautiful
beach. I don't think the attraction there when we have visitors come to
Collier County and want to enjoy the features at Vanderbilt Beach, for
them to be more concerned about the building there than the beach
and the beautiful views that we have there. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Suzanne Rhea.
Suzanne Rhea?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who was the Bob somebody?
MR. VEZZA: My name is Bob Vezza, I'm a resident of
Vanderbilt Beach. I'm going to cede my time to Rollin Rhea.
MR. MITCHELL: Suzanne Rhea?
MS. RHEA: I'll yield my time to Rollin.
MR. RHEA: Thank you. For the record, my name is Rollin
Rhea. Most everybody in this room knows me. I've been working on
this project since its inception. And I've got to tell you that there's two
people in this room that have spent four years of their life on this
Page 187
March 8, 2011
project. And one of them is a very, very good salesman. And that's
yours truly, Gary McAlpin. He brought you the pier, he brought you
the bathroom with whipped cream on the top. And he's a darn good
salesman. And he talked the commissioners into buying his program.
You voted for it.
And I don't -- but when I got to looking at this thing, I realized
the public in general didn't know what this project was all about and
the magnitude of it. So I need to explain that. And that's where these
boards came up that you've seen throughout your community for the
past three and a half years. And when the public saw what that's all
about, they didn't like it.
I want to see a hand raised for the people in this room that agree
that this Taj Mahal of bathrooms is a good idea. Don't be bashful, go
ahead and raise your hand.
Okay, those of you that don't believe it's a good idea, put your
signs up and tell these commissioners what you think.
Now, out of all due respect to the commissioners, and thank you
for what you give to our community, you've got a tough job, but this is
a tough deal. This community does not want these bathrooms. What
don't you understand about no?
I understand all the FEMA stuff. We've got to work around that.
We've got to come together. We've got to bring some unity to this
community and give our taxpaying base what they want. There are a
lot of creative, wonderful, very intelligent people in this room.
And we thank the commissioners for their guidance in helping us
bring some unity to this cause. But it's darn well time you listen to the
people that pay your salary. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Denise Odell, and
she'll be followed by Olga Williams.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Olga's gone.
MR. MITCHELL: What about Denise Odell?
Page 188
March 8, 2011
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: No? Okay.
Carol Wagner, and she'll be followed by Louise McDermott.
MS. ODELL: I yield my time to Carol Wagner.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Louise is gone.
MR. MITCHELL: Carol Wagner?
MS. WAGNER: I'm Carol Wagner and I yield my time to the
next speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Nancy Gunn. And she'll be followed by
Robert Gunn.
MS. GUNN: I yield my time.
MR. GUNN: I yield my time to the next speaker, thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay, Chris Batchelda?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: No?
Okay, Trent young?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Jackie Bammel?
MS. BAMMEL: I don't need a half an hour.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. And again, I also would like to
thank you for the service that you give to our community.
I mentioned the last time we talked about this issue that you are
the guardians --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's your name?
MS. BAMMEL: Jackie Bammel.
You are the guardians of our beautiful beaches that we have here.
Please, please guard them.
I have only a question for you and for staff. I agree with
everything else that has been said so far. And my question is: What
recourse do we as taxpayers have now that this decision to build this
bathroom facility has already been made? Legally do we have any
recourse? And if so, what is that?
Page 189
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, any opinions?
MR. KLATZKOW: This board voted for this. Whether or not
you want to continue budgeting it is a board decision, but you voted
for this.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. BAMMEL: Am I hearing that there is no recourse
whatsoever?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: If you don't budget it, it won't
happen.
MS. BAMMEL: So you are not willing to take another look at
this decision to build this facility; is that what I'm hearing?
It doesn't seem possible to me that we can't take another look at
something, especially something as important as this project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're not hearing that from me.
MS. BAMMEL: So then there can be another look.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's not necessarily another public
hearing on that particular subject, but as we go forward with the plan
there's no reason why the staff couldn't look at alternatives to see if
there's something we have overlooked.
(Applause.)
MS. BAMMEL: Commissioner Coyle, I would like to ask then
as a very interested taxpayer, how can we be part of that process?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, the public has been part of this
process since it started. We have held all these --
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No. No.
MS. BAMMEL: Well, yes, but I mean of the continuing look at
as we go forward. Will this be advertised as another hearing? Will
we be informed? Will this only be done behind closed doors? Ijust
don't understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It probably will not be advertised as
another hearing, and I don't know how it's going to turn out today.
You want to take a shot at trying to answer?
Page 190
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just a little bit, if I can.
We still got to go through the variance, we still have to go through the
budgeting process. They're all public hearings.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah.
MS. BAMMEL: So let's take the budgeting process. When you
go through your public hearing for the budgeting process, if we have a
show of force as you see now and people say they don't want to spend
the money to build a facility of this size, is there the opportunity then
to change a look at what is going to be done?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would strongly encourage you
to take advantage of every opportunity. I'm not a fortune teller, I can't
tell you how it will turn out, but your question was what opportunities
are there still left in this process, and I wanted to share that with you.
MS. BAMMEL: Okay. We'll be watching. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be John Donley, and
he'll be followed by Barbara Donley.
MR. DONLEY: John and Barbara Donley will yield their time
to the next speaker. But we are opposed to the structure.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Mick Moore.
MR. MOORE: I've already spoken.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Work from the other pile.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Tim Nance.
MR. NANCE: Commissioners, Tim Nance. Good morning. I
will try to speak to you again today.
I was feeling a little hostility from my earlier presentation, but I
will just make a couple of remarks. Almost everybody in the audience
knows that I'm not a coastal resident. I'm from District 5 out in
Golden Gate Estates.
But what I would like to ask you to consider doing right now is
maybe a new concept in Collier County and that is to consider stop
wasting taxpayers money. And I believe that there's a couple of pretty
Page 191
March 8, 2011
innovative things that you can do. I believe that many of the
commissioners who have served together for IO years, I know that you
have served together through some of the most lavish times and the
wealthiest times in Collier County and you've honed the spending art
to its highest level.
But I do believe that if you considered spending a little more of
your time rather than shall I say spending all your time lobbying for
and defending gold-plated infrastructure projects and trying to find
innovative ways to meet the needs of the people and save money that
you might find it's a very satisfying endeavor. Maybe not, but I think
it would be a new experience certainly for several of you and
something that some the residents might enjoy. So I would encourage
you to do that.
Since I was also accused of being political earlier, I will say that
there were some discussion in the halls earlier that suggested perhaps
an intervention was in order. And I reminded them that that really
wouldn't be possible until the 2012 election.
But knowing and loving you the way I do, I am confident that
you are smart enough that you could perhaps do a self-intervention
and best act in the taxpayers' interest. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Marcy Brumback
and she'll be followed by Phil Brumback.
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: They're not here?
The next speaker is Peter Tierney.
MR. BRUMBACK: I'm here. I'm fill Brumback. I'm yielding
my time to Marcia Cravens.
MR. MITCHELL: Marcia Cravens' already spoken.
MR. BRUMBACK: She can have my extra time.
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Peter Tierney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We insist that you speak.
Page 192
March 8,2011
MR. TIERNEY: Good evening. My name is Peter Tierney and I
work with Mike and Mick Moore at the Vanderbilt Beach Resort.
And I agree with everybody in this room. I think this whole
thing got a little bit out of hand. But I would suggest that there are
alternatives. We've talked about them in the groups, in the hallways.
Some of us have had experience with FEMA and some of us have
dealt with this same issue. There is a 50 percent law. I doubt you
appraise the bathroom it's going to be that high. I'm not sure.
But floodgating is certainly an opportunity, along with back flow
prevention. We've done it before. FEMA has approved it in Punta
Gorda. We actually used that for a building we were building under
the same circumstances.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Was it the VE zone?
MR. TIERNEY: I'm not sure if it's VE. But all of Punta Gorda
is under water when it rains. If anyone hasn't been up there.
Port Royal was mentioned earlier. And I would just like to
suggest that there's another viable case study out there right now. I'm
also a member of the Moorings Beach Club. If you're a resident of the
Moorings or a prior resident you can use that wonderful facility that
whoever planned that community left for its resid,ents.
They are currently building a bathroom at grade, something they
haven't had since its inception. They have -- has anyone been there
before, the Moorings Beach Club? They have been using for years
Porta-potties there. They finally lobbied the county -- or excuse me,
the city and they are building that at grade.
So I think with also breakaway construction, which is another
FEMA type construction that is approved in flood zones, back-flow
prevention and possibly floodgating, renovating the existing bathroom
is a possibility.
I also think that there are opportunities within the parking garage
that was built, because it's through a preserve, you could build a small
pathway leading into the parking garage and on the second, third or
Page 193
March 8, 2011
even the fourth floor easily construct bathrooms with gravity flow
PVC right into the county sewer system.
There are a lot of options; I just don't think we've looked at them.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. BRUMBACK: To comply with Commissioner Coyle, I am
Phil Brumback, and I'm a resident of Vanderbilt Beach.
And I concur with many of the opinions that people have
expressed today, of course. I find it troubling to hear that you think
it's difficult to revisit big portions of this whole enterprise that's now
on the table.
And the only thought I have that's I guess new from what you've
already heard is that early on when Mr. McAlpin was presenting these
programs and the commissioners were considering them, there were a
lot of correlations between the Naples Pier. But I would remind you
that the Naples Pier was built before the development of homes and
the residents became neighbors of the Naples Pier.
What you're talking about now is inserting a major construction
in an already fully developed area. I certainly concur with redoing the
facilities as far as the bathrooms. My preference certainly would be to
see them at whatever low level that can be done. And I hope that
you'll give all those options every consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker will be Kathleen Robbins,
and she'll be followed by Pat Schuberg (sic).
MS. ROBBINS: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Kathleen Robbins, I'm secretary of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association.
And not to repeat what other people have said but I'll bring up
one new point. I have heard on fairly good authority that it's only a
portion of this project that is causing the FEMA problems. And that's
Page 194
March 8, 2011
the portion of the proj ect that extends seaward from the coastal
construction line.
I would maintain that since that's a very controversial portion of
the project, the restaurant and the observation deck, which won't be an
observation deck, that that be eliminated and then your FEMA
problems go away.
This is an urban park, it has facilities surrounding it, as you've
heard from many of the business owners that are here today. They are
having a hard time making it and this won't make it any easier.
And with the variances that are required, I think if you scale back
to just restrooms, a lot of your variances go away, your community
anImus goes away.
I personally and through the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association have been with this every step of the way. The first time
that this particular project was presented to the public was at Regional
Park. I talked to Mr. McAlpin there. I said, why do we need the deck,
why do we need the restaurant? Well, I just didn't understand.
Well, then we had a private meeting with him, a few members of
our group, we said we want to see some alternatives, just the
bathrooms, forget the restaurant, forget the deck. He smiled at said,
you just don't understand.
We have tried to give him our perspective and we just didn't
understand. So -- and then it voted on last summer. I was here, you
know, what's one voice. You guys voted.
We feel like we don't have any voice. We're trying our best. Just
the bathrooms, please. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker after Pat Schuberg (sic) will
be David Galloway.
MS. SCHUBRING: My name is Pat Milford Schubring. I've
been in business in Naples since 1976. So I've been around and I've
seen a lot.
Page 195
March 8, 2011
I was told by a congressman, Congressman Mann, lots of years
ago that he was elected to serve the people and he had to listen to the
people that spoke up.
And I'm appalled that we have no choice except the big structure
or the little structure. So my suggestion is that you do the little
structure redesigned, that way you can make your vote as you say you
have to do today. And you redesign it to be within FEMA laws. That
will take care of your FEMA 400,000 or whatever it is dollars.
Do you realize that if we put a restaurant and deck up there, we
have to man it? We have an ongoing expense to not only man the
thing, to have all the overhead of employees, and we'll probably have
to have somebody watching it at night. So I think you need to really
look at whether we're saving anything by going to the bigger one or
whether we're not.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is David Galloway and he'll
be followed by Pascott.
MR. GALLOWAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I think
I've spoke to each and every one of you I think personally and about
issues and stuff like that over the last few years. I'm David Galloway,
I'm the president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association,
which consists of over 3,000 residential units with close to 112 to
113,000 residents during the season and many retail establishments.
And more of the residents would be here today, I've talked to
many of them, but some people still work in the County of Collier. So
they're at work today. They couldn't be here.
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association has taken a formal
position in opposition to these extreme building plans for this
Vanderbilt Beach Park area, which is extremely small an area.
We are not, however, opposed to updating the current restroom
facilities at ground level at a much less expense to the county
taxpayers.
Page 196
March 8, 2011
I find very few folks opposing cleaning up these restrooms.
When they were told and showed the extensive plans to construct the
concession/restaurant/observation deck, almost 4,000 square feet in
size and over 34 feet in height, they are totally appalled.
These many folks -- and these are shareholders in Collier County
-- are permanent residents of Collier County, seasonal folks, monthly
and weekly vacationers and daily tourists come to this beach --
THE COURT REPORTER: Could I get you to slow down,
please?
MR. GALLOWAY: Slow down? Really, I'm not from New
York.
-- for the noncommercialism, quietness, pristine and high quality
of this beach setting.
The obtrusiveness of this county-run concession building and
huge above-ground decking area will compete negatively with the
other businesses that are already struggling in this poor economy.
And of course our Collier County personal property tax and real
property tax, they're the payers of those.
And of course Commissioner Coyle and others, I'm sure you can
understand this, as being a business person yourselves, one of the
business owners told me just three days ago, you know what, he says
he is less than 100 feet from the edge of the proposed building. It's
like going to a poker game and funding one of the players with your
own money and having to play the game against your own money.
It is truly a fairness issue. Folks don't want any form of
government competing against private business for the same shrinking
sales revenue. It's never been right and it's not right now. It's not a
level playing field.
I recently did an informal survey of 65 to 70 adults, beachgoers,
on a recent Saturday. One of the questions I asked was, why do you
come to this beach. Other than flippant answers such as the scenery,
referring to the bathing beauties, the most common response was the
Page 197
March 8, 2011
calmness, the beauty of the beach, the nice people who visit there.
On two separate occasions, two different couples with some
small children said they drive to the west coast, especially Naples,
from the east coast, namely Miami or Fort Lauderdale, for the
weekend because they don't like all the craziness and rowdiness in
front of their families, and they know how considerate the people are
here.
Another question was how do you find the facilities at the beach?
Referring to the Vanderbilt Beach.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sir, your time has expired.
MS. GALLOWAY: I yield my time. Charlotte Galloway.
MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, dear.
She told me to speak slower. I'd have been done.
While the restrooms are better than the ones we have over there.
And we never have to really wait to use them unless it's a major
holiday here. And most people don't know that there are unadvertised
restrooms in the parking structure for the public to use. They're
unadvertised.
The final question that I asked was: What do you think of the
county if they're going to build a huge concession/observation deck
with extensive ramping? The answer was always overwhelmingly
why. Why would they want to destroy such a great beach adventure
area. They said, and I quote, the county must have a lot of money to
blow -- that's what the quote was from one man -- if they do these kind
of projects in this down perilous economy.
Those dollars can be better spent for advertising and promotion
upstate and internationally for tourists that will come to enjoy the sun
and character of Collier County, Florida.
With money also for beach renourishment, we all have beaches,
and the beaches for the -- all the beaches in Collier County, not just
for Vanderbilt Beach. This is what that money's for.
Also maintain what we already have and keeping a rainy-day
Page 198
March 8, 2011
fund for necessities that are bound to take place because of future
hurricanes and who knows if the oil spill that we were concerned with
just a short time ago would ever take place again. Remember, Cuba
now wants to drill for oil in the waters very close to Florida.
In conclusion, I ask each of the County Commissioners to oppose
this project as it currently stands, the FEMA requirements, and just do
suitable upgrades to the restroom facilities at ground level. Do what
the people want and work with FEMA. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Passcot.
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: No.
Okay, Aceves?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: No?
Marcy (sic) Shields?
(No response.)
MR. MITCHELL: No.
Fred Metcalfe?
(N 0 response.)
MR. MITCHELL: Anne Massey? And she'll be followed by
Mr. Houf(sic). M. Houf.
MS. MASSEY: I'm Anne Massey, and I live at Regatta on
Vanderbilt Beach Drive.
I stopped in January at the beach store and welcomed that guy
there, the owner, because I've seen all the comings and goings of that
owner, and it's so nice to have the boards down, and a good
representative for our beach.
Now, I'd like to know if this group had another group that put
together what we all wanted on the beach. How did you come to this
structure?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I answer that question?
Page 199
March 8, 2011
MS. MASSEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what happened was there
was a proposed pier --
MS. MASSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that one of the commissioners
wanted --
MS. MASSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- at that location. And when that
pier project failed what essentially happened was the design
incorporated this bathroom really as the start of the pier. And--
MS. MASSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so basically they took the design
and truncated it, dropped the pier portion off and left the tail end --
MS. MASSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of the -- being the bathrooms.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I disagree with that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, really? That's not what
happened?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I remember is we were
supposed to get a bucket of paint and paint the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's right. I am so sorry.
No, he's just kidding.
MS. MASSEY: Well, I remember that. That's why -- because I
was at those meetings too.
I don't understand how this developed other than maybe a side
kick off of that. And it was also voted down; we didn't want that
either.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
MS. MASSEY: So I'm wondering how you all directed the
architect to do this.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He was a good salesman.
MS. MASSEY: There's no answer?
Page 200
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We didn't see an Architect.
MS. MASSEY: What do you mean you didn't -- I just met the
Architect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's the Conceptual Architect.
He's not the real architect. He's the Coastal Zone Manager.
MS. MASSEY: So did he come up with this idea then by
himself?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you ask him?
MS. MASSEY: What?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Why don't you ask him.
MR.OCHS: Would you like us to respond?
MS. MASSEY: I did. He said he was directed by the board.
MR.OCHS: Would you like us to respond?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Please.
MR. OCHS: Gary, if you could give a brief history of how we
got where we were, starting with the old bathrooms.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
We did not take the pier bathrooms and just truncate it and come
up with this design. We have a very specific site that we have to deal
with. It's surrounded by a preserve. We've tried to utilize that site as
much as possible. The pier was located in the right-of-way of the road
and we could not use that whatsoever.
We came up with a series of designs. We vetted those with the
community. We had five vettings throughout the community, through
all the districts that we had. We came up with a conceptual design, we
brought the conceptual design back to this board. We met back with
the community. The board approved the conceptual design. The
board approved the -- to move forward with a -- the funding for the
design and the permitting and the bidding for this project, and that's
where we are.
Page 201
March 8, 2011
Every step of the way we've talked with the community and also
had approval of the board. Thank you.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No, no.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, if I might also add, just
parenthetically, that vetting included a long negotiation with the
leadership from the Pelican Bay Foundation, who sent a letter to this
board endorsing the concept that you then subsequently approved. So
that was another step in the vetting process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also with Naples Park people,
right?
MR.OCHS: Well, the contingent from Naples Park were very
supportive. They're not here right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They completely oppose it. They
completely oppose it. I went to the homeowners association meeting.
The entire board and all the members of that association oppose it
vehemently.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But at the time they didn't.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They did. They actually were part
of the North Naples Community Alliance. I worked with Olga -- who
unfortunately could not stay and many other members of that
community -- and they did not support it. There was one person in
that community -- one or two people in Naples Park. But the
community as a whole, except for these one or two people, were in
complete opposition to this.
MS. MASSEY: Thank you very much. You're right on.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: The next speaker is Kevin Dugan, and he'll be
followed by John Brinson.
MR. DUGAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Kevin Dugan.
My family and I, we own the Lighthouse Restaurant and
Lighthouse Inn. We've been in business since the late Seventies.
Page 202
March 8, 2011
We've seen a lot of change, most of it for the good. All of the change
has been because we have such a beautiful beach. Why? Because it's
quiet and that's what people want. If they want something more, they
can go up to Fort Myers Beach or over on the east coast. There's a lot
of options.
Weare for bathroom upgrades, but we aren't for the concession
area or any of the other things. We would like to somehow reach an
agreement that everyone can be happy, we can get our bathrooms and
everyone in the area will be happy about that.
However, we aren't for this plan, and I just want that to be
known, that it will definitely negatively affect my business and I will
also have to pay for it from my Lighthouse Inn. So I'll be paying for
my competition to come in and compete with me. That's the problem.
(Applause.)
MR. BRINSON: Good evening, Commissioners. And my name
is John Brinson, and I am on the board of our directors for Naples
Park.
Naples Park rejected that from Mr. Halas. We gave Mr. Halas
our piece of mind when he came to our meeting. We told him we
didn't want no pier. And Mr. Halas didn't like that too much. But I
was there that night when he was there. And you're going to ask me
why I'm still here.
And you're going to ask me why I'm still here. It's because I owe
it to the people that live in Naples Park. I know there's got to be 100
of them that's going to ask me about this meeting. I'm going to have
to repeat this meeting 100 times to let them know what happened here.
And they're going to ask me what did I think when I left there.
And to tell you the truth, I think I want to congratulate everybody here
that spoke and spoke up and spoke what was on their mind, because I
do believe we made an impact on the commissioners here. And that's
what I'm going to tell them when they ask me.
Because sitting here and listening to everybody's views on this
Page 203
March 8, 2011
bathroom, I agree with all of them. I mean, we have a pretty park
there, I love going down there to the beach.
And the people that couldn't get here are elderly people. They're
still trying to get me to the potluck dinner I won't go to. They want
me to play mahjong, I won't play mahjong. They want me to play
pinocle, I won't play pinocle. You know, I tell them I fish, I bowl, and
I go -- you know, I got other things to do.
So for them I'm here for this meeting. And I will take this
message back to them, I will take this meeting back to them. And
when we have our next meeting, I will tell them about this meeting,
what was said here and what I think about it.
And I want to thank you commissioners for listening to me and
everybody here. And I do think that you've changed your mind about
this house that you're going to build down there on the beach. And I
want to thank everybody here. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, the next speaker is Bob Naegele, and he
will be your last speaker.
MR. NAEGELE: How did I get to the bottom of the pile? I was
here first.
Thank you very much. And as it says there, I gave you the
phonetic pronunciation. It's Naegele.
MR. MITCHELL: Naegele. Sorry.
MR. NAEGELE: Thank you very much.
MR. MITCHELL: Oh, I see. I thought you were a member of a
glee club. Sorry.
MR. NAEGELE: Thank you.
Bob Naegele, 7993 Via Vecchia, in Naples. Actually, Pelican
Bay. I was on the Pelican Bay Foundation for five years, still am, and
served as the chairman from 2007 to 20 I o.
And everything that you've said here tonight -- today, I concur
with personally. And I'm speaking not as a representative of the
Page 204
March 8, 2011
foundation, even though I am on the foundation.
The last time the foundation considered this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you concurring with the board
or are you concurring with the public?
MR. NAEGELE: I'm concurring with the public.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that
for the record. Thank you.
MR. NAEGELE: Sure. For the Pelican Bay Foundation Board,
this has been a subj ect of discussion. I think we still have one more
meeting in order to approve it, Leo, if that's correct, Gary, if that's
correct. I think we have a final to look at the plans.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, you're correct.
MR. NAEGELE: Okay, good. So we haven't fully signed off on
that. The last time that we had it, there seemed to be waning support
for this. In fact, there was a 6-1 vote last time and I was the dissenting
vote.
And the reason I was the dissenting vote is because I'd heard the
Vanderbilt Beach folks, the Naples Park folks, the Pine Ridge folks
and other folks in District 2 who had challenged the legitimacy of
doing this. So I stand with them now as a -- just as a resident of
Pelican Bay that under the present configuration I don't believe it to be
a good idea.
Now, having said that, there is a solution that we can pursue, and
I think it begins politically. And if we need to go and sit with our
congressman, who doesn't reside too far from here, and tell him look
it, we have a problem, we need to solve this, you probably know
somebody at FEMA, can you march us into the right office to get this
done?
Now, it might cause us to -- with the present plan we may have to
do a reconfiguration, especially for the bathrooms. Because I think
everybody is pleased to be part of the bathroom proj ect.
So thank you very much, and it's been a long day and I thank you
Page 205
March 8, 2011
for taking your time to be here to hear us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That concludes all the presentations of
the public who are opposed.
We're now going to hear from all those who are in favor of the
proj ect. Would they please come up now?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're finished. We have
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Hiller. Which of you
wishes to be first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Always ladies first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The first thing I would like to do,
if I can release my mic here, is I would like to read an e-mail that I
received for the record. Ed Staros, who is the General Manager of the
Ritz, could not be here today, so he sent me a brief e-mail. So I'm just
going to read it.
It says, Dear Ms. Hiller: With regard to the future facility that is
being developed off Vanderbilt Beach Road, and referring to the
public restrooms at Vanderbilt Beach, I would like to go on record in
support of new, attractive and sanitary restroom facilities. God knows
we need them.
However, having spoken to dozens of people on the subject, it is
the size and scope of what is being proposed in addition to the food
and beverage concession that is turning people off. Both the deck and
the proposed food and beverage concessions are two unnecessary
components to this project. You may find it interesting that we
stopped serving food on our beach four years ago due to the seagull
infestation where food was literary being taken by the seagulls as
patrons set their food down. We also found that the leftover scraps of
food on the beach itself were tempting unsavory four-legged wildlife
Page 206
March 8, 2011
as well.
Vanderbilt Beach needs the bathrooms updated and sanitary.
That said, let's not waste funds on decks and concessions which in my
mind are not components of promoting tourism and therefore should
not be funded with tourism dollars. Best regards, Ed Staros,
Vice-President/Managing Director, The Ritz-Carlton Resort of
Naples.
I have listened very, very carefully to what everyone has said and
I actually think there were some comments that actually are very
helpful towards a solution. So based on that, I would like to make a
motion. And the motion has multiple parts, so I'll read it slowly for
the benefit of the court reporter, and I'll number the parts as I go
through it.
Number one, the motion is to have staff establish accurate
elevations of the Vanderbilt Beach bathrooms by using a surveyor to
verify the calculations submitted by Susan Snyder.
And I've had multiple copies of Mrs. Snyder's presentation made
to give to Mr. Casalanguida and his staff, and as well as for the record.
Number two: If the elevations are favorable, then to direct staff
to file a LOMAR, which is basically a letter of map adjustment, with
FEMA.
Number three: If we can get a map revision, in other words, if
FEMA does grant us the revised elevation, then to build expanded
bathrooms without the deck and the concession stand at the low
elevation allowed by FEMA, pursuant to the map revision.
Number four: If not, in other words, if FEMA comes back to us
or if the elevations result in the requirement that these bathrooms be
built at what is being proposed right now, then staff should consider
alternative designs.
Subsection A.2, item two, motion, part four. That would be to --
to do at the alternative that was recommended by -- I believe the
speaker was Mr. Tierney -- and that would be to renovate the existing
Page 207
March 8, 2011
bathrooms. Because there seems to be a general consensus that
renovation is needed. For example, for sanitary purposes we could
replace the toilets with self-flushing toilets and basically renovate
them to the extent permissible by law without having to change the
existing elevation.
And number two, if there is a need for additional bathrooms, to
add bathrooms by the garage that currently exists and build a
boardwalk through the preserve.
Another alternative would be to relocate these existing bathrooms
as expanded, again, without the deck and without the concession,
eastward of the current location in the AE zone. Whatever savings are
achieved by modifying the design should in fact be used to renourish
the beaches at Vanderbilt. The beaches at the north end have
experienced significant erosion. And it is absolutely essential that we
direct as much of our tourist development tax dollars to beach
renourishment. Because that is our number one asset. Nothing sells
tourism more in Collier County than our magnificent beaches. So I
think it's essential that we, you know, make sure that any savings that
we achieve is directed towards the end of promoting tourism. Which,
as one speaker pointed out, is the number one industry and the number
one employer in Collier County.
Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion, but I
want to expand upon it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Make that number five.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it is, because -- you know,
we all have different ideas. But I also -- the lady asked how did this
all happen. And it came to me, it was in a public meeting, and the
conceptual design was passed by a majority of the board.
You know, I'm in favor of and always been in favor of improving
the bathrooms, because that's a health, safety and welfare, I did say
that. But like the gentleman from Valencia, I was sitting there going
Page 208
March 8, 2011
through my mind, I remember this, this is just like what happens in
Washington D.C. They feel there's a need for big government to take
care of them when really people can provide themselves. So I
empathize with you in your business out there.
So that's my recollection how did it happen.
And by the way, a government (sic) was petitioning my residence
to come do what staff wants to do. I just find that really amazing in
how we evolved in a representative form of government to what we
have today.
There's also another alternative, is since we can't direct Nick
Casalanguida, all we can do is direct the County Manager and County
Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is direct the County Attorney
to ask an independent staff member, suggesting Nick Casalanguida, to
take a look at what they're doing in Moorings Park, what they did in
Port Royal, and see if there's an alternative to improving the
bathrooms without going so high.
The second thing that we can do is you can improve the existing
bathrooms and make it a women's bathroom and put the men's in the
parking garage.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I like it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because I've always noticed that
facilities, the women's need to go first. Or should go first.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my amended motion, to
include those.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We have a motion by Commissioner
Hiller, seconded by Commissioner Henning. And I have not the
slightest idea of what it says. And I do not know how it could ever be
executed. But nevertheless we have one.
So Commissioner Coletta?
Page 209
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You have your light on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a couple of observations.
There was a lot of interesting things I've never heard before. If this
motion fails, what we need to do is move forward on the original
direction we were going and to be able to approve or not approve as
far as FEMA goes. That was the original reason we met here today.
However, with that said, what harm would there be to have
someone like Nick Casalanguida look into something like floodgate
projections, as far as the casing, I don't know how it works. I never
heard it before and so I don't want to pre-judge what it is. Breakaway
walls? I don't know what in the hell the black-flow is.
The parking garage as far as bathroom goes, that doesn't sound
practical to me. People don't want to go across the street and go any
kind of distance at all, they're looking for restrooms within the
immediate area of the beach.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Elevator--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you please, sir? Right
now I just want to have a few minutes to be able to go over.
Commissioner Henning's idea, not bad. You could even save
more money if you did away with the men's room totally and just
opened up the preserve to them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Porta-Potties work.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And also, too, I've got to
be honest with you, you know, when you bring up something -- and
Commissioner Hiller, whenever you have something like this letter of
the City of Naples regarding Port of the Isles Club and the issue they
had, it would be so helpful if you could supply that to staff so they
could do their due research ahead of time. It would just make it a lot
easier and that so we're not standing there looking at something
Page 210
March 8, 2011
saying, well, is this a possibility or isn't it, you know, and scurrying all
over the place and coming back with an answer later.
Well, if this thing doesn't pass and the motion would go back to
the original thing the way the program is set up, at some point in time
when we got it coming back for review with either budget or the
variance or sometime in between, maybe we can have some of these
things answered. All new information for me. One gentleman, gosh, I
wish I wrote his name down, who brought up all these different things,
who was it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry, who brought up --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, you were the best presenter
I heard all day long. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's Peter Tierney.
MR. TIERNEY: It's not a bad idea to convert the existing
bathroom to the ladies, then you would meet the square footage
requirement without violating FEMA and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to -- if you want to
speak to us about something, we need to get you on the microphone so
it can be on the record.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He's the voice of reason. What
he just said wasn't even a bad idea too. All the things can be looked at
in a different context.
And as far as the business people in the area, sure, I feel for them.
Nobody wants to have an element of business competing with them
as far as that goes. I understand how that works. I started a Chamber
of Commerce, been involved in the business element of this
community just about forever.
However with that said, there's also the balance of the availability
of where they're going to be, the compactness of the whole thing.
Presentations today were wonderful, in some cases less than
wonderful. But it was very educational. And in some cases a little
entertaining. I thank you all for being here.
Page 211
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then we're going to take a vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The first guy that caught my
attention was Peter Tierney. And he had such a good message. I
thought, wow, now that guy's making a lot of sense. And I really
appreciated that. Then there was Phil Bromback who was good and
then Kathleen Robbins and David Galloway.
And mainly what I heard them say, and I hadn't heard this before
-- and I don't know the answer, I wish I did know the answer -- and
that is they were talking about the bathroom going in at the north end
at grounds level. Well, how can that go in at the north end at ground
level but it can't go in at ground level here? That -- I don't understand
that.
Somebody else mentioned floodgating, in fact there were a few
people, as a possibility. I don't know what floodgating is. Then they
mentioned Moorings is a building that they're putting a bathroom in at
grade. And I thought, now these were all good things, but I don't
know the answer. It's hard for me to vote on something when I don't
know the answers to those things. Wish I would have had that
information and I could have checked with staff or researched it. It's
tough when you come in and you have nothing to research, because
now you're at a loss, you have nothing to refer to. All I have is what I
was provided. And so -- and I don't know if the rest is hearsay, if
there's any other facts that support or don't support the things that you
said. Does anybody know about the ground -- the bathroom at the
north end at ground level?
MR.OCHS: Yes, ma'am. If you want us to answer all these, we
can do it for you right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that would be just great. I
would appreciate that.
MR.OCHS: Let's start with the difference.
Page 212
March 8, 2011
MR. McALPIN: The Bluebill bathroom is located in an AE zone
as opposed to a VE zone. And we will not build the bathroom at
Bluebill until the flood maps are finalized. And so what we will do is
we will build the walkover and we'll build the access point, the
turnaround, but we will hold off on the bathroom, we'll put the
foundations in for the bathroom, and we won't build the bathroom
until we know exactly what that bathroom would be. If it stays in the
AE zone, Commissioner, we will be allowed to floodproof the
building, and that's what we will do.
So we're not building any bathroom at grade, we're going to wait
and see what happens with the flood maps and then make a decision.
And if it is in an AE zone, we would be allowed to floodproof it.
Now, at Vanderbilt Beach where we're talking about these
restrooms to be, they're in a VE zone. The VE zone will not allow
floodproofing. You cannot floodproof in a VE zone. So that the
suggestions that were -- we've looked into those suggestions, we've
analyzed those, but unfortunately -- we could do that but FEMA won't
recognize it; they won't allow us to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said floodproofing. Is
floodproofing the same as floodgating?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am. We're talking about the same
thing, floodgating, floodproofing. We can't do that at the Vanderbilt
Beach bathrooms because that is located in a VE zone. So it -- we've
looked into that and that's not an option at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, then I have another question.
With -- if we just took the bathroom as it is and we just refurbished it
and brought it -- you know, just brought it up to a usable level, not--
you know, not be able to do anything else, keep it on the same
footprint but just, you know, put new toilets in there or, you know,
painted it or whatever needed to be done, can it still remain as it is and
meet FEMA guidelines?
MR. McALPIN: Ifwe refurbish the bathroom and we put new
Page 213
March 8, 2011
toilets in and paint it, we could do that. But it doesn't serve the
capacity needs. And one of the reasons why we looked at this,
Commissioner, is because we have a capacity problem there. You
have a men's room that has one stall and one urinal. And I don't -- I
forget what the women's has, whether it's two stalls or not. But that's
not enough capacity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that all for that whole big beach --
MR. McALPIN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- two?
MR. McALPIN: And that's not enough for the capacity that we
have at this location.
Now, remember, at this location we have a parking garage. We
don't have the situation where we have parking capacity problems that
we do at some of the other locations.
Now, I know that everybody won't agree with that, but we have a
parking garage there which has capacity. This is one of our most
attractive beaches towards the north end and we don't have adequate
facilities there. And so what we wanted to try to do at the same time
was upgrade, and if we go in there and we upgrade the facility,
Commissioner, the value of that bathroom is -- it's been in there for 20
years, thereabout, it has little value, so if we really start to try to
expand it we have a very little capability to do that before we have to
bring it up and elevate it or conform to the new guidelines.
So we've looked at a number of those issues, and they've all come
back that says we either have to build it on grade or we have to elevate
it. And even the existing bathroom, if we were to build the existing
bathroom, we would have to elevate it.
So I think we've addressed those items in our due diligence.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, and then
can I call the question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to draw one quick
companson.
Page 214
March 8, 2011
I don't know if you recall back I think it was nine years ago we
went through something like this with the parking garage? You do?
And it was extremely traumatic. And remember the Ritz-Carlton was
very upset, telling us they were going to go from number five to
number four star. And in the end --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think they did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- you know, they did some
planning outside, the Ritz-Carlton got to use the place after hours.
There was all sorts of concessions that were made to try to blend it
into what the neighborhood was and try to make it work. It's an
attractor, it brings more people there. We're looking for that. Now
we're trying to meet the needs of those people.
The issue before us today is plain and simple. It has nothing to do
with any of the other issues other than FEMA. But we do have this
coming back at some future time, and I really want to entertain the
idea of food as being a necessity at this here.
You know, I've heard the people out there say that the
competition with the surrounding area. That's not what I heard before.
That's new to me. So I'm not going to give up at this point in time but
I do have a concern about that. I think the bathrooms are very much
needed. I don't think you're going to get away with anything but
above grade.
I don't mind considering some other options as far as past the
bathroom what we've got in there, but the truth of the matter is, you
know, I don't see how we're going to get there any other way. And I
know I'm going to be told different in just a minute.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm going to call the question.
Unless you've got something really, really important, Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to respond to
Commissioner Coletta.
That's where if we shoot the elevations and see if in fact the
Page 215
March 8, 2011
elevations would allow for an at-grade structure in that zone, that we
could file a map amendment with FEMA, or alternatively move the
site eastward and get it out of the VE zone in the AE zone. And then,
like I said, limit it to the expansion of the bathrooms, eliminating the
deck and the concession. So we actually do have alternatives to
. explore without it being like all or nothing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could respond.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you'll love it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please, it deserves a response, it
really does.
There's no reason why if we do find out that FEMA will allow
something at grade, that we couldn't bring it back for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we have to direct staff to shoot
the elevations, and if the elevations are favorable, prepare a LOMAR,
which is a letter of map adjustment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we can address all that too
for reconsideration. In other words, we can go ahead and take a vote,
then we can direct staff to bring back some items to us to be able to do
the research and get it to us in a timely fashion. And then if that
research that they do lends us to have any doubts about the fact that
we don't need to go with the height, then we might be able to want to
bring it back for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I make a suggestion --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- based on what you're saying?
How about we continue voting on this item and direct staff now
to come back and give us those options so we don't take a vote that we
have to reconsider. Let's just continue it and instead direct staff to
determine the accuracy of the elevations as represented on the map
Page 216
March 8, 2011
and determine whether or not we could relocate these bathrooms into
the AE zone where elevation is not a problem.
And when you're moving those bathrooms, you're not talking
about a large distance.
And one thing I want to add too. Not only does the board have to
grant variances, we'd be going against our own ordinance that says we
don't want construction seaward of the coastal construction setback
line, which is a problem in and of itself. But we also have a get a
variance with respect to this location from the state.
So, I mean, we have real problems. So to the extent that we
could actually move this project eastward, we solve several problems:
We solve elevation, we also solve the variance problems. So it's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- very positive.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand what you're saying,
but I still like the first option, because that forces us to come up with a
good alternative to be able to move forward on.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, my light is on.
First of all, the staff has already taken a look at moving it. They
can't move it because of the reserve (sic). So they can't relocate it.
They've already looked at those kinds of things. This is not something
we can just decide to do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's a difficult process and they have
actually -- no, no.
I'm going to call the question. Now, I'll tell you, I find many
things about the motion attractive, but I can't support it because it is so
broad that it ties the hands of the Tourist Development Council, the
Coastal Advisory Committee by mandating how savings should be
spent by them on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So let's before we --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- beach renourishment.
Page 217
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So before we call it then, why
don't you suggest how you would like to narrow it so we have
something that would be agreeable so we have some positive
resolution on this?
So many people are here today, I think they're very concerned
about the outcome. And in their interest I think it would be a great
idea if you could put forth your recommendations and I'll modify it
accordingly.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let me tell you that I'm going to be very,
very unhappy if we give the go-ahead to this thing and then find out
that we could have done it in a different way, okay? I've been
consistent with that for two years now. And if we give the go-ahead
and we find out that we could have made -- built a one-story structure,
I am going to be very, very unhappy.
And -- but here's the thing: I'll be even more unhappy if I have to
go through this again. So what I want to do is try to get this settled to
some degree. And I would be happy to support a motion that would
tell the staff to proceed but come back to us with definitive answers to
the questions that have been raised, why can some people get this at
ground level for some locations and other people cannot get it.
There's no reason we can't rationalize this decision some way.
If we don't have any other choice, I'll support the proposal as it is
now. But I would like to have absolutely firm guaranteed answers to
the questions about why we have to go to 14 feet or anything close to
it.
And I think we can task staff to give us those answers before we
fund this project. Okay? And it could very well be a consideration
during the budget hearings.
So if the staff can come up with ways to make this less
expensive, hopefully not as high, and comply with FEMA regulations,
I'd be real happy. And I think we can formulate a motion that will get
us there.
Page 218
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got a motion on the
floor, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I know we do. So I'll call that motion
now.
So the motion was made by Commissioner Hiller and seconded
by Commissioner Henning. And that's the one I find in some respects
attractive but I can't do it because it's extends into how you spend tax
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right, I'll delete -- I'm going to
amend my motion to delete using the savings for beach renourishment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Then tell me about the rest of it
now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So again, basically number one, to
direct staff to establish accurate elevations by using a surveyor to
verify the calculations that were presented here at the hearing today by
Mrs. Snyder.
That if the elevations are favorable, to allow this bathroom to be
built at grade or at a substantially lower elevation.
To file a LOMAR for a map revision with FEMA.
And then if FEMA does agree to the map revision, to build the
expanded bathrooms but without the deck and the concession stand at
the new low elevation.
And finally, if that doesn't work, and if it does turn out that the
elevations are such that we have to build this bathroom at the higher
elevation, for staff to bring us back alternatives. For example, like
renovating the existing bathrooms and adding bathrooms at the garage
and build a boardwalk, as Mr. Tierney recommended, or other
alternatives, if staff can come up with other options.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, I'll second that, as long as
my--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- input into the --
Page 219
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, and that is actually -- and,
you know, have staff in doing this to consider to review what is --
what was done at the Port Royal Club by way of their LOMAR and to
also review what is being done at Moorings where they are building a
bathroom at grade.
Anything else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Possibly turning the bathrooms
on the beach to women and children. And Commissioner Coletta.
No, I'm just kidding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, let me make sure I understand
about -- the part about where we're going to build a boardwalk and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not -- no, no, we're not asking to
build it, we're just asking for staff to come back and present us
alternatives. For example, like --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which might include that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, which might include that.
Because we don't know if it's doable, but we want to see -- I mean, it
was a very good suggestion. In fact, he's not the first person -- Mr.
Tierney's not the first person who said that. A number of people
brought that up. And I actually had never thought of it. But it's
actually, it's a great idea.
Because if we could build additional bathrooms by the garage, it
would accommodate all those people that use the garage, not only
those people that use the beach. And, you know, a boardwalk would
be, you know, very attractive. And it basically allows us to preserve
what we have without doing anything in that current location, do a
boardwalk through the preserve and then add expanded bathrooms
over by the garage. I mean, it's a very logical suggestion. It might be,
you know, very economical.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So let's make sure that I understand it in
summary form.
We want the staff to verify the elevation, determine the elevation,
Page 220
March 8, 2011
the specific elevation of the site, submit a request to FEMA for
approval for the construction of bathrooms only, and the staff will
bring us back answers and recommendations -- answers to the
questions about why other people have been able to do this and we
can't, and recommendations as to how we could accommodate the
volume of people we need to accommodate with the bathrooms that
are going to be built there. Is that a fair summary?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. I just want to clarify only
one point and that is the recalculation of the elevations and submittal
to FEMA is in the way of a request for a map revision, if it turns out
that the elevations are favorable to us and would allow those
bathrooms to be built at a substantially lower elevation. Because it is
a two-step process and there's a cost. I mean, there's no point to do a
LOMAR if the elevations turn out to be unfavorable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. You didn't want to speak again,
did you, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just wanted to touch on
what we started down the road for, and that was to deal with the
FEMA issue. Now, are we still dealing with that as part of the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, it's all part of the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words we're saying
for staff the recommendations were: Recommends that the bathroom
and concession facility be built to conform to the NFIP guidelines of a
VE-14 elevated facility. With approval, staff will proceed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. Because we don't have
proof that it really is a -- that they're in a VE-14 zone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'm having a little bit of a
problem. I don't mind bringing back new information when it comes
in. But this thing here could drag out for years if we keep going this
way. I really do.
Well, I guess call the question, if everybody agrees to it.
Page 221
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all in favor, please signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye. Is this your motion,
Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, this is yours.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I thought you modified it, you
summarized it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, no, I didn't modify it. I had a
slightly different motion, but I just wanted -- I tried to summarize
yours so I understood exactly what you were talking about. Okay?
And any opposed by like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So it fails three to two.
But now let's try another one to see --
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: What?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's -- okay, I'm sorry, let's try another
motion.
I'm not sure that it's too different, quite frankly.
We would instruct the staff to proceed by first verifying the
elevation, second to -- and I think it's going to be very close to the
other motion, there's just a slight difference.
To verify the elevation; submit a request to the Corps of
Engineers (sic) with all the appropriate supporting information; to be
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Corps of Engineers?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, FEMA.
To build the project at ground level that would include primary
focus on bathrooms. And provide the Board answers to the questions
Page 222
March 8, 2011
of why other people have been able to do that and we apparently
haven't. And to provide us alternatives for the design of the building
before the budget hearings, so that we can take them into
consideration at that point in time.
Now, is there a sequence problem with that? Okay, tell me what
the sequence problem is.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you're not going to get an
answer from FEMA by the time you get to budget hearings. I think
submitting --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think you're not going to get the
money before --
MR.OCHS: That's fine. We'll do it when we can do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, that's the problem. But you see, all
of the commissioners seem to have problems about, you know, why
are other people able to do these things and we haven't. And they
need those questions answered.
MR.OCHS: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I think you can give that to us very, very
quickly.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay? And I don't see us giving you a
go-ahead for construction on the two-story facility until those
questions are answered and until we are absolutely positive that we
cannot get a waiver from FEMA. Okay? We really must make sure
of that.
MR. OCHS: Understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Just a clarification on
the motion. You said also alternative designs of the bathrooms?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Sure, yeah. Because you see here's
what's going to happen: If you build it at ground level, you don't need
all those ramps. And that covers a lot of square footage. So there
Page 223
March 8, 2011
would have to be changes in the design if you were able to get it done
at ground level and if you were able to put in enough restrooms to
accommodate the population that we anticipate there.
So it depends a lot on what FEMA will let us do and how they
would let us do it. And if -- maybe there's something you can work
out with them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My next question is what about
the concession stand in your motion?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, my motion said with primary
emphasis on the restrooms.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And so I don't -- I really did not address
the concession thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, that's where I have the
problem is again we're, government, is competing with the private
sector to provide food for -- as part of people's recreation. I don't
think -- and I said this at the last hearing, when you're a mother with
children, you know what to bring for that child. I would hope to think
that you would for that recreation.
Weare taking those abilities out of the hands of the people and
now government is providing it. It's not necessary. The experience is
the natural experience, not whether you have a glass of wine or hot
dog or hamburger. Because the Turtle Club just steps down can do
that.
So I can't support the motion unless it removes the concession
stand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Manager?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, just a point of information and a
reminder, when we talked about this issue the last time, we have a
concessionaire there on the beach under contract that sells some
prepared foods and some drinks and prepackaged foods, some ice
cream, for example. So, you know, part of the discussion initially was
Page 224
March 8, 2011
to relocate that vendor into this building so that he could sell his
sundries and food that he's selling now under contract, a
concessionaire contract with the board in this facility. But I just
wanted to remind the board that there is some of that going on at that
location already.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All righty. Yeah, that is a point. I think
it might be a fine point for the other people who are operating food
service facilities there. It's not really the government that's competing,
it's a concessionaire, like maybe you--
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Oh, no.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Boo.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- you could bid on it. Oh, come on,
knock it off. Quit acting like children.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, we are
providing the facility. Actually, we are providing the 7/Eleven that
used to be there that this gentleman spoke for. He bought that
7/Eleven, he provided that, and he's providing that service.
Government is providing the service for somebody else to sell his
ware. And that is the big difference of what you're saying.
Turtle Club, I think you own it, you didn't have government build
it for you and provide that hamburger down there. Same way with all
the other businesses down there.
So what you're saying to those businesses down there, you know,
we're going to build this for this vendor or maybe some other vendor,
where you had to purchase or rent your property and have a huge
mortgage on it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the difference.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I understand the problem. But I
don't feel that strongly about it that it has to be in the package. Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just don't understand the
motion with --
Page 225
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, what I just said was I don't feel
that it's necessary that we have a concession stand there as part of our
proj ect.
And Commissioner Coletta's going to disagree with me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just wanted to speak on
behalf of the four-legged creatures out there and the seagulls who
aren't represented here today.
No, sir, I've got no problem with removing the food concession,
if that gives my fellow commissioners a level of comfort.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. So where does that leave us?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That leaves us with a great big
bathroom. More bathrooms for the ladies because you're not going to
have a concession stand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We ladies need to be pampered.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You better believe it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. So we've got a motion. I don't
hear a second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to qualify that motion to
eliminate the deck as well.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Absolutely.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not ready to go that far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can't go that far, because we
don't know what FEMA's going to say. And if we put that in the
motion and then FEMA says we can't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What, eliminate the deck?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we can eliminate the deck.
FEMA has no control over the deck.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Exactly.
Page 226
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would you want to eliminate
the deck?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because the public doesn't want it.
And it's a waste of money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I can go as far as
eliminating the concession stand --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I can do that. And I can do
everything else we just said. I can't go that far.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The size --
(Grumbling in audience.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because of the size of the project
is why we have all those ramps.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: The deck's going to be bigger
than the bathrooms.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We don't even know that we're
going to have a deck because we're first going to see about what
FEMA has to say about building it at grade. That's the way the
motion begins.
And if FEMA says yes, we can build it at grade, then we're going
to investigate -- I shouldn't be talking for you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, that's all right, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and we're going to investigate
how they could build at the Moorings and how they could build it at
the north end. And when we find out and if we find that this -- that
there is additional information that could have been entered and we
could build at grade and build just the bathrooms and we don't need
anything else, then that's what we want to do and that's what his
motion actually says.
If FEMA says no, you cannot because of this location, you must
build to a higher level just in order to meet FEMA guidelines, then on
goes the deck but no concessionaires.
Page 227
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not acceptable.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a motion. There is no second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: A motion, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed by like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it passes 4-1, with Commissioner
Hiller dissenting. Okay, we're finished.
Item #l OF
RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 89-11 REMOVING "KEY
ISLAND" FROM THE ATTACHED LIST OF BARRIER ISLANDS,
AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
TO ADVERTISE SAID ORDINANCE, AND RETURN TO THE
BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL - MOTION TO CONTINUE
THIS ITEM WITH ALL PROPERTY OWNERS BEING NOTIFIED
BY MAIL - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, let's go to 10.F very quickly. And
since this is a -- this is an item that includes --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which item?
Page 228
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Going to IO.F. We'll just wait till
everybody can get out. Since this is an item that concerns my district,
what I would like to do is ask that we continue this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the couple of reasons. Number one,
we had an error in the executive summary that caused a lot of
misunderstanding.
Secondly, I'm not sure I really understood the intent of what we
were trying to do. And a number of my constituents certainly did not
understand it and felt that they had not been properly notified.
So can we do a do-over here and get it right and get the executive
summary right and make sure we notify every property owner on
Keewaydin by mail? Can we do -- you're not going to mail it to
Keewaydin, they don't live there all the time. So you're going to have
to notice the thing in a way that let's them understand what we're
doing.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, Barry Williams for the record,
Parks and Rec Department. Certainly, we'll take board direction on
this item. It's a fairly innocuous one. We do have representatives from
Rookery Bay and the City of Naples Police and Collier County
Sheriffs Office. But if your desire is for us to bring it back, certainly
we'll do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I made a motion, there's a second by
Commissioner Hiller. And Commissioner Hiller and Henning have
something to say about this.
Go ahead, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think that there is a lot of
confusion about this. And I think even the board needs to better
educate itself before this is heard. I had the opportunity of speaking
with -- was it with you? With one of the deputies, and it was quite a
complicated subject. And I think it's something that the Sheriff
probably should be reviewing also to make sure that we're doing the
Page 229
March 8, 2011
right thing.
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner Hiller, and again, we're at the
board's discretion with this. We know you've had a long day, and for
us to try to explain it at this juncture might even further --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're good for another three or four
hours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I sure apologize to these people
who have sat here all day long.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this was first reading it, if you look
at the title, it's requesting authorization to advertising amendment and
then come back for final reading. But we can do that later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Those distinctions are sometimes lost on
people who don't understand our procedures. So it's best to get them
informed up front and try to proceed. Okay.
MR. WILLIAMS: Not a problem, we'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, you want to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just real quick. I'm not sure
how many -- I go down there quite frequently, or go by there. The
activities, what is being presented by staff, has gone on forever. Dogs
roaming the beach. It's just up and down the residential area, those
cottages. I don't see that, it doesn't happen. So just my opinion.
MR. WILLIAMS: If I may just briefly, just -- and this is more of
a set-up for next time, just so you know. It's a simple conflict, the
Florida statutes allow for certain activities, the county ordinance does
not. And so what we're looking to do is just remove the county
ordinance with making a change in deleting Keewaydin from that
ordinance.
And the issues are, and from our understanding, camping, fires
on the beach, dogs who are leashed the state allows, the county does
not. And so if we take ourselves out of the mix, this is actually, we're
promoting a little less government with this, a little less regulation in
allowing one administrative code, if you will, the Florida state to
Page 230
March 8, 2011
reIgn.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: But a clarification still needs to be made.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir, and we'll bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The state owns part of that property.
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are their rules applicable only to that
portion that they own? Can a resident camp on the beach on their own
property?
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioner, may I just ask Gary Litton to
come up and speak to that question again? I know we're trying to
move it on and--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, it's a good thing he stayed all
day long, now he gets to talk a little bit to us.
MR. LITTON: Good evening. For the record, my name is Gary
Litton. I'm the director for the Rookery Bay reserve. I work for the
State of Florida.
To answer your question, Commissioner Coyle, Administrative
Code 1823 applies to the state-owned lands on Keewaydin Island.
The state owns about 85 percent of the island, it's about a $15 million
investment over the last 15 years.
And as Barry indicated before, our interest is in trying to resolve
a conflict between two rules. We've got the beach ordinance that
prohibits any animals, leashed or unleashed. It prohibits fires or
camping altogether. And then we've got the state rule which allows
camping and campfires in designated areas, and it allows visitors to
have their dogs on leash.
Now, the problem that we've got in the law enforcement network
that works out on the water, is a reluctance to enforce either rule
because of the conflict that we've got. It was the law enforcement
community that we spoke to that said we need to resolve this so that
we can have one set of rules.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I understand all that. But now, if I
Page 231
March 8, 2011
own some property there and maybe even have a cottage down there
and I want to have my dog in my yard, not on a leash, am I going to
get ticketed?
MR. LITTON: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that's not clear --
MR. WILLIAMS: 1823 only applies to the state-owned lands on
Keewaydin Island.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: If I want to build a bonfire out on the
beach in front of my property, I can do that.
MR. LITTON: If it's -- yeah. Again, 1823 only applies to the
public lands.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: State property, the public property.
MR. LITTON: Right.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There are no regulations concerning
what happens with private property there; is that a correct statement?
MR. LITTON: Unless there's someone else here that can help
me address that question, all I can help you with is what the state rule
applies.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm asking these questions because these
are the things that need to be clarified here, okay. So you're going to
take the county out of the middle of it so that you have a uniform code
for enforcement. You have to make sure you define the areas to
which this enforcement is applicable. That's all I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioner, in our Land
Development Code is regulations for private property on barrier
islands. And I think Mr. Casalanguida can help the board -- not now,
not now. That's the governing, what people do on private property is
our Land Development Code. That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm not sure it's that definitive. But
nevertheless, as long as you come back with something that is --
MR. WILLIAMS: Let us answer those questions and bring it
back, Commissioners.
Page 232
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, that's all we're asking.
Okay, all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we're going to bring this back.
That goes to 10.D, 10 delta.
Item #IOD
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE AWARD OF RFP #10-
5450 "ASPHALT ROADWAY, CONCRETE, CURB, SIDEWALK
AND DRIVEWAY INSTALLATIONS: TO MULTIPLE FIRMS
FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $2,000,000-
MOTION TO CONTINUE UNTIL RESOLVED - MOTION
WITHDRAWN; MOTION FOR A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
WITH A REPORT FROM STAFF IN 6 MONTHS TO SEE IF IT
WORKS - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: 10.D is recommend approval of the award ofRFP
10-5450, asphalt road, concrete curb, sidewalk, and driveway
installations to multiple firms for an estimated annual amount of $2
million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
Okay, Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I actually in my review of
the agenda addressed this issue with finance, when I was addressing
Page 233
March 8, 2011
the finance portions, and I would like to ask Crystal Kinzel, Director
of Finance from the Clerk's Office to comment because she had some
very significant concerns about what was being proposed.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, for the record, Crystal Kinzel
with the Finance Office.
Steve and I have been working on this for some time and we've
been having telephone conversations and some other issues, so I think
that we've agreed to continue to work on an appropriate solution.
But to make the board aware of our concerns, one of our primary
functions is to validate what the board is approving in the content of
an agreement or document, including pricing and use or caps on the
contract. With this particular RFP and the responses that we receive,
actually as we got into longer conversations as recently as, well, when
did we talk, Steve, late Friday, I believe, we were looking at some
SAP solutions to maybe provide those caps that would provide a
ministerial function for staff versus a lot of discretion, the way that the
bid in the RFP is worded.
The attachment to this executive summary, it's my understanding
from our conversations, and Steve can correct it if I'm wrong, but the
attachment to this executive summary doesn't even include all of the
elements that may be used by the departments for the asphalt and the
concrete and the cement.
In some of the other things that we've gone over with the pricing,
what I have a very difficult time and sometimes with the contracting is
validating the pricing that comes in to an agreement. And our
philosophy is that there's an underlying agreement that the board
approves with specified rates that we validate.
The way this seems to be worded between either a lump sum or a
user fee invoicing, it would be, in my opinion, at this time very
difficult for us to validate those payments.
But as I said, we continue to work with staff, we've tried to
resolve some of these, but currently we're still -- we have those issues
Page 234
March 8, 2011
or concerns.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, motion to continue until we get
this resolved.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner --
MR. CARNELL: Please, Mr. Chairman, it's late, but give me
five minutes. We've continued this three meetings. It hasn't even
gotten to the board level, it's been continued. And we've got jobs
getting backed up here. This won't take long.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
MR. CARNELL: Just to let you understand first. The contract
that is before you, the RFP and contract were the product of
discussions between my staff, the road maintenance department,
public utilities, facilities management and other departments that need
these services. It is three contracts that -- they were done separately as
three agreements in the past. We've attempted to consolidate them
into one here for a number of reasons. And we are grabbing a broad
brush of activity here.
This activity is very time sensitive activity in many instances.
Weare talking about the repairs to roadways, to sidewalks, to
entrances to buildings, and other county infrastructure, parks, and the
concern here is that we need a vehicle where we can procure timely
and promptly.
The second concern is that we need good quality performance
from our contractors. And we've had some issues in recent years with
some of the performances of some of the contracts previously on this
where the performance has not been good, it has not been reliable, we
have not been able to get people out to job sites. And unfortunately
what we're dealing with here in a lot of cases is a lot of a little. We've
got literally, over the course of a year, more than 1,000 jobs, meaning
repairs to various county sites. And a lot of them, the majority of
Page 235
March 8, 2011
them are less than $l ,000 in individual transactions.
The issue that Crystal and I are discussing, and I think where
Crystal is struggling with this in terms of preaudit, is that she's looking
for a way to validate the price. She wants the price approved in
advance by you all to the greatest extent possible.
The difficulty with doing that is this would be as -- this would be
like setting up an auto repair contract where we would know every last
possible repair for every last possible repair scenario. And I would
encourage you to think of this as an auto repair contract.
Our staff has some type of failure out there in our infrastructure,
whether it be a sidewalk caving, collapsing, a pothole, whatever it
might be in the roadway system. And we have a situation where we
need to call somebody out to take a look at it, and to fix it promptly
and quickly. We are often at risk in these situations because it's
infrastructure that the public is traversing, by vehicular or pedestrian
traffic. And we do not have the luxury, we don't have the luxury to
take two or three weeks to get price quotes, to get people to the table,
to get multiple forms to go out and look. And again, picture yourself
with your automobile, you automobile is broken down, you're not
going to tow it to five shops and get each one of them to look at it.
Now, that is not all of the work here, but that is a significant
portion of it. The road maintenance department does more than 100 of
these every month. Fix-its, quick fix-its out in the field.
Let me get to the chase, Mr. Chairman. And I think this might
help, Crystal. We've resisted the temptation here to create a one size
black and white narrow methodology for allocating the work because
we have all those things I just described plus Mr. Camp has a number
of this type of activity on the campus here and other county buildings
where he's got to have curbing fixed, he's got to have sidewalks fixed
and there's really no one scenario that fits, that will fit for all purposes
here.
So here's what we would like to propose that we do. We want to
Page 236
March 8, 2011
propose the adoption of the contract as set forth in the executive
summary in the RFP contract. But what we want to do, Ms. Kinzel
and I talked about a little bit of this, was I've talked to Mr. Feder, I've
talked to Mr. Camp, and what we will do is we would like to propose
that we will attempt to get price quotes in each instance where we
believe the job is going to exceed $3,000, which is the purchasing
policy threshold for competition.
In other words, if it's below $3,000, if we think it's below $3,000,
we'll send one contractor out to look, give us a price, if it's less than
three, get him a purchase order and go. If it's above $3,000 up to
$50,000, we will endeavor to get price quotes. And what I mean by
endeavor is, and back to what I'm telling you earlier, we will get price
quotes unless it is an emergency or an expediency or some situation
where it's not practical to get quotes, where we've got to get five
people out to some remote location and we can't get them out there
timely and properly and there is an exposure to the county.
And I'll add one other leg to this that is geared to help Crystal
with her preaudit, and that is when the departments order the work, we
will have them, if they're going to get quotes, they'll provide us the
quotes and the pricing quotes from the firms under contract. If they
think there's a case not to get quotes because of expediency or
emergency, they will provide a simple justification to the purchasing
department. And actually, before it comes to purchasing it will be
reviewed by chain of command within their respective divisions or
departments. And we will provide a justification. And that will be
something that can be pre-audited before payment is made in terms of
what's the justification for why we could not get quotes.
Bottom line is, if we can function that way I think we can strike a
balance here where we can responds timely. There's safety issues,
there's inconvenience issues. Mr. DeLony from time to time, his staff
is out there tearing through driveways to repair pipes, and we do not
want to tell members of the public, I'm sorry, it's going to be a couple
Page 237
March 8, 2011
of weeks before we can fix your driveway because we're trying to get
three quotes.
So we want to have a flexible tool here that will enable us to
function in a manner where we can be responsive, we can meet public
safety requirements and also balance that with Crystal's concern about
essentially trying to make a price selection and use price in a way to
parse out the work in an objective way.
So if that's clear, I'd like to propose to you that we adopt this the
way it's written with the caveat that we will attempt to get quotes or
we will provide justification to the Finance Department of why we
were not able to quote the work on ajob by job basis.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, it just seems to me these are not
overwhelming issues. And I don't understand why it takes so long to
get them worked out. If it's been delayed three times already and we
still don't have a clear answer of what we're going to do, that makes no
sense. And so I think we need to find a faster way of doing it.
But you're suggesting to us that we should approve this as it
stands and you'll work out the details with the Clerk's Office later.
MR. CARNELL: For the way I laid it out to you verbally here
on the record.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, I'll withdraw my motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if the Clerk doesn't pay
because the Clerk's not satisfied with that arrangement, we're going to
have people in here on public petition saying I'm not being paid for
my work.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It won't be the first time.
MR. KLATZKOW: It won't be the first time, but we're trying to
avoid that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, yes. I know.
Commissioner Fiala, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ifwe vote on this, though, so then it
is -- and it is passed, then that gives the Clerk every ability to pay.
Page 238
March 8, 2011
MS. KINZEL: Not necessarily, Commissioner. We have to
validate that yes, the board approves the expenditure. But the
expenditure also has to have legal constraints, it has to be validated
within an applicable contract.
And the way this is presented, that's where we're having the back
and forth issues on validating that pricing. So even though the board
would approve yes, this pricing, I still need to be able to validate to
something. And the price schedule that's given with the multiple of
five vendors with all different prices, and then you can spend up to
either 3,000 or 50,000 or 100,000, depending on just staff quotes for
particular jobs, that's a lot of staff discretion. And part of our problem
and part of our consideration is the ministerial function is what can be
delegated to staff versus the discretion to do the work.
And we have been working on this issue, as I said. I don't feel
it's resolved at this point in time. Certainly the board can take
whatever action, and we'll continue to work with staff. That is what
we're doing and have been doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Crystal, just woman to woman, if I
were --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Should we leave the room.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a different car than you have
and you have a different car than we have. And if somebody bumps
into the bumper of my car and I need to go have it repaired, it's going
to cost different to have my bumper fixed or yours or yours.
Now, if it happens to be something that is -- that can be a risk to
our county government that we could get sued over or something, I
would want to give them the ability to be able to go out and fix it and
the people who go out on the job to get paid.
How would you word it to make sure that these people can get
paid and that we can pass this today?
MS. KINZEL: Well, let me give you a couple of examples on
the car. Usually, even in an accident the insurance companies have
Page 239
March 8, 2011
pre-established pricing. So they know what quotes and what estimates
should cost, and those are validated before they ever usually let you
fix your car.
Every car shop has validated pricing for each of their activities.
If I go to Dodge, and they want to charge me an exorbitant amount of
money for tires, I probably won't have my tires changed there. And
that is incumbent upon me to identify those costs before I make that
decision to save costs.
Obviously for an emergency situation, we have always given the
leeway, either had a board approval or the Clerk has said emergency
exception, we fully understand and appreciate.
You know, in the ordinary course of business, however, which
this contract covers a lot of business up to a lot of dollars, we have a
significant concern that there aren't any particular caps or measures
that the board is directing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, if they have to
have a price list -- I'm just -- I'm sorry that I am interrupting. Just so I
understand. So if it's one piece of sidewalk that just broke, so they
have to have a list for one piece, or if it's two pieces of sidewalk, two
pieces, or if it's made out of asphalt rather than cement they have to
have another price, is that what you're saying? Does it have to be that
definitive --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, usually you would bid, in the
course of the county's years of work, you would bid an asphalt
company, you would have four, five, however many vendors compete
for on that. You would let a contract and maybe a secondary contract.
You would do it in the range of the pricing. You would know that
that single vendor is your first column primary vendor. You would
know that you had received the least cost repair. You would have a
secondary vendor in the cases that that vendor wasn't available to
make the work --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that's what this says, isn't it?
Page 240
March 8, 2011
MS. KINZEL: No, this is all five. And your project managers
can go to any five of those contractors and secure the work. And
based on the level of the pricing, they either have to get no quotes, one
quote or written quotes. So, no, it is not like that at all.
MR. CARNELL: That's not what I'm proposing, Crystal. I'm
saying below $50,000 we will endeavor to get quotes unless there is a
justification not to, which is existing purchasing policy.
MS. KINZEL: But the quotes go beyond --
MR. CARNELL: No, no, quotes will be from scatch. We will
get comparable prices, apples to apples, for the job, or endeavor to.
MS. KINZEL: But that's still the discretion within the dollar
amounts. You don't have the standardize --
MR. CARNELL: Which we have in the purchasing policy
presently, with all due respect. $50,000 purchases do not require the
approval of this board.
MS. KINZEL: And we continue to disagree on the ministerial
nature of that. And you know that that is part of the Clerk's issue that
we are pursuing also with you. So we're working on these issues, but
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You know, I don't
know if the example of the car is the best, you can't tow a road to a
garage.
But you have issues in your houses that you have had emergency
repairs, such as, you know, water lines, heaters or refrigerators or
something like that. Health safety and welfare of a roadway is a
perfect example. You've got to have somebody out there to repair that
right now. Now staff used to do that all the time. I don't know what
happened to what they're going to be doing.
But let's conditionally approve this, Mr. Carnell said anything
over 3,000 to 50,000 you would get those --
MR. CARNELL: Barring an emergency, yes, sir.
Page 241
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Barring an emergency you
would get those quotes.
Conditionally approve it -- well, you know, I don't know if we
can do that. Conditionally approve it, report back to the board in six
months of the mechanics, the -- of this contract, whether it works.
And then the board should have a decision whether we need to redo
the contract?
I don't know if we could do that.
MR.OCHS: I don't know why you couldn't. We can always
provide a status report at any point that the board would like.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's a status report, but if it
doesn't work and we are delegating too much of our authority, we
need to be able to react by that by amending the ordinance -- or
amending the contract.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. I believe we're acting within the authority
that you've given us under our policy.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. I mean, the alternative is to reject all
the bids and we'll just quote them piecemeal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no.
MR. CARNELL: But that's not what you're suggesting, I realize.
And actually, Commissioner Henning, I welcome your suggestion.
We as a staff could under that. Crystal and I were having a discussion
yesterday about some kind of in-program review of what was
happening to maintain the accountability. So that may be something
the board wants to consider.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning. Do we hear a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, did you have anything to say about this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I wanted to show a schedule
that was included in our back-up to Commissioner Fiala. For
Page 242
March 8, 2011
example, these are the five contractors. As an example, the foreman
supervisor for Bonness is $24 an hour, versus Wright, which is $72 an
hour. That's three times as much. Now, the staff would have
discretion to pick him or him or him or him, depending on the amount.
They could pick the highest one on that particular job. That's where
the discretion comes in that they actually have the ability to pick based
on price among five different vendors. And that's where the problem
IS.
MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that is not
what we're proposing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it sounds like it.
MR. CARNELL: No. What my clarification was, we will
endeavor to get quotes among the five. And we will go with the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For every project? For every time
you have --
MR. CARNELL: Yes. No, no, everything over $3,000, ma'am,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who would you -- you would
get quotes from all five on everything --
MR. CARNELL: At least three. And that kind of renders that
concern moot.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It just seems like a whole lot of
work. Why not do it the way Crystal proposed?
MR. CARNELL: Because we don't have a way of identifying all
the prices. Nor is it practicable to expect the vendors to give you a
locked-in price, say, for equipment rental on an as needed basis, when
they'd have no idea how often you're going to call. They're going to
have to go to a subcontracted party to get that equipment.
It's one thing to ask them for their labor rates, they control their
labor rates entirely. But they rely on other parties to price out other
components of the work that we potentially could need in a given job.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, we have a motion on the floor.
Page 243
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you repeat the motion
again?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: The motion is to approve it with the
modifications to the process recommended by Mr. Carnell, and then to
come back and give us a status report as to how well that is working.
What's the period of time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Six months.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Six months, okay.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller objects. It passes
4-l.
Okay, that -- Commissioner Fiala has a scheduling problem. We
need to go --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Did we have a speaker in there?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No.
MR. MITCHELL: No, sir.
Item #13A
ELECTION OR RE-ELECTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) CHAIR
AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2011 - COMMISSIONER COLETTA AS
CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER FIALA AS VICE-CHAIR-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We need to go to 13.A, and I'll turn the
Page 244
March 8, 2011
gavel over to Commissioner Fiala, since she is the Chair of the
Community Redevelopment Agency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the CRA board is in session.
And right now we're going to elect a CRA chair and then a vice-chair.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. I'll nominate Commissioner
Coletta to serve as Chair this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And you serve as Vice-Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I get to close the meeting?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, we have to take a vote, see if there's
enough support to get you two elected.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I shouldn't have seconded that if you
were nominating me in there too. That wasn't very nice.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You can do that, it's all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, that is done. Let's go back --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: CRA Board is closed. You get this
next time.
Page 245
March 8, 2011
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION FOR HIRING OUTSIDE LEGAL
COUNSEL TO REVIEW, UPDATE AND COMMENT ON THE
CURRENT BOARD APPROVED PURCHASING POLICY AND
PROPOSED CHANGES - COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY
MANAGER TO WORK TOGETHER WITH MR. GURERRO AND
SEE WHAT IT WILL TAKE TO WORK HIS ISSUES OUT.
MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM WITH MR. CARNELL'S
RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That brings us back to 10.E, is that not
correct, County Manager?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir, it's a recommendation to hire outside legal
counsel to review, update and comment on the current board-approved
purchasing policy and proposed changes.
MR. CARNELL: And item 10.D is a perfect warm-up to this
discussion. We've had a purchasing policy in place for many, many
years that has been periodically amended from time to time. We've
had a number of questions raised in recent months about the use of
authority that is set forth in the board's purchasing policy and whether
it is in fact legal.
And we are proposing as a staff that we get an independent look
from a qualified board certified construction and procurement
attorney, a gentleman who has represented both vendors and cities and
counties alike across the state, and ask him to take a look at our
existing purchasing policy along with some proposed revisions that we
have, and opine back to us on where he believes we're legal or where
we have any questions with legal sufficiency as to the policy as set
forth.
We're proposing that the board support this and we anticipate the
cost would not exceed $10,000. We would intend to bring it back to
Page 246
March 8, 2011
the board as a staff report, the findings and the opinions of the
attorney, and make recommendation with that in conjunction with
County Manager and the County Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you intending to use this
opinion to somehow dictate to the Clerk of Courts that the purchasing
policy that the board has adopted is legal to circumvent his ability to
make his own determination?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, no, ma'am. No, ma'am, no. I'm looking
for a way home for everybody. I'm looking for a way home. Ms.
Kinzel and I have had discussions about these issues, and Crystal has
worked with us very diligently. We've had an ongoing dialogue to the
point of we're both tired of talking to each other about it.
But to her credit she continues the dialogue with me. And what
we're looking to do is provide an outside look from somebody outside
the fray in the discussion who doesn't have day-to-day business
pressures and Collier County government on them to get work done,
who can look at this and opine back. And yes, the Clerk is an
independent elected official. The Clerk is going to be given the
opportunity to review this and discuss it with us.
Crystal and I have talked. Crystal has said to me, bring me your
best legal arguments for your position. So that's our effort to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's also an attorney and he's also
required by law to determine the legality of the expenditures. So I
mean, I don't really understand where we're going with this. I don't
really see the need for it. On top of which we have a county attorney.
How many attorneys do you have working for you?
MR. KLATZKOW: I now have seven.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Seven plus himself. So we have
eight attorneys on staff. And we also have the Attorney General who
for free will opine on policy questions like this. I mean, I think that if
we have a question as to whether a staff has the ability to make
Page 247
March 8, 2011
discretionary spending decisions, we could just write a letter to the
Attorney General and get an opinion and say this is what we're doing,
can that be done. And I think it would carry more weight than getting
an opinion from a single attorney.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't want to burden the
County Attorney's Office with more work. I see his workload. I think
we all see his workload. On a monthly basis I think you report to us.
A lot of old cases that needs to be resolved. But what I would like
from this outside attorney is to tie it into Florida statutes for us and
AGOs there are plenty of AGOs out there on purchasing, delegation
and so on, so forth.
And, you know, I think that would be a prudent exercise to
validate what we do, what we need to do or what we need to change.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before I speak, I think we've got
one speaker? We don't have a speaker.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir, we do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you call the speaker
forward, because then I would like to address it from that point
forward, if I may.
Is that all right, Chair?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay.
MR. MITCHELL: The speaker is James GURERRO.
MR. GURERRO: Good afternoon. Chairman, Commissioners.
This is an old case, and the issue is basically I'm still trying to get two
payments, one from SHIP and one from DR! on a construction project
that is completed. And that was about a year and five months ago. I
don't know if you remember or not.
But I have two issues. One is that I'm really hurting, Chairman,
in my business. When I did the contract with you, it was during the
time when the economy was going down, and you came forward and
Page 248
March 8, 2011
you gave me work. And that was great. So I went to work and I
provided to a citizen of the county and completed the work, did a
really good job hardening her building, putting in painting and stucco,
pavement, everything, the whole works, really good building.
And I've been paid, you know, 28,000 already. It's about a
$43,000 job, and I'm still owed 14,000.
You see, when I contracted with you, that was during the time
when the economy was going down and now we see it's really down.
And it really took my livelihood, that contract right there. So, I'm not
-- I don't have any income. I'm living on a pension, and that's one
issue. I don't know how to express that I'm really hurting.
Now, I don't normally do that, because being in the military, we
always try to do our best, and that was 20 years ago. So I've been in
business 20 years now. And I'm retired military.
It's very difficult. It's hard to express what we're going through
right now. And the way I answer it is I'm here meeting the challenge
of the recession. It's the best I can do.
But here's another problem. The county comes back and tells
me, well, go back to Julie Bowersox and collect. Well, the whole
preposition of doing this was because she didn't have any money. So
the state, local provided funds. I can't do that. I can't go back ask her
to pay me. It's against my nature, because all my life I've tried to help
people. Why would I go to her when I know she doesn't have any
money, she's a waitress.
So the only option is for me to go to you. And you were gracious
enough to give me work to provide performance to her, which I did.
So I did it for the citizens, for you. So I'm asking you if you could
come through in some way in helping me pay me. There is a possible
solution, we have been discussing it. What do you say, sir?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm surprised that this is still dragging
on. I thought that had been resolved a long, long time ago, and I'm
sorry to hear that you're still having a problem.
Page 249
March 8, 2011
It's not something that we can solve right now today, but I'd like
to understand better from the staff and from the attorney, not
necessarily right now, but I'd like to understand why this problem is
continuing to exist. This man should have been paid.
I think I remember enough of the details of the situation to
believe that it legally is a situation for which the county is not liable.
But you're approaching it from a more common sense standpoint. I
don't know that we can legally make up that shortfall in payments to
you. But I think if smart people put their heads together, they might
find some kind of solution to resolve the problem.
So could I just suggest to you that maybe County Manager and
County Attorney, can you talk with this gentleman afterwards, or set
up an appointment soon and talk with him, see if there's anything we
can do to help.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it's us, I think it's the Clerk, but
we can talk to him, but I think that's -- the Clerk made a determination
on the payment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Well, I think it's still important that if
you've got some ideas how this can be resolved that we really should
take some action on this, okay?
Yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: James, thank you for being here.
Now, this is the extreme case. But we've had numerous cases over
the years. Now, I can't say it's worse than it's ever been. In fact, if
anything, I think it's better. I think there's a better working
relationship.
However, with that said, let's get down to brass tacks, we're going
to have to say fall in lines with what the Clerk expects to have as far
as the documentation goes. It's that simple. We can do a finding. We
can bring it back to the Clerk to be able to use it as a basis how we go
to where we need to be, but at the end of the day, I want this nonsense
to stop. I really do.
Page 250
March 8, 2011
If we have to put purchasing in the Clerk's corner totally, that's
fine too. But somehow we've got to be able to come up with a way to
make this work. There's been a determination at the court level that
the Clerk has this responsibility and judiciously responsible part of his
Constitutional office to do this. So somehow we've got to be able to
get there. I don't want this to become another food fight like it's been
in the past. I don't want people like James left behind again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Have you talked to the Clerk of
Courts?
MR. GURERRO: Yes, I've had conversations with Crystal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I mean with Dwight Brock,
himself.
MR. GURERRO: Oh, yes, my buddy Dwight, yes. I go to talk
to him all the time about it and he bounces it back to the county. And,
you know, he then states Constitutional bases for what he does. And
I'm like cannon fodder in a war, you know, I'm just -- I don't know
where to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if we brought it back
to the Commission as an item on a future agenda where we can ask the
Clerk to come in and we can hash this thing out again. I'm sorry this
keeps going on. Almost every other one that I know of has been
solved.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah, this shouldn't happen to any
citizen. And let's not spend a lot of time discussing this. Can we just
ask the County Attorney, and if necessary the County Manager, to get
together, give us a clear statement of what we need to do to get this
resolved, okay?
MR. GURERRO: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Let's just find out what it is we can do to
get it resolved, all right. Thank you very much.
MR. GURERRO: Thank you, Chairman, appreciate it. Thank
you, Commissioners.
Page 251
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, we were talking about 10.E.
Commissioner Henning, did you make a motion or were you about to,
to approve this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, with the conditions that
was stated on the record by Steve Carnell and by the motion maker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And it's seconded by Commissioner
Fiala.
Commissioner Hiller, do you have anything more to say on this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just wanted more information. I
wanted to understand. I didn't have a history on the discussion of the
speaker.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's not part of this item anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We'll get that whenever the County
Attorney comes back with his recommendations to us.
Okay, all in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller is in
opposition. It passes 4-1.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, if I leave now, you
don't need anymore four votes or anything, do you, you're okay if I
leave?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so sorry, but I have a
commitment.
Page 252
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I understand, that's why we tried to get
you finished up as quickly as possible. But we are finished with all of
the agenda items --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, there's these three.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, those three. Okay. And I thought
we were finished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It won't take long.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, County Manager, we need to go
to the ones that have been pulled from the consent agenda.
(Commissioner Fiala has left the room.)
Item #lOG
RECOMMENDATION AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT TO ADVERTISE AND BRING
BACK FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN AMENDMENT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 2006-03 (THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT-
TYPE SCREENING OR ORDINANCE) THAT WILL EXPAND
THE AIRPORT-TYPE SECURITY SEARCHES TO INCLUDE THE
INDIVIDUALS ENTERING THE IMMOKALEE GOVERNMENT
CENTER (COURTHOUSE) AND THE JAMES V. MUDD
EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER - APPROVED
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. That takes you to 10. G, which was
formerly 16.E.1. It's a recommendation to authorize the Department
of Facilities Management to advertise and bring back for future
consideration an amendment to ordinance number 2006-03 that will
expand the airport type security searches to individuals entering the
Immokalee Government Center Courthouse and the James V. Mudd
Emergency Services Center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I apologize for being
burdensome by asking these questions. I'm just trying to save money,
Page 253
March 8, 2011
Commissioner Coyle.
Well, first of all, just for clarification, the advertising, what is
reported in the adoption of $400 of this ordinance. But the real issue
is providing that airport security at the Immokalee Government Center
and EEOC. What is the cost of that, the capital cost and the ongoing
costs.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, Facilities Management.
It's around $48,000 per we've post. You've been providing that
service in Immokalee for years. There will be no change there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Capital cost?
MR. CAMP: The capital cost, we're using existing equipment
that's been there for years. An X-Ray machine is around 35,000, and
the magnetometer that you walk through is about 5,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 48,000 per year?
MR. CAMP: For the person.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For one person.
MR. CAMP: Yes. And you've had that in Immokalee for years
under a judicial order. But they're no longer having court there. And
you've had that person at the Emergency Services Center since it
opened. And that cost is shared by all the occupants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I see. Okay, well, I visited
the EEOC yesterday and I tried to get in. There's a 12-foot fence with
barbed wire, is that razor, just barbed wire?
MR. CAMP: Barbed wire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Barbed wire. There is a gate
there that you can swipe a key. So I tried mine, I couldn't get in. Who
are we screening here?
MR. CAMP: Well, the general public may enter the building
regularly, and they do. And it's going to get worse when we go into
hurricane season. But you can get into the building as long as you
want a tour or you just call and you want to see somebody. It's a
public building, it just has limited access.
Page 254
March 8, 2011
But especially when we have hurricanes and it's activated, we
want the ability to be able to -- especially since the Sheriffs Office is
there, both 911 and the Sheriffs substation to have some additional
control.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why can't we use the staff here,
because everybody from this center is going to go over to the EEOC?
MR. CAMP: We would still have to have this building open,
because have other Constitutional officers in here, other state
agencies. And they're often on different schedules, in fact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: During a hurricane, and
emergency they're going to be there?
MR. CAMP: They may be. Because your hurricane status is
different from theirs, just like our holidays are different. In fact, we've
had to keep this building open because of conflicting schedules.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: During a hurricane?
MR. CAMP: No, as far as holidays.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CAMP: But again, for hurricanes, you may have your
employees here, the Clerk mayor may not have his employees here.
There's state agencies here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, it's not enough
money to argue. I just don't -- on principal I think that we could be
more cost effective. But I'm going to make a motion to approve the
advertising.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
Any opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It's approved unanimously.
Page 255
March 8, 2011
Item #10H
RECOMMENDATION APPROVING THE AWARD OF RFP #10-
5373, "ENERGY MANAGEMENT," AND AGREEMENTS TO
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., AND TAMPA BAY SYSTEMS
SALES, INC. D/B/A TAMPA BAY TRANE ENERGY SERVICES
IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $160,000-
APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Item 10.H was formerly 16.E.2. It's a
recommendation to approve the award ofRFP10-5373, energy
management and agreements to Johnson Controls, Inc. and Tampa
Bay Systems Sales, Inc. doing business as Tampa Bay Trane Energy
Services in the estimated annual amount of $160,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long has Johnson had this
contract?
MR. LINGUIDI: Johnson's been provided these services since
1992.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In '92. And just today I heard
one of my colleagues say when we were in closed door session, boy,
isn't it hot in here? We have this problem with the air conditioning
and heating in this building and that's the services that Johnson is
providing us.
If we keep on having problems, why are we doing the same
thing? I mean, I just -- I cannot support Johnson doing this work
when we continually have the same problem.
MR. LINGUIDI: Actually, the problems that we're having in this
building aren't related to Johnson Controls, it's related to the
mechanical systems in the building. And the mechanical systems are
very old. They're original to the building, they're about 37 years old.
We have two major problems in the board room: One is the
Page 256
March 8, 2011
mechanical system and the second is the inefficiency in the ductwork.
Because it's all original, when the building was built. So it's not a
Johnson Control specific issue, it's a mechanical issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that is -- is that the
other contractor? Who's going to fix that? Skip?
MR. CAMP: Excuse me. Skip Camp again.
We have a 37-year-old mechanical system in this building. It's
got a price tag to fix it of 2.3 million. We've been holding off trying
to patch it because we have so many other priorities. Typically this
money would come from 301, but because you're paying debt service
with 301, we haven't being replacing the elements like we're supposed
to. But we'll bring a 301 project to you. We're going to hold off for
two more years except for this room. But it's there, it's on your list.
It's just a -- it's a big number right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have varying temperatures
in this room.
MR. CAMP: Absolutely. You have again, 37-year-old what
they call fan coil units that are old and on their last -- they have been
on their last leg. But there've been so many other priorities that we've
been pushing it off. We've just been fixing each one of them.
But it's a system with the actual units, not the controls. And we
are -- we have found out about two weeks ago that the ductwork,
which again is almost 40 years old, we're going to try to do on a
weekend some patchwork to get a more efficient system to maximize
what we have there now. But it's a very, very old mechanical system.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll take your word for it. I think
it's controls, because the temperatures change just like that.
MR. CAMP: It's the valves, Commissioner. The controls can
only do as good as the valves on the equipment work. And again, it's
just an old system.
THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name for the
record?
Page 257
March 8, 2011
MR. LINGUIDI: Dennis Linguidi, Facilities Manager.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That isn't what you told me your
name was.
Okay, I'm going to make a motion to approve.
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On this item?
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, let's hear the speakers.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Jeff Davidson and
he'll be followed by Tim Hancock.
MR. DAVIDSON: I think we're on -- I think it's the next item.
And Tim had to pick his kids up. He's not here. But I think it's a
continuing services for the engineers.
MR. OCHS: The next item, sir.
MR. MITCHELL: Sorry, you've got it labeled as 10.A.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, where are we going now?
MR. OCHS: You have to vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have to vote on the item.
MR. OCHS : You have a motion from Commissioner Henning. I
don't know if you had a second or not.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yeah. We had a second for approval. I
thought we called the motion.
All in favor, please signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Whatever it was.
Item #10I
Page 258
March 8, 2011
SELECTION OF FIRMS UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) #09-5262-S FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COLLIER
COUNTY - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CAVEAT
REGARDING JOHNSON CONTROLS-APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Item 10.1 was formerly 16.E.5, and that's selection
of firms under request for Proposal 09-5262-S, for engineering
services for Collier County.
Mr. Carnell will present.
MR. CARNELL: You may remember a year ago the Board of
County Commissioners approved RFP 10-5262 in its original form,
and that was a re-competition of several fixed term contracts at the
Board's urging. The Board had asked the staff to take the opportunity
to reopen competition to give our local firms as much opportunity as
we could to pursue and attain county work.
That contract was awarded and again, it was a combining or
culling together of seven different freestanding contracts, independent
of each other. And we put it into one competitive process, broke the
work into nine disciplines, different types of engineering and
surveying disciplines, and went through an extensive selection
process, implemented those contracts at the Board's approval in March
a year ago this time.
And several months into the process we did essentially a quality
review with our internal customers, and we surveyed them and
contacted them and met with them to find out whether their needs
were being met under the existing contracts, and found that for the
most part they were, but we actually had a few sub-disciplines and
specialty areas that were not covered under the existing agreements.
So we put together a supplemental solicitation for that smaller
group of services, and, you know, there's four of them and they're
named here in the executive summary. And so we're here today
Page 259
March 8, 2011
recommending an approval by the Board of the short list of these
firms. And we will be bringing contracts back to you at subsequent
board meetings for approval.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I pulled this one. So
you're going to -- you're -- actually there's going to be two -- the
existing contracts are not going to change.
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
(At which time, Chairman Coyle exited the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And these are for smaller firms.
I think the Board guided local firms; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: The -- these are for the most qualified firms,
per the requirements of the CCNA. And we did consider location in
the context of availability and responsiveness. That's one of the
criteria for award.
But as you'll remember, we don't use local preference in CCNA
contracting. We believe that that potentially could put our federal
contract awards at risk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, location.
MR. CARNELL: Correct, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I apologize.
But these -- a lot of these are for the smaller contractors; they're
on the other contract. Such as Carillo. And I thought -- I mean, let's
see, you have -- well, let me give you an example here. You have
CH2M Hill, which is on the contract that we're doing now. They're on
that. But the smaller firms are not on that other contract.
And besides the fact, you have Johnson Engineering for
permitting. Johnson Engineering has -- on coastal projects there's
questions by the Board and staff whether they're responsible for some
of the fixes that need to be done.
That is really concerning to me that we're doing the same thing.
Until we clean that up, I have a real problem with Johnson, you know,
Page 260
March 8, 2011
over Grady Minor, Davidson Engineering, Agnoli-Barber, RW A. I
don't want to reward bad performance.
MR. CARNELL: Understood.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a way that we can
correct this item?
MR. CARNELL: Well, yeah, a couple of thoughts here, yes, sir.
One, the situation with Johnson Engineering that you're referring
to is still not resolved. The rankings that we're providing here are -- it's
just the raw rankings of what the selection committee -- how they rank
the firms in terms of the ones recommended for award.
All of these firms, if the Board approves this action, would be
authorized for the staff to negotiate contracts with. So you're not
putting Johnson over, say, Davidson Engineering. They'll all be in the
same pool.
That's just the raw rankings. Because we agreed at the Clerk's
request last summer that we would show you the rankings when we
bring you CCNA award recommendations. But once the contracts are
in place, there will be no number one and number two in each group,
and we'll be able to use all the ones that we have approved contracts
for.
If you would like, with the Johnson Engineering -- because I
think you've raised a valid point. I think with Johnson Engineering,
we could, when we bring the contract back, we could hold their
contract in abeyance until this matter is resolved with Goodland.
The reason Johnson is on the list is because we have had good
experiences with them elsewhere, and we're not yet ready to debar or
rej ect them.
But I understand your point, Commissioner. And we could deal
with this in the subsequent contract phase in terms of again, putting
them -- holding them on abeyance and not going forward with any
new work with them until the issue is resolved that you're referring to.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second issue, question:
Page 261
March 8, 2011
Who is on the ranking or selection committee?
MR. CARNELL: It would be different staff members. Excuse
me just a second.
Do you have the names?
If you want the names of the individuals, I can read them to you.
The -- Tom Chmelik from our Project and Planning Management
Department and Public Utilities. Erin Cromer, same department.
Marlene Messam in the Growth Management Division. They were on
the -- they evaluated the modeling and simulation group. And also I
think the survey mapping -- instrumentation, the first two listed in
your executive summary, those were the three people that evaluated.
And then the last two groups were evaluated by Claude Nesbitt
from Facilities Management, Craig Pager from Public Utilities, and
Gary Putaansuu from Growth Management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How were these people selected
to review it? I mean, I don't know their -- what they do on a
day-to-day basis? Do they manage these contracts?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir. They would be the ones who would
typically request the work orders and manage the work orders on
behalf of the various departments. Now, they're not the only three.
There's several more project managers than what was on the selection
committee, but they would be three people from that pool that do that
kind of activity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, well, we don't have a
chair or vice chair now, so I don't know what to do at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do you want to know?
MR. MITCHELL: We could call the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, let's do it.
MR. MITCHELL: The first speaker will be Jeff Davidson, and
he'll be followed by Tim Hancock.
Page 262
March 8, 2011
MR. DAVIDSON: Tim Hancock is not here.
I'm Jeff Davidson with Davidson Engineering. I just wanted to
say, we got selected for the short list and we're proud of that and we
won that by merit, because of the work we've done in Collier County
for the last 14 years.
Our company is 16 people. We're all here in Collier County, we
live in Collier County, we raise our kids in Collier County. And I
know that we can do a good job for Collier County. Cost wise -- and
it shows in the selection, in the rankings. I just wanted to get that out.
And I appreciate -- last year I was here because I felt like we
came up a little short because some of the people on the selection
committee weren't familiar with us. But this year they were more
familiar with us and actually by one of the committee members we
were ranked number one because of the relationship I've had with
them for over 22 years here in Collier County. And I appreciate the
ability to be here and get that out.
And I hope that we can get this passed with us on the list,
because right now we have two managers, staff managers, that are
ready for us to go to work and there are three contracts pending. I
know I took a risk to even talk to them, because this might not get
approved here, but hopefully it does so we can get to work and I can
keep my 16 people busy for another year. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was my understanding
-- may I?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was my understanding that
these are not -- I thought they were rankings, but you said they're not
ranking; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: No, sir, they're rankings. This is the outcome
of what the selection committee looked at with all the proposals.
There were more proposals than you see listed here. These are the
firms they recommended for award, and they are based on a ranking.
Page 263
March 8, 2011
You have to come up with some kind of order to determine who to
pick. So this is the ranking for the purpose of award.
Once the contracts are in place, which will occur after we bring
them back to the board for subsequent approval, then everybody is
essentially on equal footing in each group, and we will dole out the
work, typically on a rotation basis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And Carillo for
Modeling and Simulation?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, I can understand maybe
SCADA and low voltage controls. Modeling and Simulation, they are
the Tampa firm; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: Most of them, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do they have an office here?
MR. CARNELL: I'm not sure if they do. I don't believe they do
presently.
They are deemed as being the most qualified firm in that group,
Commissioner. And we did consider location. And again, they rose
to the top. They have extensive expertise in this area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you -- if you had your
ranking by qualifications, location on all these, if they don't have a
local office, how can they be number one?
MR. CARNELL: They would score lower on that, but they
obviously scored well on 90 percent of the criteria that wasn't location.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that information available?
MR. CARNELL: Sure, I can give you the detail in terms of what
the individual scores were.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CARNELL: I don't have it here, but we can get it to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I need to get
together with you anyways when I get time.
MR. CARNELL: All right.
Page 264
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all my questions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Georgia, you got anything?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I just wanted to comment, I
think it's essential that where we have -- where pricing is not a
consideration and where, you know, the talent is equal, that we
absolutely give preference to local vendors and local consultants.
I'm not sure I understand why you said -- you made some
reference to federal grants or something like that, and, you know, not
being able to give local preference on those. I'd like clarification on
that. It makes absolutely no sense for us to be exporting business to
the benefit of other counties when we have unemployment in Collier
County. And we have so many outstanding professionals, outstanding
consultants in the engineering field and other fields that are not being
hired here and where business -- county business, government
business is being awarded to outside contractors. I mean, it just doesn't
make any sense to me.
MR. CARNELL: Well, remember, the CCNA is about picking
the most qualified firm.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand that. But my point is,
is if we have the most qualified here in Collier and they are local, they
should be given consideration. I mean, we have outstanding talent
here, I mean, equal to, you know, the best in the state.
MR. CARNELL: Ma'am, I believe we have. And we've done so
in the Sunshine.
What your staff selection committees have done in four instances
here, they've looked at all pools of all competing consultants and
they've evaluated them upon the criteria that we described herein. And
so we're clear, 60 percent of the firms under contract are located
locally. So we're not -- we've got our share of local participation in
here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you explain the federal grant
implications?
Page 265
March 8, 2011
MR. CARNELL: Oh, yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am.
In a number of federal agency grant programs, they expressly
prohibit the use of local preference. You cannot use it if you're going
to spend federal dollars.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Understood.
With respect to this method of making your selections pursuant
to these continuing contracts, you do run up against the $2 million,
$200,000 threshold. How are you managing that if you're breaking
these same firms over these different categories?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, the way that will work is we will do it by
contract, which is the way the purchasing policy reads, and we
actually have the SAP Financial Management System wired in such a
way that it will not allow us to release purchase orders above the
thresholds that are in the purchasing policy. And then as far as the
CCNA portion of it, if -- because the value of the construction, we
have to ask that and ascertain that before we can release a purchase
order. But we're doing that now P.O. by P.O. We make a
determination --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're sure you're
distinguishing what's a task under the continuing contract versus what
needs to be --
MR. CARNELL: Could be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- let separately --
MR. CARNELL: Yes, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- through an RFQ?
MR. CARNELL: Exactly, yes. We're already doing that on the
existing contracts.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, have you reviewed that?
Or do you have a level of comfort with that?
MS. KINZEL: Well, this is one of the other ones that Steve and I
are working on, making sure that we are -- we have some concerns
about the level of, again, staff authority under the purchasing
Page 266
March 8, 2011
agreement to spend different levels of caps and different pricing and
information under this award. But we are still working on that one
also.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that like the $200,000 cap under
the continuing contract we spoke about earlier today, the Wiggins
contract? Would that be an example?
MR. CARNELL: I'm not sure. You have to ask Crystal. What
specific concerns?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What are the caps?
MS. KINZEL: Just the 200, exceeding the 200 or exceeding the
two million. But also awarding to any of these firms under the
purchasing caps. So it's not a specific --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like what are the --
MS. KINZEL: Because you have the multiple continuing
contracts, each of these awardees have different price ranges, different
rates, because that's not a factor of the original CCNA, because you're
ranking them based on their ability to perform.
So we do have to monitor that they're not exceeding those
parameters and the purchasing parameters, so there are multiple
criteria to monitor.
MR. CARNELL: Are you aware of any instances where we've
been over the parameters?
MS. KINZEL: I haven't reviewed it, Steve, I told you that. I
haven't done any research or pulled any reports that it is over --
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, we've been doing this for a year --
MS. KINZEL: We are starting to look at--
MR. CARNELL: -- under this new contract, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm going to interrupt for just a
moment. If we could stay with where we are on this. And if there's
not a comfort level with it, then maybe the motion should be to
continue it. Or if there is a comfort level, let's pass it. If there isn't a
comfort level and you don't want to see it again --
Page 267
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Crystal, do you -- that's a great
suggestion.
Crystal, would you like to see this continued? And do you want
to address it or what's your feeling on that?
MS. KINZEL: It's the Commission's--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, is there something
that you and purchasing need to resolve to make it work? And should
we continue it and bring it back so there is a resolution, or are you
going to accept what's being done?
MS. KINZEL: At this time I do not know if we will accept it in
the form that it is. I have to review the pay requests.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't we continue it to
allow you and purchasing to resolve this and bring it back --
MR. CARNELL: If I could--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- when you're in agreement.
MR. CARNELL: -- I can make one other suggestion. We're
coming back anyway with each contract. All we're doing is approving
the short list tonight per the law. So if you go ahead and approve what
we recommended, that will give us time to work with Crystal --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does that work?
MR. CARNELL: -- on the contract monitoring.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I second it, with the caveat
about Johnson and their review process.
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Hiller, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 268
March 8, 2011
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the ayes have 3-0.
Item #14
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, what is it, public
comment at this point in time?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Public Comment on general topics.
MR. MITCHELL: We have nobody registered for that.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR.OCHS: And it takes you to Item 15, Commissioners, staff
and commission, general communication.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll start with you, sir.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Commissioners, I received an e-mail on Wednesday from
Commissioner Pat Carroll from the school district requesting a
workshop with the Board of County Commissioners. So I told her I
would bring that request to the board and get your direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My suggestion, if I may, I have
no problems meeting with the school board. But it seems like every
time we meet it's always at their facility. Could we meet here instead
for a change?
Page 269
March 8, 2011
MR. OCHS: I believe she indicates that they're willing to -- they
would either host or come here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, how do you feel about it?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I love to travel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. Well, you'd rather have
it at the school?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't care. What I do care is
coordination with --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the schedule.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- the Commissioners' calendars.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Very important.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with you, Commissioner
Coletta. I think it should be here, and I think it's essential that it be set
at a date that doesn't conflict with the Commissioners' calendar and
that it be set far enough ahead of time so people can work their
schedules.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There you have it. What else
you got?
MR.OCHS: Just two other quick things.
I know that some commissioners may want to get an early start
next Tuesday -- or excuse me, two weeks on the 22nd --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, for Tallahassee.
MR. OCHS: -- to go to Tallahassee for the FACT Legislative
Day on the 23rd. I was just trying to get an indication if any
commissioners knew at this point whether they were going to be
leaving early on the 22nd so I could try --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR.OCHS: -- to keep the agendas short as possible so we don't
end up with, you know, not a quorum or--
Page 270
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Six and a half hour drive. I
need to leave at 2:00, or pretty close to it. And I'd like to attend the
meeting, if my fellow commissioners agree at that time, on the phone
while I'm driving to Tallahassee, if the meeting's still underway.
But one suggestion I would have on it, and we've never done it
before that I can think of, but is there a possibility that we might make
an exception this one time and start the meeting at 8:00 and do all the
fluff that we do at the beginning of the meeting?
MR. OCHS: Well, that was going to be my next suggestion,
actually, Commissioner. It--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't put the fluff on there.
Let's get to the meat.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you can't do that. It's the
public's --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you can, you just defer it to
the next meeting. We just -- we're not eliminating it, we're just
moving it to the next meeting so we can take care of the business of
the county on a shortened agenda.
Because that does take a great deal of time. It's very important,
but it's not anything that's time sensitive that can't be deferred to the
next meeting. So no one's being eliminated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or it could go on the consent.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- they're just being moved ahead
two weeks.
MR.OCHS: We're talking about I presume proclamations--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR.OCHS: -- and presentations?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR.OCHS: Now, public petition--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Awards.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Awards.
MR. OCHS : Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Page 271
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about public petition?
MR.OCHS: No, there's an ordinance requirement there, if they
get their request in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if we compromise
for 8:30 and put the other ones, the presentations and all that--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You probably won't have time.
Because I have to leave early too. And I don't think -- we're in the
process of trying to figure out a flight for me because of the change in
the travel arrangements, and I may have to leave even -- I may have to
leave earlier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. So we've got -- I'm going to
be working through that with my aid. But, you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, so we established the fact
we're not going to start before 9:00. We're going to start at 9:00.
We're going to -- what items are we going to move forward? Of
course we're going to do the prayer and the pledge. That's always the
opening part.
MR.OCHS: Yeah, items under four and five on your agenda
we'll try not for put in -- that's pretty much controlled. A lot of the
proclamations are primarily controlled out of the board office. So we'll
eliminate those from the next meeting and move right into the
business.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or put them on consent.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Does the County Attorney --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's start at 6:00 a.m.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The County Attorney has to leave
as well, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's start at 6:00 a.m.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What time are -- are we going to
start at 8:30?
Page 272
March 8, 2011
MR.OCHS: That's up to the board. The suggestion was 8:00 or
8:30.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with 8:00.
But if 8:30 is going to compromise, I'm willing to do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 8:30. And maybe we could --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 6:00 a.m.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're in agreement on
8:30.
MR.OCHS: Okay. Very good, sir. Thank you.
And that's all I had.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, comments from the
commissioners. Starting with you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have a couple.
The first is, is I received a copy of a letter, and I think we need to
bring this forward at the next board meeting. And basically it relates
to the claims by the Board of County Commissioners that there was
wrong doing on the part of a paramedic training school. They were
alleged -- testing violations.
And the state came back with its determination and found that
there was no basis for a formal complaint investigation. Basically
they dropped the claim.
And so I think it's important that this be brought back on the next
agenda and County Manager Ochs, if you could put that on the agenda
as an item. And I have a copy of the letter. And you can go ahead
and introduce it as an exhibit.
Have you received a response?
MR. OCHS: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's interesting. Yeah.
Page 273
March 8, 2011
MR. OCHS: Is it addressed to me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it wasn't. It was addressed to
the attorney who represents the entity that was accused.
MR. OCHS: Yes, I looked for it after you mentioned it but I
haven't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You might want -- EMS would not
-- who filed this complaint with the state? Wasn't it the county? Was
it the County Attorney?
MR. OCHS: It was the chairman authorized by the Board to
move forward --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So maybe you might want to ask
the chairman ifhe's received a response. And ifhe has, ifhe could
turn it over to you so it could be publicly presented.
And then pursuant to that, you know, if we could have
information on the nature of the investigation that was done that led to
the complaint.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse me, Commissioner
Hiller, but in order for us to direct the County Attorney to have the
Chair write a letter, we have to be in agreement on it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we don't have to write a letter.
The letter's already --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, I misunderstood.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, we already got the letter
from the state. The state has ruled that there was no wrong doing and
that there was no basis for an investigation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what is it you want the Chair
to do?
(At which time, Commissioner Henning exited the boardroom.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, what I was telling -- Leo
hasn't gotten the information. And what he was saying is that the
Chair actually filed the complaint with the state. So that more likely
than not the reason he hasn't gotten anything or the County Attorney
Page 274
March 8, 2011
hasn't gotten anything is because the response probably came to the
Chair and the Chair hasn't forwarded that information that he received
from the state.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, you don't have a quorum
right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, yeah, we don't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't.
Well, we can share information that's not related to the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have to wait for the
quorum?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'd wait at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, we'll wait.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have something else
that's more informational?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I do.
It will take me -- but we'll just go ahead and wait on that.
(At which time, Commissioner Henning returns to the
boardroom. )
MS. RAINY: You have a quorum now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The next thing that I want to
present -- can you go ahead and put it on the overhead, please,
Jennifer.
I received an e-mail. And I just received it or I would have -- I
wanted to go ahead and share this with you under commissioners
comments.
It's a letter of concern that came from our former --
MS. RAINY: When I push it, it says I have no control.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You don't have a printed copy?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Here, we have a printed copy. Go
ahead and put these on the overhead, please.
This came from our former chief engineer, Mr. Stan
Page 275
March 8, 2011
Chrzanowski. And essentially his concern relates to the bridge over
the -- actually, it's the Clam Pass Boardwalk Bridge. That's the route
for mini-trams, full of people daily from Clam Pass public parking to
the Clam Pass Beach.
There is a significant problem with the structure. And he has
brought it up time and time again, and for whatever reason it's not
being addressed. And it is a public safety issue.
And I'm going to briefly summarize what he says here. He says,
note the three -- leave that up there, Jennifer; leave that diagram up
there. There you go, take a look at that.
Please note the three horizontal wood fenders on each side of the
bridge segment under the aluminum draw bridge. All of those fenders
should be parallel to each other and to the water surface.
The ones on the east side near the mangroves are parallel to the
water surface, at least reasonably horizontal. The ones to the west are
not reasonably horizontal. That's because the piles at one end rotted
out where a splice was done in the middle of the water column. One
pile leans noticeably.
There's a large concrete filled corrugated metal collar at the water
line of the pile, and the metal around the collar is beginning to
corrode.
And then he says, also please refer to the attached pile splice
drawing -- if you could put that up. It appears to me that when they
are driving the pile, it apparently wasn't long enough so they spliced
another pile onto it.
The type of splice they used is indicated on the attached drawing
on figure one, two and three. They saw cut longitudinally down the
center axis and then halfway through the pile from either side, figure
one.
They do the same with pile extension figure two and then install
through bolts with washers to hold the splice together. The end
product looks like what it is in figure three.
Page 276
March 8, 2011
I think they did this with at least all four piles that support both
ends of the draw bridge.
The problem with the splice method is that the Chromated
Copper Arsenate preservative doesn't penetrate to the center of the pile
so the sawcut left of the heart of the pile exposed to marine organisms.
It rotted out about four or five years ago, maybe more. The rotting
was so bad I could stick my hand into the middle of the splice and
open it up and wave it around. The through bolts were totally
corroded. The pile was headed toward the type of failure shown in
figure four.
Parks and Recs noticed the settlement of the deck and were
monitoring it. A fellow engineer, Terry Kepple, and I were a little
more concerned. And we investigated the pile and found the condition
shown above. We canoed the area almost weekly for years. We
called it to the county's attention and their solution was the collar. We
were told that the collar was temporary for a couple of years and that a
permanent fix would be planned and done.
It's been a few years and I have a few concerns.
The drawbridge acts as a pile driver against the piles under its
west end support. The constant impact loading of the fully loaded
trams over the duration of years puts force on the collar and splice. It
is not a stationary load.
If you look at figure four on the attached drawing, picture two
wedges sliding past each other. It's a effecient way to multiply the
force exerted on a member. I worry that we can't see what's going on
inside the collar and under the collar. I see money being spent for new
proj ects and wonder why money can't be allocated to a permanent
repair for this proj ect.
When they did the repair, they didn't jack the bridge level, they
didn't plumb the pile, they didn't take the bows out of the cross
bracing, they just put on collar.
As a constituent and a member of the public who kayaks and
Page 277
March 8, 2011
canoes under this bridge on a regular basis, I'd like to know if the
proper repair and/or replacement of this bridge is on anyone's to-do
list. Stan Chrzanowski.
Obviously it's a serious public concern -- public safety concern
that has been ignored by the county not for months but for years. So I
would like the County Manager to please put this at the top of his
to-do list, because it would be an absolute tragedy in if the bridge
failed and people crossing that bridge on a tram fell into the water
below and were seriously hurt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put on the first slide.
No, there was one -- oh, yeah, that one would work. No, I'm not
sure -- put in --
MS. RAINY: The very first one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, the piling to the --
everybody's left, to me that looks like it's leaning quite a bit. And
maybe that's a picture view. But I really I really trust Stan's opinion. I
thought he was very logical and methodical on his work.
And I also agree, I have a lot of concerns about the public safety
in this. And maybe we ought to take a look at it, maybe think about
closing it until it's repaired.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, it's--
MR. OCHS : We'll be out there first thing in the morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion, if I may. Yeah, let's
leave it up to -- right now since this has been brought up to public
attention, if anything goes wrong, we're extremely liable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. So I'm sure the County
Manager will take this very seriously and make a report back to us --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in short order.
No, thank you.
Do you have anything else?
Page 278
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I want to just mention one
thing in terms of how our meetings have been going.
Commissioner Coyle is not here, but I would like to readdress
Robert's rules and state for the record that what happened this
morning did -- was in contradiction of those rules. And also to state
that Robert's rules does provide that ad hominum attacks, you know,
should be avoided. And unfortunately there just have been too many
directed from the Chair. And I would appreciate that Robert's rules be
enforced, as required by ordinance.
And I'll bring it up again at the next meeting so Commissioner
Coy Ie can respond.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I expand upon that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I was quite disturbed
also. I did look up our ordinance and it says the form of addressing
each member shall address the presiding officer for recognition. We
all do that. And shall confine himself in questioning under debate and
shall avoid personalities and indecorums, which is, you know,
decorum, language.
And actually, I looked that up, and that's a Catholic phrase.
But what concerns me is what I seen and witnessed.
Commissioner Coyle takes it personal, and personally attacks other
board members. And the action today, there was no way to clarify
what was said by that person.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is not a representative
form of government. That is more like a dictatorship where you cut
off an elected official of equality and now you've got a hierarchy of
government. That is wrong. That is not the form of government that I
believe in and swore under the oath of this office.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion, Mr.
Page 279
March 8, 2011
Henning, is that we -- Commissioner Coy Ie isn't here to be able to
defend himself. He may have a different opinion on this. That you
might want to enter it on the agenda for next time for discussion under
commissioners business.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can do that, but Commissioner
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's actually an excellent
idea.
And another thing that should be brought up in that discussion is
that the Chair is equal. The fact that he's a Chair doesn't give him any
more status or authority than any of us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And forgive me, Commissioner
Coyle isn't here, and this conversation is extremely one-sided. And I'd
rather bring it up back on a regular meeting item when --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can defend him.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- he is here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, he could have stayed here.
We're all sacrificing our personal time to do the county's business. I
don't know why he had to leave. He is the Chair, he should be here,
and he should stay till the end of the meeting, unless he has a valid
excuse. We're all here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we're here and that's what
counts right now.
Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. It's a pleasure working with
you, Commissioner Coletta. And it's a pleasure working with you,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you, likewise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We all love everybody.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you want me to bring it
back, or you want to put it on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you bring it back on the
Page 280
March 8, 2011
agenda and let's address it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, we'll
go to you and I'll go last.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the -- I need assistance
from the County Manager, County Attorney.
Under our ethics ordinance there are prohibitions from certain
people from contacting or, you know, petitioning government. And
that's a two-year period?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're talking about former --like county
manager or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, former employees.
MR. KLA TZKOW: There is a limitation. I think it's two years.
MR.OCHS: Yes, Commissioner, it's two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that include County
Commissioners?
MR. KLATZKOW: Does that include County Commissioners?
I'd have to look at it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you do that and report
back to the Board?
Now, that's petitioning the Board or --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's more ofa lobbying issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, the idea was you don't want
somebody who has had influence before the Board to be representing
other people in quasi-judicial matters.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It usually does apply to elected
officials. In fact, importantly it applies to elected officials I believe at
the state level. Don't they have that prohibition?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, they have that prohibition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As to elected representatives.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm pretty sure we do too, sir, but I don't
Page 281
March 8, 2011
have the orders in front of me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I mean, they can't --
elected state officials like --
MR. KLATZKOW: Burt Saunders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Burt Saunders cannot talk to
us as former employees about action they're about to take.
MR. KLATZKOW: For a period of time, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For a period of time.
And I think that's the basis of our ethics ordinance. And if you
would, maybe through an e-mail or something --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes, sir, I will do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please share it with everyone.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yes, sir, I will do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, that's what I meant,
e-mail.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Anything else, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, Breaking News, Jackson
Lab picks Sarasota for their new research facility. They're looking at
a 120,000 square foot facility, and they're going to be working with
USF in Sarasota on a health complex.
The interesting thing is the elected officials will bring this item
for a referendum to the citizens in Sarasota. What a novel idea. What
a novel idea. Even though it was brought up twice to the Board of
Commissioners, there was no support of the Board of Commissioners.
And I know I've heard in the public that the public always had
the option to vote on Jackson Lab. That is not true. It was brought up
twice by me and none of the other County Commissioners would even
support a second for even a discussion to put it on the agenda -- or put
it on a ballot.
And it would be really interesting to see what happens in
Sarasota. Because that's when usually you have more dialogue from
Page 282
March 8, 2011
the proposal to make it a valid point for the people to support it.
That's all I have.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may add one thing to what you
just said. What's also interesting to note is that the economic impact
analysis, their labor projections and dollar projections, are very
different from what they shared down here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add too that Jackson
Lab is dead. So the question isn't trying to stab knives in everybody
that's ever existed on how it got to where it is today on either side. The
thing is what we're going to do to be able to go forward from this
point.
On the 11 th we're having a meeting here to talk about economic
development in the future. And I hope that we put our minds to it
rather than try to keep turning over the stones to see if we can find
underneath what happened in the past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You learn by your mistakes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but history's--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everybody makes mistakes.
Everybody comes up with different ways to do things. Jackson Lab
undoubtedly benefited by their exposure here in Collier County.
Undoubtedly. So did the people in Sarasota.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not here to benefit Jackson
Labs, I'm here to benefit the people of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Benefited in the way that they
knew how to handle themselves a little differently in Sarasota. That's
what the comment's all about.
Commissioner Henning, we realize you're a true hero of the
people, we recognize it. But let's stop dragging up the past and see
what we're going to do about the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for the quote.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may add to that? You make a
Page 283
March 8, 2011
very good point, Commissioner Coletta. But we have learned very
significantly from our experience with Jackson, and what we have
learned and what we are learning from what Sarasota is doing is that
the way to achieve success when public tax dollars are used for the
benefit of a private entity is that a referendum is essential.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Hiller, that
is absolutely true in retrospect.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's the whole point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the point in time -- we
never got to a point in time we had a deal with Jackson Lab. The state
was the one that passed it down to us. No one ever came back to the
state and said why didn't you make it a part of the original deal to
make it a prerequisite before you go forward.
I don't think it's necessary to keep digging this up. I need us to
focus on the 11 th as far as how we're going to go from this point
forward. We got people that are still unemployed, or underemployed.
We have people that are having their houses foreclosed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and nobody has come up with
an answer here of what to do. On the 11th hopefully we come up with
some sort of direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree with you.
And one point that I will make on the 11 th is that if we do
anything with respect to economic aid to a private entity, that number
one, that whatever pool of funds that we develop to provide that aid be
approved through a referendum.
And the other thing that we provide is that we don't grant outright
subsidies but ask companies to pay that money back so we can recycle
those economic development dollars and benefit as many companies
as possible for every dollar loaned.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And hold that thought, because
that's an excellent idea.
Page 284
March 8, 2011
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, I just wanted to share
it with you to tie it into my earlier comment. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One of the things I'd like to get
from you today is to be able to give staff a little direction to be able to
work with the Florida Wildlife Commission, Defenders of the Wildlife
and other parties, probably including the Federal Fish & Wildlife, to
be able to come up with a public service announcement about living
with panthers and bears and wildlife in Collier County to run on the
Collier County television station. We're not talking about Collier
County producing this but helping to guide it to see that it gets to
where it is.
If it's anything that gets involved to the point it's going to require
a lot of staff time, I would ask them to bring it back and tell us where
they are with it. But if it sounds as simple as it is here, I'd like the
County Manager to be able to respond back to Elizabeth Fleming and
tell them yes, we're interested, what did you have in mind and where
do we go from here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's a great suggestion, as
long as it doesn't take away from the public's ability to be able to view
public hearings with what time is available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it never would. The public
hearings that we have on our county television station preempt
everything that's out there. This is the background they have for the
fill-in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is this a private nonprofit?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, FWC is the State Agency.
Federal Fish & Wildlife is a Federal Agency. The Wildlife
Federation -- or Defenders of Wildlife, they're a private organization.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would there be any problem in
allowing one group to show on -- or, you know, to promote their--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, they're not promoting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, just to show what they do on
Page 285
March 8, 2011
our network versus another group. I mean, would there be a problem
with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not in a case like this,
because we have an unusual situation in that there's a lack of
education in the subject matter. It's only been recently that the bears
and the panthers have outgrown the range that they live in. They've
been so successful in protecting them that they're starting to come into
the residential areas. People do not know how to always react with
them. And this will be an ongoing education --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Almost like a public safety
announcement?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, to be able to not only
protect the public but the wildlife too, so people don't overreact. And
that's the whole reason for it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do you have any -- how about
you, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you do if you get
attacked by a coyote?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You get attacked by a coyote,
you have to call our Domestic Animal Services. But allow two hours
for them to respond. I didn't mean that as anything negative.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can't have a coyote as a
domestic animal.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you can't. You get attacked
by a Coyote, I'm not too sure what you would do. But I'm sure if we
asked somebody that would be knowledgable about it, chances of
getting attacked by any of these animals is fairly remote, but it's
something the people have to be aware of and know how to live with.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can staff bring us back some
options as to how that could be accomplished?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a resolution on local government
Page 286
March 8, 2011
access television policies and guidelines as board approved. And Mr.
John Torre will work within this resolution. And if what you're asking
for fits into this, you've got this Board policy already.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's great.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifit doesn't fit into it, we'll bring it back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, let's see, I think that's it for
what I had.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn.
A second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're adjourned.
*****
****Commissioner Fiala moved, seconded by Commissioner Hiller
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted * * * *
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 20ll-45: FINAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
THE ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF ANDALUCIA
(ARLINGTON LAKES PUD) PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05
C.8 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE
RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY EXCEPT TO
THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF
Page 287
March 8, 2011
THE FINAL PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2011-46: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADW A Y (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CORDOBA AT LEL Y RESORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05 C.8 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV A TEL Y
MAINTAINED AND AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT
NECESSARY TO ENSURE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL
PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16B1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO
EXECUTE AN EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING
IMPROVEMENT GRANT 06/2010 AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE BA YSHORE/GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA AND
AUGUSTINA TASTE OF CHICAGO, LLC DUE TO CERTAIN
PERMITTING DELAYS (3300 DAVIS BOULEVARD, FISCAL
IMP ACT: NONE) - EXTENDING THE GRANT AGREEMENT
DEADLINE FROM MARCH 23~ 2011 TO MARCH 23~ 2012
Item #16C1
ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE,
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13, AS AMENDED, TO INCORPORATE
A PROVISION CLARIFYING THE IMPOSITION OF WATER
Page 288
March 8, 2011
AND SEWER IMP ACT FEES ON GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT
UNTIL SUCH A TIME WHEN CONNECTION TO THE
REGIONAL WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IS
ANTICIP A TED WITHIN A TEN-YEAR PERIOD AS IDENTIFIED
BY THE MOST CURRENT PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER AND
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATES AND THE 2010
ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C2
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT
FROM FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR ACCESS
ON, OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT NAPLES HMA (COLLIER REGIONAL
HOSPITAL), AND CITY GATE COMMERCE CENTER - FOR
ACCESS, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
UNDERGROUND PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICING THE SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP)
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 2011-47: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION POLICY AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (BEER AND WINE) IN COLLIER
COUNTY PARKS - AT CERTAIN PARK EVENTS BASED ON
SA TISFYING THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE POLICY
Page 289
March 8, 2011
Item #16D2
REJECT ASSOCIATED VENDOR BIDS THAT WERE A RESULT
OF SOLICITATION (ITB) 11-5635 WATERWAYS PILING
INSTALLATION AND REMOVAL. THE ANNUAL IMP ACT
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SOLICITATION IS
APPROXIMATELY $50,000 - STAFF WILL BE
REFORMATTING THE BID DOCUMENT SO THAT IT WOULD
LIMIT THE INITIAL MOBILIZATION COSTS AND ISSUE A
NEW SOLICIT A TION BECAUSE THE COSTS WERE NOT
SPECIFICALLY BUDGETED IN THE RFQ #10-5405
Item #16D3
CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO CONTRACT #10-5428 WITH
PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK, INC. FOR A HEALTH
INFORMA TION TECHNOLOGY GRANT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION IN
THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 - USED BY COLLIER COUNTY
SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS AND MANY OF THE NOT-
FOR-PROFIT AGENCIES SERVING THE HEALTH CARE
NEEDS OF THE UNINSURED POPULATION OF THE COUNTY
Item # 16D4
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE STATE OF
FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
CHALLENGE GRANT FOR ASSISTANCE TO HOMELESS
RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY. TOTAL GRANT
FUNDING IS $63,397 WITH PASS THROUGH FUNDING AT
$43,397 FOR THE THREE NONPROFIT SUBRECIPIENTS AND
Page 290
March 8, 2011
$20,000 TO BE RETAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
,
HUMAN AND VETERAN SERVICES TO SUPPORT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM IN COLLIER COUNTY - THE THREE
RECIPIENTS BEING THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN &
CHILDREN~ YOUTH HA VEN~ AND ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE
Item # 16D5
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.,
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH REFLECTS
ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000
FOR THE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE PROGRAM IN
THE AMOUNT OF $120,490 - WITH THE REMAINING FUNDS
TO BE EXPENDED BY JUNE 30~ 2011
Item #16D6
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE
AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.,
WHICH REFLECTS A DECREASE OF GRANT FUNDING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $10,000 FOR THE HOME CARE FOR THE
ELDERLY PROGRAM FOR FY11 - WITH THE REMAINING
FUNDS TO BE EXPENDED BY JUNE 30~ 2011
Item #16D7
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE
PROVIDING FOR A $110,423 HOUSING AND URBAN
Page 291
March 8, 2011
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC)
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANT TO AID WITH THE COST
OF DAILY OPERATIONS AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
PROVIDED BY WOLFE APARTMENTS OF ST. MATTHEW'S
HOUSE
Item #16D8 - Moved to Item #10F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16E 1 - Moved to Item # 1 OG (During Agenda Changes per
Commissioner Henning)
Item #16E2 - Moved to Item #10H (During Agenda Changes per
Commissioner Henning)
Item # 16E3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $146,000 FROM
COUNTY WIDE CAPITAL FUND 301, PROJECT #52004, TO
ROOFING REPAIR PROJECT #52161, SO THAT SUFFICIENT
FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REPLACING THE EXISTING,
DETERIORATED ROOF ON GOVERNMENT CENTER
BUILDING C, HOUSING THE TAX COLLECTOR'S AND THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' OFFICES - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E4
ADVERTISE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER ORDINANCE NO. 2002-63, AS
AMENDED, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ABILITY TO
INCREASE FUNDING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND (174) BY REMOVING THE
Page 292
March 8, 2011
ANNUAL CAP OF AD VALOREM TAXES THAT MAY BE
APPROPRIATED AND ALLOWING FOR TRANSFER OF
FUNDS INTO FUND 174 FROM THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER ACQUISITION TRUST FUND (172) - ALLOWING
FOR TRANSFERS GREATER THAN 15% OF COLLECTIONS
ENSURING SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO
MANAGE CONSERVATION COLLIER PROPERTIES IN
PERPETUITY
Item #16E5 - Moved to Item #101 (During Agenda Changes per
Commissioner Henning)
Item # 16E6
AWARD OF RFP #10-5548 FULL SERVICE AUCTIONEER TO
ATKINSON REALTY & AUCTION, INC. - TO CONDUCT
ANNUAL ON-SITE AND ON-LINE AUCTIONS FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY
Item #16E7
ACCEPT REPORTS AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS -
REPORTS COVER THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 13, 2011
THROUGH FEBRUARY 15~ 2011
Item #16F1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND LIVING WORD F AMIL Y CHURCH -
PROVIDING ASSISTANCE WITH RELIEF EFFORTS IN TIME
OF DISASTER
Page 293
March 8, 2011
Item # 16F2
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 22, 2011 BCC
MEETING. REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC) PURSUANT TO DIRECTION UNDER
ITEM #10C, AT THE FEBRUARY 8, 2011, BCC MEETING
PROVIDING AN ACCOUNTING OF ALL PUBLIC FUNDS
SPENT ON THE JACKSON LABORATORY PROJECT
Item #16GI
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC), ACTING AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN
TO EXECUTE THREE ADVERTISEMENT LICENSE
AGREEMENTS WITH MJA PUBLICITY CORPORATION FOR
ADVERTISING AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AIRPORT - FOR SPACE IN THE BROCHURE AND BUSINESS
CARD RACK FOR THE MIROMAR DESIGN CENTER,
MIROMAR LAKES BEACH AND GOLF CLUB, AND MIROMAR
OUTLETS
Item #16G2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BCC), ACTING AS
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CAR RENTAL SERVICE
CONCESSIONAIRE AGREEMENT WITH ENTERPRISE
LEASING COMPANY OF FLORIDA D/B/A ENTERPRISE RENT-
A-CAR TO PROVIDE CAR RENTAL SERVICES AT THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AND EVERGLADES AIRPARK
Page 294
March 8, 2011
Item # 16G3
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, ACTING AS THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY
,
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE AUTHORITY'S EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE T-HANGAR STANDARD LEASE
AGREEMENTS FOR THE EVERGLADES AIRPARK,
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT AND MARCO ISLAND
EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16HI
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE URBAN
LAND INSTITUTE (ULI) MITIGATION PROGRAM ON
FEBRUARY 10,2011 AT THE STONEYBROOK COMMUNITY
CENTER, ESTERO, FLORIDA. $15 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 11800 STONEYBROOK GOLF DRIVE~ ESTERO
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE MARINE CORPS LEAGUE
OF NAPLES SEVENTH ANNUAL "HONOR THE FREE PRESS
DAY" LUNCHEON ON MARCH 16,2011 AT THE NAPLES
HIL TON IN NAPLES, FL. $30 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH~ NAPLES
Page 295
March 8, 2011
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION MONTHLY LUNCHEON ON FEBRUARY 17,
20 11 AT HAMILTON HARBOR YACHT CLUB IN NAPLES, FL.
$18 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE UNITED ARTS COUNCIL
STARS IN THE ARTS AWARDS LUNCHEON ON MARCH 4,
2011 AT THE NAPLES GRANDE RESORT IN NAPLES, FL. $95
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 296
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
March 8, 2011
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District:
Public Facilities Update Report; Bond Service letter; Letter of
statement - no change in District Map or Registered Agent for
FY09-1O; FYIO-11 Meeting Schedule.
B. Minutes:
1) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of October 19, 2010; December 7,2010.
2) Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Minutes of February 2, 2010; March 3, 2010; April 7, 2010;
May 19,2010; June 2,2010; August 4,2010; September 8,2010.
3) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Minutes of March 2, 2010; April 6, 2010; May 11,2010;
June 8, 2010; October 5,2010; November 2,2010;
December 7,2010.
4) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Minutes of September 15,2010; October 20.2010.
5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of October 14, 2010.
6) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of October 28,2010.
'1.
7) Collier County Planning Commission:
Minutes of November 4,2010; December 16, 2010.
8) Contractors Licensing Board:
Minutes of November 17, 2010.
9) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 3,2010; January 5, 2011.
10) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of January 5, 2011.
11) Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 12,2011.
Minutes of January 12,2011 - no quorum present.
12) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of January 11, 2011.
Minutes of September 14, 2010; December 14, 2010.
13) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Agenda of October 4, 2010; January 4, 2011; February 7, 2011.
Minutes of October 4,2010; December 6,2010;
14 ) Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board:
Agenda of November 17, 2010.
Minutes of September 15,2010; November 17, 2010;
15) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of October 20,2010.
16) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of November 18, 2010 joint with EZDA.
Minutes of October 20,2010.
17) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of October 11, 2010; November 8, 2010.
18) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of October 21,2010; November 18, 2010; January 20, 2011.
Minutes of September 16,2010; October 21,2010;
December 16, 2010.
19) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of September 20,2010.
20) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Agenda of November 17, 2010.
Minutes of November 17,2010.
21) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of November 3,2010; November 16,2010 Landscape
Subcommittee; December 1. 2010; December 6,2010 Landscape
Subcommittee; January 5, 2011; January 12,2011 Budget
Committee.
Minutes of October 6,2010; November 3,2010; November 16,2010
Landscape Subcommittee; November 16, 2010 Strategic Planning
Committee; November 17,2010 Strategic Planning Committee;
December 1,2010; December 6,2010 Landscape Subcommittee.
22) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of September 21,2010; October 19, 2010;
November 16,2010; January 18,2011.
Minutes of August 17,2010; September 21,2010; October 19,2010;
November 16,2010.
23) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 2, 2010.
Minutes of November 4, 2010.
C. Other:
1) Collier County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of October 15, 2010; December 3,2010.
2) Collier County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate - Dangerous
Dog Appeal:
Minutes of December 17, 2010.
March 8, 2011
Item #16JI
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 12, 2011
THROUGH FEBRUARY 18,2011 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE
ST A TE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30,2010 AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA STATUTE
218.32
Item #16KI
AGREED ORDER TAXING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $13,168 FOR PARCELS 1 59FEE AND 159TCE IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. TIMOTHY
MALONEY., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-2690-CA (COLLIER BLVD.
PROJECT NO. 68056) (FISCAL IMPACT $13,168) - FOR THE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FROM THE
CONDEMNED PARCELS
Item #16K2
AGREED ORDER TAXING EXPERT FEES AND COSTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8,580 FOR PARCELS 168FEE AND 168TCE IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. SCOTT
FAUNCE., ET AL., CASE NO. 10-2684-CA (COLLIER BLVD.
PROJECT NO. 68056) (FISCAL IMPACT $8,580) - FOR THE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FROM THE
Page 297
March 8, 2011
CONDEMNED PARCELS
Item #16K3
PARTIAL RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. FRANCISCA ALAS, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE
NO. 2007-49, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2592
SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - FOR VIOLATIONS AT 2575 53RD STREET SW, FOR
IMPROVEMENTS OF PROPERTY WITHOUT VALID COLLIER
COUNTY BUILDING PERMITS
Item #16K4
AGREED ORDER A WARDING EXPERT FEES IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 811 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MYRTLE
PRESERVE, LLC., ET AL., CASE NO. 07-0463-CA, LEL Y AREA
STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 51101 (FISCAL
IMPACT $21,511) - FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AN
EASEMENT FOR THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Item # 16K5
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO FILE A PROPOSAL FOR
SETTLEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED DARLING ELIE
AND JADARRIEN ELIE V. COLLIER COUNTY, ET. AL., FILED
IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CASE NO. 07-1463-CA, FOR
THE SUM OF $190,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
Page 298
March 8, 2011
ATTORNEY AND RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR TO
SETTLE THE LAWSUIT IF THE PROPOSAL FOR
SETTLEMENT IS ACCEPTED - FOR A VEHICLE ACCIDENT
WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAD TO BE AIRLIFTED TO THE
TRAUMA CENTER IN LEE COUNTY
Item #17 A - Moved to Item #8A (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2011-06: ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 1989-98, WHICH RATIFIED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE OCHOPEE FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, IN
ORDER TO REVISE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO
APPOINTMENT AND COMPOSITION
Item #17C
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY
22, 2011 BCC MEETING AND HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY
STAFF TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT FOR BOARD ACTION AT
A LATER DATE. ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2006-56, ROCK ROAD
IMPROVEMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT, PER
THE BOARD'S JANUARY 25, 2011 DIRECTION UNDER
AGENDA ITEM 16A2 TO AMEND THE GEOGRAPHICAL
BOUNDARIES OF THE MSTU TO REMOVE PROPERTIES
THAT NO LONGER DERIVE BENEFIT FROM THE MSTU'S
STATED PURPOSE AND TO CREATE AN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE INPUT TO COUNTY STAFF AS TO
FUTURE PROJECTS WITHIN THE MSTU
Page 299
March 8, 2011
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:11 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
'--1 n ,r~
yLt4L. lA-!. V ~
FRED COYLE, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHTij. BROCK, CLERK
'-.;" ,.- ,
;;o.C.
~ > /,.'
Attest II, to If'lit" :,
T~~=n~~apP~dbY the Board on :;>".l/, Of il, ~ o~1
as presented A or as corrected
""
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incoroporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 300